Originally posted by anarchyart Originally posted by Anofalye
Gimme my crusade...err non-raiding server!
How does the fact that people are raiding on your server affect you in any way?
The fact they get BETTER rewards and that they ditch a group as soon as their guild call them, this completely RUINS and KILLS grouping.
RAIDING Call-to-arms features KILLS GROUPING, peoples who lead by example should NEVER leave a group "in progression"(before completion of mission) for any non-group in-game objectives. Especially not on a regular basic. BEST groupers deserve to be GROUPERS, not raiders. PvP hurts PvE grouping far less than raiding.
I don't care if there are raiders or not on my server, as long as the BEST rewards are ALL given to groupers rather than raiders, if raiding must be removed, then be it. Raiding can't grant even 1 extra HPS, it is hurting grouping, and this is unacceptable. Grouping as to be nurtured, loved, cared, spread! If any non-group activity is screwing grouping, then it has to be judge if it is on a manageable level, and raiding is definitely unmanageable, thereby raiding can't grant any group-reward that make groupers drools. Best groupers have to be groupers.
About the "Brad is a roleplayer" argument, I think the Vanbois are a victim of their usual logic. Amathe and the others might be insisting too much on this and arguing way past comon sense, but they are just using the same logic and arguments as you usually do, focusing and derailing from the main point.
Grouping must prevail, and if raiding must die, then be it! Best groupers deserve to be groupers! I want to drool at someone I respect, not at someone who abandon a group in the middle of a mission because he get a non-group opportunity and get UNFAIR grouping rewards. The Best groupers (folks with the most stats) have to be groupers.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Originally posted by Anofalye Originally posted by anarchyart
Originally posted by Anofalye
Gimme my crusade...err non-raiding server!
How does the fact that people are raiding on your server affect you in any way?
The fact they get BETTER rewards and that they ditch a group as soon as their guild call them, this completely RUINS and KILLS grouping.
RAIDING Call-to-arms features KILLS GROUPING, peoples who lead by example should NEVER leave a group "in progression"(before completion of mission) for any non-group in-game objectives. Especially not on a regular basic. BEST groupers deserve to be GROUPERS, not raiders.
You're basing the majority on a minority again. What you say has rarely happened to me. People have left groups for a raid, but more often than not it has not been a major problem because the situation is casual grouping and we just replaced. I think most know not to take mission based groups when they are raiding in 30 minutes.
This is a minor problem. People are free to do what they wish in their game. Ask them, when they join your group, if they are likely to be raiding in the next hour or so. If they say yes then explain your concerns.
Edited to avoid arguments
I do agree that raiding shouldn't get in the way of grouping though. I would love to see a system whereby group won equipment was just as good as raid won. I also think it would be nice if the whole game was group based with no raiding, though I just don't see the problem with having raiding on a server. It just means I don't see every place in the game...not a problem for me.
Originally posted by holifeet Originally posted by Anofalye
The fact they get BETTER rewards and that they ditch a group as soon as their guild call them, this completely RUINS and KILLS grouping.
RAIDING Call-to-arms features KILLS GROUPING, peoples who lead by example should NEVER leave a group "in progression"(before completion of mission) for any non-group in-game objectives. Especially not on a regular basic. BEST groupers deserve to be GROUPERS, not raiders.
You're basing the majority on a minority again. What you say has rarely happened to me. People have left groups for a raid, but more often than not it has not been a major problem because the situation is casual grouping and we just replaced. I think most know not to take mission based groups when they are raiding in 30 minutes. I guess what I am saying is that you are nit-picking here.
This is a minor problem. People are free to do what they wish in their game. Ask them, when they join your group, if they are likely to be raiding in the next hour or so. If they say yes then explain your concerns.
Have another reason why raiding on your server ruins your game?
Because the peoples GROUPERS want in groups are NOT groupers. This is completely destroying grouping.
If I want the BEST groupers on the server to undertake the ULTIMATE dungeon, I should pick groupers...not raiders who hardly care about grouping.
And no, this is not a minority. It happens to me more than 50 times in 3 months that some jerk left a group for raiding reason. This is completely screwing the grouping...completely.
If I dream to become the BEST tool for groups, it should be possible...while GROUPING! Not while doing some foreign gameplay, especially if it is not manageable, as raiding.
RAIDING KILLS GROUPING. You have no grouper achievements, you have no grouper progression, you only have the ultimate path, which completely crush grouping. Grouping deserve EVERY best reward, not some, not 60%, ALL of them. Otherwise you have a bottleneck system where best groupers aren't groupers, which is destroying grouping.
Groupers have to DESIRE groupers, not raiders. Otherwise you destroy grouping. If raiding must be removed to achieve this result, then be it. But groupers have to desire groupers, stats-wise, as fellow groupers...not unworthy raiders.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Originally posted by holifeet You're basing the majority on a minority again. What you say has rarely happened to me. People have left groups for a raid, but more often than not it has not been a major problem because the situation is casual grouping and we just replaced. I think most know not to take mission based groups when they are raiding in 30 minutes.
This is a minor problem. People are free to do what they wish in their game. Ask them, when they join your group, if they are likely to be raiding in the next hour or so. If they say yes then explain your concerns.
Edited to avoid arguments
I do agree that raiding shouldn't get in the way of grouping though. I would love to see a system whereby group won equipment was just as good as raid won. I also think it would be nice if the whole game was group based with no raiding, though I just don't see the problem with having raiding on a server. It just means I don't see every place in the game...not a problem for me.
See, if you have the choice to GROUP a warrior with 20k hps or another with 15k hps to undertake a grouping challenge, you will pick the 20k hps. If the system is made so, that the peoples with these stats are NOT groupers, then you are KILLING GROUPING. GROUPERS HAVE TO DESIRE GROUPERS (yes before raiders, raiders should be alternatives, when real groupers aren't available, not the prime grouping choice).
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
I think I am going to start staying out of discussions here because I find myself getting far too confrontational and it's not a side of me I like.
I will say that I just believe that the people who are having these negative feelings about Vanguard shouldn't let them ruin their opinion of the game. Like many have said, sure there are aggressive posters at the OVF but please do not generalise all the fans of the game because of the few.
Vanguard has a great deal going for it and the only way to truly find that out is to play the game when it is released. I hope as many people try it, doubters and fans alike. Sigil have done a huge amount of work and part of my argumentative nature stems from the fact that I don't like to see that work dismissed by posters who make accusations based on few facts...an occurance that seems common here.
I'll just turn my attentions to answering questions from newcomers in future.
Peace out!. (Ooh never said that before, anywhere, but it just seemed appropriate )
Originally posted by holifeet I think I am going to start staying out of discussions here because I find myself getting far too confrontational and it's not a side of me I like.
I will say that I just believe that the people who are having these negative feelings about Vanguard shouldn't let them ruin their opinion of the game. Like many have said, sure there are aggressive posters at the OVF but please do not generalise all the fans of the game because of the few.
Vanguard has a great deal going for it and the only way to truly find that out is to play the game when it is released. I hope as many people try it, doubters and fans alike. Sigil have done a huge amount of work and part of my argumentative nature stems from the fact that I don't like to see that work dismissed by posters who make accusations based on few facts...an occurance that seems common here.
I'll just turn my attentions to answering questions from newcomers in future.
Peace out!. (Ooh never said that before, anywhere, but it just seemed appropriate )
Holifeet, let me assure you I am really sorry it turns out that way for you. I don't mean this in any sarcastic way. I surely do hate some ppl, but you are not among them. Of all ppl who represent "the other side" in Venguard discussion, from what I see, your way to post and your arguments where hard but fair. I know from myself all to well, it's easy to be carried away in defending something. A forum should not make anyone feel unwelcome.
I can only assure you I do not hate Vanguard. I would not waste so much time discussing something I hate, and on top, I havent seen it. The only point is: I like a LOT of things in Vanguard, but there are 2-3 focal points which, IMVHO, are wrong and will lead Vanguard in a niche for very few ppl only. It bothers me, because there are so many good things, and I suppose that is why so many ppl argue over it on both sides. I really would want to try out VSoH in beta, but as it seems chances are slim. My doubt in games and promises nowadays is just great, after so many MMOs I tried or played which were disastrous despite big promises, so my experience has made me very sceptical. Still, I'd love to see it for myself and try it out before I buy, and be most willing to admit if - for instance - corpse run should NOT proof to be too hard, if thats what I experience. Still, I must make my opinion and judgemewnt from the knowledge I HAVE, and thats what I stand for here or otherwise.
My problem with official forum users is this: I can accept different preferrences, it does not bother me, what ppl chose. But I really think Vanguard could be a game for more ppl than only hardcore fans. I wish I get a chance to participate with MY wishes too, and I think a great game could well be a platform offering something for both playstyles, if a careful compromise is made. But all attempts to suggest compromises are attacked. I think you, holifeet, defend a group of aggressive fans, to which you yourself don't belong. I understand it is very, very difficult to stay in a balance between the extremes. I seek this balance myself, trying to neither condemn nor praise, but have a realistic, balanced judgement. I know for experience, however, often those staying in a reasonable balance are attacked by BOTH sides, so I understand you frustration, I assure you.
Don't let forum talks let you drag down in your mood. I enjoy discussing with someone reasonable, no matter his opinion. A good verbal confrontation should be like 2 knights in honorable fight, hard but fair, and if so, there are no hard feelings needed.
Peace. ^^
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I'll be sure not to play this game just because of their gaming philosophy, which is interdependance. I disagree with that premise towards mmorpgs and would rather play a game that builds more around cooperation. This is alittle confusing to some but after playing many soe titles, I have narrowed THEIR definition down to a "T". Interdependance ultimately equates to nothing more than nerfs and more nerfs till all of what could be interesting to personal playable characters to a mere bland and washed out bot. To meet and greet people online does not necessitate that the game itself should then be interdependant and the characters themselves but rather be exclusively personable and with an option to be cooperative. Personally, I do not play online just so MY characters are dependant on someone else nor do I believe their "should" be a necessity to apply to a 'uber' raiding guild after alot of feet kissing dribble. After spending ALOT of time and money even through all of the nerfs in everquest 1, i'll be damned if im going to start all over with a premise to excuseably nerf unecessairly.
Originally posted by lupisenparis I'll be sure not to play this game just because of their gaming philosophy, which is interdependance. I disagree with that premise towards mmorpgs and would rather play a game that builds more around cooperation. This is alittle confusing to some but after playing many soe titles, I have narrowed THEIR definition down to a "T". Interdependance ultimately equates to nothing more than nerfs and more nerfs till all of what could be interesting to personal playable characters to a mere bland and washed out bot. To meet and greet people online does not necessitate that the game itself should then be interdependant and the characters themselves but rather be exclusively personable and with an option to be cooperative. Personally, I do not play online just so MY characters are dependant on someone else nor do I believe their "should" be a necessity to apply to a 'uber' raiding guild after alot of feet kissing dribble. After spending ALOT of time and money even through all of the nerfs in everquest 1, i'll be damned if im going to start all over with a premise to excuseably nerf unecessairly.
Ok this is a little confusing to me, but it sounds interesting to me.
by interdependence do you mean like having basic defined roles eg... tank, healer, dps, and ranged dps etc.. that all require working together to be most effecient and to compensate for each others weeknesses?
and to be "exclusively personable and with an option to be cooperative" do meen that basically you can fill all roles your self, or can solo the entire game?
if the latter is correct, wouldn't that leave all caracters being fairly watered down with very lettle difference between each as they would not be able to be specialized and would all have to be able to do everything alone.
I also dont understand how have distinct classes with inherent strengths and weeknesses necesitates nerfs and more nerfs resulting in a mere washed out bot. that seems to me to be more into how combat mechanics as a whole works in a game and many other factors including how you decide to play. and not having much at all to do with character interdependence.
in your view of class based game without interdependence how would it work and still remain challenging with diverse characters? or is it class based games as a whole that you dont like and not just Vanguard and "SOE titles"?
Originally posted by Kalysa Originally posted by lupisenparis I'll be sure not to play this game just because of their gaming philosophy, which is interdependance. I disagree with that premise towards mmorpgs and would rather play a game that builds more around cooperation. This is alittle confusing to some but after playing many soe titles, I have narrowed THEIR definition down to a "T". Interdependance ultimately equates to nothing more than nerfs and more nerfs till all of what could be interesting to personal playable characters to a mere bland and washed out bot. To meet and greet people online does not necessitate that the game itself should then be interdependant and the characters themselves but rather be exclusively personable and with an option to be cooperative. Personally, I do not play online just so MY characters are dependant on someone else nor do I believe their "should" be a necessity to apply to a 'uber' raiding guild after alot of feet kissing dribble. After spending ALOT of time and money even through all of the nerfs in everquest 1, i'll be damned if im going to start all over with a premise to excuseably nerf unecessairly.
Ok this is a little confusing to me, but it sounds interesting to me.
by interdependence do you mean like having basic defined roles eg... tank, healer, dps, and ranged dps etc.. that all require working together to be most effecient and to compensate for each others weeknesses?
and to be "exclusively personable and with an option to be cooperative" do meen that basically you can fill all roles your self, or can solo the entire game?
if the latter is correct, wouldn't that leave all caracters being fairly watered down with very lettle difference between each as they would not be able to be specialized and would all have to be able to do everything alone.
I also dont understand how have distinct classes with inherent strengths and weeknesses necesitates nerfs and more nerfs resulting in a mere washed out bot. that seems to me to be more into how combat mechanics as a whole works in a game and many other factors including how you decide to play. and not having much at all to do with character interdependence.
in your view of class based game without interdependence how would it work and still remain challenging with diverse characters? or is it class based games as a whole that you dont like and not just Vanguard and "SOE titles"?
~Aruvia~
Interdependence-definition-
adjective
each person(s) depending on each other
Interdependence-sony definition-
unecessary nerfing of playable class abilities so as to meet a dependant criteria/role among other personal playable characters.
--------------------------------
cooperation-defintion-
The association of persons or businesses for common, usually economic, benefit.
cooperation, though closely related and often misconstrued as being one with the other does not share the dependency aspect of sony's gaming philosophy.
Now perhaps you could elaborate a bit on what you mean, maybe with some specific examples of how interdependence in SOE games differs form interdependence in any other class based game, and maybe even address asome of the questions I asked. which did not include a request for definitions.
Originally posted by holifeet I think I am going to start staying out of discussions here because I find myself getting far too confrontational and it's not a side of me I like.
I will say that I just believe that the people who are having these negative feelings about Vanguard shouldn't let them ruin their opinion of the game. Like many have said, sure there are aggressive posters at the OVF but please do not generalise all the fans of the game because of the few.
Vanguard has a great deal going for it and the only way to truly find that out is to play the game when it is released. I hope as many people try it, doubters and fans alike. Sigil have done a huge amount of work and part of my argumentative nature stems from the fact that I don't like to see that work dismissed by posters who make accusations based on few facts...an occurance that seems common here.
I'll just turn my attentions to answering questions from newcomers in future.
Peace out!. (Ooh never said that before, anywhere, but it just seemed appropriate )
Holifeet, let me assure you I am really sorry it turns out that way for you. I don't mean this in any sarcastic way. I surely do hate some ppl, but you are not among them. Of all ppl who represent "the other side" in Venguard discussion, from what I see, your way to post and your arguments where hard but fair. I know from myself all to well, it's easy to be carried away in defending something. A forum should not make anyone feel unwelcome. I can only assure you I do not hate Vanguard. I would not waste so much time discussing something I hate, and on top, I havent seen it. The only point is: I like a LOT of things in Vanguard, but there are 2-3 focal points which, IMVHO, are wrong and will lead Vanguard in a niche for very few ppl only. It bothers me, because there are so many good things, and I suppose that is why so many ppl argue over it on both sides. I really would want to try out VSoH in beta, but as it seems chances are slim. My doubt in games and promises nowadays is just great, after so many MMOs I tried or played which were disastrous despite big promises, so my experience has made me very sceptical. Still, I'd love to see it for myself and try it out before I buy, and be most willing to admit if - for instance - corpse run should NOT proof to be too hard, if thats what I experience. Still, I must make my opinion and judgemewnt from the knowledge I HAVE, and thats what I stand for here or otherwise. My problem with official forum users is this: I can accept different preferrences, it does not bother me, what ppl chose. But I really think Vanguard could be a game for more ppl than only hardcore fans. I wish I get a chance to participate with MY wishes too, and I think a great game could well be a platform offering something for both playstyles, if a careful compromise is made. But all attempts to suggest compromises are attacked. I think you, holifeet, defend a group of aggressive fans, to which you yourself don't belong. I understand it is very, very difficult to stay in a balance between the extremes. I seek this balance myself, trying to neither condemn nor praise, but have a realistic, balanced judgement. I know for experience, however, often those staying in a reasonable balance are attacked by BOTH sides, so I understand you frustration, I assure you. Don't let forum talks let you drag down in your mood. I enjoy discussing with someone reasonable, no matter his opinion. A good verbal confrontation should be like 2 knights in honorable fight, hard but fair, and if so, there are no hard feelings needed. Peace. ^^
It's just me Elikal. Of course it's not helped by a certain number of posters around here that don't have, or seem to have, any intention of liking vanguard but continue to post how bad the game is. This is a forum for newcomers to games and the garbage they spout may just influence those members decisions about a game. If you are influenced by make believe BS then that is just wrong. In the end I get pissed off and I start getting very 'evil' in what I write and fail to tell the difference between a serious poster and one of the above BSers. That is when I must sit back.
I do fully understand your grievance with Vanguard, and your posts are structured. What you must understand, however, is that Vanguard has been concieved with firm ideas as to how it is to be played and how the gameplay is to stand. That way is the more challenging way of playing the game, as opposed to the way of many modern MMOs. There are a lot of members on the OVF that were drawn to the game for that style of gameplay, so that is the gameplay that will stand. Sigil, themselves, have said that they will not let go of their vision...the infamous The Vision TM.
There are a lot of fans who do not want tedious timesinks and excessive immersion tools added in to the gameplay. Some of you ask for specialist servers to house these simpler gameplay styles. Problem is that Sigil have enough work on their plates getting the game out and providing specialist servers, for RP and PVP etc, that it really would be unneccasary extra workload to make a server specifically for players thatw ant a different style of gameplay than that advertised and what the foundation for Vanguard has been built on. It's basically saying 'I want an easier game...make it for me'. Sigil will turn around and say that they have chosen a niche genre and there are other games that fullfill your gameplay choice.
Of course theyw ant you to play their game and they will do what they can to bridge all styles within their vision. rest assured that the Sigil team have endless amounts of experience in MMO making and they won't just turn out dull and endless garbage. They make like you to work a little for what you do, but it will enver be to excesses. Because of the niche that Vanguard sits in they can't afford to make everything extreme. Even I, with my roleplay and high immersion tendancies, don't want another day at work. I do want a little real;ism though.
I think you will find many a little secret come out when Vanguard is released. Trading may well seem like endless trawling through customers but the nature of the regional economy, that Brad wants to see, will likely lead itself to smaller areas to search. You will find traders and crafters working together, within their region, and one trader will likely pass you onto the next. Within a few shops you will have a good idea of where to go for the best items and the fastest route to find the guy that might have a balde of eternal infinity in his wares. It's a learning game...and it can be fun to learn.
As for travel, sure it is convenient to want to be somewhere and to get there fast. What if you could feel actually nervous to be walking a path, watching every bit of woodland for a sign of a gang of cutthroats? Remember the feeling walking through Kithicor at night? Some of my most memorable moments in MMOs were the most perilous, that unexpected pop of a mob that joins in a misspull. You win and the feeling is of exhaltation. Who knows, you may be travelling some dark woods only to be attacked by one of these gangs I mentioned. You loot the corpses after a frenetic battle and find a highly valuable and sough after dagger...are you glad you walked now?
I know you will still feel apprehensive about Vanguard, Elikal, but make sure you give it a go eh? It may just change the face of MMOs for you. I was often apprehensive about doing the risky stuff when I first played EQ. It was the danger that made me addicted and kept me going back. Added to that the comeraderie that you get from being in a team and defeating a tough encounter really brings about a buzz.
You'll get in open beta, so give that go and see what you think. If your still interested after then get a game and give the inevitable free month a whirl. I guarantee that, even though you may be put off by some features now, after a hectic battle in an immersive dungeon you won't want to log off.
As for the minority of idiots at the OVF...let them pass you by. Some people have an inablity to understand other peoples wants and fears. There are a lot of very knowledgeable and friendly people over there...and as beta is on many are irregular at the boards...you might say the house has been taken over by the mice while the cats are away.
And if you ever see a Holifeet in Telon pop on over and join him for a cuppa and a plate of roast and tatties. Halflings really are the most amiable folk and they are always happy to hear of a fellow Telonian delighted with his surroundings. I'm sure you'll grow to like it...even if it takes time.
Ok, so I joined in again...but I won't answer any replies unless I find them well thought out and lacking in trollism... Some of you won't take time to formulate a decent response so save yourself the time and talk to the kitchen wall.
Ok, so I joined in again...but I won't answer any replies unless I find them well thought out and lacking in trollism... Some of you won't take time to formulate a decent response so save yourself the time and talk to the kitchen wall.
Your welcome to re-join and stay! Even if you disagree with me! Don't expect me to be nice with raiders, I won't. Raiding ruins grouping for players like me, and raiding explain why I play CoV rather than EQ or any other MMO.
I am fanatical in my non-raiding server request, I think that it would be the single most important specific server rule. I can be wrong, but the hatred-reaction of some raiders who are happy to abuse non-raiders tend to confirm my opinion. If Sigil want Vanguard to break 50k customers and maybe even reach famous height, non-raiding servers are a must.
I know Brad love raiding and believe in it. But the same can be said about PvP and many devs. EQ main success was related with it non-PvP server. Vanguard, if successfull, it would related with non-raiding servers, which is what MANY players want now, especially post-WoW. I think they are not planning such servers, and this is really a shame, because it would make THE difference. All their carefull thinking about balancing raiding VS everything else would be solve instantaneously with such servers. They could developp raiding as much as they want with non-raiding servers, since there are no balancing issues as raiding loot is simply converted in a grouping way on these specific servers.
Non-raiding servers are not seeing the light atm, and it is a shame, it is really dramatic for Vanguard. It is THAT important to Vanguard and if Brad can't see it, well I can hope to convince him by stammering it over and over again. Non-raiding servers would allow casuals to DREAM. Which raiding servers will always have huge issues to achieve now, especially after WoW.
Would it be better for Vanguard to be a Niche game, or would it be better to have niche raiding servers in a vastly more popular game?
If I wouldn't care, I wouldn't post. You don't see me in forums sections of games I don't care about...even if it seem unlikely, some part in me believe that maybe, just maybe, some folks at Vanguard might understand before it is too late. This game respresent a LOT of work for them, ruining it by a lack of non-raiding server would be a shame. And if competitors does it before...you are automatically confined to a second rank at best.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Originally posted by Kalysa Great, thank you for the Definitions!! Now perhaps you could elaborate a bit on what you mean, maybe with some specific examples of how interdependence in SOE games differs form interdependence in any other class based game, and maybe even address asome of the questions I asked. which did not include a request for definitions.
For the sake of your post, I will elaborate some regarding the points being conveyed. Speaking briefly about Everquest, eq started out as being a great game and flourished unequalled at that time which began in the hands of or rather credited to being developed by 989 studios aka SISA. Jeff Butler being producer and Brad Mcquaid being the Chief Creative Officer till late 2001, were at the pinnacle of capturing what gamers wanted. Imagination was rampant given in examples such as the faction relationships of the inhabitants. Each of the three major faction groups is at odds or outright war with at least one other. Players had the opportunity to take sides, and reap the risks and rewards associated with supporting these groups. This was dully noted during an interview with Jeff Butler for the then upcoming scars of velious expansion. Changes such as these due to complaints of being stiff and predictable were clearly prominent features that are in quite contrast to the latter changes which became the dreaded word and equated to nerfs. I could go on elaborating a point that is obviously ill favored to some, who presume and set themselves "higher" than the "lower" minded people. In short I would just like to state that it is truly a shame to find Vangard whose designers and developers derived from the pinnacle of everquest fame would then take it upon themselves to join the band wagon of interdependence which is what everquest has evolved itself to be. If you are wanting to see evidence that would suggest an opposition towards interdependence... then how does 7 million paying subscribers convey to game devs? The "hard' gameplay dynamic to everquest was a mere shell though some wont admit it and would rather be bullheaded and not see what is going on around them since they obviously choose to be oblivious.
Finally, terms such as 'scaling back' will be used quite frequently in an interdependent game when the advent to forcibly deter gamers so as to 'depend' on each other is paramount.
For the sake of your post, I will elaborate some regarding the points being conveyed. Speaking briefly about Everquest, eq started out as being a great game and flourished unequalled at that time which began in the hands of or rather credited to being developed by 989 studios aka SISA. Jeff Butler being producer and Brad Mcquaid being the Chief Creative Officer till late 2001, were at the pinnacle of capturing what gamers wanted. Imagination was rampant given in examples such as the faction relationships of the inhabitants. Each of the three major faction groups is at odds or outright war with at least one other. Players had the opportunity to take sides, and reap the risks and rewards associated with supporting these groups. This was dully noted during an interview with Jeff Butler for the then upcoming scars of velious expansion. Changes such as these due to complaints of being stiff and predictable were clearly prominent features that are in quite contrast to the latter changes which became the dreaded word and equated to nerfs. I could go on elaborating a point that is obviously ill favored to some, who presume and set themselves "higher" than the "lower" minded people. In short I would just like to state that it is truly a shame to find Vangard whose designers and developers derived from the pinnacle of everquest fame would then take it upon themselves to join the band wagon of interdependence which is what everquest has evolved itself to be. If you are wanting to see evidence that would suggest an opposition towards interdependence... then how does 7 million paying subscribers convey to game devs? The "hard' gameplay dynamic to everquest was a mere shell though some wont admit it and would rather be bullheaded and not see what is going on around them since they obviously choose to be oblivious. Finally, terms such as 'scaling back' will be used quite frequently in an interdependent game when the advent to forcibly deter gamers so as to 'depend' on each other is paramount. http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/setView/overview/gameID/147/VanguardSagaofHeroes.html
Great post and you obviously know your history! I for one like the idea of interdependance. It makes the game into a little society instead of a bunch of hermits who just go out and solo. I used to be one of those, I'll never play that way again. I actually enjoy interactin with people, whether it be irl or in a game. It's just fun and people can be wonderful and your life can actually be enriched from a video game instead of the opposite, which I suppose without googling would be stagnant.
Originally posted by Elikal Well said. I know there are a lot of reasonable people. Alas on many official game boards extremists of whatever side gained the upper hand, and I hate extremists, no matter what side.
Yeah, surprising to find people on a forum (vg forum) prior to launch who are passionate about the game. You would think only those with very little passing interest would be very active there.
Originally posted by Kalysa Great, thank you for the Definitions!! Now perhaps you could elaborate a bit on what you mean, maybe with some specific examples of how interdependence in SOE games differs form interdependence in any other class based game, and maybe even address asome of the questions I asked. which did not include a request for definitions.
Go look at Guild Wars if you want an example. I can be a Elementalist/Monk and both Nuke and heal. I can be Monk/Elementalist and both Nuke and Heal although with different implications on what my relative strengths are. But since I can only take 8 feats at any one time I must make a choice. Taking 6 nukes and 2 heals is is more offensive taking 2 nukes and 6 heals is more defensive.
I am not SOE-dependent on a monk. But it is good to cooperate with others. If two Elementalist/Monk duo one can nuke and one can heal and there is some nice synergy there as being able to free up some of you skill bar for certain feat combinations can be very powerful (much more powerful than most other MMOs). But neither class combo is SOE-dependent so to speak. They may do as they please within limits.
There are details to this system that offer some limits. A warrior primary is never a good caster because their regen is too low. And most caster primaries have crappy armor and must compensate for that in some way if they wish to melee(such as a Mesmer using Distortion and therefore spending more enegery on defense). Another interesting thing is almost all classes have access to at least a few healing skills and defense skills. Even the warrior's Healing Signet is a pretty substantial heal. You see ANet's use of the 8 feat limit means that they can be much less scared of giving offensive classes defensive things. Sure fine take some healing, but you gotta lose a nuke, sorry. But of coruse a class like Monk is the best healer, that is the theme of the class. But since anyone can take monk as a secondary profession any class can have serious healing at its disposal.
Certainly its kinda pointless to give everyone max abilities in everything. But there are ways to give people freedom and still give challenging limits. Vanguard/EQ/WoW systems are very locked down and very much neuter people to make them act a certain way. Guild Wars constrains how many things anyone may try to do at once, WoW/EQ just neuters the entire class. Of coruse things like WoW/EQ also through the entire kitchen sink of feats at you which also has the side effect of homogenizing everyone. The 8 feat limit also has the sideeffect of non-homogenizing everyone, yes there are standard builds (there will always be standards that is how humans are), but there is a lot of variety.
Now this isn't to say there still aren't roles and that people want certain classes for them. Usually people really want a warrior for a tank just because they have armor. But a Ranger stance-dancer can certainly tank most things, especially since they have the best elemetnal armor. And if you don't have to worry about enchantment removal a Monk can tank just fine. And certainly an elementalist/mesmer is not gonna be your healer. And also you do need healers and tanks and dps just like any other RPG. But just how that all shakes out in Guild Wars is not anywhere close to as tightly locked down. Believe me a Monk in guild wars can be tough as nails. You really have no idea what the heck they might try to pull. You might think you are killing a primary healer and then suddenly see he is a Monk/Assassin with 4 support heals/protection prayers and 4 assassin and suddenly the squishy you were fighting is back at full health and you just lost half your health and have a Poison,Bleed and Deep wound on you. Then he shadow steps(short range teleport) away and puts a Protective Spirit enchant on a team mate.
You see that someone is a Monk in Guild Wars you know they may heal and you can guess that they probably have at least some heals/prots but they could easily have say Life Bond and Spirit of Balthazar (soak damage on ally, trigger extra enegy on damage) for support defense and actually have the otehr 6 be Elementalist nukes or even just have all Elementalist nuke (although this one would probably on be for deception in PvP as primary ele is better in this case due to runes and the extra Energy max of an ele). In WoW/EQ you basically know, for the most part, it will all shake down just by class and gear. There is some differentiation with talents/AA but for the most part you know a Priest in WoW is not gonna do fire damage, because well that is impossible. And you basically know exactly how that WoW priest is going to heal. They will do Power word shield and then do fast heal/slow heal. In GW you won't even know how a Monk primary will actually heal until you see him do it. He could do straight up healing with HoT's and heal x amount heals. Or he could be an Protection monk that mitgates damage and uses the Divine Favor attribute to cause heals on all Monk spell casts. Or he could be some kind of bonder. All of which have significant implications.
However I do like what they are doing with Vanguard with the class spheres. For the tightly locked down "you will take what we give you and like it" class systems I think its a decent compromise.
It makes the game into a little society instead of a bunch of hermits who just go out and solo. I used to be one of those, I'll never play that way again. I actually enjoy interactin with people, whether it be irl or in a game. It's just fun and people can be wonderful and your life can actually be enriched from a video game instead of the opposite, which I suppose without googling would be stagnant.
You raise an interesting point that I am very conflicted about. I have always preferred grouping with other people to soloing. The only reasons I used to solo were because it took too long to find a group that night, or because I knew would get a lot of interruptions and it might aggravate people for me to keep going afk.
But these games have changed. I'm not picking on Vanguard - they have all changed.
When I played EQ there was a real sense of community. People were a lot friendlier, a lot more helpful, a lot more social, and a lot less selfish than they are nowadays in pretty much every game I have played since. Nowadays you try to talk to someone and often they don't even respond. You group with someone and the second they get what they want they leave and don't even say goodbye or give a reason (forgetting the needs of the other people in the group who helped them). I could go on and on. Sure, there are still nice people and some quality guilds out there in every game, but the ratio of nice people to smacktards has gone way down. So I solo a lot more these days, not because I am unsocial, but because I really don't want to deal with that any more than necessary.
I think Vanguard is making a sincere, good faith effort to try and recapture player interdependance, which they hope will enliven and improve the player community. I don't happen to think that the way they are doing that will work, but I applaud their trying. The reason I don't think it will work is that I believe the problem stems from changes in player culture over time, not from the presence or absence of any game mechanic.
One of the things I think is going to hurt Vanguard is that an assumption built into the game is that because the path to rewards is streamlined through cooperative and interdependant play, that players will follow the carrots and engage in cooperative and interdependant play. But that overlooks the alternative carrot - someone else's game. I'm not sure you can turn back the clock. I have serious doubts that we will ever see the kind of player communities again we enjoyed in EQ, not because of game design but because of significant evoultions (or maybe deevloutions) in player interaction. I suspect a lot of people who are accustomed to the standard mmo climate will try Vanguard, decide they don't want to have to cooperate so often and just take up some other new or existing title.
I'm not at all happy about that. if Sigil could bring back the old school days where you lived or died by your player reputation, and acting like a jerk left you a pariah, God bless them. They will have done the entire industry a ton of good. But I really don't expect to see that happen. I think this game is arriving too late for that.
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 anarchyart Originally posted by lupisenparis
For the sake of your post, I will elaborate some regarding the points being conveyed. Speaking briefly about Everquest, eq started out as being a great game and flourished unequalled at that time which began in the hands of or rather credited to being developed by 989 studios aka SISA. Jeff Butler being producer and Brad Mcquaid being the Chief Creative Officer till late 2001, were at the pinnacle of capturing what gamers wanted. Imagination was rampant given in examples such as the faction relationships of the inhabitants. Each of the three major faction groups is at odds or outright war with at least one other. Players had the opportunity to take sides, and reap the risks and rewards associated with supporting these groups. This was dully noted during an interview with Jeff Butler for the then upcoming scars of velious expansion. Changes such as these due to complaints of being stiff and predictable were clearly prominent features that are in quite contrast to the latter changes which became the dreaded word and equated to nerfs. I could go on elaborating a point that is obviously ill favored to some, who presume and set themselves "higher" than the "lower" minded people. In short I would just like to state that it is truly a shame to find Vangard whose designers and developers derived from the pinnacle of everquest fame would then take it upon themselves to join the band wagon of interdependence which is what everquest has evolved itself to be. If you are wanting to see evidence that would suggest an opposition towards interdependence... then how does 7 million paying subscribers convey to game devs? The "hard' gameplay dynamic to everquest was a mere shell though some wont admit it and would rather be bullheaded and not see what is going on around them since they obviously choose to be oblivious. Finally, terms such as 'scaling back' will be used quite frequently in an interdependent game when the advent to forcibly deter gamers so as to 'depend' on each other is paramount. http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/setView/overview/gameID/147/VanguardSagaofHeroes.html
Great post and you obviously know your history! I for one like the idea of interdependance. It makes the game into a little society instead of a bunch of hermits who just go out and solo. I used to be one of those, I'll never play that way again. I actually enjoy interactin with people, whether it be irl or in a game. It's just fun and people can be wonderful and your life can actually be enriched from a video game instead of the opposite, which I suppose without googling would be stagnant.
If you will never do that again then why do they even need to implement interdependence into the game design?
The reason to not give people uber-I-can-do-everything-all-at-once powers, is not interdependence. Even though this is how many Devs and players have come to think. The real and best best reason is for group synergy and gameplay. If I can both tank and heal myself then what is there for the healer to do? Nothing that is boring.
However please notice this does not mean that there should never be something than can both tank and heal with maximal effectivness. What it means is if they are doing one they should be piss poor at doign the other. For example a paladin in WoW should not be doing much healing while tanking, because paladin tanking takes significant amounts of mana. This is why I think the idea of Vanguard where most classes are supposedly to have at least 2 areas where they are consider competent.
You really could probably give every class every option if you could pull off a mechanic that limited the other options when you were doing one. But then you would have no class flavor, that is why the each class gets two is a decent compromise.
But to use another Guild Wars analogy it is usually the case that each class has a way to be survivable and usually if they are smart they take at least one or two of these along anywhere they go. So why do you need a tank at all then? I mean frankly Monks are pretty darn hard to kill. In fact due to Guild Wars energy mechanics if you can't pierce a Monk's defense you may _never_ kill them. Well because a warriors 80 armor is just plain more efficient as a meat shield and keeping the mobs on the tank is less chaotic. Having a couple warriors beat on your healer means he is healing himself and not everyone else, no one knows what is going on, concetratign DPS and spiking gets hard, your DPS is using its heals or defense stances instead of killing. Tanks are good because it make yoru organization and therefore group synergy better.
You see it really isn't necessary to follow the old D&D paradigm of foricing these to be paper thin so that they will take the dumb old meatshield along. You really can have tough healers and tough tanks and people will still want to use the tank to tank.
And lets be very clear here in the right situation a Monk in Guild Wars can sit there forever casting spells while 10 high level mobs beat on him forever. Of course if the wrong kind of mob comes by you die in 1 second, but still the point is a Monk can do crazy things to keep themselves alive in situation that would be insta wipe in other games. Yet still warriors are wanted to tank when people group. And keep in mind there are no taunt mechanics in Guild Wars, so that isn't the reason.
In fact 55hp Monks and the various variants are some the most effective solo farm builds in the game, yet people still group up. And that 55hp Monk is really only effective is certain well known circumstances. When it comes down to doing a whole hard instance like ThunderHead keep, well you still want a tank and that Monk/Necro or Monk/Mesmer is usually playing healer or support depending on how much of the secondary he is using. Because there are jobs and those jobs need to get done and nobody can do all jobs at once.
Strengths and weaknesses are fine, that is part of the flavor of things, but really there is no reason to make anyone suck without others. It is funny how many people in Guild War that avoid healers like the plague in other games (and initially GW too) and come to love Monk in Guild Wars and still group up too. Even if you arent' too big into being a healer having Monk as a secondary can just be so nice. I have personally run a Bonder support and secondary DPS build with an Assassin/Monk. Letting me provide some decent extra defense and still play a DPS role. I even have swtiched it up to be support healer with a few Assassin defense moves (evasion and teleports) in some places. It great I can do what I want, when I want, I just can't do it all at once and I can't do everything ever.
You raise an interesting point that I am very conflicted about. I have always preferred grouping with other people to soloing. The only reasons I used to solo were because it took too long to find a group that night, or because I knew would get a lot of interruptions and it might aggravate people for me to keep going afk. But these games have changed. I'm not picking on Vanguard - they have all changed. When I played EQ there was a real sense of community. People were a lot friendlier, a lot more helpful, a lot more social, and a lot less selfish than they are nowadays in pretty much every game I have played since. Nowadays you try to talk to someone and often they don't even respond. You group with someone and the second they get what they want they leave and don't even say goodbye or give a reason (forgetting the needs of the other people in the group who helped them). I could go on and on. Sure, there are still nice people and some quality guilds out there in every game, but the ratio of nice people to smacktards has gone way down. So I solo a lot more these days, not because I am unsocial, but because I really don't want to deal with that any more than necessary. I think Vanguard is making a sincere, good faith effort to try and recapture player interdependance, which they hope will enliven and improve the player community. I don't happen to think that the way they are doing that will work, but I applaud their trying. The reason I don't think it will work is that I believe the problem stems from changes in player culture over time, not from the presence or absence of any game mechanic. One of the things I think is going to hurt Vanguard is that an assumption built into the game is that because the path to rewards is streamlined through cooperative and interdependant play, that players will follow the carrots and engage in cooperative and interdependant play. But that overlooks the alternative carrot - someone else's game. I'm not sure you can turn back the clock. I have serious doubts that we will ever see the kind of player communities again we enjoyed in EQ, not because of game design but because of significant evoultions (or maybe deevloutions) in player interaction. I suspect a lot of people who are accustomed to the standard mmo climate will try Vanguard, decide they don't want to have to cooperate so often and just take up some other new or existing title. I'm not at all happy about that. if Sigil could bring back the old school days where you lived or died by your player reputation, and acting like a jerk left you a pariah, God bless them. They will have done the entire industry a ton of good. But I really don't expect to see that happen. I think this game is arriving too late for that.
Awesome post. I, too, agree that the ratio of smacktards to nice people has gone way up. There are just a lot of new players to the genre who don't really know how to behave online. Vanguard truly is making an attempt to repair this situation by forcing people to be dependant on one another.
I have high hopes and a firm belief that this is the kind of experience I will have in Vanguard. I can tell a loser from a mile away and I won't deal with them. A few real life friends are making a guild and I will join them and it's going to be great.
Do I think Vanguard will be some perfect MMORPG version of Eden? Absolutely not. I do however think the mechanics are in place to institute at least a generous amount of positive social interaction.
Originally posted by anarchyart Originally posted by gestalt11 If you will never do that again then why do they even need to implement interdependence into the game design?
That's for the n00bs and smacktards. Won't that just mean you gotta group with those smacktards?
lupisenparis, Thank you. that makes alot more sense to me now.
and thank you also to those who used the Guild Wars examples, it makes alot of sense also.
it seams me, lupisenparis may have two distinct issues one is an issue with all games based on the standard restrictive class types that depnd on other classes eg.. EQ, WoW, Vanguard, D&D etc... This is a personal preference that I can appreciate. I however really enjoy this type of game. in addition to the class interdependence you also appear to just have a grudge against SOE and would reguardless of what game and game type they touch.. also understandable, although again not something I share your opinion on.
Amathe, once again I think you hit the nail on the head. I think you are absolutely correct that much is the direct result of a fundamental shift in the gaming community. I think it may have alot to do with the rapid increase in the number of mmorpg players in general... back in the days of EQ1 there werent as many people playing and there were far fewer options of games to play. so in general you had a far better chance of finding people of worthy character to play with. along with the increase in numbers comes a large percentage of people that have a very different mindset then those that were interested in mmorpgs at all back in the day. you now have many people from a much more diverse background and from a much larger spread of ages. and many people that were previously never interested in gaming and never previously interested in RPG's ar now here and involved for better or for worse.
again I am afraid you are right and we may never be able to get that type of community back reguardless of what game and what developer and even mechanics of the game. there is just too many people and too much money involved to ever get it back.
Being opposed to interdependence doesn't necessarily mean that cooperation is rejected, it just means that im leaving alot of room for creativity without the need of taking away options and/or abilities if the focus wasnt centralized onto interdependence.
Originally posted by gestalt11 Originally posted by anarchyart Originally posted by lupisenparis For the sake of your post, I will elaborate some regarding the points being conveyed. Speaking briefly about Everquest, eq started out as being a great game and flourished unequalled at that time which began in the hands of or rather credited to being developed by 989 studios aka SISA. Jeff Butler being producer and Brad Mcquaid being the Chief Creative Officer till late 2001, were at the pinnacle of capturing what gamers wanted. Imagination was rampant given in examples such as the faction relationships of the inhabitants. Each of the three major faction groups is at odds or outright war with at least one other. Players had the opportunity to take sides, and reap the risks and rewards associated with supporting these groups. This was dully noted during an interview with Jeff Butler for the then upcoming scars of velious expansion. Changes such as these due to complaints of being stiff and predictable were clearly prominent features that are in quite contrast to the latter changes which became the dreaded word and equated to nerfs. I could go on elaborating a point that is obviously ill favored to some, who presume and set themselves "higher" than the "lower" minded people. In short I would just like to state that it is truly a shame to find Vangard whose designers and developers derived from the pinnacle of everquest fame would then take it upon themselves to join the band wagon of interdependence which is what everquest has evolved itself to be. If you are wanting to see evidence that would suggest an opposition towards interdependence... then how does 7 million paying subscribers convey to game devs? The "hard' gameplay dynamic to everquest was a mere shell though some wont admit it and would rather be bullheaded and not see what is going on around them since they obviously choose to be oblivious. Finally, terms such as 'scaling back' will be used quite frequently in an interdependent game when the advent to forcibly deter gamers so as to 'depend' on each other is paramount. http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/setView/overview/gameID/147/VanguardSagaofHeroes.html
Great post and you obviously know your history! I for one like the idea of interdependance. It makes the game into a little society instead of a bunch of hermits who just go out and solo. I used to be one of those, I'll never play that way again. I actually enjoy interactin with people, whether it be irl or in a game. It's just fun and people can be wonderful and your life can actually be enriched from a video game instead of the opposite, which I suppose without googling would be stagnant. If you will never do that again then why do they even need to implement interdependence into the game design?
The reason to not give people uber-I-can-do-everything-all-at-once powers, is not interdependence. Even though this is how many Devs and players have come to think. The real and best best reason is for group synergy and gameplay. If I can both tank and heal myself then what is there for the healer to do? Nothing that is boring.
However please notice this does not mean that there should never be something than can both tank and heal with maximal effectivness. What it means is if they are doing one they should be piss poor at doign the other. For example a paladin in WoW should not be doing much healing while tanking, because paladin tanking takes significant amounts of mana. This is why I think the idea of Vanguard where most classes are supposedly to have at least 2 areas where they are consider competent.
You really could probably give every class every option if you could pull off a mechanic that limited the other options when you were doing one. But then you would have no class flavor, that is why the each class gets two is a decent compromise.
But to use another Guild Wars analogy it is usually the case that each class has a way to be survivable and usually if they are smart they take at least one or two of these along anywhere they go. So why do you need a tank at all then? I mean frankly Monks are pretty darn hard to kill. In fact due to Guild Wars energy mechanics if you can't pierce a Monk's defense you may _never_ kill them. Well because a warriors 80 armor is just plain more efficient as a meat shield and keeping the mobs on the tank is less chaotic. Having a couple warriors beat on your healer means he is healing himself and not everyone else, no one knows what is going on, concetratign DPS and spiking gets hard, your DPS is using its heals or defense stances instead of killing. Tanks are good because it make yoru organization and therefore group synergy better.
You see it really isn't necessary to follow the old D&D paradigm of foricing these to be paper thin so that they will take the dumb old meatshield along. You really can have tough healers and tough tanks and people will still want to use the tank to tank.
And lets be very clear here in the right situation a Monk in Guild Wars can sit there forever casting spells while 10 high level mobs beat on him forever. Of course if the wrong kind of mob comes by you die in 1 second, but still the point is a Monk can do crazy things to keep themselves alive in situation that would be insta wipe in other games. Yet still warriors are wanted to tank when people group. And keep in mind there are no taunt mechanics in Guild Wars, so that isn't the reason.
In fact 55hp Monks and the various variants are some the most effective solo farm builds in the game, yet people still group up. And that 55hp Monk is really only effective is certain well known circumstances. When it comes down to doing a whole hard instance like ThunderHead keep, well you still want a tank and that Monk/Necro or Monk/Mesmer is usually playing healer or support depending on how much of the secondary he is using. Because there are jobs and those jobs need to get done and nobody can do all jobs at once.
Strengths and weaknesses are fine, that is part of the flavor of things, but really there is no reason to make anyone suck without others. It is funny how many people in Guild War that avoid healers like the plague in other games (and initially GW too) and come to love Monk in Guild Wars and still group up too. Even if you arent' too big into being a healer having Monk as a secondary can just be so nice. I have personally run a Bonder support and secondary DPS build with an Assassin/Monk. Letting me provide some decent extra defense and still play a DPS role. I even have swtiched it up to be support healer with a few Assassin defense moves (evasion and teleports) in some places. It great I can do what I want, when I want, I just can't do it all at once and I can't do everything ever. Gestalt11 is so on the money. Guild Wars is the only online game I've played so far that allows independence and interdependence without punishing anyone one type of player. Imo interdependence is best derived from independence not dependence. Yes if you offer independence in an online game you run the risk of people becoming too independent and not playing interdependently but I'd rather have that then forced dependence which does not lead to true interdependence contrary to what some may believe. I'll give Vanguard a chance but I'll also avoid classes to a high degree that are dependent. In EQ1 I mostly played independent classes and just a little of the dependent classes. I suppose the degree to which I'll play Vanguard will be how much of an exp and item penalty there will be for independence.
Comments
The fact they get BETTER rewards and that they ditch a group as soon as their guild call them, this completely RUINS and KILLS grouping.
RAIDING Call-to-arms features KILLS GROUPING, peoples who lead by example should NEVER leave a group "in progression"(before completion of mission) for any non-group in-game objectives. Especially not on a regular basic. BEST groupers deserve to be GROUPERS, not raiders. PvP hurts PvE grouping far less than raiding.
I don't care if there are raiders or not on my server, as long as the BEST rewards are ALL given to groupers rather than raiders, if raiding must be removed, then be it. Raiding can't grant even 1 extra HPS, it is hurting grouping, and this is unacceptable. Grouping as to be nurtured, loved, cared, spread! If any non-group activity is screwing grouping, then it has to be judge if it is on a manageable level, and raiding is definitely unmanageable, thereby raiding can't grant any group-reward that make groupers drools. Best groupers have to be groupers.
About the "Brad is a roleplayer" argument, I think the Vanbois are a victim of their usual logic. Amathe and the others might be insisting too much on this and arguing way past comon sense, but they are just using the same logic and arguments as you usually do, focusing and derailing from the main point.
Grouping must prevail, and if raiding must die, then be it! Best groupers deserve to be groupers! I want to drool at someone I respect, not at someone who abandon a group in the middle of a mission because he get a non-group opportunity and get UNFAIR grouping rewards. The Best groupers (folks with the most stats) have to be groupers.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
The fact they get BETTER rewards and that they ditch a group as soon as their guild call them, this completely RUINS and KILLS grouping.
RAIDING Call-to-arms features KILLS GROUPING, peoples who lead by example should NEVER leave a group "in progression"(before completion of mission) for any non-group in-game objectives. Especially not on a regular basic. BEST groupers deserve to be GROUPERS, not raiders.
You're basing the majority on a minority again. What you say has rarely happened to me. People have left groups for a raid, but more often than not it has not been a major problem because the situation is casual grouping and we just replaced. I think most know not to take mission based groups when they are raiding in 30 minutes.
This is a minor problem. People are free to do what they wish in their game. Ask them, when they join your group, if they are likely to be raiding in the next hour or so. If they say yes then explain your concerns.
Edited to avoid arguments
I do agree that raiding shouldn't get in the way of grouping though. I would love to see a system whereby group won equipment was just as good as raid won. I also think it would be nice if the whole game was group based with no raiding, though I just don't see the problem with having raiding on a server. It just means I don't see every place in the game...not a problem for me.
.
This is a minor problem. People are free to do what they wish in their game. Ask them, when they join your group, if they are likely to be raiding in the next hour or so. If they say yes then explain your concerns.
Have another reason why raiding on your server ruins your game?
Because the peoples GROUPERS want in groups are NOT groupers. This is completely destroying grouping.
If I want the BEST groupers on the server to undertake the ULTIMATE dungeon, I should pick groupers...not raiders who hardly care about grouping.
And no, this is not a minority. It happens to me more than 50 times in 3 months that some jerk left a group for raiding reason. This is completely screwing the grouping...completely.
If I dream to become the BEST tool for groups, it should be possible...while GROUPING! Not while doing some foreign gameplay, especially if it is not manageable, as raiding.
RAIDING KILLS GROUPING. You have no grouper achievements, you have no grouper progression, you only have the ultimate path, which completely crush grouping. Grouping deserve EVERY best reward, not some, not 60%, ALL of them. Otherwise you have a bottleneck system where best groupers aren't groupers, which is destroying grouping.
Groupers have to DESIRE groupers, not raiders. Otherwise you destroy grouping. If raiding must be removed to achieve this result, then be it. But groupers have to desire groupers, stats-wise, as fellow groupers...not unworthy raiders.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
See, if you have the choice to GROUP a warrior with 20k hps or another with 15k hps to undertake a grouping challenge, you will pick the 20k hps. If the system is made so, that the peoples with these stats are NOT groupers, then you are KILLING GROUPING. GROUPERS HAVE TO DESIRE GROUPERS (yes before raiders, raiders should be alternatives, when real groupers aren't available, not the prime grouping choice).
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
I will say that I just believe that the people who are having these negative feelings about Vanguard shouldn't let them ruin their opinion of the game. Like many have said, sure there are aggressive posters at the OVF but please do not generalise all the fans of the game because of the few.
Vanguard has a great deal going for it and the only way to truly find that out is to play the game when it is released. I hope as many people try it, doubters and fans alike. Sigil have done a huge amount of work and part of my argumentative nature stems from the fact that I don't like to see that work dismissed by posters who make accusations based on few facts...an occurance that seems common here.
I'll just turn my attentions to answering questions from newcomers in future.
Peace out!. (Ooh never said that before, anywhere, but it just seemed appropriate
.
I sure hope so.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I'll be sure not to play this game just because of their gaming philosophy, which is interdependance. I disagree with that premise towards mmorpgs and would rather play a game that builds more around cooperation. This is alittle confusing to some but after playing many soe titles, I have narrowed THEIR definition down to a "T". Interdependance ultimately equates to nothing more than nerfs and more nerfs till all of what could be interesting to personal playable characters to a mere bland and washed out bot. To meet and greet people online does not necessitate that the game itself should then be interdependant and the characters themselves but rather be exclusively personable and with an option to be cooperative. Personally, I do not play online just so MY characters are dependant on someone else nor do I believe their "should" be a necessity to apply to a 'uber' raiding guild after alot of feet kissing dribble. After spending ALOT of time and money even through all of the nerfs in everquest 1, i'll be damned if im going to start all over with a premise to excuseably nerf unecessairly.
Ok this is a little confusing to me, but it sounds interesting to me.
by interdependence do you mean like having basic defined roles eg... tank, healer, dps, and ranged dps etc..
that all require working together to be most effecient and to compensate for each others weeknesses?
and to be "exclusively personable and with an option to be cooperative" do meen that basically you can fill all roles your self, or can solo the entire game?
if the latter is correct, wouldn't that leave all caracters being fairly watered down with very lettle difference between each as they would not be able to be specialized and would all have to be able to do everything alone.
I also dont understand how have distinct classes with inherent strengths and weeknesses necesitates nerfs and more nerfs resulting in a mere washed out bot. that seems to me to be more into how combat mechanics as a whole works in a game and many other factors including how you decide to play. and not having much at all to do with character interdependence.
in your view of class based game without interdependence how would it work and still remain challenging with diverse characters? or is it class based games as a whole that you dont like and not just Vanguard and "SOE titles"?
~Aruvia~
Ok this is a little confusing to me, but it sounds interesting to me.
by interdependence do you mean like having basic defined roles eg... tank, healer, dps, and ranged dps etc..
that all require working together to be most effecient and to compensate for each others weeknesses?
and to be "exclusively personable and with an option to be cooperative" do meen that basically you can fill all roles your self, or can solo the entire game?
if the latter is correct, wouldn't that leave all caracters being fairly watered down with very lettle difference between each as they would not be able to be specialized and would all have to be able to do everything alone.
I also dont understand how have distinct classes with inherent strengths and weeknesses necesitates nerfs and more nerfs resulting in a mere washed out bot. that seems to me to be more into how combat mechanics as a whole works in a game and many other factors including how you decide to play. and not having much at all to do with character interdependence.
in your view of class based game without interdependence how would it work and still remain challenging with diverse characters? or is it class based games as a whole that you dont like and not just Vanguard and "SOE titles"?
~Aruvia~
Interdependence-definition-
adjective
each person(s) depending on each other
Interdependence-sony definition-
unecessary nerfing of playable class abilities so as to meet a dependant criteria/role among other personal playable characters.
--------------------------------
cooperation-defintion-
The association of persons or businesses for common, usually economic, benefit.
cooperation, though closely related and often misconstrued as being one with the other does not share the dependency aspect of sony's gaming philosophy.
Great, thank you for the Definitions!!
Now perhaps you could elaborate a bit on what you mean, maybe with some specific examples of how interdependence in SOE games differs form interdependence in any other class based game, and maybe even address asome of the questions I asked. which did not include a request for definitions.
It's just me Elikal. Of course it's not helped by a certain number of posters around here that don't have, or seem to have, any intention of liking vanguard but continue to post how bad the game is. This is a forum for newcomers to games and the garbage they spout may just influence those members decisions about a game. If you are influenced by make believe BS then that is just wrong. In the end I get pissed off and I start getting very 'evil' in what I write and fail to tell the difference between a serious poster and one of the above BSers. That is when I must sit back.
I do fully understand your grievance with Vanguard, and your posts are structured. What you must understand, however, is that Vanguard has been concieved with firm ideas as to how it is to be played and how the gameplay is to stand. That way is the more challenging way of playing the game, as opposed to the way of many modern MMOs. There are a lot of members on the OVF that were drawn to the game for that style of gameplay, so that is the gameplay that will stand. Sigil, themselves, have said that they will not let go of their vision...the infamous The Vision TM.
There are a lot of fans who do not want tedious timesinks and excessive immersion tools added in to the gameplay. Some of you ask for specialist servers to house these simpler gameplay styles. Problem is that Sigil have enough work on their plates getting the game out and providing specialist servers, for RP and PVP etc, that it really would be unneccasary extra workload to make a server specifically for players thatw ant a different style of gameplay than that advertised and what the foundation for Vanguard has been built on. It's basically saying 'I want an easier game...make it for me'. Sigil will turn around and say that they have chosen a niche genre and there are other games that fullfill your gameplay choice.
Of course theyw ant you to play their game and they will do what they can to bridge all styles within their vision. rest assured that the Sigil team have endless amounts of experience in MMO making and they won't just turn out dull and endless garbage. They make like you to work a little for what you do, but it will enver be to excesses. Because of the niche that Vanguard sits in they can't afford to make everything extreme. Even I, with my roleplay and high immersion tendancies, don't want another day at work. I do want a little real;ism though.
I think you will find many a little secret come out when Vanguard is released. Trading may well seem like endless trawling through customers but the nature of the regional economy, that Brad wants to see, will likely lead itself to smaller areas to search. You will find traders and crafters working together, within their region, and one trader will likely pass you onto the next. Within a few shops you will have a good idea of where to go for the best items and the fastest route to find the guy that might have a balde of eternal infinity in his wares. It's a learning game...and it can be fun to learn.
As for travel, sure it is convenient to want to be somewhere and to get there fast. What if you could feel actually nervous to be walking a path, watching every bit of woodland for a sign of a gang of cutthroats? Remember the feeling walking through Kithicor at night? Some of my most memorable moments in MMOs were the most perilous, that unexpected pop of a mob that joins in a misspull. You win and the feeling is of exhaltation. Who knows, you may be travelling some dark woods only to be attacked by one of these gangs I mentioned. You loot the corpses after a frenetic battle and find a highly valuable and sough after dagger...are you glad you walked now?
I know you will still feel apprehensive about Vanguard, Elikal, but make sure you give it a go eh? It may just change the face of MMOs for you. I was often apprehensive about doing the risky stuff when I first played EQ. It was the danger that made me addicted and kept me going back. Added to that the comeraderie that you get from being in a team and defeating a tough encounter really brings about a buzz.
You'll get in open beta, so give that go and see what you think. If your still interested after then get a game and give the inevitable free month a whirl. I guarantee that, even though you may be put off by some features now, after a hectic battle in an immersive dungeon you won't want to log off.
As for the minority of idiots at the OVF...let them pass you by. Some people have an inablity to understand other peoples wants and fears. There are a lot of very knowledgeable and friendly people over there...and as beta is on many are irregular at the boards...you might say the house has been taken over by the mice while the cats are away.
And if you ever see a Holifeet in Telon pop on over and join him for a cuppa and a plate of roast and tatties. Halflings really are the most amiable folk and they are always happy to hear of a fellow Telonian delighted with his surroundings. I'm sure you'll grow to like it...even if it takes time.
Ok, so I joined in again...but I won't answer any replies unless I find them well thought out and lacking in trollism...
.
I am fanatical in my non-raiding server request, I think that it would be the single most important specific server rule. I can be wrong, but the hatred-reaction of some raiders who are happy to abuse non-raiders tend to confirm my opinion. If Sigil want Vanguard to break 50k customers and maybe even reach famous height, non-raiding servers are a must.
I know Brad love raiding and believe in it. But the same can be said about PvP and many devs. EQ main success was related with it non-PvP server. Vanguard, if successfull, it would related with non-raiding servers, which is what MANY players want now, especially post-WoW. I think they are not planning such servers, and this is really a shame, because it would make THE difference. All their carefull thinking about balancing raiding VS everything else would be solve instantaneously with such servers. They could developp raiding as much as they want with non-raiding servers, since there are no balancing issues as raiding loot is simply converted in a grouping way on these specific servers.
Non-raiding servers are not seeing the light atm, and it is a shame, it is really dramatic for Vanguard. It is THAT important to Vanguard and if Brad can't see it, well I can hope to convince him by stammering it over and over again. Non-raiding servers would allow casuals to DREAM. Which raiding servers will always have huge issues to achieve now, especially after WoW.
Would it be better for Vanguard to be a Niche game, or would it be better to have niche raiding servers in a vastly more popular game?
If I wouldn't care, I wouldn't post. You don't see me in forums sections of games I don't care about...even if it seem unlikely, some part in me believe that maybe, just maybe, some folks at Vanguard might understand before it is too late. This game respresent a LOT of work for them, ruining it by a lack of non-raiding server would be a shame. And if competitors does it before...you are automatically confined to a second rank at best.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
For the sake of your post, I will elaborate some regarding the points being conveyed. Speaking briefly about Everquest, eq started out as being a great game and flourished unequalled at that time which began in the hands of or rather credited to being developed by 989 studios aka SISA. Jeff Butler being producer and Brad Mcquaid being the Chief Creative Officer till late 2001, were at the pinnacle of capturing what gamers wanted. Imagination was rampant given in examples such as the faction relationships of the inhabitants. Each of the three major faction groups is at odds or outright war with at least one other. Players had the opportunity to take sides, and reap the risks and rewards associated with supporting these groups. This was dully noted during an interview with Jeff Butler for the then upcoming scars of velious expansion. Changes such as these due to complaints of being stiff and predictable were clearly prominent features that are in quite contrast to the latter changes which became the dreaded word and equated to nerfs. I could go on elaborating a point that is obviously ill favored to some, who presume and set themselves "higher" than the "lower" minded people. In short I would just like to state that it is truly a shame to find Vangard whose designers and developers derived from the pinnacle of everquest fame would then take it upon themselves to join the band wagon of interdependence which is what everquest has evolved itself to be. If you are wanting to see evidence that would suggest an opposition towards interdependence... then how does 7 million paying subscribers convey to game devs? The "hard' gameplay dynamic to everquest was a mere shell though some wont admit it and would rather be bullheaded and not see what is going on around them since they obviously choose to be oblivious.
Finally, terms such as 'scaling back' will be used quite frequently in an interdependent game when the advent to forcibly deter gamers so as to 'depend' on each other is paramount.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/setView/overview/gameID/147/VanguardSagaofHeroes.html
I am not SOE-dependent on a monk. But it is good to cooperate with others. If two Elementalist/Monk duo one can nuke and one can heal and there is some nice synergy there as being able to free up some of you skill bar for certain feat combinations can be very powerful (much more powerful than most other MMOs). But neither class combo is SOE-dependent so to speak. They may do as they please within limits.
There are details to this system that offer some limits. A warrior primary is never a good caster because their regen is too low. And most caster primaries have crappy armor and must compensate for that in some way if they wish to melee(such as a Mesmer using Distortion and therefore spending more enegery on defense). Another interesting thing is almost all classes have access to at least a few healing skills and defense skills. Even the warrior's Healing Signet is a pretty substantial heal. You see ANet's use of the 8 feat limit means that they can be much less scared of giving offensive classes defensive things. Sure fine take some healing, but you gotta lose a nuke, sorry. But of coruse a class like Monk is the best healer, that is the theme of the class. But since anyone can take monk as a secondary profession any class can have serious healing at its disposal.
Certainly its kinda pointless to give everyone max abilities in everything. But there are ways to give people freedom and still give challenging limits. Vanguard/EQ/WoW systems are very locked down and very much neuter people to make them act a certain way. Guild Wars constrains how many things anyone may try to do at once, WoW/EQ just neuters the entire class. Of coruse things like WoW/EQ also through the entire kitchen sink of feats at you which also has the side effect of homogenizing everyone. The 8 feat limit also has the sideeffect of non-homogenizing everyone, yes there are standard builds (there will always be standards that is how humans are), but there is a lot of variety.
Now this isn't to say there still aren't roles and that people want certain classes for them. Usually people really want a warrior for a tank just because they have armor. But a Ranger stance-dancer can certainly tank most things, especially since they have the best elemetnal armor. And if you don't have to worry about enchantment removal a Monk can tank just fine. And certainly an elementalist/mesmer is not gonna be your healer. And also you do need healers and tanks and dps just like any other RPG. But just how that all shakes out in Guild Wars is not anywhere close to as tightly locked down. Believe me a Monk in guild wars can be tough as nails. You really have no idea what the heck they might try to pull. You might think you are killing a primary healer and then suddenly see he is a Monk/Assassin with 4 support heals/protection prayers and 4 assassin and suddenly the squishy you were fighting is back at full health and you just lost half your health and have a Poison,Bleed and Deep wound on you. Then he shadow steps(short range teleport) away and puts a Protective Spirit enchant on a team mate.
You see that someone is a Monk in Guild Wars you know they may heal and you can guess that they probably have at least some heals/prots but they could easily have say Life Bond and Spirit of Balthazar (soak damage on ally, trigger extra enegy on damage) for support defense and actually have the otehr 6 be Elementalist nukes or even just have all Elementalist nuke (although this one would probably on be for deception in PvP as primary ele is better in this case due to runes and the extra Energy max of an ele). In WoW/EQ you basically know, for the most part, it will all shake down just by class and gear. There is some differentiation with talents/AA but for the most part you know a Priest in WoW is not gonna do fire damage, because well that is impossible. And you basically know exactly how that WoW priest is going to heal. They will do Power word shield and then do fast heal/slow heal. In GW you won't even know how a Monk primary will actually heal until you see him do it. He could do straight up healing with HoT's and heal x amount heals. Or he could be an Protection monk that mitgates damage and uses the Divine Favor attribute to cause heals on all Monk spell casts. Or he could be some kind of bonder. All of which have significant implications.
However I do like what they are doing with Vanguard with the class spheres. For the tightly locked down "you will take what we give you and like it" class systems I think its a decent compromise.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
If you will never do that again then why do they even need to implement interdependence into the game design?
The reason to not give people uber-I-can-do-everything-all-at-once powers, is not interdependence. Even though this is how many Devs and players have come to think. The real and best best reason is for group synergy and gameplay. If I can both tank and heal myself then what is there for the healer to do? Nothing that is boring.
However please notice this does not mean that there should never be something than can both tank and heal with maximal effectivness. What it means is if they are doing one they should be piss poor at doign the other. For example a paladin in WoW should not be doing much healing while tanking, because paladin tanking takes significant amounts of mana. This is why I think the idea of Vanguard where most classes are supposedly to have at least 2 areas where they are consider competent.
You really could probably give every class every option if you could pull off a mechanic that limited the other options when you were doing one. But then you would have no class flavor, that is why the each class gets two is a decent compromise.
But to use another Guild Wars analogy it is usually the case that each class has a way to be survivable and usually if they are smart they take at least one or two of these along anywhere they go. So why do you need a tank at all then? I mean frankly Monks are pretty darn hard to kill. In fact due to Guild Wars energy mechanics if you can't pierce a Monk's defense you may _never_ kill them. Well because a warriors 80 armor is just plain more efficient as a meat shield and keeping the mobs on the tank is less chaotic. Having a couple warriors beat on your healer means he is healing himself and not everyone else, no one knows what is going on, concetratign DPS and spiking gets hard, your DPS is using its heals or defense stances instead of killing. Tanks are good because it make yoru organization and therefore group synergy better.
You see it really isn't necessary to follow the old D&D paradigm of foricing these to be paper thin so that they will take the dumb old meatshield along. You really can have tough healers and tough tanks and people will still want to use the tank to tank.
And lets be very clear here in the right situation a Monk in Guild Wars can sit there forever casting spells while 10 high level mobs beat on him forever. Of course if the wrong kind of mob comes by you die in 1 second, but still the point is a Monk can do crazy things to keep themselves alive in situation that would be insta wipe in other games. Yet still warriors are wanted to tank when people group. And keep in mind there are no taunt mechanics in Guild Wars, so that isn't the reason.
In fact 55hp Monks and the various variants are some the most effective solo farm builds in the game, yet people still group up. And that 55hp Monk is really only effective is certain well known circumstances. When it comes down to doing a whole hard instance like ThunderHead keep, well you still want a tank and that Monk/Necro or Monk/Mesmer is usually playing healer or support depending on how much of the secondary he is using. Because there are jobs and those jobs need to get done and nobody can do all jobs at once.
Strengths and weaknesses are fine, that is part of the flavor of things, but really there is no reason to make anyone suck without others. It is funny how many people in Guild War that avoid healers like the plague in other games (and initially GW too) and come to love Monk in Guild Wars and still group up too. Even if you arent' too big into being a healer having Monk as a secondary can just be so nice. I have personally run a Bonder support and secondary DPS build with an Assassin/Monk. Letting me provide some decent extra defense and still play a DPS role. I even have swtiched it up to be support healer with a few Assassin defense moves (evasion and teleports) in some places. It great I can do what I want, when I want, I just can't do it all at once and I can't do everything ever.
Awesome post. I, too, agree that the ratio of smacktards to nice people has gone way up. There are just a lot of new players to the genre who don't really know how to behave online. Vanguard truly is making an attempt to repair this situation by forcing people to be dependant on one another.
I have high hopes and a firm belief that this is the kind of experience I will have in Vanguard. I can tell a loser from a mile away and I won't deal with them. A few real life friends are making a guild and I will join them and it's going to be great.
Do I think Vanguard will be some perfect MMORPG version of Eden? Absolutely not. I do however think the mechanics are in place to institute at least a generous amount of positive social interaction.
Won't that just mean you gotta group with those smacktards?
lupisenparis, Thank you. that makes alot more sense to me now.
and thank you also to those who used the Guild Wars examples, it makes alot of sense also.
it seams me, lupisenparis may have two distinct issues one is an issue with all games based on the standard restrictive class types that depnd on other classes eg.. EQ, WoW, Vanguard, D&D etc... This is a personal preference that I can appreciate. I however really enjoy this type of game. in addition to the class interdependence you also appear to just have a grudge against SOE and would reguardless of what game and game type they touch.. also understandable, although again not something I share your opinion on.
Amathe, once again I think you hit the nail on the head. I think you are absolutely correct that much is the direct result of a fundamental shift in the gaming community. I think it may have alot to do with the rapid increase in the number of mmorpg players in general... back in the days of EQ1 there werent as many people playing and there were far fewer options of games to play. so in general you had a far better chance of finding people of worthy character to play with. along with the increase in numbers comes a large percentage of people that have a very different mindset then those that were interested in mmorpgs at all back in the day. you now have many people from a much more diverse background and from a much larger spread of ages. and many people that were previously never interested in gaming and never previously interested in RPG's ar now here and involved for better or for worse.
again I am afraid you are right and we may never be able to get that type of community back reguardless of what game and what developer and even mechanics of the game. there is just too many people and too much money involved to ever get it back.
~Aruvia~
Being opposed to interdependence doesn't necessarily mean that cooperation is rejected, it just means that im leaving alot of room for creativity without the need of taking away options and/or abilities if the focus wasnt centralized onto interdependence.
If you will never do that again then why do they even need to implement interdependence into the game design?
The reason to not give people uber-I-can-do-everything-all-at-once powers, is not interdependence. Even though this is how many Devs and players have come to think. The real and best best reason is for group synergy and gameplay. If I can both tank and heal myself then what is there for the healer to do? Nothing that is boring.
However please notice this does not mean that there should never be something than can both tank and heal with maximal effectivness. What it means is if they are doing one they should be piss poor at doign the other. For example a paladin in WoW should not be doing much healing while tanking, because paladin tanking takes significant amounts of mana. This is why I think the idea of Vanguard where most classes are supposedly to have at least 2 areas where they are consider competent.
You really could probably give every class every option if you could pull off a mechanic that limited the other options when you were doing one. But then you would have no class flavor, that is why the each class gets two is a decent compromise.
But to use another Guild Wars analogy it is usually the case that each class has a way to be survivable and usually if they are smart they take at least one or two of these along anywhere they go. So why do you need a tank at all then? I mean frankly Monks are pretty darn hard to kill. In fact due to Guild Wars energy mechanics if you can't pierce a Monk's defense you may _never_ kill them. Well because a warriors 80 armor is just plain more efficient as a meat shield and keeping the mobs on the tank is less chaotic. Having a couple warriors beat on your healer means he is healing himself and not everyone else, no one knows what is going on, concetratign DPS and spiking gets hard, your DPS is using its heals or defense stances instead of killing. Tanks are good because it make yoru organization and therefore group synergy better.
You see it really isn't necessary to follow the old D&D paradigm of foricing these to be paper thin so that they will take the dumb old meatshield along. You really can have tough healers and tough tanks and people will still want to use the tank to tank.
And lets be very clear here in the right situation a Monk in Guild Wars can sit there forever casting spells while 10 high level mobs beat on him forever. Of course if the wrong kind of mob comes by you die in 1 second, but still the point is a Monk can do crazy things to keep themselves alive in situation that would be insta wipe in other games. Yet still warriors are wanted to tank when people group. And keep in mind there are no taunt mechanics in Guild Wars, so that isn't the reason.
In fact 55hp Monks and the various variants are some the most effective solo farm builds in the game, yet people still group up. And that 55hp Monk is really only effective is certain well known circumstances. When it comes down to doing a whole hard instance like ThunderHead keep, well you still want a tank and that Monk/Necro or Monk/Mesmer is usually playing healer or support depending on how much of the secondary he is using. Because there are jobs and those jobs need to get done and nobody can do all jobs at once.
Strengths and weaknesses are fine, that is part of the flavor of things, but really there is no reason to make anyone suck without others. It is funny how many people in Guild War that avoid healers like the plague in other games (and initially GW too) and come to love Monk in Guild Wars and still group up too. Even if you arent' too big into being a healer having Monk as a secondary can just be so nice. I have personally run a Bonder support and secondary DPS build with an Assassin/Monk. Letting me provide some decent extra defense and still play a DPS role. I even have swtiched it up to be support healer with a few Assassin defense moves (evasion and teleports) in some places. It great I can do what I want, when I want, I just can't do it all at once and I can't do everything ever.
Gestalt11 is so on the money. Guild Wars is the only online game I've played so far that allows independence and interdependence without punishing anyone one type of player. Imo interdependence is best derived from independence not dependence. Yes if you offer independence in an online game you run the risk of people becoming too independent and not playing interdependently but I'd rather have that then forced dependence which does not lead to true interdependence contrary to what some may believe. I'll give Vanguard a chance but I'll also avoid classes to a high degree that are dependent. In EQ1 I mostly played independent classes and just a little of the dependent classes. I suppose the degree to which I'll play Vanguard will be how much of an exp and item penalty there will be for independence.
Spiritglow