From what i could understand from brad´s communication, its just a PR stunt. Most people that have showed even the slightest interest in vanguard have gone and took a look at the boards, and all they see is 100´s of "this game is not for you" "go back to WoW" "We don't want in game maps" "we want harsher death penalty" ,etc.
The biggest obstacle vanguard has to pass to get some good pr and to generate some positive interest from most mmorpg players, its the Vanguard community, the smartest thing sigil could have done was to have no forums at all while the game was beeing developed, and only use forums for the beta testers.
Maybe it will change once vanguard is released and they take down all the "official" forums, but i think the damage already has been done.
originally posted byAradune Mithara 12:40am 06/30/2006
Thanks for the quotes. I did some searching and have saved this off now so I can answer again as I'm sure this will rightfully continue to pop up as more and more people come to find out more about Vanguard:
Will the best loot come only from raids?
Aradune Mithara: No. Many of them will, but many will also be available to groups. Often the very best items will require a long time commitment, but these commitments shouldn't have to always be contiguous. In other words, say it requires 12 hours of adventuring to obtain a powerful item. In some extreme cases, this could require a raid, or even a group and it could take you all day to complete. In other cases, however, the 12 hours can be broken up into three 4 hour chunks, where the quest or encounter route for the item is broken up into fourths, such that after you achieve 1/4 of the quest or route, you can save, re-group the next day, and then finish up another 3 hour chunk.
I've posted quite a bit on this months ago and encourage your and anyone interested to dig up the posts (some have been re-posted in this thread already -- thanks guys). In a nutshell, we want the best items to be available though a variety of routes: raids, long contiguous adventures, broken up adventures, trade skills, diplomacy, etc. The only potentially controversial aspect of this is that is likely that not ALL of the best items you might want will be available through only one of these methods. If you are a person who wants ALL of the best stuff, you'll have to involve yourself in all of the above, including raiding and long contiguous adventures, even though the majority of content, including that which yields great rewards, will be group oriented.
Essentially, if you want it all (whether items or abilities or spells or whatever), you pretty much have to DO it all as well. I do stress, however, that to be a powerful and effective player, you don't have to do it all. What I'm talking about is the subset of players who, from a personal preference, decide they have to have all of the best gear of every type, for every situation, etc.
So, and hopefully more to your point, if you focus on the casual content in the game, you will find/buy items that make you better, and as you level up, acquire wealth, skills, etc. you will find better equipment, and should feel a sense of accomplishment.
But that equipment most likely wouldn't cut it in a grouping region, and most certainly not in a raid area. Those mobs are harder, more situational, and don't just require more attention when playing (making sure you counter that spell, etc.), but also require that you have items that are at least close to the level range of the group dungeon you are in.
It can't really be any other way. If you want to only be casual, you will progress, but as I've said in the past, you won't have the same stuff as the guy who groups, or who raids. Same with the other spheres and how much time you invest.
All that said, and here's where I risk some wrath, the most powerful items will likely require skill, challenge, risk, and contiguous time commitments involving a lot of people. The reason is that by putting all of those challenges together, you get a bigger challenge. The additional commitment to stay on those extra hours, the organizational skills necessary to lead and organize a large group of people, etc. There's still something to be said about all of that, even though it will be the minority of content, as per what I've commented on in the past.
Thats not clear and seems contradictory: please elaborate:
Aradune Mithara: What's key here is that the best items should come from experiences where there was the greatest risk vs. reward and time commitment (plus, there's always luck -- being in the right place at the right time, etc.).
Some of the best items will come from conventional raiding (large groups of people participating in long contiguous adventures). Some will come from long adventures consisting of less people and more importantly, while a lot of time will have to be invested, the content will be such that all of that time doesn't have to be contiguous.
Some also will come from the other spheres, but much of the same applies: the best components harvested and then used later to craft the best items will be very rare and in very dangerous locations. Some of it may require long contiguous time commitments, while others will be obtainable by completing several shorter contiguous adventures.
So I guess I'm still not totally sure what exactly you are asking here....
Will you be able to collect ALL of the best gear in the game without going on conventional raids and/or without trading/buying gear obtained from conventional raids? No.
Will you be able to obtain some of the very best gear without participating in conventional raids and/or buying gear obtained via conventional raiding? Absolutely.
If your desire is to be able to obtain any and all gear without ever having to raid or buy equipment obtained via raiding, then Vanguard may not be for you. But if you are content with obtaining some subset of the best gear without raiding or buying raid dropped equipment (or items created via crafting from harvested components obtained via raiding), then I think Vanguard will be fine for you.
Really, if you want the option of obtaining any item in the game period without buying/trading for it, you'll need to involve yourself in all aspects of the game, not just raiding. You'll need to level up in harvesting/crafting, level up in diplomacy, experience the higher end grouping dungeons and such, and also have the tenacity and patience to invest quite a bit of time in the game in general, as going on a high level adventure, whether group or raid oriented, doesn't guarantee that you will obtain that item you seek anyway. Someone else might get the item, or the item might not be available each and every time anyway, as perhaps the rare spawn that drops that item, or rare harvestable, just isn't around that night, or the quest that triggers a sequence of encounter segments that leads to that 'golden' boss mob might already be taken by another group, or even the mob or switch or item or whatever flags you and your group as being able to participate on the encounter segment might not be 'up' either.
Bottom line: if you want it all, you have to be willing to participate in all aspects of the game, especially if you are not willing to buy/trade and participate in the player driven economy, and when I say 'all' of the game, that would include the raids as well.
Does this answer your question? If not, I will try to explain further.
Please explain further that doesnt necessarily seem consistent:
Aradune Mithara: No, I think my posts were consistent, although perhaps not as clear as they could have been. Some of the best items will only be obtainable via raiding, other best items through grouping, and others through special casual areas, and others through the other spheres (harvesting/crafting and diplomacy).
Let me try to come up with a quick hypothetical example -- it's simplistic, but perhaps will make more sense:
1. The best all around helmet (say non-situational -- it has the best AC, or the best +STR attribute) for a warrior may come from a high level group zone
2. The best fire resistant vambraces may come from a raid zone
3. The best light armor boots may come from a challenging encounter that is made for casual/solo size groups (1-3).
4. The best AC armor (call it the Red Dragonscale Breastplate) may come from dragon scales collected in a difficult group dungeon, but then also require a high level harvester to actually collect the scales in the depths of a the dragon's lair, and then a high level crafter to be able to use it and other components to actually create the Red Dragonscale Breastplate
5. The best +Charisma Cloak (call it the Royal Red Sparrow Robe) that enables you access to the throne room in New Targonor may come from a series of challenging diplomatic quests requiring high skills, items, and strategy used by one or more players playing in the Diplomacy sphere.
Were a person to absolutely insist on obtaining all 5 of these hypothetical items above, he would have to either a. engage in all 5 activities to some significant extent, as well as work with others in most of the examples or b. buy/trade for them, assuming they are items that are tradable.
It all seems fair to me, the best items for different things come from different content.
Don't forget that most items will be for sale on the open market anyway, so if you don't want to do the big raids (like me) then just buy the bits you want - sure its a hassle but so is doing a raid.
Currently Playing:GW2 Currently Following:Elder Scrolls Online Games in my wake:Anarchy Online, Archlord (beta), Asherons Call, Asherons Call 2, City of Heroes, Dark Age of Camelot (SI to Catacombs), DDO, EVE Online, EverQuest II (beta), Guild Wars, Horizons, Lineage II,LORTO, Rift, RF Online (beta), RYL, Saga of Ryzon, Shadowbane, Star Wars Galaxies, Vanguard, WAR, WoW
You're wrong, Amathe. Sigil is making the game for 'core' gamers. Thats a term they use to mean the larger segmet of the player spectrum between 'hard core' and 'soft core'. In other words, the average player. They don't want to be a 'niche' market. They are aiming at the broadest segment of the MMORPG player base. As they should, IMHO. It doesn't make economic sense to do it any other way.
There are, or were, some hardcore gamers on the Vanguard forums who thought if they posted loud enough they might influence Sigil to make a hard core game. That didn't happen. Sigil is making a 'normal' game for the masses.
They don't want to be a 'niche' market. They are aiming at the broadest segment of the MMORPG player base. As they should, IMHO. It doesn't make economic sense to do it any other way.
There are, or were, some hardcore gamers on the Vanguard forums who thought if they posted loud enough they might influence Sigil to make a hard core game. That didn't happen. Sigil is making a 'normal' game for the masses.
I wish I was wrong. Like you, I bought the "core gamer" mantra hook, line and sinker. That's why I followed the game for years and was once an enthusisatic supporter. In fact, when powergamers would post that Vanguard was for them and them alone, I would correct them and say pretty much what you just said in your response. And if you were right, I would play this game and enjoy it (as I have many other mmos, such as EQ, EQ2, SWG, CoH, CoV, WoW, GW, etc., etc.).
But as has become more clear over time, this "core gamer" concept is misleading. It doesn't mean what you have been led to believe it means. A "core gamer", in reality, is a more akin to a former EQ player who spent 6 years of their life doing nothing but playing EQ all day long who now has had to get a job. They log on 4-6 hours a night now because they have other responsibilities, but when they do log on they play with the raid/powergamer/elite mindset they always did. A core gamer is just a powergamer with less time to play. By this definition, Vanguard is directed to the core player, and if you meet this definition you may enjoy the game. If you don't, I guarantee you that you won't.
If you are not a core gamer by the above definition, will you be able to roll a character and kill some meaningless wandering mobs for some meaningless loot where your character will be absurdly weak to the point the game is a misery? Sure. Just don't confuse claims of "content" with "enjoyable content". If you are not a powergamer by mindset, you will hate this game like hot death on toast. And that is by design, because the Vision (tm), in a nutshell, is the glorification of elite players at the expense of everyone else.
Now, to be clear, I am ok with that. There are a lot of games on the market and there is nothing wrong with having different strokes for different folks. Just because I don't want to play this one doesn't mean there aren't people who will love it. But what galls me is the misleading advertising that Sigil and SOE are spewing these days, where they are creating the false perception that this is a game that casual players, solo players, and people who don't have a lot of time can play and enjoy. That's not true. They are only saying that out of fear that the subscription numbers for this game will mirror the type of game that it actually is, and that's just not enough folks.
Buy Vanguard. Give them $50. Tell me I'm a WoW kiddie and that I don't know what I'm talking about. Just do me one favor. When you get burned, right before you hit "cancel", pause and remember that I told you so.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Originally posted by Kem0sabe From what i could understand from brad´s communication, its just a PR stunt. Most people that have showed even the slightest interest in vanguard have gone and took a look at the boards, and all they see is 100´s of "this game is not for you" "go back to WoW" "We don't want in game maps" "we want harsher death penalty" ,etc.
The biggest obstacle vanguard has to pass to get some good pr and to generate some positive interest from most mmorpg players, its the Vanguard community, the smartest thing sigil could have done was to have no forums at all while the game was beeing developed, and only use forums for the beta testers.
Maybe it will change once vanguard is released and they take down all the "official" forums, but i think the damage already has been done.
Very true statement. Particularily 3 months or so ago. Now that the community on the official site is getting rather massive most of the "we hate all things WoW" strings of posts have have either stopped or are equally contested.
In regards to the specific topics however there will be in game maps, and the death penalty actually fluxes, as in different types of death have different penalty...which inherently makes some places considerably more risky.
But yes, much of the VG boards were completely dominated by EQ1 vets many of which were hard core raiders and wanted VG to be the same. Thus its not surprising that many people walked away bitter about being trash talked to and left with the burning impression that VG is hard core raiding only. When beta 5 comes around and the NDA is lifted and some decent previews start coming around perhaps that will be what it takes to "fix" that perception? Who knows.
Originally posted by Amathe Now, to be clear, I am ok with that. There are a lot of games on the market and there is nothing wrong with having different strokes for different folks. Just because I don't want to play this one doesn't mean there aren't people who will love it. But what galls me is the misleading advertising that Sigil and SOE are spewing these days, where they are creating the false perception that this is a game that casual players, solo players, and people who don't have a lot of time can play and enjoy. That's not true. They are only saying that out of fear that the subscription numbers for this game will mirror the type of game that it actually is, and that's just not enough folks. Buy Vanguard. Give them $50. Tell me I'm a WoW kiddie and that I don't know what I'm talking about. Just do me one favor. When you get burned, right before you hit "cancel", pause and remember that I told you so.
I rather enjoyed WoW. I guess I understand their version of a core gamer differently. My wife and I have very little time durring a week to play (perhaps 2hrs a day max if we're lucky?). On some weekends we may have time to spend a large chunk here and there. It appears that we'll do fine but that is our impression.
But we'll likely be in beta 5 (since its damn near open beta anyway) and get a feel for it ourselves before spending $50.
I think we'll enjoy the game for at least as long as we enjoyed WoW, and if that's the case then we still had fun...which is kind of the point of a game eh?
Originally posted by Pantastic Originally posted by n2sooners And I am sure you much prefer the socialist game versions where everyone gets the exact same stuff no matter how much or how little effort they put forth.
I'm not sure how any form of game design really qualifies as 'socialist' or why you think I want something that I've said over and over on this board that I don't want. I know you prefer the raid-centric system where people who are willing to put up with the raiding playstyle get better gear than people who aren't.
>
First off you do not KNOW what n2 prefers until he tells you. Just because someone doesn't voice bias towards a particular playstyle does not mean they don't prefer it. AKA just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean you can validly stereotype them. I disagree with you and I don't bother raiding in most of the MMOs I've played.
>
Originally posted by Pantastic
NOTE TO ANYONE NEW TO VANGUARD: Pay attention to the fact that some fans of the game argue that it's one way and others that it's not; n2sooners is saying that raiding will be better rewarded and that not liking that makes me a socialist, while solymnar says that I'm falsely assuming that raiding will be better rewarded (though he goes on to say that it will be later on).
>
No, you added on to and twisted his words, n2 said that rewards should be based on effort. He in fact never mentioned raiding vs. grouping. He asked if you think everyone should get the same rewards no matter what. To which you haven't responded. So I ask you again, do YOU think everyone should get the exact same rewards no mater what pant? And if not what do you think should define who gets what? You want to put words in other people's mouths but fail to offer your own counter example.
>
Originally posted by Pantastic
Originally posted by solymnar He didn't leave it off, you falsely assumed it.
So, I falesly assumed what you went on to tell me a couple of lines down, that "The UBER gear will require help from multiple spheres.. adventuring (both raid and...)." Sounds like I was perfectly correct, getting the best gear will unequivocably require raiding, therefore if you don't raid you'll have worse gear, just like I said.
>
Sounds like you are perfectly consistant in adding words to some statements to make them fit your view and subracting them from others.
If you want top level gear you can completely avoid raiding.
If you want ALL the top level gear you will have to participate in ALL the spheres and adventure styles which includes the peices that come from raiding and the peices that come from grouping and even the peices that come from soloing. Or you can play your style/sphere and buy items that come from other sytles/spheres that you really want.
But feel free to intentionally misinterpret this again. Though a bit of advice...just because you leave out the word "grouping" in your quote doesn't change the point that it was in the original post.
>
Originally posted by Pantastic
And before you try to talk your way out of your statement:
The key I think is that while it is true that some of the best (but not all of the best) items will come from raid areas or encounters, the majority of content in the game, from level 1-50, will be centered around grouping and not raiding. If you group to 50, experience crafting and diplomacy, and do some trading/buying/selling, I see no reason why you wouldn't have the majority of items you sought to make your character as powerful as possible, even if you refused to raid. That said, I would encourage you and anyone else to take a Saturday off here and there and try some of the raid content as well, as it can be a blast to experience.
Yes it will take time to get gear, but you can still get high end equipment and avoid raiding.
You can get second-rate equipment if you don't raid, but you won't have access to the best gear if you don't raid. I'm not sure why you keep going on about time to get gear, when what I've pointed out is that you'll have to raid to get it, not anything about time.
>
So lets see...the quote you took said exactly what I did...some high end equipment comes from raiding, some comes from grouping and some comes from other spheres...in fact, your quote taken says that even though you can get all the gear you need without raiding he would encourage you to give it a shot anyway because it can be a lot of fun, even if you don't need the gear from it.
You can get the majority of high end gear without raiding...
It takes time to aquire gear but it does not require raiding...
Let me help you with the "time" factor since you said you're confused about it. The point is that there are end game grouping quests and adventure areas. They often have a high skill factor required and usually a long time commitment (though many can be split up into parts so that it doesn't have to be all at once so that casual people, like me, don't get shafted). Needless to say the rewards for end game grouping are on par with end game raiding, both require time and effort. Thus the time statment. I await your uncanny ability to intentionally misinterpret this as well... though I am hopeful it won't be neccesary.
The fact is you can directly get second rate equipement if you never take on challenging content, end game grouping, end game diplomacy, end game crafting, and end game (gasp) raiding etc.
But participating in any of the end game options results in access to top teir equipment. The best of which needs work done by more than one sphere. Its a pretty simple scenario, there's nothing tricky or shady to grasp here.
I don't have a need to "talk my way out of my statement"s when the quotes you draw on keep supporting them.
Just like repeating my thoughts that if your equipment obtained by your playstyle is good enough to support your playstle then it doesn't really matter what the rewards for other playstyles are, simply reaffirms what I said from a different angle.
>
Originally posted by Pantastic
Pant, you sound like you have issues from some other game and want to apply them here?
I have issues with games in which your choices are to raid or be second-rate, and I think it's only fair that people who might be considering Vanguard know the role that raiding will play in the game.
>
Well then, if that is your goal then I deeply suggest trying to not misrepresent other people's quotes, add or delete choice words to give a false impression, or draw conclusions that have nothing to do with what was said. The role that raiding plays in the game is 3 times less than grouping. Thus the reason why the devs have said from day one that the game is "group centric".
My guess is that you made a post or two on the official forums a long time ago and a bunch of people railed on you fairly/unfairly and you're still upset about it?
Anyway back to Vanguard
You're choices are to
A) Solo
Group
C) Raid
D) Craft
E) Parlay (diplomacy)
End game content in any of these will yeild top teir rewards. Its that simple. The reality is however between the adventuring spheres, there is three times the grouping content that there is raiding. So most raiders will probably do a lot of grouping content simply because there is vastly more of it. Same with soloers. Why buy a game to only play a small fraction of it (20%)?
Almost all this info is now in the official Vanguard Faq (as baphamet so very kindly posted). You can read it and try to strip individual parts out to twist around but its still there for anyone to read and the end result is still the same.
There is no need to raid to outfit yourself with top end equipment, period.
Originally posted by Anofalye Originally posted by n2sooners And I am sure you much prefer the socialist game versions where everyone gets the exact same stuff no matter how much or how little effort they put forth.
Raiding is socialist.
A capitalist system reward INDIVIDUAL worth, not a dkp system based on attendancies. Raiding has a 3rd party determined who achieve loot and who doesn't, which is completely independant from efficiency.
A capitalist system would be directly linked to efficiency, and raiding isn't, couldn't.
I don't think you understand the DKP system. DKP is basically money. Players are paid according to how much they work. No one just hands out loot, it is purchased by those who want it and have the most DKP. There are a number of different DKP systems, but they all have one thing in common, those who do the most work end up with the most rewards.
A system where those who do very little are rewarded the same as those who do a lot is a socialst system. So those who want the same reward even though they have very little play time are the one's with the socialist attitudes, not those who believe you should be rewarded more for doing more.
Originally posted by n2sooners Originally posted by Anofalye Originally posted by n2sooners And I am sure you much prefer the socialist game versions where everyone gets the exact same stuff no matter how much or how little effort they put forth.
Raiding is socialist.
A capitalist system reward INDIVIDUAL worth, not a dkp system based on attendancies. Raiding has a 3rd party determined who achieve loot and who doesn't, which is completely independant from efficiency.
A capitalist system would be directly linked to efficiency, and raiding isn't, couldn't.
I don't think you understand the DKP system. DKP is basically money. Players are paid according to how much they work. No one just hands out loot, it is purchased by those who want it and have the most DKP. There are a number of different DKP systems, but they all have one thing in common, those who do the most work end up with the most rewards.
A system where those who do very little are rewarded the same as those who do a lot is a socialst system. So those who want the same reward even though they have very little play time are the one's with the socialist attitudes, not those who believe you should be rewarded more for doing more.
Doesn't a good loyal guild member showup without having to be paid?
Originally posted by wjrasmussen Originally posted by n2sooners Originally posted by Anofalye Originally posted by n2sooners And I am sure you much prefer the socialist game versions where everyone gets the exact same stuff no matter how much or how little effort they put forth.
Raiding is socialist.
A capitalist system reward INDIVIDUAL worth, not a dkp system based on attendancies. Raiding has a 3rd party determined who achieve loot and who doesn't, which is completely independant from efficiency.
A capitalist system would be directly linked to efficiency, and raiding isn't, couldn't.
I don't think you understand the DKP system. DKP is basically money. Players are paid according to how much they work. No one just hands out loot, it is purchased by those who want it and have the most DKP. There are a number of different DKP systems, but they all have one thing in common, those who do the most work end up with the most rewards.
A system where those who do very little are rewarded the same as those who do a lot is a socialst system. So those who want the same reward even though they have very little play time are the one's with the socialist attitudes, not those who believe you should be rewarded more for doing more.
Doesn't a good loyal guild member showup without having to be paid?
Its too late for that point. Guild members DO get paid (ie. they get items). The games are designed to "pay" people. The apple has already been bitten so to speak.
I don't think you understand the DKP system. DKP is basically money. Players are paid according to how much they work. No one just hands out loot, it is purchased by those who want it and have the most DKP. There are a number of different DKP systems, but they all have one thing in common, those who do the most work end up with the most rewards.A system where those who do very little are rewarded the same as those who do a lot is a socialst system. So those who want the same reward even though they have very little play time are the one's with the socialist attitudes, not those who believe you should be rewarded more for doing more.
i think he means that dkp rewards people that just show up for raids, if they were there for the boss kill they get dkp. he seems to think that you can just sit there and not be efficient or do your job and still earn dkp and bid on loot.
while that may be true for a unorganized lower quality guild, most good guilds record everything that goes on in the raid (i.e healing or dps done)
it seems Anofalye has had some bad experiences with crappy guilds that let their players just sit there and not do their job efficiently, whats funny is he goes on to assume all guilds are like that and hence his reasons for hating raids....well I'm sure he has other reasons to but that is one of his main arguments.
If you never bother raiding and your gear is plenty good enough to tackle the content you are interested in, would someone else's gear be a moot point? Ignoring that you would still be wrong about high end group content rewards compared to raider rewards.
This is a very big deal. Players don't want to feel like second class citizens to raiders. They didn't play for 500 hours so that their characters can be wimps instead of epic heroes.
Plus, the power difference usually results in a content gap between raiders and non-raiders. The devs have to make content for the suped up uber raiders and the lowlly casuals. The raiders then find it either too easy or the casuals find it utterly impossible and unplayably difficult.
Plus it destroys all competitive play in the game as you need power levels to become uniform (or close to it) at high levels in order for PvP and other competitive play to be a test of skill or the winner of the "competiton" is known before the match has even started. . . like a beauty contest between the head cheerleader and a cafeteria worker.
They aren't making an inclusive, accessible game. They are making a game that tries hard to hide how exclusive and hardcore it really is to dupe normal players into playing it. The thing is, normal players have other games to choose from where they can be the heroes and don't have to play second-fiddle to raiders.
Originally posted by Kem0sabe From what i could understand from brad´s communication, its just a PR stunt. Most people that have showed even the slightest interest in vanguard have gone and took a look at the boards, and all they see is 100´s of "this game is not for you" "go back to WoW" "We don't want in game maps" "we want harsher death penalty" ,etc.
The biggest obstacle vanguard has to pass to get some good pr and to generate some positive interest from most mmorpg players, its the Vanguard community, the smartest thing sigil could have done was to have no forums at all while the game was beeing developed, and only use forums for the beta testers.
Maybe it will change once vanguard is released and they take down all the "official" forums, but i think the damage already has been done.
Very astute point.
They have a rabid base of players that salivate for hardcore play, but I've seen this behavior over and over with various guild members. They scream for hardcore play, but when they actually encounter it they spit it out like Valentine's chocolates. . . the ones with the creamy pink goo that taste like assberries - not the yummy caramel and nut filled ones.
What we are seeing now are half-measures to try to get normal players to be attracted to the game, but even if the PR move succeeds, they won't be able to keep normal players playing if these players do not get rewards because they hate the hardcore design of Vanguard and choose to avoid it (thus getting less reward).
Other games are learning to throw away risk vs. reward. Risk sucks. I don't want to gamble my entertainment time away with the game designer because I have other stuff to do. The stake, which is my play time, is becoming an increasingly precious coin and there are tons of places where I can spend it where I am not forced to gamble. Instead of "risk vs. reward" many new MMOs are replacing this, at least in part, with "challenge (or difficulty) vs. reward".
This is a very big deal. Players don't want to feel like second class citizens to raiders. They didn't play for 500 hours so that their characters can be wimps instead of epic heroes.
Plus, the power difference usually results in a content gap between raiders and non-raiders. The devs have to make content for the suped up uber raiders and the lowlly casuals. The raiders then find it either too easy or the casuals find it utterly impossible and unplayably difficult.
Gratz dink, you are now at the same level as pant.
The only power difference in raiders and groupers will be if someone plays more regularly and spends more time aquiring gear/wealth to buy gear/etc. then they will have more of it. Raiders and groupers will get different types of high end gear but its the same teir/power level.
Or to put it differently, if there was no raiding at all...then it still won't change the point that some people will put in rediculous hours and aquire more gear than others.
AKA players who spend more time playing will have better gear. Doesn't matter if they raid/group/craft/parlay. If you have issues with that notion GW is ready when you are because there is not a single MMO out there that doesn't have this scenario short of guildwars where there are 3-4 types of identical high end gear sets per a class.
Don't get me wrong, i rather enjoy GW, but on the same note if I play a subscription fee MMORPG that has the EXACT same gear rewards for top teir no matter what I do I'll yack from the sheer overwhelming blandness.
I better damn well get a different loot table from a long grouping quest than what the end game crafters are making. Which fortunately is the case with VG.
If you can't understand the idea that players can get a complete set of top teir gear without raiding then you are either hopeless or intentionally blind because if you acknowledge this you case holds no water...my bet is on the latter.
Oh but wait...what am I thinking? These are CLEARLY half measures and a PR stunt to trick people into thinking that VG is group centric...er...no...wait a sec...the devs announced VG as being a group centric design from DAY ONE. Perhaps you're just REALLY REALLY good at sticking your fingers in your ears and stomping your feet while screaming like a banchee for years on end?
Which is odd because you even mannaged to acknowledge that there are several people on the official forums who complained that VG didn't sound "hard core" enough for them...to which the devs responded "we've always said the game is group centric, we'll have raid content but it is not the focus of the gameplay".
The same "hard core" people said "no maps, no corpse threads" to which the devs replied "we will have in game maps, you can choose not to use them, we will have in game corpse threads, the world is simply huge and that combined with tall grass, massive dungeons among other things makes it too difficult to find your corpse sometimes, still you can choose to turn it off if you like".
You can say that some of the people want the game to be hard core with a free pair of electrodes that shock your nipples every time to get hit but the reality is that the devs have more or less been sticking to their guns and makeing a group centric average player game. That's what they've said from the start, it's what they are still saying. But it will be easy enough to see who is actually following up on the game itself...and who is speculating out their rears soon enough eh?
Because you make so much sense in the logic that the devs want to "trick" a few extra people into making a few quick bucks and earn a bad rep as opposed to having a good launch with an honest rep and keeping long term subs?
"I know! Lets lie to everyone because that will REALLY help us establish a solid base for our company for future development!" Sure, that makes great sense...oh wait...no it doesn't.
Originally posted by solymnar First off you do not KNOW what n2 prefers until he tells you.
He has, as of this moment, 833 posts to this forum. You might want to think whether he might have told something on this topic in one of them.
He asked if you think everyone should get the same rewards no matter what. To which you haven't responded.
"I'm not sure... why you think I want something that I've said over and over on this board that I don't want." is, most definatley, a response to the question, and a rather unequivocal one.
If you want ALL the top level gear you will have to participate in ALL the spheres and adventure styles which includes the peices that come from raiding and the peices that come from grouping and even the peices that come from soloing.
If you have to participate in ALL the spheres to get ALL of the best gear, and one of the spheres is raiding, then by very basic logic it's clear that you have to participate in raiding. I'm not sure what you're really trying to argue, when what you've just posted clearly supports that if you want to have the best gear in Vanguard, you have to raid.
But feel free to intentionally misinterpret this again. Though a bit of advice...just because you leave out the word "grouping" in your quote doesn't change the point that it was in the original post.
I haven't misinterpreted anything, the word 'grouping' was completely irrelevant. It's like if I said 'you need flour to bake a cake' and you said 'that's not true, you need eggs, butter, sugar, and flour to bake a cake'. I haven't made claims like 'you can get the best gear by only raiding' or 'you will not need to group to get the best gear' to which the 'grouping' part would be relevant.
My guess is that you made a post or two on the official forums a long time ago and a bunch of people railed on you fairly/unfairly and you're still upset about it?
Your guess is wrong, as I've never even registered on the official forums, much less posted there. I'm not really clear on how your guesses about events that you think happened on other forums are relevant to this conversation, but I don't really expect you to justify it.
Originally posted by solymnar If you can't understand the idea that players can get a complete set of top teir gear without raiding then you are either hopeless or intentionally blind because if you acknowledge this you case holds no water...my bet is on the latter.
You cannot get a complete set of the best gear in the game without raiding, I've already posted a direct quote from Brad saying this and in your previous post you explicitly said that you could not get all of the best gear without participating in ALL spheres, one of which is raiding. If you want to call second-rate gear "top tier" then that's fine and dandy, but it's also fair for people to point it out when you do.
He has, as of this moment, 833 posts to this forum. You might want to think whether he might have told something on this topic in one of them.
Granted. I haven't seen it on the VG forum but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
"I'm not sure... why you think I want something that I've said over and over on this board that I don't want." is, most definatley, a response to the question, and a rather unequivocal one.
Hardly. If that's what you are implying it would sound like you want all raiding to be struck from the game completely, perhaps all soloing as well and aparently then by default strike out all crafting and diplomacy because it might tempt someone to try a different sphere to get an alternate eqiupement set? If I'm wrong then why don't you explain you're unequivocal responce a little more plainly since so far all you've done is say how bad it is that end game raiding has equivalant level rewards to end game grouping. That says nothing at all about what you think a better solution is.
If you have to participate in ALL the spheres to get ALL of the best gear, and one of the spheres is raiding, then by very basic logic it's clear that you have to participate in raiding. I'm not sure what you're really trying to argue, when what you've just posted clearly supports that if you want to have the best gear in Vanguard, you have to raid.
No, you are perfectly capable of getting a complete set of top end gear and avoiding raiding. Its clear you are unable to differentiate the difference between all vs. a full set of equipment. Or perhaps you are still acting intentionally stupid. Either way it doesn't change the point that your argument is wrong. If I have a full set of equipment and there is a different peice of equipment out there that would be an alternative with relatively equal value it does not change the point that I have a full set of equivalant but different equipment.
I haven't misinterpreted anything, the word 'grouping' was completely irrelevant. It's like if I said 'you need flour to bake a cake' and you said 'that's not true, you need eggs, butter, sugar, and flour to bake a cake'. I haven't made claims like 'you can get the best gear by only raiding' or 'you will not need to group to get the best gear' to which the 'grouping' part would be relevant.
OK fine you don't misinterpret, it's just that simple concepts elude you completely. Its like playing telephone with a boarderline deaf person. If you want to compare it at least do it right. Its not at all your analogy but rather you can choose what store to get your flower, eggs, butter, and sugar from. The difference is that some stores only carry x type of frosting. So while you can most certainly make your cake from the ingrediants of whatever store you want, certain stores carry their own flavor and bells/whistles.
Thus if you want the whole cake, any store will do. But if you want ALL possible cakes then you will have to visit every store. And if you really want to spend THAT kind of time playing...well...that's your call. Additionally you may decide to trade a slice of your cake for a slice of somebody elses, but that is up to you and does not require you to go to a different store to make a whole cake.
Your guess is wrong, as I've never even registered on the official forums, much less posted there. I'm not really clear on how your guesses about events that you think happened on other forums are relevant to this conversation, but I don't really expect you to justify it.
Because you sound like you have personal issues towards the devs and game in general and I'm curious to figure out where it stems from.
Originally posted by solymnar If you can't understand the idea that players can get a complete set of top teir gear without raiding then you are either hopeless or intentionally blind because if you acknowledge this you case holds no water...my bet is on the latter.
You cannot get a complete set of the best gear in the game without raiding, I've already posted a direct quote from Brad saying this and in your previous post you explicitly said that you could not get all of the best gear without participating in ALL spheres, one of which is raiding. If you want to call second-rate gear "top tier" then that's fine and dandy, but it's also fair for people to point it out when you do.
Lets seperate what you keep ramming together. "A complete set" vs. ALL
There is enough gear to comprise MANY complete sets. It is WELL possible to get an end game complete set without raiding. It is impossible to get ALL end game gear without raiding or buying a peice that was raided etc. Which is what Brad said but you manage to continually botch up. Do you get it now or does this basic concept still float past you?
Top teir is end game gear, the only thing that gets better is end game multisphere. Which is "Thee best" and you can still avoid raiding for a set of it. But you will have to either participate in diplomacy and crafting directly or have friends who do so and are willing to give or sell you the results to combine with your rewards from end game grouping. And it will take A LOT of time and effort.
Second rate is non end game. Feel free to keep trying to put words in other people's mouths but don't be upset when we repeatedly correct you. It would be a lot easier if you simply read ALL of what Brad said, of course that might blow your argument to peices...
And as to the equally bogus worries about "gaps" between raiders and non raiders, the devs specifically posted that in no way is raiding required for flagging or progress into higher up content...but that might make sense considering VG is intended to be group centric...
...you might have heard that it's an old style game, or only for hard core players, or that it's too challenging and tedious. ...it's our job to get this message out, let you know about this game, and to dispel any inaccurate rumors you may have heard (for example, no, Vanguard is NOT a hard core raiding only game by any stretch of the means).
Brad McQuaid Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes Original Producer & Co-Designer, EverQuest
this game is only for folks who can afford to play 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, otherwise the game mechanics will tell you to "GTFO and DIAF u noob lolololol".
as far as i'm concerned, brad's 100,000 word essay reminds me of hamlet: "the lady doth protest too much, methinks".
this game is only for folks who can afford to play 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, otherwise the game mechanics will tell you to "GTFO and DIAF u noob lolololol".
Whatever. People like you are a complete waste of time to even bother with, you have nothing to base this on, no actual info, no actual game experience, nothing. Every dev remark from the first day VG was announced noted otherwise. Posted mech notes otherwise, listed content notes otherwise.
Originally posted by solymnar (me)"I'm not sure... why you think I want something that I've said over and over on this board that I don't want." is, most definatley, a response to the question, and a rather unequivocal one.
Hardly. If that's what you are implying it would sound like you want all raiding to be struck from the game completely, perhaps all soloing as well and aparently then by default strike out all crafting and diplomacy because it might tempt someone to try a different sphere to get an alternate eqiupement set? If I'm wrong then why don't you explain you're unequivocal responce a little more plainly
If someone says 'so you prefer a game like X' and a I respond with 'I'm not sure why you think I want something I've said before that I don't want', then what I'm implying is that I don't actually prefer a game like X and have stated before that I don't want X. Since that appears to be too complicated for you: I do not prefer game versions where everyone gets the exact same stuff no matter how much or how little effort they put forth, and have told n2sooners that before when he's made similar allegations.
since so far all you've done is say...
When a person with over 600 posts responds to someone with over 800 posts stating that they've said something before, odds are good that it's a reference to a prior discussion.
(me)If you have to participate in ALL the spheres to get ALL of the best gear, and one of the spheres is raiding, then by very basic logic it's clear that you have to participate in raiding. I'm not sure what you're really trying to argue, when what you've just posted clearly supports that if you want to have the best gear in Vanguard, you have to raid.
No, you are perfectly capable of getting a complete set of top end gear and avoiding raiding.
I said "ALL of the best gear" as did you in what I quoted from you. I'm talking about actually getting the best gear and whether raiding is required, not about getting some other set of gear.
If I have a full set of equipment and there is a different peice of equipment out there that would be an alternative with relatively equal value it does not change the point that I have a full set of equivalant but different equipment.
If I have a set of equipment and there is a different peice of equipment that would be BETTER, then I do not have a set of the BEST gear. If person B has a set of different equipment that includes some pieces which are the same and some which are better than what person A has, then person B has a BETTER set of equipment than A, and the use of the word 'equivalent' is rather questionable.
OK fine you don't misinterpret, it's just that simple concepts elude you completely. Its like playing telephone with a boarderline deaf person. If you want to compare it at least do it right. Its not at all your analogy but rather you can choose what store...
It looks like the simple concept of the analogy eluded you completely. Let's try this in the abstract. If I say "To get X you must do C". Responding with "No, to get X you must do A, B, C, and D" does not contradict the claim that "to do X you must have C", indeed it supports it. Listing the items A, B, and D are is irrelevant; they would only be relevant if the original claim was something like "to get X, you only need to do C".
Because you sound like you have personal issues towards the devs and game in general and I'm curious to figure out where it stems from.
Ahh, the 'amateur psychologist' angle; apparently not liking the design of a game or the devs equivocation about it means that one has "personal issues" towards the devs and game.
And in the other post:
(me)You cannot get a complete set of the best gearin the game without raiding, I've already posted a direct quote from Brad saying this and in your previous post you explicitly said that you could not get all of the best gear without participating in ALL spheres, one of which is raiding.
Lets seperate what you keep ramming together. "A complete set" vs. ALL There is enough gear to comprise MANY complete sets. It is WELL possible to get an end game complete set without raiding. It is impossible to get ALL end game gear without raiding or buying a peice that was raided etc. Which is what Brad said but you manage to continually botch up. Do you get it now or does this basic concept still float past you?
There is enough gear to compromise many sets of gear that are inferior to the best set of gear. It is, however, impossible to get a complete set of the best gear without raiding, as I said before. I am not "ramming" things together, I am using multiple words to express a specific meaning. Do you get it now or does this basic concept still float past you?
If you want to call second-rate gear "top tier" then that's fine and dandy, but it's also fair for people to point it out when you do.
Feel free to keep trying to put words in other people's mouths but don't be upset when we repeatedly correct you.
I am not putting words in your mouth, I am using words by their normal definitions instead of by the arbitrary and unusual definitions that you're trying to use.
The biggest obstacle vanguard has to pass to get some good pr and to generate some positive interest from most mmorpg players, its the Vanguard community.
Unfortunately the problem is not the comunity, but the game itself.
Vanguard has been designed from the beginning for the EQ nostalgics. I know that because I was one of the first to sign for the ofiicial forums, and I followed the developement of the Vanguard comunity for all those years. The reason why there are so many EQ followers on the board is the fact that Brad vision was exactly what this audiance was looking for.
It wasn't the people telling Sigil what to do as you might think, but it was Sigil who was describing their future game exactly like the veteran fanbase wanted it. You can't blame those people for complaining about the "new" people who came last and want to change everything, making it more casual friendly, because Vanguard was their dream game and the "invaders" were trying to rob them from their creature. That's why you read lots of "Go and play WOW" or "this game is not for you". Because it is true, this game won't be for the majority of the "new" people who joined the forums.
The reason why most people is disappointed about the Beta is because of this reason, the game has not being designed for them. They don't understand the game as it is. When the game will be released, the majority of the "new" fanbase will be disappointed and will leave, whilst the old EQ veterans will stay. Mark my word.
So it's not the community fault, the problem is the game itself which is designed for a certain audience. You will see that.
There is a simple test to do in order to understand if Vanguard is the game for you:
Will you play a game who is less casual than EQ2, where leveling is slower and more time consuming, bosses more challenging, no insta travel and with an heavy death penalty?
If the answer is yes, then Vanguard is for you. If the answer is not, go and find another game. That's the way it is.
solymnar - I focused too much on the types of content that have generally gated people in games. Most games have to put their best loot in raiding because raiding is really a chore and most people won't do it unless the reward is huge. Raiding is equal to a tedium vs. reward set up.
While there may be group content that has top-tier loot, there will be ZERO content that has top tier loot that isn't hardcore. They've said very clearly that the best loot will require that you take "risks". People who have 4-15 hours to have fun each week don't have an extra 2 hours to gamble away. Entertainment needs to be fun the ENTIRE time and the only time that you should lose from failing a quest or other goal is the time that it takes to get back to that goal (or other small things that are more focused on having a good economy like item decay). There should never be corpse runs, xp loss, item loss, or being forced to not play for a certain amoung of time for a corpse to return.
I know that I've talked aobut this stuff. . . but it is always the part that you snip out of my quotes. Are you not willing to talk about the fact that they are still making a terribly inacessible hardcore game. It's cool that they will reward all playstyles, but people don't want to deal with item loss, xp debt, corpse runs, and other timesinks. Life is too short and there are too many other options.
Originally posted by ste2000 Originally posted by Kem0sabe
The biggest obstacle vanguard has to pass to get some good pr and to generate some positive interest from most mmorpg players, its the Vanguard community.
Unfortunately the problem is not the comunity, but the game itself. Vanguard has been designed from the beginning for the EQ nostalgics. I know that because I was one of the first to sign for the ofiicial forums, and I followed the developement of the Vanguard comunity for all those years. The reason why there are so many EQ followers on the board is the fact that Brad vision was exactly what this audiance was looking for.
It wasn't the people telling Sigil what to do as you might think, but it was Sigil who was describing their future game exactly like the veteran fanbase wanted it. You can't blame those people for complaining about the "new" people who came last and want to change everything, making it more casual friendly, because Vanguard was their dream game and the "invaders" were trying to rob them from their creature. That's why you read lots of "Go and play WOW" or "this game is not for you". Because it is true, this game won't be for the majority of the "new" people who joined the forums. The reason why most people is disappointed about the Beta is because of this reason, the game has not being designed for them. They don't understand the game as it is. When the game will be released, the majority of the "new" fanbase will be disappointed and will leave, whilst the old EQ veterans will stay. Mark my word.
So it's not the community fault, the problem is the game itself which is designed for a certain audience. You will see that.
There is a simple test to do in order to understand if Vanguard is the game for you:
Will you play a game who is less casual than EQ2, where leveling is slower and more time consuming, bosses more challenging, no insta travel and with an heavy death penalty? If the answer is yes, then Vanguard is for you. If the answer is not, go and find another game. That's the way it is.
I see your point, but thats still not an excuse for the remarkable elitist EQ nazi atitude that alot of the members of the Vanguard community have.
Lets be honest, looking at the oficial forums, would you feel confortable grouping/playing with alot of the people that inhabit the forums once the game is released? i for one wouldnt want them in the same continent as me.
At the mininum sign of dissent in the forums, i see posters writing pearls of wisdom such as the ones i quoted before, the "go back to WoW" is the most common, if this is what i can expect from my fellow vanguard players once i buy the game, then ill pass on the whole "omg its 3rd gen mmorpg" thing that sigil is trying to sell me.
Originally posted by Kem0sabe Originally posted by ste2000
At the mininum sign of dissent in the forums, i see posters writing pearls of wisdom such as the ones i quoted before, the "go back to WoW" is the most common, if this is what i can expect from my fellow vanguard players once i buy the game, then ill pass on the whole "omg its 3rd gen mmorpg" thing that sigil is trying to sell me.
I see your point, but one thing I can reassure you is that Vanguard comunity is far away from the L33T generation. Your experience in the game will be the opposite of the one you experience in the forums.
The answers you get in the forums are partly due to the exasperation of the original comunity which are sick of explaining to people asking for the 10.000.000 time, why Vanguard doesn't drop the Death Penalty. When you have hundreds of similar threads and you explain to them why this is not possible (because of Brad vision), people just don't bother anymore and answers with stupid lines like "go and play WoW". But I can assure you that for the first 2 years the "veterans" were more than happy to answer those kind of questions.
The other reasons why you get those kind of answers is because the "veterans" wants to alienate the "new" fans. They don't want people who is continuosly complaining about the game being too hard, to convince the developers to change the game design. They don't want those kind of people playing Vanguard, because of what happened to EQ and SWG. Because of the minority of moaners complayining all the time about wanting the games more easy, SoE kinda met their requasts, upsetting the more traditional players.
What the "veterans" are saying is: "Look, the game is going to have Death Penalty and all this stuff, this is a decision taken by Brad MCQuaid 4 years ago, not by the comunity. If you like the "Vision" you are welcome, if you don't stop moaning, go and find a game which suit you best". You can't really argue with that.
Comments
The biggest obstacle vanguard has to pass to get some good pr and to generate some positive interest from most mmorpg players, its the Vanguard community, the smartest thing sigil could have done was to have no forums at all while the game was beeing developed, and only use forums for the beta testers.
Maybe it will change once vanguard is released and they take down all the "official" forums, but i think the damage already has been done.
All ur Mountain Dew is belong to me.
http://www.vanguardsoh.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1401499#post1401499
Don't forget that most items will be for sale on the open market anyway, so if you don't want to do the big raids (like me) then just buy the bits you want - sure its a hassle but so is doing a raid.
Currently Playing: GW2
Currently Following: Elder Scrolls Online
Games in my wake: Anarchy Online, Archlord (beta), Asherons Call, Asherons Call 2, City of Heroes, Dark Age of Camelot (SI to Catacombs), DDO, EVE Online, EverQuest II (beta), Guild Wars, Horizons, Lineage II,LORTO, Rift, RF Online (beta), RYL, Saga of Ryzon, Shadowbane, Star Wars Galaxies, Vanguard, WAR, WoW
I wish I was wrong. Like you, I bought the "core gamer" mantra hook, line and sinker. That's why I followed the game for years and was once an enthusisatic supporter. In fact, when powergamers would post that Vanguard was for them and them alone, I would correct them and say pretty much what you just said in your response. And if you were right, I would play this game and enjoy it (as I have many other mmos, such as EQ, EQ2, SWG, CoH, CoV, WoW, GW, etc., etc.).
But as has become more clear over time, this "core gamer" concept is misleading. It doesn't mean what you have been led to believe it means. A "core gamer", in reality, is a more akin to a former EQ player who spent 6 years of their life doing nothing but playing EQ all day long who now has had to get a job. They log on 4-6 hours a night now because they have other responsibilities, but when they do log on they play with the raid/powergamer/elite mindset they always did. A core gamer is just a powergamer with less time to play. By this definition, Vanguard is directed to the core player, and if you meet this definition you may enjoy the game. If you don't, I guarantee you that you won't.
If you are not a core gamer by the above definition, will you be able to roll a character and kill some meaningless wandering mobs for some meaningless loot where your character will be absurdly weak to the point the game is a misery? Sure. Just don't confuse claims of "content" with "enjoyable content". If you are not a powergamer by mindset, you will hate this game like hot death on toast. And that is by design, because the Vision (tm), in a nutshell, is the glorification of elite players at the expense of everyone else.
Now, to be clear, I am ok with that. There are a lot of games on the market and there is nothing wrong with having different strokes for different folks. Just because I don't want to play this one doesn't mean there aren't people who will love it. But what galls me is the misleading advertising that Sigil and SOE are spewing these days, where they are creating the false perception that this is a game that casual players, solo players, and people who don't have a lot of time can play and enjoy. That's not true. They are only saying that out of fear that the subscription numbers for this game will mirror the type of game that it actually is, and that's just not enough folks.
Buy Vanguard. Give them $50. Tell me I'm a WoW kiddie and that I don't know what I'm talking about. Just do me one favor. When you get burned, right before you hit "cancel", pause and remember that I told you so.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Very true statement. Particularily 3 months or so ago. Now that the community on the official site is getting rather massive most of the "we hate all things WoW" strings of posts have have either stopped or are equally contested.
In regards to the specific topics however there will be in game maps, and the death penalty actually fluxes, as in different types of death have different penalty...which inherently makes some places considerably more risky.
But yes, much of the VG boards were completely dominated by EQ1 vets many of which were hard core raiders and wanted VG to be the same. Thus its not surprising that many people walked away bitter about being trash talked to and left with the burning impression that VG is hard core raiding only. When beta 5 comes around and the NDA is lifted and some decent previews start coming around perhaps that will be what it takes to "fix" that perception? Who knows.
I rather enjoyed WoW. I guess I understand their version of a core gamer differently. My wife and I have very little time durring a week to play (perhaps 2hrs a day max if we're lucky?). On some weekends we may have time to spend a large chunk here and there. It appears that we'll do fine but that is our impression.
But we'll likely be in beta 5 (since its damn near open beta anyway) and get a feel for it ourselves before spending $50.
I think we'll enjoy the game for at least as long as we enjoyed WoW, and if that's the case then we still had fun...which is kind of the point of a game eh?
>
Well then, if that is your goal then I deeply suggest trying to not misrepresent other people's quotes, add or delete choice words to give a false impression, or draw conclusions that have nothing to do with what was said. The role that raiding plays in the game is 3 times less than grouping. Thus the reason why the devs have said from day one that the game is "group centric".
My guess is that you made a post or two on the official forums a long time ago and a bunch of people railed on you fairly/unfairly and you're still upset about it?
Anyway back to Vanguard
You're choices are to
A) Solo
C) Raid
D) Craft
E) Parlay (diplomacy)
End game content in any of these will yeild top teir rewards. Its that simple. The reality is however between the adventuring spheres, there is three times the grouping content that there is raiding. So most raiders will probably do a lot of grouping content simply because there is vastly more of it. Same with soloers. Why buy a game to only play a small fraction of it (20%)?
Almost all this info is now in the official Vanguard Faq (as baphamet so very kindly posted). You can read it and try to strip individual parts out to twist around but its still there for anyone to read and the end result is still the same.
There is no need to raid to outfit yourself with top end equipment, period.
Raiding is socialist.
A capitalist system reward INDIVIDUAL worth, not a dkp system based on attendancies. Raiding has a 3rd party determined who achieve loot and who doesn't, which is completely independant from efficiency.
A capitalist system would be directly linked to efficiency, and raiding isn't, couldn't.
I don't think you understand the DKP system. DKP is basically money. Players are paid according to how much they work. No one just hands out loot, it is purchased by those who want it and have the most DKP. There are a number of different DKP systems, but they all have one thing in common, those who do the most work end up with the most rewards.
A system where those who do very little are rewarded the same as those who do a lot is a socialst system. So those who want the same reward even though they have very little play time are the one's with the socialist attitudes, not those who believe you should be rewarded more for doing more.
Raiding is socialist.
A capitalist system reward INDIVIDUAL worth, not a dkp system based on attendancies. Raiding has a 3rd party determined who achieve loot and who doesn't, which is completely independant from efficiency.
A capitalist system would be directly linked to efficiency, and raiding isn't, couldn't.
I don't think you understand the DKP system. DKP is basically money. Players are paid according to how much they work. No one just hands out loot, it is purchased by those who want it and have the most DKP. There are a number of different DKP systems, but they all have one thing in common, those who do the most work end up with the most rewards.
A system where those who do very little are rewarded the same as those who do a lot is a socialst system. So those who want the same reward even though they have very little play time are the one's with the socialist attitudes, not those who believe you should be rewarded more for doing more.
Doesn't a good loyal guild member showup without having to be paid?
Raiding is socialist.
A capitalist system reward INDIVIDUAL worth, not a dkp system based on attendancies. Raiding has a 3rd party determined who achieve loot and who doesn't, which is completely independant from efficiency.
A capitalist system would be directly linked to efficiency, and raiding isn't, couldn't.
I don't think you understand the DKP system. DKP is basically money. Players are paid according to how much they work. No one just hands out loot, it is purchased by those who want it and have the most DKP. There are a number of different DKP systems, but they all have one thing in common, those who do the most work end up with the most rewards.
A system where those who do very little are rewarded the same as those who do a lot is a socialst system. So those who want the same reward even though they have very little play time are the one's with the socialist attitudes, not those who believe you should be rewarded more for doing more.
Doesn't a good loyal guild member showup without having to be paid?
Its too late for that point. Guild members DO get paid (ie. they get items). The games are designed to "pay" people. The apple has already been bitten so to speak.
i think he means that dkp rewards people that just show up for raids, if they were there for the boss kill they get dkp. he seems to think that you can just sit there and not be efficient or do your job and still earn dkp and bid on loot.
while that may be true for a unorganized lower quality guild, most good guilds record everything that goes on in the raid (i.e healing or dps done)
it seems Anofalye has had some bad experiences with crappy guilds that let their players just sit there and not do their job efficiently, whats funny is he goes on to assume all guilds are like that and hence his reasons for hating raids....well I'm sure he has other reasons to but that is one of his main arguments.
If you never bother raiding and your gear is plenty good enough to tackle the content you are interested in, would someone else's gear be a moot point? Ignoring that you would still be wrong about high end group content rewards compared to raider rewards.
This is a very big deal. Players don't want to feel like second class citizens to raiders. They didn't play for 500 hours so that their characters can be wimps instead of epic heroes.
Plus, the power difference usually results in a content gap between raiders and non-raiders. The devs have to make content for the suped up uber raiders and the lowlly casuals. The raiders then find it either too easy or the casuals find it utterly impossible and unplayably difficult.
Plus it destroys all competitive play in the game as you need power levels to become uniform (or close to it) at high levels in order for PvP and other competitive play to be a test of skill or the winner of the "competiton" is known before the match has even started. . . like a beauty contest between the head cheerleader and a cafeteria worker.
They aren't making an inclusive, accessible game. They are making a game that tries hard to hide how exclusive and hardcore it really is to dupe normal players into playing it. The thing is, normal players have other games to choose from where they can be the heroes and don't have to play second-fiddle to raiders.
They have a rabid base of players that salivate for hardcore play, but I've seen this behavior over and over with various guild members. They scream for hardcore play, but when they actually encounter it they spit it out like Valentine's chocolates. . . the ones with the creamy pink goo that taste like assberries - not the yummy caramel and nut filled ones.
What we are seeing now are half-measures to try to get normal players to be attracted to the game, but even if the PR move succeeds, they won't be able to keep normal players playing if these players do not get rewards because they hate the hardcore design of Vanguard and choose to avoid it (thus getting less reward).
Other games are learning to throw away risk vs. reward. Risk sucks. I don't want to gamble my entertainment time away with the game designer because I have other stuff to do. The stake, which is my play time, is becoming an increasingly precious coin and there are tons of places where I can spend it where I am not forced to gamble. Instead of "risk vs. reward" many new MMOs are replacing this, at least in part, with "challenge (or difficulty) vs. reward".
Gratz dink, you are now at the same level as pant.
The only power difference in raiders and groupers will be if someone plays more regularly and spends more time aquiring gear/wealth to buy gear/etc. then they will have more of it. Raiders and groupers will get different types of high end gear but its the same teir/power level.
Or to put it differently, if there was no raiding at all...then it still won't change the point that some people will put in rediculous hours and aquire more gear than others.
AKA players who spend more time playing will have better gear. Doesn't matter if they raid/group/craft/parlay. If you have issues with that notion GW is ready when you are because there is not a single MMO out there that doesn't have this scenario short of guildwars where there are 3-4 types of identical high end gear sets per a class.
Don't get me wrong, i rather enjoy GW, but on the same note if I play a subscription fee MMORPG that has the EXACT same gear rewards for top teir no matter what I do I'll yack from the sheer overwhelming blandness.
I better damn well get a different loot table from a long grouping quest than what the end game crafters are making. Which fortunately is the case with VG.
If you can't understand the idea that players can get a complete set of top teir gear without raiding then you are either hopeless or intentionally blind because if you acknowledge this you case holds no water...my bet is on the latter.
Oh but wait...what am I thinking? These are CLEARLY half measures and a PR stunt to trick people into thinking that VG is group centric...er...no...wait a sec...the devs announced VG as being a group centric design from DAY ONE. Perhaps you're just REALLY REALLY good at sticking your fingers in your ears and stomping your feet while screaming like a banchee for years on end?
Which is odd because you even mannaged to acknowledge that there are several people on the official forums who complained that VG didn't sound "hard core" enough for them...to which the devs responded "we've always said the game is group centric, we'll have raid content but it is not the focus of the gameplay".
The same "hard core" people said "no maps, no corpse threads" to which the devs replied "we will have in game maps, you can choose not to use them, we will have in game corpse threads, the world is simply huge and that combined with tall grass, massive dungeons among other things makes it too difficult to find your corpse sometimes, still you can choose to turn it off if you like".
You can say that some of the people want the game to be hard core with a free pair of electrodes that shock your nipples every time to get hit but the reality is that the devs have more or less been sticking to their guns and makeing a group centric average player game. That's what they've said from the start, it's what they are still saying. But it will be easy enough to see who is actually following up on the game itself...and who is speculating out their rears soon enough eh?
Because you make so much sense in the logic that the devs want to "trick" a few extra people into making a few quick bucks and earn a bad rep as opposed to having a good launch with an honest rep and keeping long term subs?
"I know! Lets lie to everyone because that will REALLY help us establish a solid base for our company for future development!" Sure, that makes great sense...oh wait...no it doesn't.
He has, as of this moment, 833 posts to this forum. You might want to think whether he might have told something on this topic in one of them.
"I'm not sure... why you think I want something that I've said over and over on this board that I don't want." is, most definatley, a response to the question, and a rather unequivocal one.
If you have to participate in ALL the spheres to get ALL of the best gear, and one of the spheres is raiding, then by very basic logic it's clear that you have to participate in raiding. I'm not sure what you're really trying to argue, when what you've just posted clearly supports that if you want to have the best gear in Vanguard, you have to raid.
I haven't misinterpreted anything, the word 'grouping' was completely irrelevant. It's like if I said 'you need flour to bake a cake' and you said 'that's not true, you need eggs, butter, sugar, and flour to bake a cake'. I haven't made claims like 'you can get the best gear by only raiding' or 'you will not need to group to get the best gear' to which the 'grouping' part would be relevant.
Your guess is wrong, as I've never even registered on the official forums, much less posted there. I'm not really clear on how your guesses about events that you think happened on other forums are relevant to this conversation, but I don't really expect you to justify it.
You cannot get a complete set of the best gear in the game without raiding, I've already posted a direct quote from Brad saying this and in your previous post you explicitly said that you could not get all of the best gear without participating in ALL spheres, one of which is raiding. If you want to call second-rate gear "top tier" then that's fine and dandy, but it's also fair for people to point it out when you do.
You cannot get a complete set of the best gear in the game without raiding, I've already posted a direct quote from Brad saying this and in your previous post you explicitly said that you could not get all of the best gear without participating in ALL spheres, one of which is raiding. If you want to call second-rate gear "top tier" then that's fine and dandy, but it's also fair for people to point it out when you do.
Lets seperate what you keep ramming together. "A complete set" vs. ALL
There is enough gear to comprise MANY complete sets. It is WELL possible to get an end game complete set without raiding. It is impossible to get ALL end game gear without raiding or buying a peice that was raided etc. Which is what Brad said but you manage to continually botch up. Do you get it now or does this basic concept still float past you?
Top teir is end game gear, the only thing that gets better is end game multisphere. Which is "Thee best" and you can still avoid raiding for a set of it. But you will have to either participate in diplomacy and crafting directly or have friends who do so and are willing to give or sell you the results to combine with your rewards from end game grouping. And it will take A LOT of time and effort.
Second rate is non end game. Feel free to keep trying to put words in other people's mouths but don't be upset when we repeatedly correct you. It would be a lot easier if you simply read ALL of what Brad said, of course that might blow your argument to peices...
And as to the equally bogus worries about "gaps" between raiders and non raiders, the devs specifically posted that in no way is raiding required for flagging or progress into higher up content...but that might make sense considering VG is intended to be group centric...
this game is only for folks who can afford to play 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, otherwise the game mechanics will tell you to "GTFO and DIAF u noob lolololol".
as far as i'm concerned, brad's 100,000 word essay reminds me of hamlet: "the lady doth protest too much, methinks".
Whatever. People like you are a complete waste of time to even bother with, you have nothing to base this on, no actual info, no actual game experience, nothing. Every dev remark from the first day VG was announced noted otherwise. Posted mech notes otherwise, listed content notes otherwise.
This is like arguing with a wall of ignorance.
Done with this thread.
If someone says 'so you prefer a game like X' and a I respond with 'I'm not sure why you think I want something I've said before that I don't want', then what I'm implying is that I don't actually prefer a game like X and have stated before that I don't want X. Since that appears to be too complicated for you: I do not prefer game versions where everyone gets the exact same stuff no matter how much or how little effort they put forth, and have told n2sooners that before when he's made similar allegations.
When a person with over 600 posts responds to someone with over 800 posts stating that they've said something before, odds are good that it's a reference to a prior discussion.
I said "ALL of the best gear" as did you in what I quoted from you. I'm talking about actually getting the best gear and whether raiding is required, not about getting some other set of gear.
If I have a set of equipment and there is a different peice of equipment that would be BETTER, then I do not have a set of the BEST gear. If person B has a set of different equipment that includes some pieces which are the same and some which are better than what person A has, then person B has a BETTER set of equipment than A, and the use of the word 'equivalent' is rather questionable.
It looks like the simple concept of the analogy eluded you completely. Let's try this in the abstract. If I say "To get X you must do C". Responding with "No, to get X you must do A, B, C, and D" does not contradict the claim that "to do X you must have C", indeed it supports it. Listing the items A, B, and D are is irrelevant; they would only be relevant if the original claim was something like "to get X, you only need to do C".
Ahh, the 'amateur psychologist' angle; apparently not liking the design of a game or the devs equivocation about it means that one has "personal issues" towards the devs and game.
And in the other post:
There is enough gear to compromise many sets of gear that are inferior to the best set of gear. It is, however, impossible to get a complete set of the best gear without raiding, as I said before. I am not "ramming" things together, I am using multiple words to express a specific meaning. Do you get it now or does this basic concept still float past you?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=second-rate&x=0&y=0
I am not putting words in your mouth, I am using words by their normal definitions instead of by the arbitrary and unusual definitions that you're trying to use.
Unfortunately the problem is not the comunity, but the game itself.
Vanguard has been designed from the beginning for the EQ nostalgics.
I know that because I was one of the first to sign for the ofiicial forums, and I followed the developement of the Vanguard comunity for all those years.
The reason why there are so many EQ followers on the board is the fact that Brad vision was exactly what this audiance was looking for.
It wasn't the people telling Sigil what to do as you might think, but it was Sigil who was describing their future game exactly like the veteran fanbase wanted it.
You can't blame those people for complaining about the "new" people who came last and want to change everything, making it more casual friendly, because Vanguard was their dream game and the "invaders" were trying to rob them from their creature.
That's why you read lots of "Go and play WOW" or "this game is not for you". Because it is true, this game won't be for the majority of the "new" people who joined the forums.
The reason why most people is disappointed about the Beta is because of this reason, the game has not being designed for them. They don't understand the game as it is.
When the game will be released, the majority of the "new" fanbase will be disappointed and will leave, whilst the old EQ veterans will stay.
Mark my word.
So it's not the community fault, the problem is the game itself which is designed for a certain audience.
You will see that.
There is a simple test to do in order to understand if Vanguard is the game for you:
Will you play a game who is less casual than EQ2, where leveling is slower and more time consuming, bosses more challenging, no insta travel and with an heavy death penalty?
If the answer is yes, then Vanguard is for you. If the answer is not, go and find another game.
That's the way it is.
generally gated people in games. Most games have to put their best
loot in raiding because raiding is really a chore and most people won't
do it unless the reward is huge. Raiding is equal to a tedium vs.
reward set up.
While there may be group content that has top-tier loot, there will be
ZERO content that has top tier loot that isn't hardcore. They've said
very clearly that the best loot will require that you take "risks".
People who have 4-15 hours to have fun each week don't have an extra 2
hours to gamble away. Entertainment needs to be fun the ENTIRE time
and the only time that you should lose from failing a quest or other
goal is the time that it takes to get back to that goal (or other small
things that are more focused on having a good economy like item
decay). There should never be corpse runs, xp loss, item loss, or
being forced to not play for a certain amoung of time for a corpse to
return.
I know that I've talked aobut this stuff. . . but it is always the
part that you snip out of my quotes. Are you not willing to talk about
the fact that they are still making a terribly inacessible hardcore
game. It's cool that they will reward all playstyles, but people don't
want to deal with item loss, xp debt, corpse runs, and other
timesinks. Life is too short and there are too many other options.
Originally posted by Kem0sabe
The biggest
obstacle vanguard has to pass to get some good pr and to generate some
positive interest from most mmorpg players, its the Vanguard community.
Unfortunately the problem is not the comunity, but the game itself.
Vanguard has been designed from the beginning for the EQ nostalgics.
I
know that because I was one of the first to sign for the ofiicial
forums, and I followed the developement of the Vanguard comunity for
all those years.
The reason why there are so many EQ followers on
the board is the fact that Brad vision was exactly what this audiance
was looking for.
It wasn't the people telling Sigil what to do
as you might think, but it was Sigil who was describing their future
game exactly like the veteran fanbase wanted it.
You can't blame
those people for complaining about the "new" people who came last and
want to change everything, making it more casual friendly, because
Vanguard was their dream game and the "invaders" were trying to rob
them from their creature.
That's why you read lots of "Go and play
WOW" or "this game is not for you". Because it is true, this game won't
be for the majority of the "new" people who joined the forums.
The reason why most people is disappointed about the Beta is because
of this reason, the game has not being designed for them. They don't
understand the game as it is.
When the game will be released, the
majority of the "new" fanbase will be disappointed and will leave,
whilst the old EQ veterans will stay.
Mark my word.
So it's not the community fault, the problem is the game itself which is designed for a certain audience.
You will see that.
There is a simple test to do in order to understand if Vanguard is the game for you:
Will
you play a game who is less casual than EQ2, where leveling is slower
and more time consuming, bosses more challenging, no insta travel and
with an heavy death penalty?
If the answer is yes, then Vanguard is for you. If the answer is not, go and find another game.
That's the way it is.
I see your point, but thats still not an excuse for the remarkable elitist EQ nazi atitude that alot of the members of the Vanguard community have.
Lets be honest, looking at the oficial forums, would you feel confortable grouping/playing with alot of the people that inhabit the forums once the game is released? i for one wouldnt want them in the same continent as me.
At the mininum sign of dissent in the forums, i see posters writing pearls of wisdom such as the ones i quoted before, the "go back to WoW" is the most common, if this is what i can expect from my fellow vanguard players once i buy the game, then ill pass on the whole "omg its 3rd gen mmorpg" thing that sigil is trying to sell me.
All ur Mountain Dew is belong to me.
Your experience in the game will be the opposite of the one you experience in the forums.
The answers you get in the forums are partly due to the exasperation of the original comunity which are sick of explaining to people asking for the 10.000.000 time, why Vanguard doesn't drop the Death Penalty.
When you have hundreds of similar threads and you explain to them why this is not possible (because of Brad vision), people just don't bother anymore and answers with stupid lines like "go and play WoW".
But I can assure you that for the first 2 years the "veterans" were more than happy to answer those kind of questions.
The other reasons why you get those kind of answers is because the "veterans" wants to alienate the "new" fans. They don't want people who is continuosly complaining about the game being too hard, to convince the developers to change the game design.
They don't want those kind of people playing Vanguard, because of what happened to EQ and SWG.
Because of the minority of moaners complayining all the time about wanting the games more easy, SoE kinda
met their requasts, upsetting the more traditional players.
What the "veterans" are saying is: "Look, the game is going to have Death Penalty and all this stuff, this is a decision taken by Brad MCQuaid 4 years ago, not by the comunity. If you like the "Vision" you are welcome, if you don't stop moaning, go and find a game which suit you best".
You can't really argue with that.