Originally posted by Vanguarde Exactly what this statement says. Too bad many casual players cant understand that. Sigil has developed an immersive game that caters to all kind of players, and they give the casual players many options to obtain really good equipments.
Yes, some people just argue because they just don't like Vanguard and want other people to think it is some power gamers game. Fact is, it is really leaving TONS of options for all play styles. Why I take such exception to those who claim as fact that VSoH gives an advantage to Raiders is because it truely worries me that those new to VSoH will believe it. I'm NOT claiming it perfect, for example, I wish it didn't use Levels (yes, I'm a SWG Refugee), but it's definatly designed for all styles of gameplay.
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
Originally posted by MX13 Originally posted by gestalt11 Originally posted by MX13 Originally posted by gestalt11 Originally posted by MX13 Originally posted by gestalt11
At the very least you should be able to admit that the item set of someone who does not raid will not be functionally equivalent to someone who raids and groups. It can EXCEED it, you just don't want to admit it.
This is completely impossible. Grouping is a subset of raid and grouping. Your conlcusion is illogical and contradicts mathematics. There is no way a subset will exceed the superset. No, it is absolutly possible. Math is on my side. If there are THOUSANDS of highend items available (which there are), only 20% of those items are raid releated, AND some are tradable / sellable, then YOU ABSOLUTLY CAN EXCEED A SET W/ A RAID ONLY PIECE. It's mathimatically PROBABLE. How can you even deny that? Seriously, the math is SO NOT on your side, it makes you appear ignorant.
Possible Grouping item set = item1, item2,item3, item4
Possible raid item set = item5, item6
possible raid&grouping item set = item1,item2,item3,item4, item5, item,6
How can either of the first two sets exceed the third. They cannot. The most than can ever acheive is equivalence. And that will only be possible if every single item is non-bind on pick up and tradeable or the raid item set is completely redundant.
I have specifically referred to raid&grouping in the above posts and not raid-exclusive players. You cannot seriously claim someone who raids and groups won't get at least the same set for dungeon X that someone who groups does. In addition he has the extra options of whatever raid gear there is, some of which may eclipse any grouping equivalent.
The best you can hope to argue is that someone who raids and groups will simply not have time to work on an optimal set of gear for dungeon X because he is too busy working on his set of gear for raid Y. It is always the case that a raid&grouper can have the exact same gear as a grouper. It is not always the case that a non-raider can have the same gear as a raid&grouper. If you assume two people of equal competence and time commitments they are not functionally equivalent. And the grouper will not exceed that raid&grouper, because if that were the case the raid&grouper would simply do the same thing.
Further given historical trends in MMORPGs it is not reasonable to assume that people will be perpetually occupied. It is almost always the case that a fairly substanital subset of customers go through content faster than it is released(10-25%). Trying to argue that the raid&groupers will simply not have enough time to obtain both good grouping sets and good raid sets, and therefore exceed a grouper, does not seem reasonable to me. And to assume the raid gear will not be advantageous in at least some subset of group instances is also unreasonable.
Is it possible that some individual grouper could exceed some individual raid&grouper. Sure if that grouper has a ton of items and the raid&grouper has three. But that means nothing.
Look, this is the last I'll explain this, because your ignorance on this issue is ASTOUNDING. The thing you're not getting is that there are HUNDREDS of other HIGH-END options available to players for item5 & item6, so the FACT that a player can obtain a item5 & item6 is ABSOLUTE.
And to argue that someone who would spent hundreds of hours of play to raiding would have the time to gain EVERY OTHER High-End item in the game is ABSURD. There WILL be a High-End FULL set for everyone available, PERIOD... please stop this, you're just WRONG. It's PROVEN ALL players will have access to High-End items for every possible slot, even IF they don't raid...
You are simply arguing that there will be redundancy. Which BMQ has already refuted. You think you are refuting what I am arguing but you are not and then you hide in the convienent refuge of claiming I do not get it.
You misundertand, item1 is not the same as head slot or hand slot.
That item list is meant to be an example of a complete enumeration of all possible items obtainable by playstyle reduced down to the precentages quote from BMQ. That is why it is 4/2/6. Although I could have reduced compltely down to 2/1/3. It is meant to illustrate how your set theory is wrong. I have left out the 20% solo/very small group for convience. But we could perform the same analysis and obtain similar results.
Because of the complete containment of the first two sets by the third your statement of set one exceeding set three is false. Yes you could come up with absurd instances where one exceeds the other. But given the same person operating under the constraints of the various sets it is completely preposterous that he would exceed the capabilities of set three under the constraints of set 1. Even if set 2 is completely redundant, which we know it it not to be, you would merely obtain equivalence and can never move past that. Raid+group+solo item sets are the sum total of all droppable items in the game. If we assume everyone has access to solo items and thus discount that for the time being then someone who Raid&groups has access to ALL droppable items in the game. And a Grouper has access to a proper subset of items in the game.
The only way that these two sets will even be equivlanet is if the raid item set is redundant compared to the group item set. Which it is not according to BMQ.
BMQ, to his credit, has never argued what you are currently attempting to argue. He has never argued that they are equivalent he has merely stated its not that big of a deal and that group stuff is balanced for group stuff and you are not required to raid because of the group balance. In contrast to the forced grouping of EQ. The people who say this or other games are "raid games" are using a fundamentally different argument than people use to say EQ was a forced grouping game. BMQ's point is that there is no forced raiding. He does not try to argue that there is equivlanece because not only is that preposterous, it is not what he wants.
It is you who are promulgating misinformation, not I.
You can claim superior knowledge all you like, but you are wrong. And provably wrong.
At the very least you should be able to admit that the item set of someone who does not raid will not be functionally equivalent to someone who raids and groups. It can EXCEED it, you just don't want to admit it.
This is completely impossible. Grouping is a subset of raid and grouping. Your conlcusion is illogical and contradicts mathematics. There is no way a subset will exceed the superset.
No, it is absolutly possible. Math is on my side. If there are THOUSANDS of highend items available (which there are), only 20% of those items are raid releated, AND some are tradable / sellable, then YOU ABSOLUTLY CAN EXCEED A SET W/ A RAID ONLY PIECE. It's mathimatically PROBABLE. How can you even deny that? Seriously, the math is SO NOT on your side, it makes you appear ignorant.
Possible Grouping item set = item1, item2,item3, item4
Possible raid item set = item5, item6
possible raid&grouping item set = item1,item2,item3,item4, item5, item,6
How can either of the first two sets exceed the third. They cannot. The most than can ever acheive is equivalence. And that will only be possible if every single item is non-bind on pick up and tradeable or the raid item set is completely redundant.
I have specifically referred to raid&grouping in the above posts and not raid-exclusive players. You cannot seriously claim someone who raids and groups won't get at least the same set for dungeon X that someone who groups does. In addition he has the extra options of whatever raid gear there is, some of which may eclipse any grouping equivalent.
The best you can hope to argue is that someone who raids and groups will simply not have time to work on an optimal set of gear for dungeon X because he is too busy working on his set of gear for raid Y. It is always the case that a raid&grouper can have the exact same gear as a grouper. It is not always the case that a non-raider can have the same gear as a raid&grouper. If you assume two people of equal competence and time commitments they are not functionally equivalent. And the grouper will not exceed that raid&grouper, because if that were the case the raid&grouper would simply do the same thing.
Further given historical trends in MMORPGs it is not reasonable to assume that people will be perpetually occupied. It is almost always the case that a fairly substanital subset of customers go through content faster than it is released(10-25%). Trying to argue that the raid&groupers will simply not have enough time to obtain both good grouping sets and good raid sets, and therefore exceed a grouper, does not seem reasonable to me. And to assume the raid gear will not be advantageous in at least some subset of group instances is also unreasonable.
Is it possible that some individual grouper could exceed some individual raid&grouper. Sure if that grouper has a ton of items and the raid&grouper has three. But that means nothing.
Look, this is the last I'll explain this, because your ignorance on this issue is ASTOUNDING. The thing you're not getting is that there are HUNDREDS of other HIGH-END options available to players for item5 & item6, so the FACT that a player can obtain a item5 & item6 is ABSOLUTE.
And to argue that someone who would spent hundreds of hours of play to raiding would have the time to gain EVERY OTHER High-End item in the game is ABSURD. There WILL be a High-End FULL set for everyone available, PERIOD... please stop this, you're just WRONG. It's PROVEN ALL players will have access to High-End items for every possible slot, even IF they don't raid...
You are simply arguing that there will be redundancy. Which BMQ has already refuted. You think you are refuting what I am arguing but you are not and then you hide in the convienent refuge of claiming I do not get it.
You misundertand, item1 is not the same as head slot or hand slot.
That item list is meant to be an example of a complete enumeration of all possible items obtainable by playstyle reduced down to the precentages quote from BMQ. That is why it is 4/2/6. Although I could have reduced compltely down to 2/1/3. It is meant to illustrate how your set theory is wrong. I have left out the 20% solo/very small group for convience. But we could perform the same analysis and obtain similar results.
Because of the complete containment of the first two sets by the third your statement of set one exceeding set three is false. Yes you could come up with absurd instances where one exceeds the other. But given the same person operating under the constraints of the various sets it is completely preposterous that he would exceed the capabilities of set three under the constraints of set 1. Even if set 2 is completely redundant, which we know it it not to be, you would merely obtain equivalence and can never move past that. Raid+group+solo item sets are the sum total of all droppable items in the game. If we assume everyone has access to solo items and thus discount that for the time being then someone who Raid&groups has access to ALL droppable items in the game. And a Grouper has access to a proper subset of items in the game.
The only way that these two sets will even be equivlanet is if the raid item set is redundant compared to the group item set. Which it is not according to BMQ.
BMQ, to his credit, has never argued what you are currently attempting to argue. He has never argued that they are equivalent he has merely stated its not that big of a deal and that group stuff is balanced for group stuff and you are not required to raid because of the group balance. In contrast to the forced grouping of EQ. The people who say this or other games are "raid games" are using a fundamentally different argument than people use to say EQ was a forced grouping game. BMQ's point is that there is no forced raiding. He does not try to argue that there is equivlanece because not only is that preposterous, it is not what he wants.
It is you who are promulgating misinformation, not I.
You can claim superior knowledge all you like, but you are wrong. And provably wrong.
1) You are just arguing to Argue, period.
2) Your Premise is completely false. a) It IS about Slots, because they vary. Just because one item5 may be a bracers, doesn't mean there isn't a helm like it, or ANOTHER set of bracers with equal stats that ARE NOT RAID RELATED.
3) You don't even KNOW if those items can't be traded for, or bought, which COMPLETELY defeats your arguement.
4) Brad has said NOTHING like what you claim he has said, go to the VSoH Forums and ask him yourself, OR STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH & HIS.
5) YOU are the one that is wrong, and in fact, the only thing you've proved is your ignorance on the issue. Your Arguement is hopeless. The entire BASE of your arguement is false since you can't even prove a player won't have access to all "slots" via trade, grouping or compiling. Just based on your arguement it's clear you know NOTHING of the game mechanics, period. And to top it off, you claim to ubderstand what you are talking about when those, such as myself, who have studied the systems and done out research can tell you that even if you couldn't trade / buy the items it is still possible to build an equal or great gear set, and that is NOT debatable. The fact that there may be an INCREDIBLY small amount of items that are raid-exclusive doesn't mean there are equivilant ways to achieve the bonuses those items represent, PERIOD.
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
2) Your Premise is completely false. a) It IS about Slots, because they vary. Just because one item5 may be a bracers, doesn't mean there isn't a helm like it, or ANOTHER set of bracers with equal stats that ARE NOT RAID RELATED.
3) You don't even KNOW if those items can't be traded for, or bought, which COMPLETELY defeats your arguement.
4) Brad has said NOTHING like what you claim he has said, go to the VSoH Forums and ask him yourself, OR STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH & HIS.
5) YOU are the one that is wrong, and in fact, the only thing you've proved is your ignorance on the issue. Your Arguement is hopeless. The entire BASE of your arguement is false since you can't even prove a player won't have access to all "slots" via trade, grouping or compiling. Just based on your arguement it's clear you know NOTHING of the game mechanics, period. And to top it off, you claim to ubderstand what you are talking about when those, such as myself, who have studied the systems and done out research can tell you that even if you couldn't trade / buy the items it is still possible to build an equal or great gear set, and that is NOT debatable. The fact that there may be an INCREDIBLY small amount of items that are raid-exclusive doesn't mean there are equivilant ways to achieve the bonuses those items represent, PERIOD.
Hmmm, you are changing what the Sigil team told and write us. 20% of the best items will be exclusively for raiders and even if you can have "similar" items while not raiding, it will never replace these 20% items you miss, you will have 20% slots that are weaker, because you don't raid. Brad said it often, that if you don't raid, then you will not be able to be the best grouper(or the best at anything), you will have to raid to gain 20% of the best items, and the grouping alternatives for these slots will be extremely weaks, the good grouping items won't conflict over the raiding slots. The "raiding" slots will be exclusively dedicated to raid items, non-raids items in these slots will be significantly weaker. It was explain often, in more elusive words, but explain nonetheless.
Raid-free servers or die!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Originally posted by Anofalye ...Brad said it often, that if you don't raid, then you will not be able to be the best grouper(or the best at anything)...
Well, since Brad has said it often it should be easy to find a quote of him saying exactly that. Unless of course you were just making that part up.
I'm still wondering how WoW got to be so popular with their hundreds and hundreds of "Raid-Enforced" servers and not a single one "Raid-Free"?
Hmm... how did they escape the - Raid-free servers or die! Very curious indeed.
Originally posted by Anofalye ...Brad said it often, that if you don't raid, then you will not be able to be the best grouper(or the best at anything)...
Well, since Brad has said it often it should be easy to find a quote of him saying exactly that. Unless of course you were just making that part up.
I'm still wondering how WoW got to be so popular with their hundreds and hundreds of "Raid-Enforced" servers and not a single one "Raid-Free"?
Hmm... how did they escape the - Raid-free servers or die! Very curious indeed.
WoW isn't popular with it raid-server. It is popular prior peoples get there.
Big difference.
Getting you a link, stay tune.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Originally posted by Anofalye ...Brad said it often, that if you don't raid, then you will not be able to be the best grouper(or the best at anything)...
Well, since Brad has said it often it should be easy to find a quote of him saying exactly that. Unless of course you were just making that part up.
Well, he's not exactly making it up, he just completely misquoted Brad. He (Brad) said that to get all of the best items in the game you will have to participate in all spheres. This means soloing, grouping, raiding, diplomacy and crafting. Nothing about being the best grouper.
I'm not going to raid once and I guarantee you I will be uber and have a crapload of fun playing.
Originally posted by Anofalye WoW isn't popular with it raid-server. It is popular prior peoples get there.
Great point, so how does that make it forced raiding? This is the essential flaw in your arguments. I don't like raiding either bud, but that doesn't mean I can't have fun, nor does it ever mean raiding is enforced. Yes to get certain items in game you will have to raid, who cares?
I too think it would be kewl if they made a server where you could do the raid content with just a group. This most likely won't happen but if it does I'll see you there.
2) Your Premise is completely false. a) It IS about Slots, because they vary. Just because one item5 may be a bracers, doesn't mean there isn't a helm like it, or ANOTHER set of bracers with equal stats that ARE NOT RAID RELATED.
3) You don't even KNOW if those items can't be traded for, or bought, which COMPLETELY defeats your arguement.
4) Brad has said NOTHING like what you claim he has said, go to the VSoH Forums and ask him yourself, OR STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH & HIS.
5) YOU are the one that is wrong, and in fact, the only thing you've proved is your ignorance on the issue. Your Arguement is hopeless. The entire BASE of your arguement is false since you can't even prove a player won't have access to all "slots" via trade, grouping or compiling. Just based on your arguement it's clear you know NOTHING of the game mechanics, period. And to top it off, you claim to ubderstand what you are talking about when those, such as myself, who have studied the systems and done out research can tell you that even if you couldn't trade / buy the items it is still possible to build an equal or great gear set, and that is NOT debatable. The fact that there may be an INCREDIBLY small amount of items that are raid-exclusive doesn't mean there are equivilant ways to achieve the bonuses those items represent, PERIOD.
Hmmm, you are changing what the Sigil team told and write us. 20% of the best items will be exclusively for raiders and even if you can have "similar" items while not raiding, it will never replace these 20% items you miss, you will have 20% slots that are weaker, because you don't raid. Brad said it often, that if you don't raid, then you will not be able to be the best grouper(or the best at anything), you will have to raid to gain 20% of the best items, and the grouping alternatives for these slots will be extremely weaks, the good grouping items won't conflict over the raiding slots. The "raiding" slots will be exclusively dedicated to raid items, non-raids items in these slots will be significantly weaker. It was explain often, in more elusive words, but explain nonetheless.
Raid-free servers or die!
Look, that is not what they said. Just go read thier FAQ... or ANY of the posts they've made... just wow...
It's simple, take Brad's example: There are bracers in that example that are raid items, but just because those bracers are raid items it doesn't mean-
a) You can't trade for them.
b) You can't buy them.
c) you can't find another set of bracers at the same High-End level NOT raiding.
d) A different combination of items won't give you the same stats or BETTER.
Sure, there is a chance you can't get THOSE bracers, but that doesn't mean there aren't other bracers out there that will suit you just as well, or better. It's depends on so many factoer, you can't rule it out. Based on the#'s & % of High-End Gear in the game, it's actually extreamly UNLIKELY you can't put together an equal or greater set of gear. Sure, you may not have the same name on all 5 pieces of your gear, but that doesn't mean it won't be equal / better and even a chance it will be slighly lesser. You just can't say it isn't possible, period.
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
hrm........... you all believe Brad, the creator of EQ, that all the best gear will come from all different areas? Ok I agree that may be the way it is when the game first releases but as time goes on raiders will be on top and everyone else will get pushed down. Its just the way things work. Blizzard once promised raiding wouldnt be a big part of WoW and now look what happened. You can delude yourself into believing Brad all you want but the fact of the matter is he will start catering to raiders more and more as time goes on.
Originally posted by Anofalye ...Brad said it often, that if you don't raid, then you will not be able to be the best grouper(or the best at anything)...
Well, since Brad has said it often it should be easy to find a quote of him saying exactly that. Unless of course you were just making that part up.
I'm still wondering how WoW got to be so popular with their hundreds and hundreds of "Raid-Enforced" servers and not a single one "Raid-Free"?
Hmm... how did they escape the - Raid-free servers or die! Very curious indeed.
WoW isn't popular with it raid-server. It is popular prior peoples get there.
Big difference.
Getting you a link, stay tune.
Here, let me save you the time:
Originally posted by Aradune Sigil Games CEO
Heard that the best items are only available via raids? False.
Thank you!
-Brad McQuaid
Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online
Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
Original Producer & Co-Designer, EverQuest
And this was the quickest one I could find... he's said this REPEATEDLY...
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
Originally posted by Anofalye ...Brad said it often, that if you don't raid, then you will not be able to be the best grouper(or the best at anything)...
Well, since Brad has said it often it should be easy to find a quote of him saying exactly that. Unless of course you were just making that part up.
I'm still wondering how WoW got to be so popular with their hundreds and hundreds of "Raid-Enforced" servers and not a single one "Raid-Free"?
Hmm... how did they escape the - Raid-free servers or die! Very curious indeed.
From the FAQ on Vanguard forum...
11.13, here is a part of what you ask
I've posted quite a bit on this months ago and encourage your and anyone interested to dig up the posts (some have been re-posted in this thread already -- thanks guys). In a nutshell, we want the best items to be available though a variety of routes: raids, long contiguous adventures, broken up adventures, trade skills, diplomacy, etc. The only potentially controversial aspect of this is that is likely that not ALL of the best items you might want will be available through only one of these methods. If you are a person who wants ALL of the best stuff, you'll have to involve yourself in all of the above, including raiding and long contiguous adventures, even though the majority of content, including that which yields great rewards, will be group oriented.
I can find you more such quotes if you want. If you don't raid, you are screwed. Said in another wording, said nonetheless. If you want to be the BEST grouper, you have to raid. I can tell you more about the way it is written, it is in a middle paragrah, it is the second last sentence, it is written where it is less likely to get attention, as you know the first paragraph, the last paragraph, the first sentence of each paragraph are all more likely to get attention...but a middle paragraph and 2-3 lines from the bottom is the place to get the less attention. It is all in writting skills, which Brad master very well btw.
Raid-free servers or die!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
I personally love raiding, its the only reason I play mmorpgs. From what I have observed while playing EQ1 and EQ2 is that you can give the players infinite amount the group/solo content, and they still won't be happy.
This is mainly due to envy of the player items that in all honesty are complete crap when compared to raid level items.
While Brad has talked about risk equals reward, being a raiding player changes this. Soloing becomes a joke and taking on mobsters that would normally take a group can be taken down easily with a single player decked out in raid gear. I am basing this off of my experiences in Everquest and may be wrong how this will turn out for Vanguard. But this game sounds to me like a item centralistic game like Everquest.
Now the risk for the raid player becomes minimal and what were tough to impossible for the average player, on the flipside of the grouping experience become routine to the raid player. And now the nonraiding players will not be choosen for these tough group zones, and now they feel like they are left out of grouping experience with other players.
I believe if you like grouping in MMORPG that are item centralized, you must raid a little or you will be left behind.
WoW isn't popular with it raid-server. It is popular prior peoples get there.
But that is just it. WoW was/IS still popular - even with all their RAID ONLY servers! I'm not arguing wether raiding is popular or not. I'm arguing that you have absolutely no basis for stating that Vanguard will be a flop or have to close down eventually f they don't offer "raid-free" servers.
Show me a game where that's happened. I can show you WoW as proof to the opposite. So, for your arguement to hold water; where it the proof for your theory?
Originally posted by sunbasher I personally love raiding, its the only reason I play mmorpgs. From what I have observed while playing EQ1 and EQ2 is that you can give the players infinite amount the group/solo content, and they still won't be happy.
This is mainly due to envy of the player items that in all honesty are complete crap when compared to raid level items.
While Brad has talked about risk equals reward, being a raiding player changes this. Soloing becomes a joke and taking on mobsters that would normally take a group can be taken down easily with a single player decked out in raid gear. I am basing this off of my experiences in Everquest and may be wrong how this will turn out for Vanguard. But this game sounds to me like a item centralistic game like Everquest.
Now the risk for the raid player becomes minimal and what were tough to impossible for the average player, on the flipside of the grouping experience become routine to the raid player. And now the nonraiding players will not be choosen for these tough group zones, and now they feel like they are left out of grouping experience with other players.
I believe if you like grouping in MMORPG that are item centralized, you must raid a little or you will be left behind.
Thank you,
Sunbasher
EQ 2 70 Berserker Risen
EQ1 65 Wizard
DoAC 50 Guardian
Or get raid-free servers!
Raid-free or die!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
WoW isn't popular with it raid-server. It is popular prior peoples get there.
But that is just it. WoW was/IS still popular - even with all their RAID ONLY servers! I'm not arguing wether raiding is popular or not. I'm arguing that you have absolutely no basis for stating that Vanguard will be a flop or have to close down eventually f they don't offer "raid-free" servers.
Show me a game where that's happened. I can show you WoW as proof to the opposite. So, for your arguement to hold water; where it the proof for your theory?
Well, prior EQ someone could have the same logic about PvP.
Then EQ come out, with PvE servers and get popular. WoW is just increasing that raid-hatred tenfold. Where you use to have peoples bearing raiding despite disliking it, peoples are not buying that raiding crap anymore.
Players evolve, and their attitude evolves. See, I was playing SoL and bearing the raid-logic, once upon a time. However, this change and I will not bear it anymore. Some peoples may not complains out loud, but many won't bear raiding anymore as well. And WoW just increase that raid-hatred...a LOT.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Originally posted by Anofalye Originally posted by dragonace Originally posted by Anofalye ...Brad said it often, that if you don't raid, then you will not be able to be the best grouper(or the best at anything)...
Well, since Brad has said it often it should be easy to find a quote of him saying exactly that. Unless of course you were just making that part up.
I'm still wondering how WoW got to be so popular with their hundreds and hundreds of "Raid-Enforced" servers and not a single one "Raid-Free"?
Hmm... how did they escape the - Raid-free servers or die! Very curious indeed.
From the FAQ on Vanguard forum...
11.13, here is a part of what you ask
I've posted quite a bit on this months ago and encourage your and anyone interested to dig up the posts (some have been re-posted in this thread already -- thanks guys). In a nutshell, we want the best items to be available though a variety of routes: raids, long contiguous adventures, broken up adventures, trade skills, diplomacy, etc. The only potentially controversial aspect of this is that is likely that not ALL of the best items you might want will be available through only one of these methods. If you are a person who wants ALL of the best stuff, you'll have to involve yourself in all of the above, including raiding and long contiguous adventures, even though the majority of content, including that which yields great rewards, will be group oriented.
I can find you more such quotes if you want. If you don't raid, you are screwed. Said in another wording, said nonetheless. If you want to be the BEST grouper, you have to raid. I can tell you more about the way it is written, it is in a middle paragrah, it is the second last sentence, it is written where it is less likely to get attention, as you know the first paragraph, the last paragraph, the first sentence of each paragraph are all more likely to get attention...but a middle paragraph and 2-3 lines from the bottom is the place to get the less attention. It is all in writting skills, which Brad master very well btw.
Raid-free servers or die!
So in your mind: "if you don't raid, then you will not be able to be the best grouper" = "If you are a person who wants ALL of the best stuff, you'll have to involve yourself in all of the above, including raiding"
I don't see it. I don't even see them as close.
That's why I wanted to see the quote as it was said.
Originally posted by Anofalye Originally posted by dragonace Originally posted by Anofalye
WoW isn't popular with it raid-server. It is popular prior peoples get there.
But that is just it. WoW was/IS still popular - even with all their RAID ONLY servers! I'm not arguing wether raiding is popular or not. I'm arguing that you have absolutely no basis for stating that Vanguard will be a flop or have to close down eventually f they don't offer "raid-free" servers.
Show me a game where that's happened. I can show you WoW as proof to the opposite. So, for your arguement to hold water; where it the proof for your theory?
Well, prior EQ someone could have the same logic about PvP.
Then EQ come out, with PvE servers and get popular. WoW is just increasing that raid-hatred tenfold. Where you use to have peoples bearing raiding despite disliking it, peoples are not buying that raiding crap anymore.
Players evolve, and their attitude evolves. See, I was playing SoL and bearing the raid-logic, once upon a time. However, this change and I will not bear it anymore. Some peoples may not complains out loud, but many won't bear raiding anymore as well. And WoW just increase that raid-hatred...a LOT.
Heh, no matter how many times you say it - it doesn't make it true. Show me some numbers (any numbers) that support your opinion. Show me where WoW has suffered (lost subscribers) because of their Raid ONLY servers.
WoW has been growing at an unbelievable rate, and they ONLY have RAID servers. Is it because people don't know there is RAID when they get to 60? Heh, yup; that must be it.
Heh, no matter how many times you say it - it doesn't make it true. Show me some numbers (any numbers) that support your opinion. Show me where WoW has suffered (lost subscribers) because of their Raid ONLY servers.
WoW has been growing at an unbelievable rate, and they ONLY have RAID servers. Is it because people don't know there is RAID when they get to 60? Heh, yup; that must be it.
exactly, the majority of people may not like to raid but the fact is the majority of people don't refuse to play a game because of raiding.
that is indeed a fact up to this point that wow has proven with its subscribers numbers, people can and do still enjoy these games in spite of raiding.
most people are not so much of a hardcore achiever (like Anofalye) where they absolutely refuse to play a game where they cant be(or have the possibility to be) the absolute best but yet refuse to participate in all aspects of the game.
most people just want to play a game they can enjoy with friends, and if they feel they need to be "the best" then more times than not they would be willing to raid.
sure i don't have any facts to back this up, just common sense.
Originally posted by z80paranoia Some of us have expressed interest in a non-raiding server. I was one of those people. I would love to see one in Vanguard. But honestly, it's far better to actually support a game that is being made from the ground up to support our playstyle. Why? Because then there will be no need for alternative rule servers and we will have more like-minded people to play the game with. Why? Because the main, and therefore, most populated servers will support our playstyle by default.
If you really want to show Vanguard how popular a game that was similar but didn't force raiding would be then start supporting a game that does just that. Support an mmo that does not deny one the ability to progress in small groups or solo. Support a game that doesn't implicitly regard groupers as second-class citizens. That game is The Lord Of The Rings Online. This game is for us. Sure, their classes are few and the armor looks kind of boring (compared to the flamboyant WoW and Guildwars armors) but other than that, it's right up our alley.
When people read about how we want to be as decked out as a soloer or grouper as a raider, the typical reply is "If you want to have group and solo epics, Vanguard is not for you". Those people are absolutely correct. Don't even bother trying to argue it. They are wrong sometimes when they sometimes say that soloers and groupers want "free epics". Something you worked hard for whether solo or in a group is not "free". Such statements presuppose that dezens if not hundreds of hours of raiding a single dungeon is the only possible valid form of "currency" for epic gear. That also presupposes that the work of a single individual or party is inherently inferior. That's all elitist garbage. Nevertheless, if the devs back them by supporting their playstyle the most, then that game is just not for us.
This post was not made to bash Vanguard. It will be a good game for those who agree with that style of advancement. I'm only saying that instead of complaining or petitioning and polling for changes that go against the developers intentions, support a different game. Other people have said this but I decided to dedicate an entire topic to it in my own words. Please try to understand it before flaming. This post was made to give those of us who hate raiding something to consider.
Very elegantly put. I hope people read it all the way through.
If you are a person who wants ALL of the best stuff, you'll have to involve yourself in all of the above, including raiding
If you don't raid, you are screwed..
Your opinion is retarded. You think that just because I don't have ALL of the very best stuff in a game that means I'm screwed? Give your head a shake man!
neanderthal : I'm going to destroy your entire argument at the base right now. This is where it started and the flaws that your entire argument is based on shall be made clear and thus render your whole argument moot. It is moot because it is based on an irrelevant and fallacious premise.
Originally posted by Neanderthal Paranoia, I would agree with you 100% except for one little problem....LotRO has raiding too. Point me to a well funded fantasy game coming out in the near future that DOESN'T have raiding and I'll be all over it.
your argument is based on two fallacious points:
1."Paranoia, I would agree with you 100% except for one little problem....LotRO has raiding too." I never said in my OP or any post after it that LoTRO would not have raiding. So basically what this is is a red herring (click link) fallacy. You brought up an uncontested point. Had I said that LoTRO would not have raiding, then that would have been a valid attack on my position. Can you please validate the relevance of this point by quoting me as claiming LoTRO would not have raiding?
2."Point me to a well funded fantasy game coming out in the near future that DOESN'T have raiding and I'll be all over it." I never claimed that there was any sort of game coming out in the near future that didn't have raiding in my OP. So basically what this is is a red herring (click link) fallacy. You brought up an uncontested point. Had I actually claimed that there was an mmo coming out in the near future that didn't have raiding, then that would have been a valid attack on my position. Can you please validate the relevance of this point by quoting me as claiming an mmo was coming out in the near future that will not have raiding?
Then you follow up with more logical fallacies and fallacious red herring lines of questioning based not on my actual claims but on uncontested (and therefore irrelevant) points that have no baring on the validity of my actual claims. A valid point is a point that counters an actual claim explicitly made by your opponent. You on the otherhand have been focusing your questions on points that while mostly in and of themselves true are not valid attacks against my claims because they attack positions I never claimed in the first place. Now if you ever decide to attack my argument with questions that question any actual claim that I have made explicitly, then we can go at it...until then you are just wasting my time with your irrelevant garbage red herring questions and statements.
Originally posted by Anofalye If you are a person who wants ALL of the best stuff, you'll have to involve yourself in all of the above, including raiding If you don't raid, you are screwed..
Your opinion is retarded. You think that just because I don't have ALL of the very best stuff in a game that means I'm screwed? Give your head a shake man!
If you don't play to have fun, you are screwed. You don't need the best stuff to have fun.
Originally posted by baphamet Originally posted by dragonaceHeh, no matter how many times you say it - it doesn't make it true. Show me some numbers (any numbers) that support your opinion. Show me where WoW has suffered (lost subscribers) because of their Raid ONLY servers.WoW has been growing at an unbelievable rate, and they ONLY have RAID servers. Is it because people don't know there is RAID when they get to 60? Heh, yup; that must be it.
exactly, the majority of people may not like to raid but the fact is the majority of people don't refuse to play a game because of raiding.
that is indeed a fact up to this point that wow has proven with its subscribers numbers, people can and do still enjoy these games in spite of raiding.
most people are not so much of a hardcore achiever (like Anofalye) where they absolutely refuse to play a game where they cant be(or have the possibility to be) the absolute best but yet refuse to participate in all aspects of the game.
most people just want to play a game they can enjoy with friends, and if they feel they need to be "the best" then more times than not they would be willing to raid.
sure i don't have any facts to back this up, just common sense.
This is merely a case of lack of competition and lock-step design. We won't KNOW the answer until someone tries it. Let's face it WoW is heavily based on the EQ model even down to the raiding.
The only thing that can be said with much certainty is that in this specific genre of level grind item-centric MMORPGs the introduction of raiding has hurt one game and removing that content helped that game. This game is DAoC. But no one else has ever released a game with raid and non-raid servers. And other than DAoC no one has realeased a raid server and then released a non-raid server.
DAoC would indicate that it is a good idea with its classic servers, but that is muddled up with possible dislike of other content additions or just plain nostalgia. It is certainly a stronger indication than "We know most people in WoW dislike raiding but they tolerate it". But until we see actual competition between raid and raid-disabled we rather than rollbacks to pre-expansion, won't really know.
Further WoW also indicates that disabling raid content is a no-loss proposition since at least 75% of people have never even bothered to finish the first raid instance much less step foot in the next 3. And probably easily half the player population doesn't raid at all. Clearly for half the population disabling the raid content has no effect at all, well it might make the economy better. But it wouldn't effect content utilization. Raid content is already poorly unitlized when measured by population rather than time.
However I would be willing to bet quite a good amount of money that if WoW did create a raid disabled server set that had its own non-raid only BG section it would be immensly popular. Server crashingly popular. And I would go so far as to say the introduction of such a thing would cause quite a number of old canceled subs to be reactivated.
So yes it is certainly not clear at all whether raids are tolerable or necessary or whatever else, because there is not competition of variance in the rather stagnant MMORPG market. If there were competition though there is some indication from DAoC that raids would do rather poorly. However even if they are tolerated but hated, the WoW show there is no real reason to even force that toleration and nothing is gained by it since a quite large portion of your customers will never use it even if you do incentivize them. And it should be inarguable that WoW heavily incentivizes people to raid.
PvP was not always a necessary part of MMORPGs but more and more almost all MMORPGs are beginning to at least put in some sort of features a long those lines in some way. Simply because those who don't can't really compete. PvP is by far the major alternate ruleset in a large portion of MMORPG. Initially EQ had no PvP but due to DAoC and UO they created it. It may be the case that in the future it is as Anofayle says and those who don't offer a non-raid alternative will find themselves struggling to compete jsut like those who do not offer PvP. Or It may not be that way. We simply don't know and we won't know until there is competition.
But even though we don't know whether it is or will be NECESSARY it does seem like there is a quite a bit of data to show it may at least be worth a try to run a raid-disabled server. There are two very good reasons for this:
1) Its almost trivial to do and trivial to switch it back to a normal server. Therefore costs almost nothing. 2) There are clearly many people who are unhappy with raiding going all the way back to EQ days. And there is clearly an increased awareness of the dislike of raiding due to WoW. And the DAoC classic servers are existant business model with sufficent history and similarity to justify giving this outcry some credence.
So you may be able to try to satisfy a need at almost no risk. And if it turns out that need was just a bunch of people who don't know what they were asking for and are disatisfied you could turn it back into a normal server in a day by changing a configuration file.
So if Sigil does in fact release a non-raid server, which I will reiterate I do not expect they will do. Then we can at last see some competition and better be able to see if the DAoC classic server effect is nostalgia or mudflation or raids. Of course we would still need a number of other games to do the same thing to really get good data. And then see what happens to people who only offer raid servers or never offer and raiding and see if they have serious trouble competing. The most interesting thing would be to see if raiding even mattered at all. Would those game which never offered raiding struggle or do the same as those games that offered both? Clearly some people like to raid but would they tolerate not having raids in exchange for other things, like the groupers are currently tolerating raiders in WoW because they like WoW even if they never actually play a very large portion of the post release content additions.
Originally posted by Neanderthal I'm not going to requote all that crap again. Look, Paranoia, it's like this: You started a thread claiming that LotRO will be a great game for solo and group players who want to be able to progress just as much as raiders. I put you on the spot about it and you: 1. decline to offer any explanation of why we should believe your claim. In effect, telling people to believe you just because you say so.
The link I gave has a statement by (LoTRO Content Designer) Jared Hall-Dugas, and he clearly states ..."we are not forcing casual players to participate in raids"
I even posted another quote from Jared Hall Dugas
"Unique refers to the only place you can get said sword, armor, etc. We use comparable to say that while you may not be able to get the exact +400 uber sword of death that you can get in a Raid, you might get a +410 uber sword of smiting. And yes, crafters should be able to make some darn cool stuff..."
He clearly illustrates by the numbers that the intent is to allow non-raiders to get gear that is on par with raid gear. Could this all be false in the end? sure...but until proven false I base my assertions on his dev diary and forum posts.
You can't honestly say I never offered an explanation because even prior to this post I said that my claims are based on that dev diary link and that quote in the lotro forum by the same dev.
2. Tell me to ask the devs because you can't read their minds. In other words, you don't know anything. Had I claimed to actually know what the devs were going to do in the first place, (as per your original version of the question you are talking about) then it would be a valid and nonfallacious line of questioning. But in that instance you questioned an uncontested and unclaimed point. Putting someone on the spot means asking them to back their actual claims. Asking someone to back something they never claimed in the first place is a logical fallacy. 3. Won't even attempt to discuss the issue at hand, which you brought up, and instead prefer to bombard the thread with lengthy posts expounding on why I shouldn't be asking you questions.Your questions were fallacious. Those questions were asking me to back positions I never claimed in the first place and were therefore irrelevant. To sum up: You don't know. You can't or won't tell me anything. And you don't want to talk about it. So why did you bother starting this thread in the first place? Why did you feel qualified to announce that LotRO will be such a great game for solo and group players if you don't have any information to back it up and you won't even try to speculate rationally why it might be?Again, my point for the thread was to advise others to support a game that is already what they are looking for in a game (no forced raiding to have a top geared toon in this case) instead of trying to change a game that that is not designed from the ground up to support your request. Why "speculate" when I have authoritative quotes and dev diary links from Turbine employees? If all I did was speculate then I would be "asking" people to believe "me". By offering links and quotes from Turbine devs, I'm asking people to believe the source....which is more reliable and certain than any speculation I could ever make. The best you did was offer a link. I went to it and read it (I had read it before, by the way) and all I saw was a lot of hype about how great raiding would be in LotR. You can call it "hype" and dismiss it all you want but the irrefutable fact is those are official statements released by a Turbine Dev (Content Designer) This all seems pointless to me so far. You make a claim about a game and you won't even try to back it up. I would love it if you were right about this. I desparately want a good fantasy game that doesn't favor raiders. But I don't believe that LotR will be that game and you haven't offered me anything that even tempts me to change my mind.I never claimed to want to change your mind in the first place. I never made it my mission or objective to change neanderthals mind in the first place. Had I actually claimed that position I would concede, but it's just not the case.
Show me somebody who can't see the fallacious nature of your arguments and I'll show you an idiot. No seriously , find another member of this site that will back you and assert that your arguments are not fallacious and are not based on the fallacious position of asking me to back claims I never made in the first place and I will show you a fool. I will then challange that person to show me where I explicitly made the claim that you were asking me to back and he or she will not be able to find it.
Comments
Why I take such exception to those who claim as fact that VSoH gives an advantage to Raiders is because it truely worries me that those new to VSoH will believe it. I'm NOT claiming it perfect, for example, I wish it didn't use Levels (yes, I'm a SWG Refugee), but it's definatly designed for all styles of gameplay.
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
In fact, forget the SWG!!!!
No, it is absolutly possible. Math is on my side. If there are THOUSANDS of highend items available (which there are), only 20% of those items are raid releated, AND some are tradable / sellable, then YOU ABSOLUTLY CAN EXCEED A SET W/ A RAID ONLY PIECE. It's mathimatically PROBABLE. How can you even deny that? Seriously, the math is SO NOT on your side, it makes you appear ignorant.
Possible Grouping item set = item1, item2,item3, item4
Possible raid item set = item5, item6
possible raid&grouping item set = item1,item2,item3,item4, item5, item,6
How can either of the first two sets exceed the third. They cannot. The most than can ever acheive is equivalence. And that will only be possible if every single item is non-bind on pick up and tradeable or the raid item set is completely redundant.
I have specifically referred to raid&grouping in the above posts and not raid-exclusive players. You cannot seriously claim someone who raids and groups won't get at least the same set for dungeon X that someone who groups does. In addition he has the extra options of whatever raid gear there is, some of which may eclipse any grouping equivalent.
The best you can hope to argue is that someone who raids and groups will simply not have time to work on an optimal set of gear for dungeon X because he is too busy working on his set of gear for raid Y. It is always the case that a raid&grouper can have the exact same gear as a grouper. It is not always the case that a non-raider can have the same gear as a raid&grouper. If you assume two people of equal competence and time commitments they are not functionally equivalent. And the grouper will not exceed that raid&grouper, because if that were the case the raid&grouper would simply do the same thing.
Further given historical trends in MMORPGs it is not reasonable to assume that people will be perpetually occupied. It is almost always the case that a fairly substanital subset of customers go through content faster than it is released(10-25%). Trying to argue that the raid&groupers will simply not have enough time to obtain both good grouping sets and good raid sets, and therefore exceed a grouper, does not seem reasonable to me. And to assume the raid gear will not be advantageous in at least some subset of group instances is also unreasonable.
Is it possible that some individual grouper could exceed some individual raid&grouper. Sure if that grouper has a ton of items and the raid&grouper has three. But that means nothing.
Look, this is the last I'll explain this, because your ignorance on this issue is ASTOUNDING. The thing you're not getting is that there are HUNDREDS of other HIGH-END options available to players for item5 & item6, so the FACT that a player can obtain a item5 & item6 is ABSOLUTE.
And to argue that someone who would spent hundreds of hours of play to raiding would have the time to gain EVERY OTHER High-End item in the game is ABSURD. There WILL be a High-End FULL set for everyone available, PERIOD... please stop this, you're just WRONG. It's PROVEN ALL players will have access to High-End items for every possible slot, even IF they don't raid...
You are simply arguing that there will be redundancy. Which BMQ has already refuted. You think you are refuting what I am arguing but you are not and then you hide in the convienent refuge of claiming I do not get it.
You misundertand, item1 is not the same as head slot or hand slot.
That item list is meant to be an example of a complete enumeration of all possible items obtainable by playstyle reduced down to the precentages quote from BMQ. That is why it is 4/2/6. Although I could have reduced compltely down to 2/1/3. It is meant to illustrate how your set theory is wrong. I have left out the 20% solo/very small group for convience. But we could perform the same analysis and obtain similar results.
Because of the complete containment of the first two sets by the third your statement of set one exceeding set three is false. Yes you could come up with absurd instances where one exceeds the other. But given the same person operating under the constraints of the various sets it is completely preposterous that he would exceed the capabilities of set three under the constraints of set 1. Even if set 2 is completely redundant, which we know it it not to be, you would merely obtain equivalence and can never move past that. Raid+group+solo item sets are the sum total of all droppable items in the game. If we assume everyone has access to solo items and thus discount that for the time being then someone who Raid&groups has access to ALL droppable items in the game. And a Grouper has access to a proper subset of items in the game.
The only way that these two sets will even be equivlanet is if the raid item set is redundant compared to the group item set. Which it is not according to BMQ.
BMQ, to his credit, has never argued what you are currently attempting to argue. He has never argued that they are equivalent he has merely stated its not that big of a deal and that group stuff is balanced for group stuff and you are not required to raid because of the group balance. In contrast to the forced grouping of EQ. The people who say this or other games are "raid games" are using a fundamentally different argument than people use to say EQ was a forced grouping game. BMQ's point is that there is no forced raiding. He does not try to argue that there is equivlanece because not only is that preposterous, it is not what he wants.
It is you who are promulgating misinformation, not I.
You can claim superior knowledge all you like, but you are wrong. And provably wrong.
No, it is absolutly possible. Math is on my side. If there are THOUSANDS of highend items available (which there are), only 20% of those items are raid releated, AND some are tradable / sellable, then YOU ABSOLUTLY CAN EXCEED A SET W/ A RAID ONLY PIECE. It's mathimatically PROBABLE. How can you even deny that? Seriously, the math is SO NOT on your side, it makes you appear ignorant.
Possible Grouping item set = item1, item2,item3, item4
Possible raid item set = item5, item6
possible raid&grouping item set = item1,item2,item3,item4, item5, item,6
How can either of the first two sets exceed the third. They cannot. The most than can ever acheive is equivalence. And that will only be possible if every single item is non-bind on pick up and tradeable or the raid item set is completely redundant.
I have specifically referred to raid&grouping in the above posts and not raid-exclusive players. You cannot seriously claim someone who raids and groups won't get at least the same set for dungeon X that someone who groups does. In addition he has the extra options of whatever raid gear there is, some of which may eclipse any grouping equivalent.
The best you can hope to argue is that someone who raids and groups will simply not have time to work on an optimal set of gear for dungeon X because he is too busy working on his set of gear for raid Y. It is always the case that a raid&grouper can have the exact same gear as a grouper. It is not always the case that a non-raider can have the same gear as a raid&grouper. If you assume two people of equal competence and time commitments they are not functionally equivalent. And the grouper will not exceed that raid&grouper, because if that were the case the raid&grouper would simply do the same thing.
Further given historical trends in MMORPGs it is not reasonable to assume that people will be perpetually occupied. It is almost always the case that a fairly substanital subset of customers go through content faster than it is released(10-25%). Trying to argue that the raid&groupers will simply not have enough time to obtain both good grouping sets and good raid sets, and therefore exceed a grouper, does not seem reasonable to me. And to assume the raid gear will not be advantageous in at least some subset of group instances is also unreasonable.
Is it possible that some individual grouper could exceed some individual raid&grouper. Sure if that grouper has a ton of items and the raid&grouper has three. But that means nothing.
Look, this is the last I'll explain this, because your ignorance on this issue is ASTOUNDING. The thing you're not getting is that there are HUNDREDS of other HIGH-END options available to players for item5 & item6, so the FACT that a player can obtain a item5 & item6 is ABSOLUTE.
And to argue that someone who would spent hundreds of hours of play to raiding would have the time to gain EVERY OTHER High-End item in the game is ABSURD. There WILL be a High-End FULL set for everyone available, PERIOD... please stop this, you're just WRONG. It's PROVEN ALL players will have access to High-End items for every possible slot, even IF they don't raid...
You are simply arguing that there will be redundancy. Which BMQ has already refuted. You think you are refuting what I am arguing but you are not and then you hide in the convienent refuge of claiming I do not get it.
You misundertand, item1 is not the same as head slot or hand slot.
That item list is meant to be an example of a complete enumeration of all possible items obtainable by playstyle reduced down to the precentages quote from BMQ. That is why it is 4/2/6. Although I could have reduced compltely down to 2/1/3. It is meant to illustrate how your set theory is wrong. I have left out the 20% solo/very small group for convience. But we could perform the same analysis and obtain similar results.
Because of the complete containment of the first two sets by the third your statement of set one exceeding set three is false. Yes you could come up with absurd instances where one exceeds the other. But given the same person operating under the constraints of the various sets it is completely preposterous that he would exceed the capabilities of set three under the constraints of set 1. Even if set 2 is completely redundant, which we know it it not to be, you would merely obtain equivalence and can never move past that. Raid+group+solo item sets are the sum total of all droppable items in the game. If we assume everyone has access to solo items and thus discount that for the time being then someone who Raid&groups has access to ALL droppable items in the game. And a Grouper has access to a proper subset of items in the game.
The only way that these two sets will even be equivlanet is if the raid item set is redundant compared to the group item set. Which it is not according to BMQ.
BMQ, to his credit, has never argued what you are currently attempting to argue. He has never argued that they are equivalent he has merely stated its not that big of a deal and that group stuff is balanced for group stuff and you are not required to raid because of the group balance. In contrast to the forced grouping of EQ. The people who say this or other games are "raid games" are using a fundamentally different argument than people use to say EQ was a forced grouping game. BMQ's point is that there is no forced raiding. He does not try to argue that there is equivlanece because not only is that preposterous, it is not what he wants.
It is you who are promulgating misinformation, not I.
You can claim superior knowledge all you like, but you are wrong. And provably wrong.
1) You are just arguing to Argue, period.
2) Your Premise is completely false. a) It IS about Slots, because they vary. Just because one item5 may be a bracers, doesn't mean there isn't a helm like it, or ANOTHER set of bracers with equal stats that ARE NOT RAID RELATED.
3) You don't even KNOW if those items can't be traded for, or bought, which COMPLETELY defeats your arguement.
4) Brad has said NOTHING like what you claim he has said, go to the VSoH Forums and ask him yourself, OR STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH & HIS.
5) YOU are the one that is wrong, and in fact, the only thing you've proved is your ignorance on the issue. Your Arguement is hopeless. The entire BASE of your arguement is false since you can't even prove a player won't have access to all "slots" via trade, grouping or compiling. Just based on your arguement it's clear you know NOTHING of the game mechanics, period. And to top it off, you claim to ubderstand what you are talking about when those, such as myself, who have studied the systems and done out research can tell you that even if you couldn't trade / buy the items it is still possible to build an equal or great gear set, and that is NOT debatable. The fact that there may be an INCREDIBLY small amount of items that are raid-exclusive doesn't mean there are equivilant ways to achieve the bonuses those items represent, PERIOD.
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
In fact, forget the SWG!!!!
2) Your Premise is completely false. a) It IS about Slots, because they vary. Just because one item5 may be a bracers, doesn't mean there isn't a helm like it, or ANOTHER set of bracers with equal stats that ARE NOT RAID RELATED.
3) You don't even KNOW if those items can't be traded for, or bought, which COMPLETELY defeats your arguement.
4) Brad has said NOTHING like what you claim he has said, go to the VSoH Forums and ask him yourself, OR STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH & HIS.
5) YOU are the one that is wrong, and in fact, the only thing you've proved is your ignorance on the issue. Your Arguement is hopeless. The entire BASE of your arguement is false since you can't even prove a player won't have access to all "slots" via trade, grouping or compiling. Just based on your arguement it's clear you know NOTHING of the game mechanics, period. And to top it off, you claim to ubderstand what you are talking about when those, such as myself, who have studied the systems and done out research can tell you that even if you couldn't trade / buy the items it is still possible to build an equal or great gear set, and that is NOT debatable. The fact that there may be an INCREDIBLY small amount of items that are raid-exclusive doesn't mean there are equivilant ways to achieve the bonuses those items represent, PERIOD.
Hmmm, you are changing what the Sigil team told and write us. 20% of the best items will be exclusively for raiders and even if you can have "similar" items while not raiding, it will never replace these 20% items you miss, you will have 20% slots that are weaker, because you don't raid. Brad said it often, that if you don't raid, then you will not be able to be the best grouper(or the best at anything), you will have to raid to gain 20% of the best items, and the grouping alternatives for these slots will be extremely weaks, the good grouping items won't conflict over the raiding slots. The "raiding" slots will be exclusively dedicated to raid items, non-raids items in these slots will be significantly weaker. It was explain often, in more elusive words, but explain nonetheless.
Raid-free servers or die!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Well, since Brad has said it often it should be easy to find a quote of him saying exactly that. Unless of course you were just making that part up.
I'm still wondering how WoW got to be so popular with their hundreds and hundreds of "Raid-Enforced" servers and not a single one "Raid-Free"?
Hmm... how did they escape the - Raid-free servers or die! Very curious indeed.
Well, since Brad has said it often it should be easy to find a quote of him saying exactly that. Unless of course you were just making that part up.
I'm still wondering how WoW got to be so popular with their hundreds and hundreds of "Raid-Enforced" servers and not a single one "Raid-Free"?
Hmm... how did they escape the - Raid-free servers or die! Very curious indeed.
WoW isn't popular with it raid-server. It is popular prior peoples get there.
Big difference.
Getting you a link, stay tune.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Well, since Brad has said it often it should be easy to find a quote of him saying exactly that. Unless of course you were just making that part up.
Well, he's not exactly making it up, he just completely misquoted Brad. He (Brad) said that to get all of the best items in the game you will have to participate in all spheres. This means soloing, grouping, raiding, diplomacy and crafting. Nothing about being the best grouper.
I'm not going to raid once and I guarantee you I will be uber and have a crapload of fun playing.
Great point, so how does that make it forced raiding? This is the essential flaw in your arguments. I don't like raiding either bud, but that doesn't mean I can't have fun, nor does it ever mean raiding is enforced. Yes to get certain items in game you will have to raid, who cares?
I too think it would be kewl if they made a server where you could do the raid content with just a group. This most likely won't happen but if it does I'll see you there.
2) Your Premise is completely false. a) It IS about Slots, because they vary. Just because one item5 may be a bracers, doesn't mean there isn't a helm like it, or ANOTHER set of bracers with equal stats that ARE NOT RAID RELATED.
3) You don't even KNOW if those items can't be traded for, or bought, which COMPLETELY defeats your arguement.
4) Brad has said NOTHING like what you claim he has said, go to the VSoH Forums and ask him yourself, OR STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH & HIS.
5) YOU are the one that is wrong, and in fact, the only thing you've proved is your ignorance on the issue. Your Arguement is hopeless. The entire BASE of your arguement is false since you can't even prove a player won't have access to all "slots" via trade, grouping or compiling. Just based on your arguement it's clear you know NOTHING of the game mechanics, period. And to top it off, you claim to ubderstand what you are talking about when those, such as myself, who have studied the systems and done out research can tell you that even if you couldn't trade / buy the items it is still possible to build an equal or great gear set, and that is NOT debatable. The fact that there may be an INCREDIBLY small amount of items that are raid-exclusive doesn't mean there are equivilant ways to achieve the bonuses those items represent, PERIOD.
Hmmm, you are changing what the Sigil team told and write us. 20% of the best items will be exclusively for raiders and even if you can have "similar" items while not raiding, it will never replace these 20% items you miss, you will have 20% slots that are weaker, because you don't raid. Brad said it often, that if you don't raid, then you will not be able to be the best grouper(or the best at anything), you will have to raid to gain 20% of the best items, and the grouping alternatives for these slots will be extremely weaks, the good grouping items won't conflict over the raiding slots. The "raiding" slots will be exclusively dedicated to raid items, non-raids items in these slots will be significantly weaker. It was explain often, in more elusive words, but explain nonetheless.
Raid-free servers or die!
Look, that is not what they said. Just go read thier FAQ... or ANY of the posts they've made... just wow...
It's simple, take Brad's example: There are bracers in that example that are raid items, but just because those bracers are raid items it doesn't mean-
a) You can't trade for them.
b) You can't buy them.
c) you can't find another set of bracers at the same High-End level NOT raiding.
d) A different combination of items won't give you the same stats or BETTER.
Sure, there is a chance you can't get THOSE bracers, but that doesn't mean there aren't other bracers out there that will suit you just as well, or better. It's depends on so many factoer, you can't rule it out. Based on the#'s & % of High-End Gear in the game, it's actually extreamly UNLIKELY you can't put together an equal or greater set of gear. Sure, you may not have the same name on all 5 pieces of your gear, but that doesn't mean it won't be equal / better and even a chance it will be slighly lesser. You just can't say it isn't possible, period.
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
In fact, forget the SWG!!!!
hrm........... you all believe Brad, the creator of EQ, that all the best gear will come from all different areas? Ok I agree that may be the way it is when the game first releases but as time goes on raiders will be on top and everyone else will get pushed down. Its just the way things work. Blizzard once promised raiding wouldnt be a big part of WoW and now look what happened. You can delude yourself into believing Brad all you want but the fact of the matter is he will start catering to raiders more and more as time goes on.
Well, since Brad has said it often it should be easy to find a quote of him saying exactly that. Unless of course you were just making that part up.
I'm still wondering how WoW got to be so popular with their hundreds and hundreds of "Raid-Enforced" servers and not a single one "Raid-Free"?
Hmm... how did they escape the - Raid-free servers or die! Very curious indeed.
WoW isn't popular with it raid-server. It is popular prior peoples get there.
Big difference.
Getting you a link, stay tune.
Here, let me save you the time:
Originally posted by Aradune Sigil Games CEO
Heard that the best items are only available via raids? False.
Thank you!
-Brad McQuaid
Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online
Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
Original Producer & Co-Designer, EverQuest
And this was the quickest one I could find... he's said this REPEATEDLY...
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
In fact, forget the SWG!!!!
Well, since Brad has said it often it should be easy to find a quote of him saying exactly that. Unless of course you were just making that part up.
I'm still wondering how WoW got to be so popular with their hundreds and hundreds of "Raid-Enforced" servers and not a single one "Raid-Free"?
Hmm... how did they escape the - Raid-free servers or die! Very curious indeed.
From the FAQ on Vanguard forum...
11.13, here is a part of what you ask
I've posted quite a bit on this months ago and encourage your and anyone interested to dig up the posts (some have been re-posted in this thread already -- thanks guys). In a nutshell, we want the best items to be available though a variety of routes: raids, long contiguous adventures, broken up adventures, trade skills, diplomacy, etc. The only potentially controversial aspect of this is that is likely that not ALL of the best items you might want will be available through only one of these methods. If you are a person who wants ALL of the best stuff, you'll have to involve yourself in all of the above, including raiding and long contiguous adventures, even though the majority of content, including that which yields great rewards, will be group oriented.
I can find you more such quotes if you want. If you don't raid, you are screwed. Said in another wording, said nonetheless. If you want to be the BEST grouper, you have to raid. I can tell you more about the way it is written, it is in a middle paragrah, it is the second last sentence, it is written where it is less likely to get attention, as you know the first paragraph, the last paragraph, the first sentence of each paragraph are all more likely to get attention...but a middle paragraph and 2-3 lines from the bottom is the place to get the less attention. It is all in writting skills, which Brad master very well btw.
Raid-free servers or die!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
This is mainly due to envy of the player items that in all honesty are complete crap when compared to raid level items.
While Brad has talked about risk equals reward, being a raiding player changes this. Soloing becomes a joke and taking on mobsters that would normally take a group can be taken down easily with a single player decked out in raid gear. I am basing this off of my experiences in Everquest and may be wrong how this will turn out for Vanguard. But this game sounds to me like a item centralistic game like Everquest.
Now the risk for the raid player becomes minimal and what were tough to impossible for the average player, on the flipside of the grouping experience become routine to the raid player. And now the nonraiding players will not be choosen for these tough group zones, and now they feel like they are left out of grouping experience with other players.
I believe if you like grouping in MMORPG that are item centralized, you must raid a little or you will be left behind.
Thank you,
Sunbasher
EQ 2
70 Berserker
Risen
EQ1
65 Wizard
DoAC
50
Guardian
But that is just it. WoW was/IS still popular - even with all their RAID ONLY servers! I'm not arguing wether raiding is popular or not. I'm arguing that you have absolutely no basis for stating that Vanguard will be a flop or have to close down eventually f they don't offer "raid-free" servers.
Show me a game where that's happened. I can show you WoW as proof to the opposite. So, for your arguement to hold water; where it the proof for your theory?
Or get raid-free servers!
Raid-free or die!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Show me a game where that's happened. I can show you WoW as proof to the opposite. So, for your arguement to hold water; where it the proof for your theory?
Well, prior EQ someone could have the same logic about PvP.
Then EQ come out, with PvE servers and get popular. WoW is just increasing that raid-hatred tenfold. Where you use to have peoples bearing raiding despite disliking it, peoples are not buying that raiding crap anymore.
Players evolve, and their attitude evolves. See, I was playing SoL and bearing the raid-logic, once upon a time. However, this change and I will not bear it anymore. Some peoples may not complains out loud, but many won't bear raiding anymore as well. And WoW just increase that raid-hatred...a LOT.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Well, since Brad has said it often it should be easy to find a quote of him saying exactly that. Unless of course you were just making that part up.
I'm still wondering how WoW got to be so popular with their hundreds and hundreds of "Raid-Enforced" servers and not a single one "Raid-Free"?
Hmm... how did they escape the - Raid-free servers or die! Very curious indeed.
From the FAQ on Vanguard forum...
11.13, here is a part of what you ask
I've posted quite a bit on this months ago and encourage your and anyone interested to dig up the posts (some have been re-posted in this thread already -- thanks guys). In a nutshell, we want the best items to be available though a variety of routes: raids, long contiguous adventures, broken up adventures, trade skills, diplomacy, etc. The only potentially controversial aspect of this is that is likely that not ALL of the best items you might want will be available through only one of these methods. If you are a person who wants ALL of the best stuff, you'll have to involve yourself in all of the above, including raiding and long contiguous adventures, even though the majority of content, including that which yields great rewards, will be group oriented.
I can find you more such quotes if you want. If you don't raid, you are screwed. Said in another wording, said nonetheless. If you want to be the BEST grouper, you have to raid. I can tell you more about the way it is written, it is in a middle paragrah, it is the second last sentence, it is written where it is less likely to get attention, as you know the first paragraph, the last paragraph, the first sentence of each paragraph are all more likely to get attention...but a middle paragraph and 2-3 lines from the bottom is the place to get the less attention. It is all in writting skills, which Brad master very well btw.
Raid-free servers or die!
So in your mind: "if you don't raid, then you will not be able to be the best grouper" = "If you are a person who wants ALL of the best stuff, you'll have to involve yourself in all of the above, including raiding"
I don't see it. I don't even see them as close.
That's why I wanted to see the quote as it was said.
Show me a game where that's happened. I can show you WoW as proof to the opposite. So, for your arguement to hold water; where it the proof for your theory?
Well, prior EQ someone could have the same logic about PvP.
Then EQ come out, with PvE servers and get popular. WoW is just increasing that raid-hatred tenfold. Where you use to have peoples bearing raiding despite disliking it, peoples are not buying that raiding crap anymore.
Players evolve, and their attitude evolves. See, I was playing SoL and bearing the raid-logic, once upon a time. However, this change and I will not bear it anymore. Some peoples may not complains out loud, but many won't bear raiding anymore as well. And WoW just increase that raid-hatred...a LOT.
Heh, no matter how many times you say it - it doesn't make it true. Show me some numbers (any numbers) that support your opinion. Show me where WoW has suffered (lost subscribers) because of their Raid ONLY servers.
WoW has been growing at an unbelievable rate, and they ONLY have RAID servers. Is it because people don't know there is RAID when they get to 60? Heh, yup; that must be it.
exactly, the majority of people may not like to raid but the fact is the majority of people don't refuse to play a game because of raiding.
that is indeed a fact up to this point that wow has proven with its subscribers numbers, people can and do still enjoy these games in spite of raiding.
most people are not so much of a hardcore achiever (like Anofalye) where they absolutely refuse to play a game where they cant be(or have the possibility to be) the absolute best but yet refuse to participate in all aspects of the game.
most people just want to play a game they can enjoy with friends, and if they feel they need to be "the best" then more times than not they would be willing to raid.
sure i don't have any facts to back this up, just common sense.
Your opinion is retarded. You think that just because I don't have ALL of the very best stuff in a game that means I'm screwed? Give your head a shake man!
1."Paranoia, I would agree with you 100% except for one little problem....LotRO has raiding too."
I never said in my OP or any post after it that LoTRO would not have raiding. So basically what this is is a red herring (click link) fallacy. You brought up an uncontested point. Had I said that LoTRO would not have raiding, then that would have been a valid attack on my position. Can you please validate the relevance of this point by quoting me as claiming LoTRO would not have raiding?
2."Point me to a well funded fantasy game coming out in the near future that DOESN'T have raiding and I'll be all over it."
I never claimed that there was any sort of game coming out in the near future that didn't have raiding in my OP.
So basically what this is is a red herring (click link)
fallacy. You brought up an uncontested point. Had I actually claimed that there was an mmo coming out in the near future that didn't have raiding, then that would have been a valid attack on my
position. Can you please validate the relevance of this point by
quoting me as claiming an mmo was coming out in the near future that will not have raiding?
Then you follow up with more logical fallacies and fallacious red herring lines of questioning based not on my actual claims but on uncontested (and therefore irrelevant) points that have no baring on the validity of my actual claims. A valid point is a point that counters an actual claim explicitly made by your opponent. You on the otherhand have been focusing your questions on points that while mostly in and of themselves true are not valid attacks against my claims because they attack positions I never claimed in the first place. Now if you ever decide to attack my argument with questions that question any actual claim that I have made explicitly, then we can go at it...until then you are just wasting my time with your irrelevant garbage red herring questions and statements.
Guild Wars 2 is my religion
Your opinion is retarded. You think that just because I don't have ALL of the very best stuff in a game that means I'm screwed? Give your head a shake man!
If you don't play to have fun, you are screwed. You don't need the best stuff to have fun.
exactly, the majority of people may not like to raid but the fact is the majority of people don't refuse to play a game because of raiding.
that is indeed a fact up to this point that wow has proven with its subscribers numbers, people can and do still enjoy these games in spite of raiding.
most people are not so much of a hardcore achiever (like Anofalye) where they absolutely refuse to play a game where they cant be(or have the possibility to be) the absolute best but yet refuse to participate in all aspects of the game.
most people just want to play a game they can enjoy with friends, and if they feel they need to be "the best" then more times than not they would be willing to raid.
sure i don't have any facts to back this up, just common sense.
This is merely a case of lack of competition and lock-step design. We won't KNOW the answer until someone tries it. Let's face it WoW is heavily based on the EQ model even down to the raiding.
The only thing that can be said with much certainty is that in this specific genre of level grind item-centric MMORPGs the introduction of raiding has hurt one game and removing that content helped that game. This game is DAoC. But no one else has ever released a game with raid and non-raid servers. And other than DAoC no one has realeased a raid server and then released a non-raid server.
DAoC would indicate that it is a good idea with its classic servers, but that is muddled up with possible dislike of other content additions or just plain nostalgia. It is certainly a stronger indication than "We know most people in WoW dislike raiding but they tolerate it". But until we see actual competition between raid and raid-disabled we rather than rollbacks to pre-expansion, won't really know.
Further WoW also indicates that disabling raid content is a no-loss proposition since at least 75% of people have never even bothered to finish the first raid instance much less step foot in the next 3. And probably easily half the player population doesn't raid at all. Clearly for half the population disabling the raid content has no effect at all, well it might make the economy better. But it wouldn't effect content utilization. Raid content is already poorly unitlized when measured by population rather than time.
However I would be willing to bet quite a good amount of money that if WoW did create a raid disabled server set that had its own non-raid only BG section it would be immensly popular. Server crashingly popular. And I would go so far as to say the introduction of such a thing would cause quite a number of old canceled subs to be reactivated.
So yes it is certainly not clear at all whether raids are tolerable or necessary or whatever else, because there is not competition of variance in the rather stagnant MMORPG market. If there were competition though there is some indication from DAoC that raids would do rather poorly. However even if they are tolerated but hated, the WoW show there is no real reason to even force that toleration and nothing is gained by it since a quite large portion of your customers will never use it even if you do incentivize them. And it should be inarguable that WoW heavily incentivizes people to raid.
PvP was not always a necessary part of MMORPGs but more and more almost all MMORPGs are beginning to at least put in some sort of features a long those lines in some way. Simply because those who don't can't really compete. PvP is by far the major alternate ruleset in a large portion of MMORPG. Initially EQ had no PvP but due to DAoC and UO they created it. It may be the case that in the future it is as Anofayle says and those who don't offer a non-raid alternative will find themselves struggling to compete jsut like those who do not offer PvP. Or It may not be that way. We simply don't know and we won't know until there is competition.
But even though we don't know whether it is or will be NECESSARY it does seem like there is a quite a bit of data to show it may at least be worth a try to run a raid-disabled server. There are two very good reasons for this:
1) Its almost trivial to do and trivial to switch it back to a normal server. Therefore costs almost nothing.
2) There are clearly many people who are unhappy with raiding going all the way back to EQ days. And there is clearly an increased awareness of the dislike of raiding due to WoW. And the DAoC classic servers are existant business model with sufficent history and similarity to justify giving this outcry some credence.
So you may be able to try to satisfy a need at almost no risk. And if it turns out that need was just a bunch of people who don't know what they were asking for and are disatisfied you could turn it back into a normal server in a day by changing a configuration file.
So if Sigil does in fact release a non-raid server, which I will reiterate I do not expect they will do. Then we can at last see some competition and better be able to see if the DAoC classic server effect is nostalgia or mudflation or raids. Of course we would still need a number of other games to do the same thing to really get good data. And then see what happens to people who only offer raid servers or never offer and raiding and see if they have serious trouble competing. The most interesting thing would be to see if raiding even mattered at all. Would those game which never offered raiding struggle or do the same as those games that offered both? Clearly some people like to raid but would they tolerate not having raids in exchange for other things, like the groupers are currently tolerating raiders in WoW because they like WoW even if they never actually play a very large portion of the post release content additions.
Guild Wars 2 is my religion