Originally posted by dragonace Perhaps I'm missing something here, if so please clarify it for me. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to be saying "If I can't be the best, I don't want to play!" Isn't that exactly what you are accusing those that like raiding of?
No, and if you think it's "exactly" what I'm saying, then quote me saying it. But you won't be able to, because it's simply not what I've been saying. There's a big difference between 'if I don't have access to the best gear, I don't want to play' (which is what I've said) and 'if I don't have access to gear that's better than the gear people who don't raid get, I don't want to play' (which is what raiders say).
I really don't understand the sentiment that would keep a person from playing a game just because they won't have access to ALL the best gear.
What's hard to understand, I don't see anything complicated about it? I don't like it if my choice in a game is to either participate in an activity I find extremely unfun or have a second-rate character and I'm not going to spend my money and time on a game that forces me to make that kind of choice.
And, unless you are playing on a PVP server; the "best gear" arguement becomes moot.
No it doesn't, you don't get to just say 'uh, this thing that matters to you doesn't matter to you anymore because I said so and set an arbitrary condition', and it's doubly silly since I'd play on a PVP server anyway. You don't get to tell other people what their gaming preferences are.
As long as you can have fun with your friends, who cares about what percentage of gear you may or may not acquire!
I don't have fun raiding or being stuck with second-rate gear, and my friends don't either. We'll go have fun together in some other MMORPG, or go to some other kind of game, or do stuff IRL.
Originally posted by Pantastic Originally posted by dragonace Perhaps I'm missing something here, if so please clarify it for me. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to be saying "If I can't be the best, I don't want to play!" Isn't that exactly what you are accusing those that like raiding of?
No, and if you think it's "exactly" what I'm saying, then quote me saying it. But you won't be able to, because it's simply not what I've been saying. There's a big difference between 'if I don't have access to the best gear, I don't want to play' (which is what I've said) and 'if I don't have access to gear that's better than the gear people who don't raid get, I don't want to play' (which is what raiders say).
O.K. You are right. I should not have used the word "exactly"; like or similar would have been a better choice.
I really don't understand the sentiment that would keep a person from playing a game just because they won't have access to ALL the best gear.
What's hard to understand, I don't see anything complicated about it? I don't like it if my choice in a game is to either participate in an activity I find extremely unfun or have a second-rate character and I'm not going to spend my money and time on a game that forces me to make that kind of choice.
I guess I'm just thinking that it's unrealistic to think that anyone will ever achieve all the "best" gear. So, in essence you are not playing because of a goal that is impossible to achieve.
And, unless you are playing on a PVP server; the "best gear" arguement becomes moot.
No it doesn't, you don't get to just say 'uh, this thing that matters to you doesn't matter to you anymore because I said so and set an arbitrary condition', and it's doubly silly since I'd play on a PVP server anyway. You don't get to tell other people what their gaming preferences are.
I wasn't trying to tell you what your gaming preferences are anymore than you are trying to tell others that Vanguard is a raiding game. Does it have raiding in it? Yes, but only 20%. Does it have solo/casual in it? Yes, but only 20%. Does it have grouping in it? Yes, 60% of it. So, wouldn't it make sense if we were going to call it anything we would call it a grouping game?
You are correct though, ultimately each of us will have to decide if this game is fun; as it is defined by each of us alone.
As long as you can have fun with your friends, who cares about what percentage of gear you may or may not acquire!
I don't have fun raiding or being stuck with second-rate gear, and my friends don't either. We'll go have fun together in some other MMORPG, or go to some other kind of game, or do stuff IRL.
And that is as it should be. If you or any of us, are not having fun in a game; then why in the world would we play it? However, I think you are placing too high a value on this supposed "best" gear.
Vanguard is trying to go a different route than most games in the past in this regard. There will be no "best" gear for all situations. It will all depend on what you are fighting or where you are going at the time. There will be a need to have multiples of all your gear, each with their purpose; each as important as another.
To say you have the "best" gear for every situation will mean you have acquired ALL gear; which will be impossible. So, again I say: Nobody will ever have the "best" gear.
Originally posted by Pantastic This exchange, with a bit of bold and a quote from dictionary.com added, really sums up what trying to discuss anything with anarchyart is like:
Thank you for focusing on one misunderstanding of mine and ignoring all the other points I made thus proving me right. I knew you wouldn't want to respond to a concise question about one of your statements.
Just to give you another chance to prove you're not just plain ignorant, tell me the "facts" you have been focusing on regarding Vanguard, and also if you could tell me the "lies" I made up.
I want all the best gear in Vanguard and don't want to have to raid.
So basically this is what you're saying? Don't know what kind of game will give you that, maybe D&D online is more for you. Even in WoW, a game in which you can solo the the very top level, you have to raid to get the very best gear.
No, and if you think it's "exactly" what I'm saying, then quote me saying it. But you won't be able to, because it's simply not what I've been saying. There's a big difference between 'if I don't have access to the best gear, I don't want to play' (which is what I've said) and 'if I don't have access to gear that's better than the gear people who don't raid get, I don't want to play' (which is what raiders say).
"If I don't have access to the best gear, I don't want to play." and "If I can't be the best, I won't play!" are basically the same thing, bud. If you don't want to raid, you don't deserve the best gear in a game that has raids. I for one likely won't raid in Vanguard, and I'm not bothered one bit that people who raid will get better drops than me. They deserve it for putting up with raiding.
Originally posted by dragonace O.K. You are right. I should not have used the word "exactly"; like or similar would have been a better choice.
So quote me saying something 'like or similar' to the accusation, or admit that it was baseless, trying to weasel out doesn't cut it. At no point have a criticized raiders for wanting access to the best gear, only for wanting to deny it to people who don't raid which is a completely different thing.
I wasn't trying to tell you what your gaming preferences are anymore than you are trying to tell others that Vanguard is a raiding game.
If your choice is to raid or be second-class, then the game is a raiding game by my standards and by those of pretty much everyone who doesn't like raiding.
Does it have raiding in it? Yes, but only 20%. Does it have solo/casual in it? Yes, but only 20%. Does it have grouping in it? Yes, 60% of it. So, wouldn't it make sense if we were going to call it anything we would call it a grouping game?
No, because if you don't raid you're second-rate, thus it's a raid game. None of the people posting about whether or not Vanguard is a raiding game dislike grouping, so don't care if it can also be called a grouping game.
However, I think you are placing too high a value on this supposed "best" gear.
I don't care; I think you're placing too low of a value on being treated fairly. If raiders want a game where they get a free ride in other content for raiding, they can find a way to fund it without any money from me.
Originally posted by Pantastic Originally posted by dragonace O.K. You are right. I should not have used the word "exactly"; like or similar would have been a better choice.
So quote me saying something 'like or similar' to the accusation, or admit that it was baseless, trying to weasel out doesn't cut it. At no point have a criticized raiders for wanting access to the best gear, only for wanting to deny it to people who don't raid which is a completely different thing.
"'if I don't have access to the best gear, I don't want to play' (which is what I've said) and 'if I don't have access to gear that's better than the gear people who don't raid get, I don't want to play' (which is what raiders say)."
Umm... you are going to honestly say those two statements are NOT alike? O.K. I disagree though. I think they are A LOT alike!
I wasn't trying to tell you what your gaming preferences are anymore than you are trying to tell others that Vanguard is a raiding game.
If your choice is to raid or be second-class, then the game is a raiding game by my standards and by those of pretty much everyone who doesn't like raiding.
I don't like raiding, and that is not my standards at all. My friends don't like raiding, and that is not their standard at all. So, what you are saying is that it's your standards and those that you know personally, that's all. Just like me. We don't have the luxury to pretend we speak for anyone else.
Does it have raiding in it? Yes, but only 20%. Does it have solo/casual in it? Yes, but only 20%. Does it have grouping in it? Yes, 60% of it. So, wouldn't it make sense if we were going to call it anything we would call it a grouping game?
No, because if you don't raid you're second-rate, thus it's a raid game. None of the people posting about whether or not Vanguard is a raiding game dislike grouping, so don't care if it can also be called a grouping game.
Says who? Oh, that's right you did. Umm.. you do know that your opinion is just that, right? Just like mine. Just because we say something doesn't make it true. Just because YOU believe those who don't raid will be second-rate doesn't mean that EVERYONE who doesn't raid will be second-rate. It's your opinion, fine. But, that doesn't make it a fact.
However, I think you are placing too high a value on this supposed "best" gear.
I don't care; I think you're placing too low of a value on being treated fairly. If raiders want a game where they get a free ride in other content for raiding, they can find a way to fund it without any money from me.
Until I actually play the game, I won't be able to state anything for fact. If what we know now is true though; 20% solo/casual, 60% group, 20% raid. I think that is just fine, and fair. Since, fair in this instance means knowing what percentage will be what before I start playing. If those percentages turn out to be bunk, then yeah - you can play the fair card.
Originally posted by dragonace "'if I don't have access to the best gear, I don't want to play' (which is what I've said) and 'if I don't have access to gear that's better than the gear people who don't raid get, I don't want to play' (which is what raiders say)."
Umm... you are going to honestly say those two statements are NOT alike? O.K. I disagree though. I think they are A LOT alike!
You're simply wrong. Saying "if I don't have access to this thing" is not remotely similar to saying "if the game does not deny access to this thing to other people", it's just basic meaning of the words. Wanting to have access to something just isn't the same thing as wanting to deny someone else access to the same thing. It's like saying that someone who says 'I want to have access to college' is a hypocrite because he criticized someone else for saying 'group X should not be allowed access to college'.
Just because YOU believe those who don't raid will be second-rate doesn't mean that EVERYONE who doesn't raid will be second-rate. It's your opinion, fine. But, that doesn't make it a fact.
Ahh, now we see the Vanguard Propaganda in full swing; you're now arguing with me that a person who raids won't have access to better gear than a person who doesn't, but you won't argue it with anyone but someone who is criticizing the game. This time it's especially funny since earlier you were arguing that I shouldn't mind that raiders will have better gear than nonraiders in Vanguard; why did you bother with that line of argument if you don't think it's going to be true?
Anyone who beleives that putting a portion of the best gear exclusively in certain kinds of areas in a gear focused game is not designed to get people to use those areas is fooling themselves.
That is what these games are entirely about.
A)Put cheese in area A b) tell mice there is cheese in Area A c) watch mice run the maze over and over to get random rewards d)???? e) profit
If you seriously believe they put the cheese in area and don't expect the mice to run the maze then well, sigh.
What they propose to do is enforced raiding as much as EQ was and is enforced grouping.
Vanguard = enforced raiding AND enforced grouping.
Now if you could get the same stuff via say a token system and these tokens were available in either raids or groups then vanguard would = Enforced raiding OR enforced grouping. But it does not.
I hate MMORPG raids. I will not do them. Therefore one of the fundamental pillars of the game, the aquisistion of gear is nerfed and neutered for me. Fully 1/5 of the good gear would be unattainable. Why would accept that? Why would I play a game that is clearly and abitrarily not made to allow me to have as much fun as I could otherwise be having? I won't because I am not a fool.
I am sorry they can try to push and cajole me to utilize this stuff they think is great but I am make up my own mind. They may think of people as mice and that may even be useful, but it only goes so far. Eventually people will just say "No, I do not like this thing you are trying to force onto me."
They try to make it sound inclusive but it is not. The sad thing is I think Brad beleives it is inclusive. However this is no different than giving me a plate of steak and broccoli and not letting me have dessert if I don't eat my broccoli. Well I hate broccoli so take your meal and put it where the sun don't shine. I will get a meal from someone who will give me what I want and not try to force me to eat my broccoli for my own good.
im really excited about a game that doesn't make you raid all the time. thats why i quit wow, if you raidi t almost fealsl ike a job and slowly becomes no fun at all. im looking forward to this game because of that aspect. VANGUARD FTW
Originally posted by Pantastic Originally posted by dragonace "'if I don't have access to the best gear, I don't want to play' (which is what I've said) and 'if I don't have access to gear that's better than the gear people who don't raid get, I don't want to play' (which is what raiders say)." Umm... you are going to honestly say those two statements are NOT alike? O.K. I disagree though. I think they are A LOT alike!
You're simply wrong. Saying "if I don't have access to this thing" is not remotely similar to saying "if the game does not deny access to this thing to other people", it's just basic meaning of the words. Wanting to have access to something just isn't the same thing as wanting to deny someone else access to the same thing. It's like saying that someone who says 'I want to have access to college' is a hypocrite because he criticized someone else for saying 'group X should not be allowed access to college'.
Nope. You're simply wrong. Wow - that really got us somewhere. I'll agree that you think they are different. I don't. I see it as both sides are using an extreme example of something that is not know to be true to try and persuade others to their cause.
Just because YOU believe those who don't raid will be second-rate doesn't mean that EVERYONE who doesn't raid will be second-rate. It's your opinion, fine. But, that doesn't make it a fact.
Ahh, now we see the Vanguard Propaganda in full swing; you're now arguing with me that a person who raids won't have access to better gear than a person who doesn't, but you won't argue it with anyone but someone who is criticizing the game. This time it's especially funny since earlier you were arguing that I shouldn't mind that raiders will have better gear than nonraiders in Vanguard; why did you bother with that line of argument if you don't think it's going to be true?
What propaganda? I'm a lot more dense than you, so you'll have to spell it out for me. I've said it from the beginning; to everyone, as far as I know. Nobody will be able to acquire even a small percentage of ALL the gear in this game. There is no "best" gear for every situation.
The only thing we know for sure is that 20% OF THE CONTENT is going to be solo/casual, 60% group CONTENT, and 20% raid CONTENT. Does that mean that 20% of the gear from solo/casual is going to be "best"? Nope. Just like it doesn't mean that 20% from raid is "best". What is does mean is that it's DIFFERENT. Is different better? I have no idea, AND neither do you. The reason? We haven't played the game yet!
Now, if it turns out that there are items (gear) that are absolutely required in order for a group (not a raid) to complete group or casual content; and those items are ONLY available from raid content - I whole-heartily agree with you. However, as neither of us have played the game; we have no way of knowing that.
All we know at this point is that 20% of the CONTENT will only be available from raids. Would some of the items from raids be nice to have? I'm sure they would be. However, if it is not NECESSARY for me to enjoy my group and casual content; then so be it. The game is plenty big enough that even if I never touch the 20% raid content, I will never run out of things to do and experience. And who knows, perhaps I'll like the way that Vanguard does raid content and decide that it may be fun to try it sometime down the road. I'm pretty sure the other 80% will keep me busy in the mean time.
Originally posted by dragonace Nope. You're simply wrong. Wow - that really got us somewhere. I'll agree that you think they are different. I don't.
"I will not play unless I have access to this thing" is not the same thing as "I will not play unless someone else is denied access to this thing". If you don't understand basic English to this degree, there's no point in further discussion. "Let me access this" and "don't let him access this" aren't the same, and I'm not going to try to teach kindergarden-level-English to you.
I see it as both sides are using an extreme example of something that is not know to be true to try and persuade others to their cause.
Originally posted by Pantastic Originally posted by dragonace Nope. You're simply wrong. Wow - that really got us somewhere. I'll agree that you think they are different. I don't.
"I will not play unless I have access to this thing" is not the same thing as "I will not play unless someone else is denied access to this thing". If you don't understand basic English to this degree, there's no point in further discussion. "Let me access this" and "don't let him access this" aren't the same, and I'm not going to try to teach kindergarden-level-English to you.
I see it as both sides are using an extreme example of something that is not know to be true to try and persuade others to their cause.
That comment doesn't even make sense.
Ok I will explain it then, but I will do so using Transformers.
Normal person: I want to have access to both BumbleBee and Optimus Prime without raiding or else I won't play. And by the way those raiders may access Optimus Prime however they like raid or group I don't give a flying frig.
Raider: If you let that sub-human non raider have Optimus Prime without raiding then I won't play your game.
We can argue about the argument allw e want, but that doesn't change the fact that Vaguard is an item centric game at it's core, and as such, items will have a very large impact on the power of a character.
Now they say that to earn the most powerful items, a player with have to raid, group, and solo. Well, anyone can solo, but not everyone has time to raid. if you do have time to raid, then one assumes that you also have time to group and even play solo. You may prefer not to play solo, but I bet you will to get that last item in your set..probably the weakest set item at that. Raid guilds WILL have all the content available to them. Groupers will have 2/3rds the content, and soloers will only have solo content.
Vanguard definately IS a raiders game, and definately NOT a game for solo players.
Originally posted by Amathe Can we talk for a moment about what people mean when they complain about raiding? In a lot of games raiding consists of going into dungeons and fighting boss mobs that require a significant number of people to kill, for which they are rewarded with the best loot available in the game. Some people don't like this either because they can't make the time commitment raiding takes, or because they prefer smaller, more intimate groups to large raid focused guilds, or because they just find it boring. For whatever reason they just don't like it. Sigil, to its credit, has done a lot of things to make their game less large raid focused and also to make raiding more assessible. You can complete a raid in stages, which (theoretically at least) opens it up to people who can't play for large chuncks of time at a sitting. There is more group content than raid content. The raid force sizes are smaller. So to be fair, Sigil has attempted to make the game less raid focused and more raid assessible (in some ways) if that is something you want to do. But there's a catch ... Stop and ask yourself, why do people raid in the first place? Some of them actually enjoy dungeon encounters, large group tactics, and being part of a small army, etc. But as anyone who has spent meaningful time raiding knows, most of them are there for the drops. I can't tell you how many complaints I have heard over the years from people whose guilds are returning to a dungeon for the upteenth time just because it takes that many times to get everyone the drops they need. And if you don't believe me, suggest on any message board of any game that has raiding that they should not get the best treasure, and should just raid for raidings sake and see how they react. Once you realize that a lot of the people on raids are just there to get the loot that will distinguish their character from other people's characters, you can design a game where that is still the case without it coming from raiding. In other words, you will have the same uber versus gimp hierarchies, only you put things out of the average person's reach one way versus another. Which is precisely what Vanguard has done. Brad has figured out that he can sate the raider mentality without actually having to make as many large scale encounters by providing them an opportunity to be much better than everyone else through other means. That's how you make raiders happy without making the game raid heavy. As long as they can stand in the newbie yard and show off their stuff, and as long as that stuff is somehow out of reach for the average player, they're going to be happy whether that stuff came from a raid or fell off a sod truck. So yes, Vanguard is less raid oriented than, say, EQ, but not only have they kept the same powergamer versus casual gear disparity, they have amplified it. The bottom line is that unless you are a certain kind of player you are still going to have sucktastic gear, no different than games that are heavily raid oriented. Don't believe me? Read what Brad wrote about solo and casual gear in his post on the "truth." So for people whose objections to raiding were that it put certain gear out of reach, it's still out of your reach lol. Now you might ask, if the best loot comes from raiding, and if raiding is more assessible, then why am I not gonna get it? Thanks for asking! It's because it is one thing to GO to a dungeon, and it's quite another thing not to get SPANKED in that dungeon. And what is the big difference maker in an ultra item centric game on whether you get spanked or not? Your gear! What is the big difference maker on whether you get invited to a raid at all? Your gear. So we are back to unless you have the good gear you aren't getting the better gear, which means you are right smack dab where you would have been in a game like EQ, or worse. So yes, Vanguard (for now, stand by for expansions) is less raid focused, and no, it doesn't change a thing.
Originally posted by sebbonx There is an easy way to decide, Brad grows a set and makes a no raid server and sees what the population is like. I bet he shuts down the raid servers right after
(Yes I think the uber guilds are a positive thing for the community).But I hope it could be done, good luck with it.
Uber guilds a positive thing for the community? And thats where I got nautious.
Small tight knit guilds with close friends are fun. Big Raiding guilds are in my experience very elitest, rude and condescending.
Just curious, is your IQ, Last Word and Pissing contest over yet?
You guys arguing reminded me of a chat I had with a english teacher in high school. One day I told her, you always have to have the last word dont you. And not too surpisingly she said "NO YOU DO!!". You should of seen the look in her eyes when I sat silently and smiled. Awwwww that moment was priceless.
Comments
No, and if you think it's "exactly" what I'm saying, then quote me saying it. But you won't be able to, because it's simply not what I've been saying. There's a big difference between 'if I don't have access to the best gear, I don't want to play' (which is what I've said) and 'if I don't have access to gear that's better than the gear people who don't raid get, I don't want to play' (which is what raiders say).
What's hard to understand, I don't see anything complicated about it? I don't like it if my choice in a game is to either participate in an activity I find extremely unfun or have a second-rate character and I'm not going to spend my money and time on a game that forces me to make that kind of choice.
No it doesn't, you don't get to just say 'uh, this thing that matters to you doesn't matter to you anymore because I said so and set an arbitrary condition', and it's doubly silly since I'd play on a PVP server anyway. You don't get to tell other people what their gaming preferences are.
I don't have fun raiding or being stuck with second-rate gear, and my friends don't either. We'll go have fun together in some other MMORPG, or go to some other kind of game, or do stuff IRL.
No, and if you think it's "exactly" what I'm saying, then quote me saying it. But you won't be able to, because it's simply not what I've been saying. There's a big difference between 'if I don't have access to the best gear, I don't want to play' (which is what I've said) and 'if I don't have access to gear that's better than the gear people who don't raid get, I don't want to play' (which is what raiders say).
O.K. You are right. I should not have used the word "exactly"; like or similar would have been a better choice.
What's hard to understand, I don't see anything complicated about it? I don't like it if my choice in a game is to either participate in an activity I find extremely unfun or have a second-rate character and I'm not going to spend my money and time on a game that forces me to make that kind of choice.
I guess I'm just thinking that it's unrealistic to think that anyone will ever achieve all the "best" gear. So, in essence you are not playing because of a goal that is impossible to achieve.
No it doesn't, you don't get to just say 'uh, this thing that matters to you doesn't matter to you anymore because I said so and set an arbitrary condition', and it's doubly silly since I'd play on a PVP server anyway. You don't get to tell other people what their gaming preferences are.
I wasn't trying to tell you what your gaming preferences are anymore than you are trying to tell others that Vanguard is a raiding game. Does it have raiding in it? Yes, but only 20%. Does it have solo/casual in it? Yes, but only 20%. Does it have grouping in it? Yes, 60% of it. So, wouldn't it make sense if we were going to call it anything we would call it a grouping game?
You are correct though, ultimately each of us will have to decide if this game is fun; as it is defined by each of us alone.
I don't have fun raiding or being stuck with second-rate gear, and my friends don't either. We'll go have fun together in some other MMORPG, or go to some other kind of game, or do stuff IRL.
And that is as it should be. If you or any of us, are not having fun in a game; then why in the world would we play it? However, I think you are placing too high a value on this supposed "best" gear.
Vanguard is trying to go a different route than most games in the past in this regard. There will be no "best" gear for all situations. It will all depend on what you are fighting or where you are going at the time. There will be a need to have multiples of all your gear, each with their purpose; each as important as another.
To say you have the "best" gear for every situation will mean you have acquired ALL gear; which will be impossible. So, again I say: Nobody will ever have the "best" gear.
Thank you for focusing on one misunderstanding of mine and ignoring all the other points I made thus proving me right. I knew you wouldn't want to respond to a concise question about one of your statements.
Just to give you another chance to prove you're not just plain ignorant, tell me the "facts" you have been focusing on regarding Vanguard, and also if you could tell me the "lies" I made up.
So quote me saying something 'like or similar' to the accusation, or admit that it was baseless, trying to weasel out doesn't cut it. At no point have a criticized raiders for wanting access to the best gear, only for wanting to deny it to people who don't raid which is a completely different thing.
If your choice is to raid or be second-class, then the game is a raiding game by my standards and by those of pretty much everyone who doesn't like raiding.
No, because if you don't raid you're second-rate, thus it's a raid game. None of the people posting about whether or not Vanguard is a raiding game dislike grouping, so don't care if it can also be called a grouping game.
I don't care; I think you're placing too low of a value on being treated fairly. If raiders want a game where they get a free ride in other content for raiding, they can find a way to fund it without any money from me.
So quote me saying something 'like or similar' to the accusation, or admit that it was baseless, trying to weasel out doesn't cut it. At no point have a criticized raiders for wanting access to the best gear, only for wanting to deny it to people who don't raid which is a completely different thing.
"'if I don't have access to the best gear, I don't want to play' (which is what I've said) and 'if I don't have access to gear that's better than the gear people who don't raid get, I don't want to play' (which is what raiders say)."
Umm... you are going to honestly say those two statements are NOT alike? O.K. I disagree though. I think they are A LOT alike!
If your choice is to raid or be second-class, then the game is a raiding game by my standards and by those of pretty much everyone who doesn't like raiding.
I don't like raiding, and that is not my standards at all. My friends don't like raiding, and that is not their standard at all. So, what you are saying is that it's your standards and those that you know personally, that's all. Just like me. We don't have the luxury to pretend we speak for anyone else.
No, because if you don't raid you're second-rate, thus it's a raid game. None of the people posting about whether or not Vanguard is a raiding game dislike grouping, so don't care if it can also be called a grouping game.
Says who? Oh, that's right you did. Umm.. you do know that your opinion is just that, right? Just like mine. Just because we say something doesn't make it true. Just because YOU believe those who don't raid will be second-rate doesn't mean that EVERYONE who doesn't raid will be second-rate. It's your opinion, fine. But, that doesn't make it a fact.
I don't care; I think you're placing too low of a value on being treated fairly. If raiders want a game where they get a free ride in other content for raiding, they can find a way to fund it without any money from me.
Until I actually play the game, I won't be able to state anything for fact. If what we know now is true though; 20% solo/casual, 60% group, 20% raid. I think that is just fine, and fair. Since, fair in this instance means knowing what percentage will be what before I start playing. If those percentages turn out to be bunk, then yeah - you can play the fair card.
You're simply wrong. Saying "if I don't have access to this thing" is not remotely similar to saying "if the game does not deny access to this thing to other people", it's just basic meaning of the words. Wanting to have access to something just isn't the same thing as wanting to deny someone else access to the same thing. It's like saying that someone who says 'I want to have access to college' is a hypocrite because he criticized someone else for saying 'group X should not be allowed access to college'.
Ahh, now we see the Vanguard Propaganda in full swing; you're now arguing with me that a person who raids won't have access to better gear than a person who doesn't, but you won't argue it with anyone but someone who is criticizing the game. This time it's especially funny since earlier you were arguing that I shouldn't mind that raiders will have better gear than nonraiders in Vanguard; why did you bother with that line of argument if you don't think it's going to be true?
That is what these games are entirely about.
A)Put cheese in area A
b) tell mice there is cheese in Area A
c) watch mice run the maze over and over to get random rewards
d)????
e) profit
If you seriously believe they put the cheese in area and don't expect the mice to run the maze then well, sigh.
What they propose to do is enforced raiding as much as EQ was and is enforced grouping.
Vanguard = enforced raiding AND enforced grouping.
Now if you could get the same stuff via say a token system and these tokens were available in either raids or groups then vanguard would = Enforced raiding OR enforced grouping. But it does not.
I hate MMORPG raids. I will not do them. Therefore one of the fundamental pillars of the game, the aquisistion of gear is nerfed and neutered for me. Fully 1/5 of the good gear would be unattainable. Why would accept that? Why would I play a game that is clearly and abitrarily not made to allow me to have as much fun as I could otherwise be having? I won't because I am not a fool.
I am sorry they can try to push and cajole me to utilize this stuff they think is great but I am make up my own mind. They may think of people as mice and that may even be useful, but it only goes so far. Eventually people will just say "No, I do not like this thing you are trying to force onto me."
They try to make it sound inclusive but it is not. The sad thing is I think Brad beleives it is inclusive. However this is no different than giving me a plate of steak and broccoli and not letting me have dessert if I don't eat my broccoli. Well I hate broccoli so take your meal and put it where the sun don't shine. I will get a meal from someone who will give me what I want and not try to force me to eat my broccoli for my own good.
You're simply wrong. Saying "if I don't have access to this thing" is not remotely similar to saying "if the game does not deny access to this thing to other people", it's just basic meaning of the words. Wanting to have access to something just isn't the same thing as wanting to deny someone else access to the same thing. It's like saying that someone who says 'I want to have access to college' is a hypocrite because he criticized someone else for saying 'group X should not be allowed access to college'.
Nope. You're simply wrong. Wow - that really got us somewhere. I'll agree that you think they are different. I don't. I see it as both sides are using an extreme example of something that is not know to be true to try and persuade others to their cause.Ahh, now we see the Vanguard Propaganda in full swing; you're now arguing with me that a person who raids won't have access to better gear than a person who doesn't, but you won't argue it with anyone but someone who is criticizing the game. This time it's especially funny since earlier you were arguing that I shouldn't mind that raiders will have better gear than nonraiders in Vanguard; why did you bother with that line of argument if you don't think it's going to be true?
What propaganda? I'm a lot more dense than you, so you'll have to spell it out for me. I've said it from the beginning; to everyone, as far as I know. Nobody will be able to acquire even a small percentage of ALL the gear in this game. There is no "best" gear for every situation.The only thing we know for sure is that 20% OF THE CONTENT is going to be solo/casual, 60% group CONTENT, and 20% raid CONTENT. Does that mean that 20% of the gear from solo/casual is going to be "best"? Nope. Just like it doesn't mean that 20% from raid is "best". What is does mean is that it's DIFFERENT. Is different better? I have no idea, AND neither do you. The reason? We haven't played the game yet!
Now, if it turns out that there are items (gear) that are absolutely required in order for a group (not a raid) to complete group or casual content; and those items are ONLY available from raid content - I whole-heartily agree with you. However, as neither of us have played the game; we have no way of knowing that.
All we know at this point is that 20% of the CONTENT will only be available from raids. Would some of the items from raids be nice to have? I'm sure they would be. However, if it is not NECESSARY for me to enjoy my group and casual content; then so be it. The game is plenty big enough that even if I never touch the 20% raid content, I will never run out of things to do and experience. And who knows, perhaps I'll like the way that Vanguard does raid content and decide that it may be fun to try it sometime down the road. I'm pretty sure the other 80% will keep me busy in the mean time.
That comment doesn't even make sense.
That comment doesn't even make sense.
Ok I will explain it then, but I will do so using Transformers.
Normal person: I want to have access to both BumbleBee and Optimus Prime without raiding or else I won't play. And by the way those raiders may access Optimus Prime however they like raid or group I don't give a flying frig.
Raider: If you let that sub-human non raider have Optimus Prime without raiding then I won't play your game.
We can argue about the argument allw e want, but that doesn't change the fact that Vaguard is an item centric game at it's core, and as such, items will have a very large impact on the power of a character.
Now they say that to earn the most powerful items, a player with have to raid, group, and solo. Well, anyone can solo, but not everyone has time to raid. if you do have time to raid, then one assumes that you also have time to group and even play solo. You may prefer not to play solo, but I bet you will to get that last item in your set..probably the weakest set item at that. Raid guilds WILL have all the content available to them. Groupers will have 2/3rds the content, and soloers will only have solo content.
Vanguard definately IS a raiders game, and definately NOT a game for solo players.
Yes, cannonik12, we know Colton is threatened by Vanguard, along with any other game made by even halfway talented devs. Now go back to your cubicle.
Uber guilds a positive thing for the community?
And thats where I got nautious.
Small tight knit guilds with close friends are fun.
Big Raiding guilds are in my experience very elitest, rude and condescending.
Just curious, is your IQ, Last Word and Pissing contest over yet?
You guys arguing reminded me of a chat I had with a english teacher in high school. One day I told her, you always have to have the last word dont you. And not too surpisingly she said "NO YOU DO!!". You should of seen the look in her eyes when I sat silently and smiled. Awwwww that moment was priceless.