Originally posted by sebbonx Originally posted by ste2000 Originally posted by sebbonx It's real easy, make a raid and non-raid server. I predict more people hate raiding then like it and the raid server has a puny population. Thats why raiders hate the idea. BTW, I believe there are ten times as many people that despise raids and raiders, prove me wrong...your opinion that more wants raids is not supported by any hard data.
And your is?
Stop being hypocrite pls. You made the BS statement first, now back it up with some hard data! Just like EQ is way fricken easier then WoW, I posted my playtime, and some iodiot says WoW characters level faster. He has no names, no server, and it's all BS. PRINT THE PROOF OR STICK THE STATEMENT IN THE STINK WHERE IT BELONGS! My 12 days played are there for all to see, 12 days to 63rd and 10AA's plus the Emp key, heck now FoH people are doing it even faster on new servers, just admit you sucked at EQ thats why it was such a chore for you. Now show me hard data that raiders out-number non-raiders, and WoW is easier to level. Both statements are complete lies.
Dude, think about it. Your talking about power leveling vs actual game play. Yeah if you have the support staff you can be twinked and PL'd to 50 in a few weeks. But if you were to start and simply play as we did in WoW... we found ourselves lvl 50 in no time.
I didn't know anyone. I didn't have uber gear. I just played and before I knew it I was lvl 50 in just under 5 weeks ..! WoW is that easy.
Yeah, you have 288 hours on your lvl 63 toon. So if you played him 40 hours a week, it took you just over 7 weeks to get 63.
Originally posted by Seths There are 3 spheres and only 1 of which is a combat class. That means 2/3 or a majority of the game revolves around non-combat.
That's one way of looking at it. But I'm not sure it's accurate.
For example, if you counted up all the monsters and all of the trees and shrubbery in the game, you could say the game was some ratio of monsters to shrubbery. But I think that would overlook the fact that vastly more players will be (and game design will encourage them to be) much more concerned with monsters than shrubbery.
Yes people will craft. Yes people will engage in diplomacy. An overwhelmingly larger number of people will adventure. And within the adventuring sphere, only 20% (if that numeber is even accurate) is solo content.
I don't fault Sigil for having crafting and diplomacy. But I also don't accept it as a substitute for a robust adventuring sphere that is fun for every style of play.
OK... *confused*
I'm missing your point here. Whats a substitute..?
(edit: you still havn't answered me)
You say Substitute, but you havn't defined whatsisbeing substituted for what... define your rhetoric plz..!
Originally posted by Amathe I don't fault Sigil for having crafting and diplomacy. But I also don't accept it as a substitute for a robust adventuring sphere that is fun for every style of play.
Name one game that does have a robust adventuring sphere that is fun for every style of play. If you say WoW then you have proved my point. When you try and be all games to all people you have watered down crap. If not WoW then what game? Can't wait to hear about it.
Originally posted by anarchyart Originally posted by Amathe I don't fault Sigil for having crafting and diplomacy. But I also don't accept it as a substitute for a robust adventuring sphere that is fun for every style of play.
Name one game that does have a robust adventuring sphere that is fun for every style of play. If you say WoW then you have proved my point. When you try and be all games to all people you have watered down crap. If not WoW then what game? Can't wait to hear about it.
7 million people have played WoW. That includes hard core raiders (for example, Fires of Heaven went there, you may recall), a ton of casual players, and everything in between. So while you may not like that game, and while you may think your point is proven, the numbers say otherwise. PvEers play it. PvPers play it. It has broad appeal. Ask a raider what game they are playing now, and most of them will tell you WoW, despite its strong casual appeal.
Another example is EQ1. That was a raid friendly game, but I (as a casual player mostly) enjoyed that game very much. I knew people of every playstyle imaginable who liked that game. Unfortunately the expansions tended to emphasize raiding over everything else, and eventually screwed it up. But for a while, that would be a good example.
By the way, since you say WoW is so easy, let's see a verifiable screenshot of your character and what he's wearing.
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 Amathe 7 million people have played WoW. That includes hard core raiders (for example, Fires of Heaven went there, you may recall), a ton of casual players, and everything in between. So while you may not like that game, and while you may think your point is proven, the numbers say otherwise. PvEers play it. PvPers play it. It has broad appeal. Ask a raider what game they are playing now, and most of them will tell you WoW, despite its strong casual appeal. Another example is EQ1. That was a raid friendly game, but I (as a casual player mostly) enjoyed that game very much. I knew people of every playstyle imaginable who liked that game. Unfortunately the expansions tended to emphasize raiding over everything else, and eventually screwed it up. But for a while, that would be a good example. By the way, since you say WoW is so easy, let's see a verifiable screenshot of your character and what he's wearing.
Ok ok, don't get into a tizzy. Your point is made, as was mine. I was a bit harsh on WoW, but it's indeed a superior game. People do get sick of it at a rapid rate, but this happens in all games. I got to level 55 in WoW and grew tired of the 15 minute gryffon rides to get to a levelling place. It's a great game and I have a great many memories from it, but it is a tad, umm, how shall I say it, generic?
It is probably the best MMORPG ever made so far at being all things to all people. The subscriber numbers just don't lie. However I thirst for a game that is difficult to level and progress in. I think we can both agree that you can solo to level 60 in WoW, should you have the time. Wingbane, a hunter on a server I played on, solo'd to level 60 in 16 days when the server was brand new. That's just too fast in my humbly sainted opinion.
Great thing about WoW was you could solo elite mobs and get a decent drop. That was fun stuff while it lasted. I don't think this will be as much the case in Vanguard, but you will be able to solo experience giving mobs. Now we know that the focus in Vanguard will be largely grouping, but I'm hoping you can still get some decent loot soloing as sometimes I like to solo while waiting for a good group. We shall see, but I will enjoy it even if you can't.
The whole raiding arguement is a loaded one. You yourself are a great fan of Wow as I now know, which includes a great amount of raiding, particularly at the highest level. Yet you condemn Vanguard for having raiding too? Isn't this a bit too self-serving and hypocritical? I am not telling you are a hypocrite, I am asking as I don't know your true stance against Vanguard. Maybe you just think it isn't solo friendly enough? If that's the case, I agree. It won't be as solo friendly as WoW. But for that you have WoW, so why put such a hate on Vanguard?
You yourself are a great fan of Wow as I now know, which includes a great amount of raiding, particularly at the highest level. Yet you condemn Vanguard for having raiding too? Isn't this a bit too self-serving and hypocritical? I am not telling you are a hypocrite, I am asking as I don't know your true stance against Vanguard. Maybe you just think it isn't solo friendly enough? If that's the case, I agree. It won't be as solo friendly as WoW. But for that you have WoW, so why put such a hate on Vanguard?
In WoW you can solo, have fun, and have nice things. You can group, have fun, and have nicer things. You can raid, have fun, and have still nicer things. No matter what you do, no matter what your playstyle, you can still feel like a hero and you can still have enjoyable adventures.
Vanguard is different. If you solo your leveling will be slow, defeatable foes and completable quests will be limited, and your gear will suck. If you duo or trio, maybe a little better. In order to really have fun, feel like a hero, and have respectable, useful gear, you need to engage in full group encounters or raid.
The difference, and it is a HUGE difference, is that while WoW will not make available the best stuff in the game to soloers and small groupers, it doesn't punish them for their chosen playstyle. They will still be effective and they will still get nice rewards.
I have a fundamental objection to a game where only certain players can feel good about their characters, and the rest feel gimped. It isn't necessary to do that. You can reward whatever you choose to reward, and encourage whatever you wish to encourage, and still have rankings/hierachies, etc., without going that extra step and making peasants out of the other folks.
There are folks in WoW who have much better gear than me. There were folks in EQ who had much better gear than me. No problem. Never bothered me. Nor does it, or did it ever, bother me how they got it. But that's because I wasn't relegated to killing wandering vermin, which would ensure that never for one waking moment could I forget my weakness.
I don't mind the challenges. I don't mind the timesinks. I don't mind the penalties. I don't care about any of that. What I don't like is a game design where you will play the way Brad wants, or else you will be permagimped.
That is the difference between Vanguard and the other games I mentioned. I don't expect you to agree with me, but can you at least acknowledge that you understand what I have been trying to say?
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I do not Like raiding. I have done it and I try to avoid it in most cases. I do enjoy soloing sometimes but my preferred game play is small groups.
I do not however, feel that Raiding has no place in a game. I think it should be there for people who enjoy it. There are many reason people raid some do it because they need that uber Item and some do it because they truly enjoy the large group dynamic and some do it for a bit of both I am sure there are many other reasons and many in betweens. I would say a large percentage could care less one way or the other as long as they can peacock around newbie land with there uber gear.
The arguments for and against raiding are extreme and those expressing these extreme opinions both have some valid points while at the same time offer little in the way of a compromise or a solution. In the end, in my opinion, Vanguard is taking a good approach. In order to have ALL the best gear you will have to participate in All the content. In reality that’s not entirely different than most games.. well maybe even more in favor of the casual players as there are options for some top gear without raiding. As apposed to the other item based MMORPGS out and coming out witch limit all the top gear to raiding.
Some have argued that the only true challenge is raiding while others argue that raiding is not challenging at all. I now disagree with both of these points of view I see many challenges within all three common play styles.
Soloing can be very easy if you are grinding out lower level mobs for exp. doing so will result in lower gear but steady exp gain. You can reverse that though and fight even or higher mobs thus increasing the challenge and decreasing the margin of error and in turn increasing the quality of gear.
At this point you truly have to compensate for the weaknesses of your class where you only truly fill one of four primary roles.
Grouping can and is often times very challenging it requires precise coordination between multiple people when fighting in appropriate areas the margin of error is very small thus making it extremely challenging and likewise the loot increases proportionally.
Raiding, in my opinion tends to have a much larger margin of error. In general with larger numbers of people mistakes mean less, it is fact that if someone misses a backstab it likely wont be noticed likewise with a delayed regen or whatever there is always someone to pick up the slack.. there is a bit more challenge in getting all of the people required together and organized and keep them together long enough to get each of them the item(s) being sought. There is also the challenges of maintaining a large guild in general not to mention a “uber” guild with such dominating personalities. There are always fights , and arguments and disagreenments and loot bitches and any number of issues that have to be dealt with that adds to the over all challenge as apposed to just the fight with the boss mob. ( heh. remember all the guilds that fell apart over the velious faction issues). These are the types of challenges that really turn me off of raid guilds .. I deal with enough politics and soap operas in corporate America I don’t need it in my games too…I can only take so much of a ten year old (or people with a ten year old mentality) telling me what to do… though some people do enjoy this aspect of guilds.
So in my opinion each has challenges that appeal to different people. This is one reason I am impressed with what Vanguard is attempting to accomplish. It’s no easy task to address these extreme play styles within a game but I think there approach has great potential. It may not be perfect but no game ever will be perfect to all people. Having some of the best gear available only to raiding is fine as is having some top gear avail through group content, solo content, and crafting.
Even if the crafting requires an Item from a raid drop.. doesn’t meen I have to be the one to get it.. doesn’t mean I even have to be the crafter .. but a crafter can get the item from the raid and the item from the solo drop and the item from the group dungeon and then craft that uber sword that he/she can then sell to me.. I can get that top chest piece from a group encounter and that cape of wonder from the solo content and be perfectly happy. Not to mention that if I chose to I could get that dress of A** kissing from diplomacy and rule there too..
So in conclusion I think there is great potential in this game. It may not be the “end all be all” game to all people but I don’t think excluding any one of these elements will make it that .
Damn there I go again .. sorry for the long winded post.
Originally posted by anarchyart You yourself are a great fan of Wow as I now know, which includes a great amount of raiding, particularly at the highest level. Yet you condemn Vanguard for having raiding too? Isn't this a bit too self-serving and hypocritical? I am not telling you are a hypocrite, I am asking as I don't know your true stance against Vanguard. Maybe you just think it isn't solo friendly enough? If that's the case, I agree. It won't be as solo friendly as WoW. But for that you have WoW, so why put such a hate on Vanguard?
In WoW you can solo, have fun, and have nice things. You can group, have fun, and have nicer things. You can raid, have fun, and have still nicer things. No matter what you do, no matter what your playstyle, you can still feel like a hero and you can still have enjoyable adventures.
Vanguard is different. If you solo your leveling will be slow, defeatable foes and completable quests will be limited, and your gear will suck. If you duo or trio, maybe a little better. In order to really have fun, feel like a hero, and have respectable, useful gear, you need to engage in full group encounters or raid.
The difference, and it is a HUGE difference, is that while WoW will not make available the best stuff in the game to soloers and small groupers, it doesn't punish them for their chosen playstyle. They will still be effective and they will still get nice rewards.
I have a fundamental objection to a game where only certain players can feel good about their characters, and the rest feel gimped. It isn't necessary to do that. You can reward whatever you choose to reward, and encourage whatever you wish to encourage, and still have rankings/hierachies, etc., without going that extra step and making peasants out of the other folks.
There are folks in WoW who have much better gear than me. There were folks in EQ who had much better gear than me. No problem. Never bothered me. Nor does it, or did it ever, bother me how they got it. But that's because I wasn't relegated to killing wandering vermin, which would ensure that never for one waking moment could I forget my weakness.
I don't mind the challenges. I don't mind the timesinks. I don't mind the penalties. I don't care about any of that. What I don't like is a game design where you will play the way Brad wants, or else you will be permagimped.
That is the difference between Vanguard and the other games I mentioned. I don't expect you to agree with me, but can you at least acknowledge that you understand what I have been trying to say?
Amathe, your posts are full of ignorance it's pethetic. What you have said is nothing more than a LIE. Your assumtions or accusation are ludicrous..!
Who has said you need to engage in full group or raids to have decent gear..? Matter-of-fact you don't even need to group to have some of the best gear. You can simply CRAFT it yourself.
Raid lewt in WoW is (IS) better than solo loot. What are you thinking..?
Where do you get that Vanguard is group only... or that only dungeon mobs drop loot..? You making this crap up and have absolutly know idea what your talking about. YOUR LIEING...!
Telon (Vanguards world) is HUGE. You can feel completly happy with the gear you craft or items you find off average mobs. They are rare, but they drop. Guilds will have the best gear because they will be able to pull their resources (crafters and Diplomates & Adventueres) together and trade looted scales and other items to make great gear.
Pixie dust might not seem like an awsome drop... but your a retard if you sell it to a merchent instead of trading it or giving it to a guild crafter, thus getting an awsome crafted item back in return.
Vangaurd is just like EQ was back in 1999. Solo and Group content with a few raidable areas for guilds ready enough to try and tackle those types of encounters.
You don't even sound familiar with Vanguard, try reading the FAQ and/or READ.
Originally posted by Dimitrio I don't want to make this a non raider vs raider thread, well maybe I want to.
My question is, why a non raider would like raid oriented gear, when they clearly are not going to need it for non raid quests, solo and group content?
Amathe the raid gear is not out of the reach of anyone, if you want to raid and don't have enough time you can join a casual raiding guild or a not mandatory raiding guild or alliance is your choice. The raid gear need to be the best even if the assigned is only a 20%, why? because monsters tend to be harder, requires a coordination from more than just one group.
Ok, something in which I agree and this will depend of the way devs do this. Is to let the casual / non raid gear to be good enough to try any group zone with the raid geared players. A good example of a zone that should not exist in Vanguard are zones like Riftseekers sanctum.
In just about every game out there only the MT actually needs raid qualty gear. The rest of the players, raiders and non-raiders alike, want the high qualty gear because gearing up your toon is what most games are about. Needing it never enters the equasion.
The most fascinating thing about popping back into the vanguard board and reading one of the threads about raiding is that you see the exact same thing. About half of the Vanguard fans say that there isn't any need to raid at all, that you'll be equal to raiders even if you don't choose to, while the other half say that raiders absolutely deserve better gear and find various disparaging things to say about nonraiders. And these two groups never argue with each other, just with anyone pointing out the role that raiding will take in Vanguard.
Come on guys, which is it - will someone who doesn't go on a single raid (but spends comprable time on non-raid content) be the equal of the 'leet raider, or will he not and doesn't deserver it anyway? Dev comments, dev choices of who to talk about gameplay with, and other signs all point clearly to the second one, but for some reason the fans seem split, though unwilling to even discuss the matter with each other.
Originally posted by Amathe In WoW you can solo, have fun, and have nice things. You can group, have fun, and have nicer things. You can raid, have fun, and have still nicer things. No matter what you do, no matter what your playstyle, you can still feel like a hero and you can still have enjoyable adventures. Vanguard is different. If you solo your leveling will be slow, defeatable foes and completable quests will be limited, and your gear will suck. If you duo or trio, maybe a little better. In order to really have fun, feel like a hero, and have respectable, useful gear, you need to engage in full group encounters or raid. The difference, and it is a HUGE difference.
Amathe til what lvl did u play WoW to?
I am one of those raiders who played WOW. I played for 1 year and I have 3 lvl 60.
First of all WoW is divided in 2 games. Level 1 to lvl 59 is all about soloing and grouping. Indeed what you are saying is true, everyone can have the best equipment because the first 59 lvl don't include hardcore raiding.
The second part of the game start at lvl 60 and ends...........well at 60. This level is only about raiding and PVPing. The only way to get the best equipment is either Raiding or PVPing, if u don't believe me go and have a look at WOW official website and check the "Armor Sets" link, you will find out that none of them, xcept for the Tier 1, comes from grouping.
To be honest I played WOW for the Solo content, I wasn't even expecting that at lvl 60 there was so much raiding involved. And to be completely honest the best of WOW is the first 59 levels, because raiding in WoW is pretty easy and superficial. But all those 7.000.000 people you are talking about decided to put up with the raiding, regardless what people like Anofalye says that people is disgusted by it, and therefore voiding his reasosns to complaing about it so much and in such a intollerant way.
So my point is that is not true your statment which says that WOW gives everyone the chance to get the same equipment, while Vanguard doesn't, it would be true if people stops playing at 59. Actually it is the opposite. Vanguard will give to group and solo people the chance to get 80% of the best equipment available in game, even if you refused to raid, and even at high levels. Also in Vanguard you can get Equipment from other spheres too, crafting and Diplomacy.
WOW is the game that FORCE everyone to raid if they want to get the best Equipment. Vanguard will FORCE players to dedicate just 20% of their time to raids. So let's start to put things into perspective pls.
Originally posted by ste2000 Originally posted by Amathe In WoW you can solo, have fun, and have nice things. You can group, have fun, and have nicer things. You can raid, have fun, and have still nicer things. No matter what you do, no matter what your playstyle, you can still feel like a hero and you can still have enjoyable adventures. Vanguard is different. If you solo your leveling will be slow, defeatable foes and completable quests will be limited, and your gear will suck. If you duo or trio, maybe a little better. In order to really have fun, feel like a hero, and have respectable, useful gear, you need to engage in full group encounters or raid. The difference, and it is a HUGE difference.
So my point is that is not true your statment which says that WOW gives everyone the chance to get the same equipment, while Vanguard doesn't, it would be true if people stops playing at 59. I didn't say WoW gives everyone the chance to get the same equipment. The portion of my post that you quoted shows I didn't say that. And in answer to your question, I have multiple level 60 characters (though I'm not sure why that matters).
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 Amathe In WoW you can solo, have fun, and have nice things. You can group, have fun, and have nicer things. You can raid, have fun, and have still nicer things. No matter what you do, no matter what your playstyle, you can still feel like a hero and you can still have enjoyable adventures.
I do understand your point. However, I believe this will be the case in Vanguard too, just on a different scale. They showed one uber armor set on a post I read. One piece was made by crafting, one was attainable through soloing, one through grouping and one through raiding. I believe the helm was soloable. So you'll still be able to get some uber stuff from soloing, but if you want every part of a set you will likely have to participate in all spheres.
Originally posted by anarchyart Originally posted by Amathe In WoW you can solo, have fun, and have nice things. You can group, have fun, and have nicer things. You can raid, have fun, and have still nicer things. No matter what you do, no matter what your playstyle, you can still feel like a hero and you can still have enjoyable adventures.
I do understand your point. However, I believe this will be the case in Vanguard too, just on a different scale. They showed one uber armor set on a post I read. One piece was made by crafting, one was attainable through soloing, one through grouping and one through raiding. I believe the helm was soloable. So you'll still be able to get some uber stuff from soloing, but if you want every part of a set you will likely have to participate in all spheres.
I don't think this is so unreasonable, do you?
First let me thank you for having a civil discussion with me about the issues.
Answering your question would require condideration of drops rates and spawn rates.
You can take a handful of solo mobs, make then rare spawns, scatter them around the world and give them a .003% drop rate on their rare item. Technically speaking, it is now possible for a solo, non-raiding player to have uber gear (in a lotto, chances of being struck by lightening sort of way). You can also have world drops where any mob of a certain level has a .00005% chance of dropping something spectacular. Now you can say that solo players can get really good gear.
But does that fairly depict what solo players will actually be getting? I think that you would have to look at the frequency with which one playstyle has access to nice items versus the frequency with which another playstyle has access to nice items. It isn't enough to talk about theoretical possibilities.
So far as crafting goes, it depends on the source of the materials. Let's say a crafter can make an uber plate helm. So far, so good. What did he make it from? If he made it from x, y, z (all of which do not require raiding) and oh yeah, a scale from a DRAGON that lives at the bottom of some raid zone, I would argue that crafting is not an alternative to raiding - it's raiding plus some other stuff.
If what you say is accurate then maybe someday I would consider reevaluating my position on the game. But I presently don't believe (and you can read, for example, what Brad said about gear drops in the stickied truth thread to see, among other reasons, why I believe this) that solo and many casual players will have much more than subpar gear with the occasional lotto chance of someone getting something decent.
To me, that's overboard. I don't mind some other guy being King Arthur and wielding Excalibur, so long as, to quote General Patton, I'm not left to shovel crap in Louisiana.
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 Amathe Originally posted by anarchyart Originally posted by Amathe In WoW you can solo, have fun, and have nice things. You can group, have fun, and have nicer things. You can raid, have fun, and have still nicer things. No matter what you do, no matter what your playstyle, you can still feel like a hero and you can still have enjoyable adventures.
I do understand your point. However, I believe this will be the case in Vanguard too, just on a different scale. They showed one uber armor set on a post I read. One piece was made by crafting, one was attainable through soloing, one through grouping and one through raiding. I believe the helm was soloable. So you'll still be able to get some uber stuff from soloing, but if you want every part of a set you will likely have to participate in all spheres.
I don't think this is so unreasonable, do you?
First let me thank you for having a civil discussion with me about the issues.
Answering your question would require condideration of drops rates and spawn rates.
You can take a handful of solo mobs, make then rare spawns, scatter them around the world and give them a .003% drop rate on their rare item. Technically speaking, it is now possible for a solo, non-raiding player to have uber gear (in a lotto, chances of being struck by lightening sort of way). You can also have world drops where any mob of a certain level has a .00005% chance of dropping something spectacular. Now you can say that solo players can get really good gear.
But does that fairly depict what solo players will actually be getting? I think that you would have to look at the frequency with which one playstyle has access to nice items versus the frequency with which another playstyle has access to nice items. It isn't enough to talk about theoretical possibilities.
So far as crafting goes, it depends on the source of the materials. Let's say a crafter can make an uber plate helm. So far, so good. What did he make it from? If he made it from x, y, z (all of which do not require raiding) and oh yeah, a scale from a DRAGON that lives at the bottom of some raid zone, I would argue that crafting is not an alternative to raiding - it's raiding plus some other stuff.
If what you say is accurate then maybe someday I would consider reevaluating my position on the game. But I presently don't believe (and you can read, for example, what Brad said about gear drops in the stickied truth thread to see, among other reasons, why I believe this) that solo and many casual players will have much more than subpar gear with the occasional lotto chance of someone getting something decent.
To me, that's overboard. I don't mind some other guy being King Arthur and wielding Excalibur, so long as, to quote General Patton, I'm not left to shovel crap in Louisiana.
And yet if a "soloable" mob has a .0005% chance of dropping some uber loot, he will still be killed 5000% more often than a raid mob...!
Your logic on this matter is extremely ludicrous. You herald WoW as an acceptable way to divide quality of loot, but then do not give Sigil the benifit of the doubt on their game..! Your "troll" posts are inadaquate in lue of somebody actually reading Vanguard's FAQ.
First off, Vanguard is about 4x bigger than all of WoW. With 4x the amount of content. That means that even though "Solable" content will be 40% of their game, it will still have WAY MORE SOLO CONTENT THAN WOW...!
Your arguement is not logical because it keeps changing. Are you suggesting that MMORPG's should not have raid level mobs and content..? Or are you saying that if the do.. the risk vs reward should be less for Raid level mobs than it is for group mobs...?
Originally posted by Pantastic The most fascinating thing about popping back into the vanguard board and reading one of the threads about raiding is that you see the exact same thing. About half of the Vanguard fans say that there isn't any need to raid at all, that you'll be equal to raiders even if you don't choose to, while the other half say that raiders absolutely deserve better gear and find various disparaging things to say about nonraiders. And these two groups never argue with each other, just with anyone pointing out the role that raiding will take in Vanguard. Come on guys, which is it - will someone who doesn't go on a single raid (but spends comprable time on non-raid content) be the equal of the 'leet raider, or will he not and doesn't deserver it anyway? Dev comments, dev choices of who to talk about gameplay with, and other signs all point clearly to the second one, but for some reason the fans seem split, though unwilling to even discuss the matter with each other.
Although I agree with you, I would never have been able to express this reality so well!
The fact they doesn't argue is because L33T raiders are rights and the other are working for propaganda. Vanguard is a game designed, thinked and engenired for raiders and solely for them, non-raiders are welcome to partake but they can't have dessert and they are there to serve as possible recruits to raiding guilds. Non-raiding servers would solves everything...
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
I love your signature Anoflaye. I agree completely; anyone who wants to raid would be happy getting loot that only benefits them inside raids. I also like your stab at the "h4rdc0r3" PvP crowd who think that their PvP fun should be able to infringe on those who don't want it.
Originally posted by Amathe First let me thank you for having a civil discussion with me about the issues. Answering your question would require condideration of drops rates and spawn rates. You can take a handful of solo mobs, make then rare spawns, scatter them around the world and give them a .003% drop rate on their rare item. Technically speaking, it is now possible for a solo, non-raiding player to have uber gear (in a lotto, chances of being struck by lightening sort of way). You can also have world drops where any mob of a certain level has a .00005% chance of dropping something spectacular. Now you can say that solo players can get really good gear. But does that fairly depict what solo players will actually be getting? I think that you would have to look at the frequency with which one playstyle has access to nice items versus the frequency with which another playstyle has access to nice items. It isn't enough to talk about theoretical possibilities. So far as crafting goes, it depends on the source of the materials. Let's say a crafter can make an uber plate helm. So far, so good. What did he make it from? If he made it from x, y, z (all of which do not require raiding) and oh yeah, a scale from a DRAGON that lives at the bottom of some raid zone, I would argue that crafting is not an alternative to raiding - it's raiding plus some other stuff. If what you say is accurate then maybe someday I would consider reevaluating my position on the game. But I presently don't believe (and you can read, for example, what Brad said about gear drops in the stickied truth thread to see, among other reasons, why I believe this) that solo and many casual players will have much more than subpar gear with the occasional lotto chance of someone getting something decent. To me, that's overboard. I don't mind some other guy being King Arthur and wielding Excalibur, so long as, to quote General Patton, I'm not left to shovel crap in Louisiana.
Good stuff and I also thank you for being civil. I would say, now, that I completely agree with you.
I think it would be great if soloers did have a chance to get great drops, even if it was an infinitessimal (sp?) chance. Also, I think a good percentage of craftable items. say 40-50% or so, should be solable. Which is to say, you can solo to get all of the materials.
Now, I'm not going to bash the game or even not play it if this isn't the case. But I do think it would be a better game if there was a viable way to get at least middle tier type gear from soloing.
What I do see happening is sort of a medium of this vision. You will be able to get very decent gear through soloing, but probably as part of multi-faceted quests. Also, I can only assume that most of the crafting items you will need to get through grouping, with the other 40% or so coming from soloing or raiding.
Originally posted by Anofalye The fact they doesn't argue is because L33T raiders are rights and the other are working for propaganda. Vanguard is a game designed, thinked and engenired for raiders and solely for them, non-raiders are welcome to partake but they can't have dessert and they are there to serve as possible recruits to raiding guilds.
I'd say this sounds paranoid, except that every time I bring up the interesting fact that the fans are giving two contradictory stories about the role of raiding in Vanguard they won't even touch the topic. This thread is a good example; the fans will only express disagreement with a non-fan of the game, even when there are fan posts that contradict each other.
Originally posted by Anofalye The fact they doesn't argue is because L33T raiders are rights and the other are working for propaganda. Vanguard is a game designed, thinked and engenired for raiders and solely for them, non-raiders are welcome to partake but they can't have dessert and they are there to serve as possible recruits to raiding guilds.
I'd say this sounds paranoid, except that every time I bring up the interesting fact that the fans are giving two contradictory stories about the role of raiding in Vanguard they won't even touch the topic. This thread is a good example; the fans will only express disagreement with a non-fan of the game, even when there are fan posts that contradict each other.
It IS paranoid, not to mention in contradiction with the english language. Thinked?
Vanguard is designed for the core gamer, i.e. small to full groups. Obviously you are both drinking the conspiracy kool-aid.
As for the contradictory stories going un-mentioned being so interesting I disagree. It's obvious. As obvious as you quoting Anofalye to bring up, yet again, your very same uninteresting point. Raiders and non-raiders who are awaiting Vanguard not getting in each others faces over raiding is blatantly obvious. They like the game for their own reasons and there is no need to vent over a fact which is obviously of no consequence to them. They like the game the way it is being made.
Groupers will have the lions share of content in Vanguard. Period.
Well for me, I do not raid, nor will I. When they make a game, that allows for the same progression for raid, small group and solo, I will be interested. Why does the "best" have to be limited to raid groups? They can make the encounters scale with the group size. If you want to fight an instance with 40 people, it should drop more loot, not be the only way to get the better loot. No one wants to remove raiding. I want to remove raiding as the only way to get the better things. I play mmo's with family and friends. I do not want in a 200 person guild.
What is wrong with encounters that change based on group size?
Originally posted by anarchyart It IS paranoid, not to mention in contradiction with the english language. Thinked?
OMG, a non-native speaker of a language made a minor grammatical error that didn't obscure the meaning of the statement! Quickly, let's mention it!
Vanguard is designed for the core gamer, i.e. small to full groups. Obviously you are both drinking the conspiracy kool-aid.
That's not what people have been arguing in this thread.
As for the contradictory stories going un-mentioned being so interesting I disagree. It's obvious. As obvious as you quoting Anofalye to bring up, yet again, your very same uninteresting point. Raiders and non-raiders who are awaiting Vanguard not getting in each others faces over raiding is blatantly obvious. They like the game for their own reasons and there is no need to vent over a fact which is obviously of no consequence to them. They like the game the way it is being made.
Nope, not a good explanation at all - because both groups say that the game is being made in different, contradictory ways. The core problem is that the game cannot both be setup so that raiding results in better characters than not raiding and that raiding does not result in better characters than not raiding; there's a basic logical contradiction. One group likes the game because they believe it is one way, and the other likes it because they believe it is a different way, yet for some reason they never seek to resolve that dispute.
Groupers will have the lions share of content in Vanguard. Period.
Who exactly has disagreed with that statement? This is a pretty standard dodge from the Vanboys; if someone talks about the role that raiding has in the game, then make an unrelated statement about grouping and pretend that it's a counter to what the person talking about raiding said.
Originally posted by anarchyart It IS paranoid, not to mention in contradiction with the english language. Thinked?
OMG, a non-native speaker of a language made a minor grammatical error that didn't obscure the meaning of the statement! Quickly, let's mention it!
Yeah, and you quoted it like it was some great revelation. Laff.
Vanguard is designed for the core gamer, i.e. small to full groups. Obviously you are both drinking the conspiracy kool-aid.
That's not what people have been arguing in this thread.
Check the title of the thread, friend.
As for the contradictory stories going un-mentioned being so interesting I disagree. It's obvious. As obvious as you quoting Anofalye to bring up, yet again, your very same uninteresting point. Raiders and non-raiders who are awaiting Vanguard not getting in each others faces over raiding is blatantly obvious. They like the game for their own reasons and there is no need to vent over a fact which is obviously of no consequence to them. They like the game the way it is being made.
Nope, not a good explanation at all - because both groups say that the game is being made in different, contradictory ways. The core problem is that the game cannot both be setup so that raiding results in better characters than not raiding and that raiding does not result in better characters than not raiding; there's a basic logical contradiction. One group likes the game because they believe it is one way, and the other likes it because they believe it is a different way, yet for some reason they never seek to resolve that dispute.
Totally is a good explanation and your point, again, is so obvious as to be unnecessary. They don't argue because they both like the game. Give your head a shake.
Groupers will have the lions share of content in Vanguard. Period.
Who exactly has disagreed with that statement? This is a pretty standard dodge from the Vanboys; if someone talks about the role that raiding has in the game, then make an unrelated statement about grouping and pretend that it's a counter to what the person talking about raiding said.
It IS a counter to what Anofalye believes, and likely what you believe. Bitch about raiding all you want, it's only 20% of the game.
Originally posted by anarchyart ]Totally is a good explanation and your point, again, is so obvious as to be unnecessary. They don't argue because they both like the game. Give your head a shake.
Again, it's a bad explanation for a very obvious reason that you keep ignoring. Both sets like what they think the game will be like, but what they think the game will be like is contradictory, the game is not going to be like what some of them think it's like. At this point, it's clear that you're just ignoring this point and hoping that yelling and insulting obscures it - no one capable of typing can really be as clueless as you're acting here.
It becomes more and more clear that the vanboys like you don't really want to discuss the actual game, you just want to hype it for whatever reason. If you wanted to really discuss the game, you'd be willing to discuss basic facts about what role raiding will take in the game without all of the obfuscation. Instead, you simply blather on with as much misdirection as possible, rambling on about things what percent of the game will be raids even though it's irrelevant.
It IS a counter to what Anofalye believes, and likely what you believe. Bitch about raiding all you want, it's only 20% of the game.
Neither Anofalye nor I has claimed that raiding will be more than 20% of the content of the game. Since you're a gibbering fanboy you probably aren't bright enough to make subtle distinctions, but that's too bad for you.
Comments
Stop being hypocrite pls.
You made the BS statement first, now back it up with some hard data! Just like EQ is way fricken easier then WoW, I posted my playtime, and some iodiot says WoW characters level faster. He has no names, no server, and it's all BS. PRINT THE PROOF OR STICK THE STATEMENT IN THE STINK WHERE IT BELONGS! My 12 days played are there for all to see, 12 days to 63rd and 10AA's plus the Emp key, heck now FoH people are doing it even faster on new servers, just admit you sucked at EQ thats why it was such a chore for you. Now show me hard data that raiders out-number non-raiders, and WoW is easier to level. Both statements are complete lies.
Dude, think about it. Your talking about power leveling vs actual game play. Yeah if you have the support staff you can be twinked and PL'd to 50 in a few weeks. But if you were to start and simply play as we did in WoW... we found ourselves lvl 50 in no time.
I didn't know anyone. I didn't have uber gear. I just played and before I knew it I was lvl 50 in just under 5 weeks ..! WoW is that easy.
Yeah, you have 288 hours on your lvl 63 toon. So if you played him 40 hours a week, it took you just over 7 weeks to get 63.
.
.
-Zvorak
That's one way of looking at it. But I'm not sure it's accurate.
For example, if you counted up all the monsters and all of the trees and shrubbery in the game, you could say the game was some ratio of monsters to shrubbery. But I think that would overlook the fact that vastly more players will be (and game design will encourage them to be) much more concerned with monsters than shrubbery.
Yes people will craft. Yes people will engage in diplomacy. An overwhelmingly larger number of people will adventure. And within the adventuring sphere, only 20% (if that numeber is even accurate) is solo content.
I don't fault Sigil for having crafting and diplomacy. But I also don't accept it as a substitute for a robust adventuring sphere that is fun for every style of play.
OK... *confused*
I'm missing your point here. Whats a substitute..?
(edit: you still havn't answered me)
You say Substitute, but you havn't defined whats is being substituted for what... define your rhetoric plz..!
7 million people have played WoW. That includes hard core raiders (for example, Fires of Heaven went there, you may recall), a ton of casual players, and everything in between. So while you may not like that game, and while you may think your point is proven, the numbers say otherwise. PvEers play it. PvPers play it. It has broad appeal. Ask a raider what game they are playing now, and most of them will tell you WoW, despite its strong casual appeal.
Another example is EQ1. That was a raid friendly game, but I (as a casual player mostly) enjoyed that game very much. I knew people of every playstyle imaginable who liked that game. Unfortunately the expansions tended to emphasize raiding over everything else, and eventually screwed it up. But for a while, that would be a good example.
By the way, since you say WoW is so easy, let's see a verifiable screenshot of your character and what he's wearing.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Ok ok, don't get into a tizzy. Your point is made, as was mine. I was a bit harsh on WoW, but it's indeed a superior game. People do get sick of it at a rapid rate, but this happens in all games. I got to level 55 in WoW and grew tired of the 15 minute gryffon rides to get to a levelling place. It's a great game and I have a great many memories from it, but it is a tad, umm, how shall I say it, generic?
It is probably the best MMORPG ever made so far at being all things to all people. The subscriber numbers just don't lie. However I thirst for a game that is difficult to level and progress in. I think we can both agree that you can solo to level 60 in WoW, should you have the time. Wingbane, a hunter on a server I played on, solo'd to level 60 in 16 days when the server was brand new. That's just too fast in my humbly sainted opinion.
Great thing about WoW was you could solo elite mobs and get a decent drop. That was fun stuff while it lasted. I don't think this will be as much the case in Vanguard, but you will be able to solo experience giving mobs. Now we know that the focus in Vanguard will be largely grouping, but I'm hoping you can still get some decent loot soloing as sometimes I like to solo while waiting for a good group. We shall see, but I will enjoy it even if you can't.
The whole raiding arguement is a loaded one. You yourself are a great fan of Wow as I now know, which includes a great amount of raiding, particularly at the highest level. Yet you condemn Vanguard for having raiding too? Isn't this a bit too self-serving and hypocritical? I am not telling you are a hypocrite, I am asking as I don't know your true stance against Vanguard. Maybe you just think it isn't solo friendly enough? If that's the case, I agree. It won't be as solo friendly as WoW. But for that you have WoW, so why put such a hate on Vanguard?
In WoW you can solo, have fun, and have nice things. You can group, have fun, and have nicer things. You can raid, have fun, and have still nicer things. No matter what you do, no matter what your playstyle, you can still feel like a hero and you can still have enjoyable adventures.
Vanguard is different. If you solo your leveling will be slow, defeatable foes and completable quests will be limited, and your gear will suck. If you duo or trio, maybe a little better. In order to really have fun, feel like a hero, and have respectable, useful gear, you need to engage in full group encounters or raid.
The difference, and it is a HUGE difference, is that while WoW will not make available the best stuff in the game to soloers and small groupers, it doesn't punish them for their chosen playstyle. They will still be effective and they will still get nice rewards.
I have a fundamental objection to a game where only certain players can feel good about their characters, and the rest feel gimped. It isn't necessary to do that. You can reward whatever you choose to reward, and encourage whatever you wish to encourage, and still have rankings/hierachies, etc., without going that extra step and making peasants out of the other folks.
There are folks in WoW who have much better gear than me. There were folks in EQ who had much better gear than me. No problem. Never bothered me. Nor does it, or did it ever, bother me how they got it. But that's because I wasn't relegated to killing wandering vermin, which would ensure that never for one waking moment could I forget my weakness.
I don't mind the challenges. I don't mind the timesinks. I don't mind the penalties. I don't care about any of that. What I don't like is a game design where you will play the way Brad wants, or else you will be permagimped.
That is the difference between Vanguard and the other games I mentioned. I don't expect you to agree with me, but can you at least acknowledge that you understand what I have been trying to say?
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I do not Like raiding. I have done it and I try to avoid it in most cases. I do enjoy soloing sometimes but my preferred game play is small groups.
I do not however, feel that Raiding has no place in a game. I think it should be there for people who enjoy it. There are many reason people raid some do it because they need that uber Item and some do it because they truly enjoy the large group dynamic and some do it for a bit of both I am sure there are many other reasons and many in betweens. I would say a large percentage could care less one way or the other as long as they can peacock around newbie land with there uber gear.
The arguments for and against raiding are extreme and those expressing these extreme opinions both have some valid points while at the same time offer little in the way of a compromise or a solution. In the end, in my opinion, Vanguard is taking a good approach. In order to have ALL the best gear you will have to participate in All the content. In reality that’s not entirely different than most games.. well maybe even more in favor of the casual players as there are options for some top gear without raiding. As apposed to the other item based MMORPGS out and coming out witch limit all the top gear to raiding.
Some have argued that the only true challenge is raiding while others argue that raiding is not challenging at all. I now disagree with both of these points of view I see many challenges within all three common play styles.
Soloing can be very easy if you are grinding out lower level mobs for exp. doing so will result in lower gear but steady exp gain. You can reverse that though and fight even or higher mobs thus increasing the challenge and decreasing the margin of error and in turn increasing the quality of gear.
At this point you truly have to compensate for the weaknesses of your class where you only truly fill one of four primary roles.
Grouping can and is often times very challenging it requires precise coordination between multiple people when fighting in appropriate areas the margin of error is very small thus making it extremely challenging and likewise the loot increases proportionally.
Raiding, in my opinion tends to have a much larger margin of error. In general with larger numbers of people mistakes mean less, it is fact that if someone misses a backstab it likely wont be noticed likewise with a delayed regen or whatever there is always someone to pick up the slack.. there is a bit more challenge in getting all of the people required together and organized and keep them together long enough to get each of them the item(s) being sought. There is also the challenges of maintaining a large guild in general not to mention a “uber” guild with such dominating personalities. There are always fights , and arguments and disagreenments and loot bitches and any number of issues that have to be dealt with that adds to the over all challenge as apposed to just the fight with the boss mob. ( heh. remember all the guilds that fell apart over the velious faction issues). These are the types of challenges that really turn me off of raid guilds .. I deal with enough politics and soap operas in corporate America I don’t need it in my games too…I can only take so much of a ten year old (or people with a ten year old mentality) telling me what to do… though some people do enjoy this aspect of guilds.
So in my opinion each has challenges that appeal to different people. This is one reason I am impressed with what Vanguard is attempting to accomplish. It’s no easy task to address these extreme play styles within a game but I think there approach has great potential. It may not be perfect but no game ever will be perfect to all people. Having some of the best gear available only to raiding is fine as is having some top gear avail through group content, solo content, and crafting.
Even if the crafting requires an Item from a raid drop.. doesn’t meen I have to be the one to get it.. doesn’t mean I even have to be the crafter .. but a crafter can get the item from the raid and the item from the solo drop and the item from the group dungeon and then craft that uber sword that he/she can then sell to me.. I can get that top chest piece from a group encounter and that cape of wonder from the solo content and be perfectly happy. Not to mention that if I chose to I could get that dress of A** kissing from diplomacy and rule there too..
So in conclusion I think there is great potential in this game. It may not be the “end all be all” game to all people but I don’t think excluding any one of these elements will make it that .
Damn there I go again .. sorry for the long winded post.
~Aruvia~
In WoW you can solo, have fun, and have nice things. You can group, have fun, and have nicer things. You can raid, have fun, and have still nicer things. No matter what you do, no matter what your playstyle, you can still feel like a hero and you can still have enjoyable adventures.
Vanguard is different. If you solo your leveling will be slow, defeatable foes and completable quests will be limited, and your gear will suck. If you duo or trio, maybe a little better. In order to really have fun, feel like a hero, and have respectable, useful gear, you need to engage in full group encounters or raid.
The difference, and it is a HUGE difference, is that while WoW will not make available the best stuff in the game to soloers and small groupers, it doesn't punish them for their chosen playstyle. They will still be effective and they will still get nice rewards.
I have a fundamental objection to a game where only certain players can feel good about their characters, and the rest feel gimped. It isn't necessary to do that. You can reward whatever you choose to reward, and encourage whatever you wish to encourage, and still have rankings/hierachies, etc., without going that extra step and making peasants out of the other folks.
There are folks in WoW who have much better gear than me. There were folks in EQ who had much better gear than me. No problem. Never bothered me. Nor does it, or did it ever, bother me how they got it. But that's because I wasn't relegated to killing wandering vermin, which would ensure that never for one waking moment could I forget my weakness.
I don't mind the challenges. I don't mind the timesinks. I don't mind the penalties. I don't care about any of that. What I don't like is a game design where you will play the way Brad wants, or else you will be permagimped.
That is the difference between Vanguard and the other games I mentioned. I don't expect you to agree with me, but can you at least acknowledge that you understand what I have been trying to say?
Amathe, your posts are full of ignorance it's pethetic. What you have said is nothing more than a LIE. Your assumtions or accusation are ludicrous..!
Who has said you need to engage in full group or raids to have decent gear..? Matter-of-fact you don't even need to group to have some of the best gear. You can simply CRAFT it yourself.
Raid lewt in WoW is (IS) better than solo loot. What are you thinking..?
Where do you get that Vanguard is group only... or that only dungeon mobs drop loot..? You making this crap up and have absolutly know idea what your talking about. YOUR LIEING...!
Telon (Vanguards world) is HUGE. You can feel completly happy with the gear you craft or items you find off average mobs. They are rare, but they drop. Guilds will have the best gear because they will be able to pull their resources (crafters and Diplomates & Adventueres) together and trade looted scales and other items to make great gear.
Pixie dust might not seem like an awsome drop... but your a retard if you sell it to a merchent instead of trading it or giving it to a guild crafter, thus getting an awsome crafted item back in return.
Vangaurd is just like EQ was back in 1999. Solo and Group content with a few raidable areas for guilds ready enough to try and tackle those types of encounters.
You don't even sound familiar with Vanguard, try reading the FAQ and/or READ.
.
.
-Zvorak
The most fascinating thing about popping back into the vanguard board and reading one of the threads about raiding is that you see the exact same thing. About half of the Vanguard fans say that there isn't any need to raid at all, that you'll be equal to raiders even if you don't choose to, while the other half say that raiders absolutely deserve better gear and find various disparaging things to say about nonraiders. And these two groups never argue with each other, just with anyone pointing out the role that raiding will take in Vanguard.
Come on guys, which is it - will someone who doesn't go on a single raid (but spends comprable time on non-raid content) be the equal of the 'leet raider, or will he not and doesn't deserver it anyway? Dev comments, dev choices of who to talk about gameplay with, and other signs all point clearly to the second one, but for some reason the fans seem split, though unwilling to even discuss the matter with each other.
I am one of those raiders who played WOW.
I played for 1 year and I have 3 lvl 60.
First of all WoW is divided in 2 games.
Level 1 to lvl 59 is all about soloing and grouping.
Indeed what you are saying is true, everyone can have the best equipment because the first 59 lvl don't include hardcore raiding.
The second part of the game start at lvl 60 and ends...........well at 60.
This level is only about raiding and PVPing.
The only way to get the best equipment is either Raiding or PVPing, if u don't believe me go and have a look at WOW official website and check the "Armor Sets" link, you will find out that none of them, xcept for the Tier 1, comes from grouping.
To be honest I played WOW for the Solo content, I wasn't even expecting that at lvl 60 there was so much raiding involved.
And to be completely honest the best of WOW is the first 59 levels, because raiding in WoW is pretty easy and superficial.
But all those 7.000.000 people you are talking about decided to put up with the raiding, regardless what people like Anofalye says that people is disgusted by it, and therefore voiding his reasosns to complaing about it so much and in such a intollerant way.
So my point is that is not true your statment which says that WOW gives everyone the chance to get the same equipment, while Vanguard doesn't, it would be true if people stops playing at 59.
Actually it is the opposite.
Vanguard will give to group and solo people the chance to get 80% of the best equipment available in game, even if you refused to raid, and even at high levels.
Also in Vanguard you can get Equipment from other spheres too, crafting and Diplomacy.
WOW is the game that FORCE everyone to raid if they want to get the best Equipment.
Vanguard will FORCE players to dedicate just 20% of their time to raids.
So let's start to put things into perspective pls.
I didn't say WoW gives everyone the chance to get the same equipment. The portion of my post that you quoted shows I didn't say that. And in answer to your question, I have multiple level 60 characters (though I'm not sure why that matters).
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I do understand your point. However, I believe this will be the case in Vanguard too, just on a different scale. They showed one uber armor set on a post I read. One piece was made by crafting, one was attainable through soloing, one through grouping and one through raiding. I believe the helm was soloable. So you'll still be able to get some uber stuff from soloing, but if you want every part of a set you will likely have to participate in all spheres.
I don't think this is so unreasonable, do you?
I do understand your point. However, I believe this will be the case in Vanguard too, just on a different scale. They showed one uber armor set on a post I read. One piece was made by crafting, one was attainable through soloing, one through grouping and one through raiding. I believe the helm was soloable. So you'll still be able to get some uber stuff from soloing, but if you want every part of a set you will likely have to participate in all spheres.
I don't think this is so unreasonable, do you?
First let me thank you for having a civil discussion with me about the issues.
Answering your question would require condideration of drops rates and spawn rates.
You can take a handful of solo mobs, make then rare spawns, scatter them around the world and give them a .003% drop rate on their rare item. Technically speaking, it is now possible for a solo, non-raiding player to have uber gear (in a lotto, chances of being struck by lightening sort of way). You can also have world drops where any mob of a certain level has a .00005% chance of dropping something spectacular. Now you can say that solo players can get really good gear.
But does that fairly depict what solo players will actually be getting? I think that you would have to look at the frequency with which one playstyle has access to nice items versus the frequency with which another playstyle has access to nice items. It isn't enough to talk about theoretical possibilities.
So far as crafting goes, it depends on the source of the materials. Let's say a crafter can make an uber plate helm. So far, so good. What did he make it from? If he made it from x, y, z (all of which do not require raiding) and oh yeah, a scale from a DRAGON that lives at the bottom of some raid zone, I would argue that crafting is not an alternative to raiding - it's raiding plus some other stuff.
If what you say is accurate then maybe someday I would consider reevaluating my position on the game. But I presently don't believe (and you can read, for example, what Brad said about gear drops in the stickied truth thread to see, among other reasons, why I believe this) that solo and many casual players will have much more than subpar gear with the occasional lotto chance of someone getting something decent.
To me, that's overboard. I don't mind some other guy being King Arthur and wielding Excalibur, so long as, to quote General Patton, I'm not left to shovel crap in Louisiana.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I do understand your point. However, I believe this will be the case in Vanguard too, just on a different scale. They showed one uber armor set on a post I read. One piece was made by crafting, one was attainable through soloing, one through grouping and one through raiding. I believe the helm was soloable. So you'll still be able to get some uber stuff from soloing, but if you want every part of a set you will likely have to participate in all spheres.
I don't think this is so unreasonable, do you?
First let me thank you for having a civil discussion with me about the issues.
Answering your question would require condideration of drops rates and spawn rates.
You can take a handful of solo mobs, make then rare spawns, scatter them around the world and give them a .003% drop rate on their rare item. Technically speaking, it is now possible for a solo, non-raiding player to have uber gear (in a lotto, chances of being struck by lightening sort of way). You can also have world drops where any mob of a certain level has a .00005% chance of dropping something spectacular. Now you can say that solo players can get really good gear.
But does that fairly depict what solo players will actually be getting? I think that you would have to look at the frequency with which one playstyle has access to nice items versus the frequency with which another playstyle has access to nice items. It isn't enough to talk about theoretical possibilities.
So far as crafting goes, it depends on the source of the materials. Let's say a crafter can make an uber plate helm. So far, so good. What did he make it from? If he made it from x, y, z (all of which do not require raiding) and oh yeah, a scale from a DRAGON that lives at the bottom of some raid zone, I would argue that crafting is not an alternative to raiding - it's raiding plus some other stuff.
If what you say is accurate then maybe someday I would consider reevaluating my position on the game. But I presently don't believe (and you can read, for example, what Brad said about gear drops in the stickied truth thread to see, among other reasons, why I believe this) that solo and many casual players will have much more than subpar gear with the occasional lotto chance of someone getting something decent.
To me, that's overboard. I don't mind some other guy being King Arthur and wielding Excalibur, so long as, to quote General Patton, I'm not left to shovel crap in Louisiana.
And yet if a "soloable" mob has a .0005% chance of dropping some uber loot, he will still be killed 5000% more often than a raid mob...!
Your logic on this matter is extremely ludicrous. You herald WoW as an acceptable way to divide quality of loot, but then do not give Sigil the benifit of the doubt on their game..! Your "troll" posts are inadaquate in lue of somebody actually reading Vanguard's FAQ.
First off, Vanguard is about 4x bigger than all of WoW. With 4x the amount of content. That means that even though "Solable" content will be 40% of their game, it will still have WAY MORE SOLO CONTENT THAN WOW...!
Your arguement is not logical because it keeps changing. Are you suggesting that MMORPG's should not have raid level mobs and content..? Or are you saying that if the do.. the risk vs reward should be less for Raid level mobs than it is for group mobs...?
Which is it..?
.
.
-Zvorak
Although I agree with you, I would never have been able to express this reality so well!
The fact they doesn't argue is because L33T raiders are rights and the other are working for propaganda. Vanguard is a game designed, thinked and engenired for raiders and solely for them, non-raiders are welcome to partake but they can't have dessert and they are there to serve as possible recruits to raiding guilds.
Non-raiding servers would solves everything...
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Good stuff and I also thank you for being civil. I would say, now, that I completely agree with you.
I think it would be great if soloers did have a chance to get great drops, even if it was an infinitessimal (sp?) chance. Also, I think a good percentage of craftable items. say 40-50% or so, should be solable. Which is to say, you can solo to get all of the materials.
Now, I'm not going to bash the game or even not play it if this isn't the case. But I do think it would be a better game if there was a viable way to get at least middle tier type gear from soloing.
What I do see happening is sort of a medium of this vision. You will be able to get very decent gear through soloing, but probably as part of multi-faceted quests. Also, I can only assume that most of the crafting items you will need to get through grouping, with the other 40% or so coming from soloing or raiding.
Really not that unreasonable I should think.
I'd say this sounds paranoid, except that every time I bring up the interesting fact that the fans are giving two contradictory stories about the role of raiding in Vanguard they won't even touch the topic. This thread is a good example; the fans will only express disagreement with a non-fan of the game, even when there are fan posts that contradict each other.
I'd say this sounds paranoid, except that every time I bring up the interesting fact that the fans are giving two contradictory stories about the role of raiding in Vanguard they won't even touch the topic. This thread is a good example; the fans will only express disagreement with a non-fan of the game, even when there are fan posts that contradict each other.
It IS paranoid, not to mention in contradiction with the english language. Thinked?
Vanguard is designed for the core gamer, i.e. small to full groups. Obviously you are both drinking the conspiracy kool-aid.
As for the contradictory stories going un-mentioned being so interesting I disagree. It's obvious. As obvious as you quoting Anofalye to bring up, yet again, your very same uninteresting point. Raiders and non-raiders who are awaiting Vanguard not getting in each others faces over raiding is blatantly obvious. They like the game for their own reasons and there is no need to vent over a fact which is obviously of no consequence to them. They like the game the way it is being made.
Groupers will have the lions share of content in Vanguard. Period.
Well for me, I do not raid, nor will I. When they make a game, that allows for the same progression for raid, small group and solo, I will be interested. Why does the "best" have to be limited to raid groups? They can make the encounters scale with the group size. If you want to fight an instance with 40 people, it should drop more loot, not be the only way to get the better loot. No one wants to remove raiding. I want to remove raiding as the only way to get the better things. I play mmo's with family and friends. I do not want in a 200 person guild.
What is wrong with encounters that change based on group size?
ruat caelum
OMG, a non-native speaker of a language made a minor grammatical error that didn't obscure the meaning of the statement! Quickly, let's mention it!
That's not what people have been arguing in this thread.
Nope, not a good explanation at all - because both groups say that the game is being made in different, contradictory ways. The core problem is that the game cannot both be setup so that raiding results in better characters than not raiding and that raiding does not result in better characters than not raiding; there's a basic logical contradiction. One group likes the game because they believe it is one way, and the other likes it because they believe it is a different way, yet for some reason they never seek to resolve that dispute.
Who exactly has disagreed with that statement? This is a pretty standard dodge from the Vanboys; if someone talks about the role that raiding has in the game, then make an unrelated statement about grouping and pretend that it's a counter to what the person talking about raiding said.
OMG, a non-native speaker of a language made a minor grammatical error that didn't obscure the meaning of the statement! Quickly, let's mention it!
Yeah, and you quoted it like it was some great revelation. Laff.
That's not what people have been arguing in this thread.
Check the title of the thread, friend.
Nope, not a good explanation at all - because both groups say that the game is being made in different, contradictory ways. The core problem is that the game cannot both be setup so that raiding results in better characters than not raiding and that raiding does not result in better characters than not raiding; there's a basic logical contradiction. One group likes the game because they believe it is one way, and the other likes it because they believe it is a different way, yet for some reason they never seek to resolve that dispute.
Totally is a good explanation and your point, again, is so obvious as to be unnecessary. They don't argue because they both like the game. Give your head a shake.
Who exactly has disagreed with that statement? This is a pretty standard dodge from the Vanboys; if someone talks about the role that raiding has in the game, then make an unrelated statement about grouping and pretend that it's a counter to what the person talking about raiding said.
It IS a counter to what Anofalye believes, and likely what you believe. Bitch about raiding all you want, it's only 20% of the game.
Again, it's a bad explanation for a very obvious reason that you keep ignoring. Both sets like what they think the game will be like, but what they think the game will be like is contradictory, the game is not going to be like what some of them think it's like. At this point, it's clear that you're just ignoring this point and hoping that yelling and insulting obscures it - no one capable of typing can really be as clueless as you're acting here.
It becomes more and more clear that the vanboys like you don't really want to discuss the actual game, you just want to hype it for whatever reason. If you wanted to really discuss the game, you'd be willing to discuss basic facts about what role raiding will take in the game without all of the obfuscation. Instead, you simply blather on with as much misdirection as possible, rambling on about things what percent of the game will be raids even though it's irrelevant.
Neither Anofalye nor I has claimed that raiding will be more than 20% of the content of the game. Since you're a gibbering fanboy you probably aren't bright enough to make subtle distinctions, but that's too bad for you.