Originally posted by Anofalye Originally posted by matraqueWho played EQ back in the days ? I started playing in beta 3 and stopped with Luclin. LDoN was my favored. Pre-Kunark was awesome. Ykesha was okay. EDIT: Luclin would be here. Kunark and PoP were acceptable. (not anymore, now that I evolve) Velious, GoD and Omens where trash.
wait a second....you have defiantly lost me here. i would assume that since you hate the raiding so much and the unbalanced gear....that it puzzles me that you think pop is acceptable?
and you think oow is trash? that expansion had alot of small group content where pop just put raiders and raid gear over the top.
also, even though i know you disagree but if you were to do a poll on what former and current eq players think is the best expansion vellious would win hands down, i think your in the minority with this though i could be wrong.
i do agree LDON was good and probably my favorite as well, i got alot of gear from grinding those instances all day.
Originally posted by Anofalye Originally posted by matraqueWho played EQ back in the days ? I started playing in beta 3 and stopped with Luclin.
LDoN was my favored. Pre-Kunark was awesome. Ykesha was okay. EDIT: Luclin would be here. Kunark and PoP were acceptable. (not anymore, now that I evolve) Velious, GoD and Omens where trash.
wait a second....you have defiantly lost me here. i would assume that since you hate the raiding so much and the unbalanced gear....that it puzzles me that you think pop is acceptable?
and you think oow is trash? that expansion had alot of small group content where pop just put raiders and raid gear over the top.
also, even though i know you disagree but if you were to do a poll on what former and current eq players think is the best expansion vellious would win hands down, i think your in the minority with this though i could be wrong.
i do agree LDON was good and probably my favorite as well, i got alot of gear from grinding those instances all day.
PoP and Kunark are nearly identical from my point of view, yes they are not acceptable anymore today, but at release, they offer a LOT and the raiding content was hidden. WAS acceptable, not anymore. Clarification.
As to Omen, I would admit that if it had happen earlier maybe my judgment for it would have been different, but at it place in time, I see it as raiding at the moment it was release and honestly, I didn't give it a chance. I read, that is it, the last expansion who got a chance was GoD, and I certainly waste way too much time there. Omen read way too similar to GoD for me to even care to grant it a chance. And, I meet CoH by then. CoH is flawed on many things, but it far less bad on the raiding than any other MMO.
Again, for PoP, despite all it flaws, it is the most similar expansion I ever see to Kunark. Yes, in the end it is not fine and acceptable, but the lie are built in, behind tons of new cool stuff for everyone. BoT, PoV, Tactics are all example of zones accessible to non-raiders.
Kunark and PoP belong in a category that is less bad than Velious and GoD for example. Velious adds nothing to non-raiders, same with GoD, while PoP and Kunarks adds levels/AAs, new harder challenge on top of those existing, a progression, where Velious, really, UK is not an expansion in itself for someone not raiding, is it?
As to LDoN, it is the only non-raiding expansion with Ykesha, although not on purpose, but the raiding aspect of this expansion is unworkable and thereby doesn't affect non-raiders on TOP of wonderful high-end grouping system. The instances are nice, but not really the MUST aspect of LDoN, but yes, the instances are nice, yet it would still be my favored, instanced or not.
Again, EQ has a unique setting, unique chances, that any new MMOs, including these made by the staff from EQ, will never get. I was a MMO noob when EQ come out. Most of the market was MMO noob when WoW come out. This is not the case anymore and won't apply for Vanguard. MMO noobs are never going to consist the majority of the player-based anymore. A critical design failure like raiding enforcement pass for EQ, it pass for WoW and it huge Blizzard fanbase...but now? Unless you brings noobs, such a critical design mistake can't pass anymore.
Vanguard claims it want to appeal to the core players and they define them as GROUPERS. Well, I say it and I will repeat it...RAIDING KILLS GROUPING. Exactly like PvP or Soloing can kill grouping, Raiding is. The ramifications are many, see a casual grouper love to see a grouper he can take as an example and try to outdo, taking a raider doesn't work well, it is not a grouper but a raider, a casual grouper must recognize a grouper in his examples. Just like a PvE player can't really take a PvP player as a model for what he want to do without changing what he is. And you don't change a player, a grouper is a grouper, not a raider. The gameplays mechanics are not even remotedly related from a player point of view. They have nothing in comon. Raiding is to grouping what DDO is to D&D, and I am been nice with such a comparaison.
And for PoP, again, the end-system was hidden behind a LOT of nice stuff, just like Kunark was. Velious and GoD are blatant and unhidden, they are horrible. PoP and Kunark are not acceptable in the end, yet at the start they appear to be, thereby they are slightly less bad than Velious or GoD for example...
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
[quote]Originally posted by Anofalye [b] a grouper is a grouper, not a raider. The gameplays mechanics are not even remotedly related from a player point of view. They have nothing in comon. [/ b][/quote]
huh? not everyone labels them self as just a grouper or just a raider or just a soloer, personally i enjoy all three i am a soloer, grouper, and raider.
and not remotely related? raiding and grouping are very similar from a player standpoint, i really have no idea what you mean by that.
yes a raid is different than a small group but not that much different, you generally have to spend more time on a raid and a raid involves more people but other than that, what really is the difference?
but honestly I'm done with this raiding debate for now, it gets tiresome after a while.
huh? not everyone labels them self as just a grouper or just a raider or just a soloer, personally i enjoy all three i am a soloer, grouper, and raider. and not remotely related? raiding and grouping are very similar from a player standpoint, i really have no idea what you mean by that. yes a raid is different than a small group but not that much different, you generally have to spend more time on a raid and a raid involves more people but other than that, what really is the difference? but honestly I'm done with this raiding debate for now, it gets tiresome after a while.
No, raiding and grouping are VERY far from a player point of view, yet very close to a dev point of view. Having 6 players or 20 players to do something is FAR from been anywhere close, it is not even the same game.
Solo is closer to grouping than Raiding will ever be from a player point of view, getting a few peoples doesn't imply THAT much changes in the gameplay.
From a player point of view, a group is solo + a few peoples, while raiding is managing many group into a specific setting, getting everyone coordinate and understanding how the raiding works, there are specific extensive rules such as DKP and GC speech. There was never any DKP system in any group, it is either RANDOM or NBG, quite simple and I never see any group with specific rules about talking in groupchat.
From a developper point of view, raiding is indeed close to grouping, but not from a player point of view. For the devs they merely manage a few datas, and that is it. They expect the folks to be complete, so from a dev point of view, yes grouping and raiding are closer than to solo, but from a player point of view, solo and grouping are pretty close while raiding is FAR. Even just getting 12 players around is FAR from a group, just imagine 20+...not the same gameplay at all from a player point of view.
If someone is MANY aspects, then depending on the game, 1 prime over the others. In a game like EQ I am a grouper. In a game like Neverwinter Nights I am a soloer. In CoH, I am a grouper. Yet in all these games I did group and solo. Someone who is both a raider and a grouper in a game like EQ or WoW is a raider, unless he barely raid and this is an infime component, but the moment he gets any significant loot from raiding, he is a raider, not a grouper anymore, his gear define him.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Solo is closer to grouping than Raiding will ever be from a player point of view, getting a few peoples doesn't imply THAT much changes in the gameplay.
Speak for yourself. For me (and I am guessing many other players), soloing is nothing like grouping and grouping is much closer than raiding. Heck, even duoing is closer to raiding because when there are other people involved, you have a role to play and you depend on other people just like they depend on you. When you are solo, you depend on no one else. You are playing the game much like you would any other single player game. I'm not saying I don't solo in MMOs, or that I would want one where soloing was impossible, but it is an entirely different game than grouping no matter what the size of the group because game play depends entirely on you and no one else.
WoW Style of raiding is about creating a cheap method to keep players paying their monthly fees. The content cost for a raid area may be typical of other content, but instead of having 1 (solo) player or a small group (5), you get 40 people into the group. That is 8-40 times more effective than the usually content. Now by creating a reason for them to repeat it over and over again (gear and gearing to new content) you have N times (8-40) times the effectiveness of the content wheren N is the number of times you repeat it.
For the Devs, raiding it easy money. So those who love raiding are loving the cheap content. Why customers are so willing to accept this type of treatment is...
Originally posted by wjrasmussen WoW Style of raiding is about creating a cheap method to keep players paying their monthly fees. The content cost for a raid area may be typical of other content, but instead of having 1 (solo) player or a small group (5), you get 40 people into the group. That is 8-40 times more effective than the usually content. Now by creating a reason for them to repeat it over and over again (gear and gearing to new content) you have N times (8-40) times the effectiveness of the content wheren N is the number of times you repeat it. For the Devs, raiding it easy money. So those who love raiding are loving the cheap content. Why customers are so willing to accept this type of treatment is...
If that is the way you feel, then maybe you should stick to the highest quality content, which by your standards would be single player games.
Originally posted by n2sooners Originally posted by wjrasmussen WoW Style of raiding is about creating a cheap method to keep players paying their monthly fees. The content cost for a raid area may be typical of other content, but instead of having 1 (solo) player or a small group (5), you get 40 people into the group. That is 8-40 times more effective than the usually content. Now by creating a reason for them to repeat it over and over again (gear and gearing to new content) you have N times (8-40) times the effectiveness of the content wheren N is the number of times you repeat it. For the Devs, raiding it easy money. So those who love raiding are loving the cheap content. Why customers are so willing to accept this type of treatment is...
If that is the way you feel, then maybe you should stick to the highest quality content, which by your standards would be single player games.
Originally posted by wjrasmussen Originally posted by n2sooners Originally posted by wjrasmussen WoW Style of raiding is about creating a cheap method to keep players paying their monthly fees. The content cost for a raid area may be typical of other content, but instead of having 1 (solo) player or a small group (5), you get 40 people into the group. That is 8-40 times more effective than the usually content. Now by creating a reason for them to repeat it over and over again (gear and gearing to new content) you have N times (8-40) times the effectiveness of the content wheren N is the number of times you repeat it. For the Devs, raiding it easy money. So those who love raiding are loving the cheap content. Why customers are so willing to accept this type of treatment is...
If that is the way you feel, then maybe you should stick to the highest quality content, which by your standards would be single player games.
I will do what I want.
You don't have to be so sensitive.
I'm not being sensitive, I am simply making a suggestion. If you believe multiplayer content is cheap, then maybe multiplayer games aren't for you. Seriously, going to a multiplayer game board and griping about multiplayer content being cheap is like walking into Taco Bell and telling the customers how much better you think pizza is.
Originally posted by Zorvan Isn't it thoughtful of the Vanguard community to refer people to other games? If you guys spent half as much typing energy to try to explain how you thought a poster was being too judgemental of your game instead of instantly hurling insults and suggestions to go to another game, you might actually win them over into at least giving your precious game, which needs SUBSCRIBERS to even get off the ground floor, a chance. By the way, I find it real original that almost everyone just copied and pasted worldofwarcraft.com from cloudsong instead of even bothering to think of something constructive to say. All I can say is I hope this game measures up to what your limited community expects, because with the attitudes I see here, you few will be the only ones playing. Have fun.
This has nothing to do with the topic but does Vista Ultimate Beta 2 work good? cuase like i tried the first one and errr yea..buggy
Originally posted by n2sooners Originally posted by wjrasmussen Originally posted by n2sooners Originally posted by wjrasmussen WoW Style of raiding is about creating a cheap method to keep players paying their monthly fees. The content cost for a raid area may be typical of other content, but instead of having 1 (solo) player or a small group (5), you get 40 people into the group. That is 8-40 times more effective than the usually content. Now by creating a reason for them to repeat it over and over again (gear and gearing to new content) you have N times (8-40) times the effectiveness of the content wheren N is the number of times you repeat it. For the Devs, raiding it easy money. So those who love raiding are loving the cheap content. Why customers are so willing to accept this type of treatment is...
If that is the way you feel, then maybe you should stick to the highest quality content, which by your standards would be single player games.
I will do what I want.
You don't have to be so sensitive.
I'm not being sensitive, I am simply making a suggestion. If you believe multiplayer content is cheap, then maybe multiplayer games aren't for you. Seriously, going to a multiplayer game board and griping about multiplayer content being cheap is like walking into Taco Bell and telling the customers how much better you think pizza is.
Where did I say "multi-player content"? You are twisting words, besides you already conceeded the point in your original response when you had a chance to address it.
Originally posted by n2sooners Originally posted by wjrasmussen Originally posted by n2sooners Originally posted by wjrasmussen WoW Style of raiding is about creating a cheap method to keep players paying their monthly fees. The content cost for a raid area may be typical of other content, but instead of having 1 (solo) player or a small group (5), you get 40 people into the group. That is 8-40 times more effective than the usually content. Now by creating a reason for them to repeat it over and over again (gear and gearing to new content) you have N times (8-40) times the effectiveness of the content wheren N is the number of times you repeat it. For the Devs, raiding it easy money. So those who love raiding are loving the cheap content. Why customers are so willing to accept this type of treatment is...
If that is the way you feel, then maybe you should stick to the highest quality content, which by your standards would be single player games.
I will do what I want.
You don't have to be so sensitive.
I'm not being sensitive, I am simply making a suggestion. If you believe multiplayer content is cheap, then maybe multiplayer games aren't for you. Seriously, going to a multiplayer game board and griping about multiplayer content being cheap is like walking into Taco Bell and telling the customers how much better you think pizza is.
you're probably one of vanbois who loves forced grouping and penalizing anyone who wants to solo.
just cause it's a mutliplayer game doesn't mean the mmo has to penalize solo play. even solo combat players like to socialize with others OUTSIDE of combat in terms of towns, just talking, trade, crafting, and so forth. solo players like to group, they just don't want to BE FORCED TO group. there's nothing less fun than LFGing for 30 minutes, then travelling/waiting another 30 minutes for more people to joiin the group and then 10 minutes into dungeon, someone leaves and the party wipes. for people who can play 8 hours a day, this is acceptable. for casual players, this is not.
Comments
wait a second....you have defiantly lost me here. i would assume that since you hate the raiding so much and the unbalanced gear....that it puzzles me that you think pop is acceptable?
and you think oow is trash? that expansion had alot of small group content where pop just put raiders and raid gear over the top.
also, even though i know you disagree but if you were to do a poll on what former and current eq players think is the best expansion vellious would win hands down, i think your in the minority with this though i could be wrong.
i do agree LDON was good and probably my favorite as well, i got alot of gear from grinding those instances all day.
wait a second....you have defiantly lost me here. i would assume that since you hate the raiding so much and the unbalanced gear....that it puzzles me that you think pop is acceptable?
and you think oow is trash? that expansion had alot of small group content where pop just put raiders and raid gear over the top.
also, even though i know you disagree but if you were to do a poll on what former and current eq players think is the best expansion vellious would win hands down, i think your in the minority with this though i could be wrong.
i do agree LDON was good and probably my favorite as well, i got alot of gear from grinding those instances all day.
PoP and Kunark are nearly identical from my point of view, yes they are not acceptable anymore today, but at release, they offer a LOT and the raiding content was hidden. WAS acceptable, not anymore. Clarification.
As to Omen, I would admit that if it had happen earlier maybe my judgment for it would have been different, but at it place in time, I see it as raiding at the moment it was release and honestly, I didn't give it a chance. I read, that is it, the last expansion who got a chance was GoD, and I certainly waste way too much time there. Omen read way too similar to GoD for me to even care to grant it a chance. And, I meet CoH by then. CoH is flawed on many things, but it far less bad on the raiding than any other MMO.
Again, for PoP, despite all it flaws, it is the most similar expansion I ever see to Kunark. Yes, in the end it is not fine and acceptable, but the lie are built in, behind tons of new cool stuff for everyone. BoT, PoV, Tactics are all example of zones accessible to non-raiders.
Kunark and PoP belong in a category that is less bad than Velious and GoD for example. Velious adds nothing to non-raiders, same with GoD, while PoP and Kunarks adds levels/AAs, new harder challenge on top of those existing, a progression, where Velious, really, UK is not an expansion in itself for someone not raiding, is it?
As to LDoN, it is the only non-raiding expansion with Ykesha, although not on purpose, but the raiding aspect of this expansion is unworkable and thereby doesn't affect non-raiders on TOP of wonderful high-end grouping system. The instances are nice, but not really the MUST aspect of LDoN, but yes, the instances are nice, yet it would still be my favored, instanced or not.
Again, EQ has a unique setting, unique chances, that any new MMOs, including these made by the staff from EQ, will never get. I was a MMO noob when EQ come out. Most of the market was MMO noob when WoW come out. This is not the case anymore and won't apply for Vanguard. MMO noobs are never going to consist the majority of the player-based anymore. A critical design failure like raiding enforcement pass for EQ, it pass for WoW and it huge Blizzard fanbase...but now? Unless you brings noobs, such a critical design mistake can't pass anymore.
Vanguard claims it want to appeal to the core players and they define them as GROUPERS. Well, I say it and I will repeat it...RAIDING KILLS GROUPING. Exactly like PvP or Soloing can kill grouping, Raiding is. The ramifications are many, see a casual grouper love to see a grouper he can take as an example and try to outdo, taking a raider doesn't work well, it is not a grouper but a raider, a casual grouper must recognize a grouper in his examples. Just like a PvE player can't really take a PvP player as a model for what he want to do without changing what he is. And you don't change a player, a grouper is a grouper, not a raider. The gameplays mechanics are not even remotedly related from a player point of view. They have nothing in comon. Raiding is to grouping what DDO is to D&D, and I am been nice with such a comparaison.
And for PoP, again, the end-system was hidden behind a LOT of nice stuff, just like Kunark was. Velious and GoD are blatant and unhidden, they are horrible. PoP and Kunark are not acceptable in the end, yet at the start they appear to be, thereby they are slightly less bad than Velious or GoD for example...
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
[quote]Originally posted by Anofalye
[b]
a grouper is a grouper, not a raider. The gameplays mechanics are not even remotedly related from a player point of view. They have nothing in comon. [/ b][/quote]
huh? not everyone labels them self as just a grouper or just a raider or just a soloer, personally i enjoy all three i am a soloer, grouper, and raider.
and not remotely related? raiding and grouping are very similar from a player standpoint, i really have no idea what you mean by that.
yes a raid is different than a small group but not that much different, you generally have to spend more time on a raid and a raid involves more people but other than that, what really is the difference?
but honestly I'm done with this raiding debate for now, it gets tiresome after a while.
No, raiding and grouping are VERY far from a player point of view, yet very close to a dev point of view. Having 6 players or 20 players to do something is FAR from been anywhere close, it is not even the same game.
Solo is closer to grouping than Raiding will ever be from a player point of view, getting a few peoples doesn't imply THAT much changes in the gameplay.
From a player point of view, a group is solo + a few peoples, while raiding is managing many group into a specific setting, getting everyone coordinate and understanding how the raiding works, there are specific extensive rules such as DKP and GC speech. There was never any DKP system in any group, it is either RANDOM or NBG, quite simple and I never see any group with specific rules about talking in groupchat.
From a developper point of view, raiding is indeed close to grouping, but not from a player point of view. For the devs they merely manage a few datas, and that is it. They expect the folks to be complete, so from a dev point of view, yes grouping and raiding are closer than to solo, but from a player point of view, solo and grouping are pretty close while raiding is FAR. Even just getting 12 players around is FAR from a group, just imagine 20+...not the same gameplay at all from a player point of view.
If someone is MANY aspects, then depending on the game, 1 prime over the others. In a game like EQ I am a grouper. In a game like Neverwinter Nights I am a soloer. In CoH, I am a grouper. Yet in all these games I did group and solo. Someone who is both a raider and a grouper in a game like EQ or WoW is a raider, unless he barely raid and this is an infime component, but the moment he gets any significant loot from raiding, he is a raider, not a grouper anymore, his gear define him.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
WoW Style of raiding is about creating a cheap method to keep players paying their monthly fees. The content cost for a raid area may be typical of other content, but instead of having 1 (solo) player or a small group (5), you get 40 people into the group. That is 8-40 times more effective than the usually content. Now by creating a reason for them to repeat it over and over again (gear and gearing to new content) you have N times (8-40) times the effectiveness of the content wheren N is the number of times you repeat it.
For the Devs, raiding it easy money. So those who love raiding are loving the cheap content. Why customers are so willing to accept this type of treatment is...
I will do what I want.
You don't have to be so sensitive.
I will do what I want.
You don't have to be so sensitive.
I'm not being sensitive, I am simply making a suggestion. If you believe multiplayer content is cheap, then maybe multiplayer games aren't for you. Seriously, going to a multiplayer game board and griping about multiplayer content being cheap is like walking into Taco Bell and telling the customers how much better you think pizza is.
cuase like i tried the first one and errr yea..buggy
I will do what I want.
You don't have to be so sensitive.
I'm not being sensitive, I am simply making a suggestion. If you believe multiplayer content is cheap, then maybe multiplayer games aren't for you. Seriously, going to a multiplayer game board and griping about multiplayer content being cheap is like walking into Taco Bell and telling the customers how much better you think pizza is.
Where did I say "multi-player content"? You are twisting words, besides you already conceeded the point in your original response when you had a chance to address it.
I will do what I want.
You don't have to be so sensitive.
I'm not being sensitive, I am simply making a suggestion. If you believe multiplayer content is cheap, then maybe multiplayer games aren't for you. Seriously, going to a multiplayer game board and griping about multiplayer content being cheap is like walking into Taco Bell and telling the customers how much better you think pizza is.
you're probably one of vanbois who loves forced grouping and penalizing anyone who wants to solo.
just cause it's a mutliplayer game doesn't mean the mmo has to penalize solo play. even solo combat players like to socialize with others OUTSIDE of combat in terms of towns, just talking, trade, crafting, and so forth. solo players like to group, they just don't want to BE FORCED TO group. there's nothing less fun than LFGing for 30 minutes, then travelling/waiting another 30 minutes for more people to joiin the group and then 10 minutes into dungeon, someone leaves and the party wipes. for people who can play 8 hours a day, this is acceptable. for casual players, this is not.