Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
to raid or not to raid. why non-raid servers suck even for non-raiders
Askatan
Member Posts: 313
the hole idea is shortsighted and borderline silly.
I hate raids in WoW. why?
because:
a) I NEED to raid (to get the "über loot")
b) raiding parties behave like stuck up morons. everyone thinks he or she is something better. it's a nightmare coated in arrogance
c) you NEED to have spare time like hell! you cannot raid for half an hour. you need 5+ hours. not everyone has so much time.
d) you are dependent on other players. if you have been raiding a dungeon for 4 hours and 1 or 2 healers suddenly have to leave (e.g. because they want to show the group how "valuable" they are), the whole party has to quit too.
all of the above is NO problem in Vanguard
-> a) I dont need to raid. I CAN raid. maybe just to try it out or maybe I happen to meet a few nice people
-> b) because you dont NEED to raid and social skills cannot be thrown over board like in WoW where 99% of the high level raiding folk consists of antisocial morons, people will be a lot nicer to eachother and the raid will be much more fun
-> c) you CAN camp inside any dungeon, log out and log back in later. there are no instances. you wont be kicked out. you will stay inside. so a group of people who all have less time than the hardcore gamer will still be able to enjoy the dungeon.
-> d) dungeons are THAT BIG that several groups can be in at the same time without causing each other problems. but if party A loses a member, party B actually could help out or they could join, or one player could leave B and go to A or all of A logs off and logs in later or.... lots of possibilities.
it would be stupid to have a raid free server. I hate raids, because they are usually implemented as de facto requirements for being l33t. in Vanguard, I want at least to have the chance to raid once, just for the fun of it.
I want a diverse server with all kinds of people. if you sort out the raiders and the not raiders, you will damage the mood, the "feeling" and possibly the economy of every server.
dont forget: most people DO NOT like your style of playing a game. but a true complex game needs all those people to feel right
Comments
I still, for the life of me, cannot decide which is worse:
Arrogant, 733t raiders or clueless PUGs of random jackasses you meet in WoW (my only true experience to draw from).
There is some truth to the OP's position and I think raises some valid questions, in a way that I had never really thought about before. Kudos.
There's free love on the Freelove Freeway.
If you want to buy and play a game where raiding is required to experience the whole game I support you in your freedom of choice but my money will go where the choice of not raiding is an option and one (a person) can experience the whole game without raiding.
Spiritglow
If you want all the best gears eventually you'll need to raid. Raiding for the best gears is inevitable.Raiding is a choice and it is not forced raiding. As far a guild wars the only reason why guild wars is popular because its free to play. The end game content of guild wars is guild versus guild pvp battle. Its different then vanguard.
Lol. Guild Wars still has grouping/instancing. In Guild Wars your FORCED to group....so I don't understand what your complaining about. They are not having raids like WoW raids......
They are not having raid-free servers so FORGET ABOUT IT. Give it up...go to a different game...your not welcome here......
You want to go home and rethink your life *jedi mind trick*
Thats right don't play Vanguard if you are anti-raid. Also WoW players shouldn't play Vanguard, or Guild Wars players. In fact no one should play Vanguard unless you are one of the narrow minded freaks that inhabit the lifeless raider club.
I can't wait till this game launches and the subscriber numbers, or lack there of comes back, then we will get the last laugh at a dead game.
In fact we understand your fear of a non-raid server, it will be the only successful server.
You are not forced to group in Guild Wars, I soloed to 20 with only two or three grouping adventures total. It is easier to do it grouped, unless you are grouped with retards, then the henchmen are better.
If you have any questions please ask. I have moved on to WoW from eq and no longer have any desire to play a dead game. Thank you. (posted by another selling his account in EQ1)
Thats right don't play Vanguard if you are anti-raid. Also WoW players shouldn't play Vanguard, or Guild Wars players. In fact no one should play Vanguard unless you are one of the narrow minded freaks that inhabit the lifeless raider club.
I can't wait till this game launches and the subscriber numbers, or lack there of comes back, then we will get the last laugh at a dead game.
In fact we understand your fear of a non-raid server, it will be the only successful server.
You are not forced to group in Guild Wars, I soloed to 20 with only two or three grouping adventures total. It is easier to do it grouped, unless you are grouped with retards, then the henchmen are better.
Well said sebbonx, but I do hope you are wrong about Vanguard failing.
Vanguard is top of "my want to play" list, however I don't like raiding.
What we know of Vanguards design shows that it will handle raiding 200% better than how WOW does, also rading is only 20% of the end game. How that works in reality we will have to wait and see.
However the more posts I read from narrow minded RAID freaks the less apealing Vanguard becomes.
If they do have non-raid servers, I will play on these servers just so I don't have to have my gaming experience ruined by a bunch of anti-social haters.
Go on hate away you know you want to, you just can't help it can you?
Actually I see raid content as an extension of PvP content in a PvE world. Look, the main point of dispute is when that PvP player comers along amd "griefs/ganks" a PvE player. If, for example, a player were informed that, by joining a raid they were consenting to PvP combat, the game now ups the ante for that phat loot. Now that raid group has to also contend with the potential problem of another raid group contesting them in PvP. It also allows for guild warfare, caslte sieges, etc. all within the same game framework. Solo and groups are not subjected to PvP, they can walk right through a PvP guild war/castle siege, watch, enjoy, and evaluate if they want to participate, without fear of being griefed/ganked. That lone griefer can no longer ruin the PvE players gaming experience. The raider now has another challenge for that phat loot.
Solo content, what is solo content, is it class quests, or just toned down group grind? Can an assassin go to the NPC assassin's guild and get a contract to perform, something like in Oblivion/Tomb Raider? Will the reward for an exceptionally challenging assassination be equal to the raid reward? Can a thief get a mission from the thieves guild? Are these solo class quests unique so that only one single class can do the quest? Are the game mechanics modifiable for solo class quests by entering an instance in which group/raid dynamics no longer apply? Are the solo quests a seperate and distinct facet of the game? Is the raid content a seperate and distinct facet of the game? Or is the game built around the grind, and not at all providing a different experience with each facet? Is the purpose of the game to provide the player with a memorable gaming experience, or is it all about reaching the level cap and getting phat loot? Is there a reason to stop and smell the roses, or are the roses the grind for the sake of the grind?
Crafting/economy, everyone wants a realistic economy, yet they want a simplified crafting system in which they can manufacture a finished product from raw materials without regard to a crafting community providing the components. Is community only desirable for adventuring? Is community desired in crafting, or do we want solo play in crafting?
Personally, I do not want a specified niche game. this game is only for raiders, this game is only for groups, and why would I play a MMORPG that is only for solo players? I want a game that incorporates all of the various facets, solo, group, multiplayer, a diplomacy community, and a crafting community, under one framework. Sure, maybe this seemless world needs some instances to alter the general game dynamics for a solo or raid experience. Sure, maybe today I have only enough time to solo, tomorrow I can group, and the next day I can raid/pvp. Maybe I log in and a Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) messages me that he need 20 sword hilts ASAP. I like that, I get to be a Tier 1 supplier to a OEM, just like the real world. We have price agreements, just like the real world. I feel I am part of a crafting community. I feel I want a game that provides all of this, not just a narrow facet.
Is Vanguard going to be that game? I guess I have to wait and see......because yup, I want it all.
You are the childish one, you must have missed the obvious sarcasm about idiots telling people not to play Vanguard. I don't care if they are a fan, they need to stop that stupid crap! Games need every player they can get in the crowded MMORPG world. Brad is banning people from the Vanguard boards for posting for people not to play for "X" or "Y" reason.
I was right about WoW breaking records before it was launched and its effect on EQ, I stand by my statement that Vanguard will not do well, and it is due to a rabid froth at the mouth fan base that keeps telling people not to play. SOE involvement also was a very poor move costing them a big chunk of players, not very smart of you Brad you should know better.
If you have any questions please ask. I have moved on to WoW from eq and no longer have any desire to play a dead game. Thank you. (posted by another selling his account in EQ1)
You are the childish one, you must have missed the obvious sarcasm about idiots telling people not to play Vanguard. I don't care if they are a fan, they need to stop that stupid crap! Games need every player they can get in the crowded MMORPG world. Brad is banning people from the Vanguard boards for posting for people not to play for "X" or "Y" reason.
I was right about WoW breaking records before it was launched and its effect on EQ, I stand by my statement that Vanguard will not do well, and it is due to a rabid froth at the mouth fan base that keeps telling people not to play. SOE involvement also was a very poor move costing them a big chunk of players, not very smart of you Brad you should know better.
haha you are suck a little troll, so what your telling me is you think this type of shit only went on in eq? the game you are claiming is so good is also guilty of taking peoples lives away.
and for all the time you spend on these forums bitching about vanguard you are also wasting your life just like all the other "losers".
i laugh every time you make your always entertaining and always idiotic posts, there is obviously alot of hatred inside you for brad mcquaid and yet your quick to call other people losers? haha freaking unbelievable.
If you have any questions please ask. I have moved on to WoW from eq and no longer have any desire to play a dead game. Thank you. (posted by another selling his account in EQ1)
Raid-free servers or DIE!
If raiding make better groupers, than grouping is dead before even existing. Best groupers deserve to be groupers, serverwide!
Anyone saying otherwise is advancing his own questionable ideas. See, peoples who care about who is the BEST groupers, well duh, breaking news, they are first and foremost groupers! Nothing but grouping can be required of peoples who want to be BEST at grouping. Groups, for the grouping health of the game, must desire first and foremost to group peoples who are groupers. If groups take a non-grouper before a grouper, be them soloers or raiders, than you see that the grouping game is failing... This is simple, logical and efficient.
EDIT: I said I was going to leave this Vanguard forum alone, but well, such titles may draw me in!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
I AM FAR FROM THE ONLY ONE WITH AN AXE TO GRIND WITH YOUR PRECIOUS BRAD!
No need to apologize... I just wanted to be sure you understood that I am no different than any other Vault Member, on non-EQ 2 Vault forums.
IMO, he needs to lay off trying to have a game "force a community", concentrate on make the game fun for many playstyles, and let a community build on it's own merits / natural flow.
Anywho... It's real simple.
Brad / Sigil believes in order to have fun, you must team up and work together to accomplish your goals. To them, this fosters building a community.
(When he says work... he means work... I just love camping a spot for 13 hours straight... don't you?)
I believe in order to have fun, a MOG must be a game first and foremost. You don't rely on your customers to "provide the fun". You provide it by making things as interesting and deep as possible to the individual and provide ways for said individual to desire accessing team oriented content, solo content, questing content, crafting content, etc. etc. etc. (All of them, equally).
All this talk of "leveling". Leveling shouldn't matter. It should never be a concern of the players. "EQ is too slow... WoW is too fast... blah blah blah". If a game is FUN you don't care if it takes a year to level or a weekend. Did I say weekend? Yes. Guild Wars is a perfect example of a game where a power-gamer could hit the level 20 cap in one weekend. He/She is still gonna play it. Why? Because the game isn't about leveling. A majority of the PvE content is past the level cap. Anyways... the point is... a game shouldn't be about leveling in the first place.
As for "forced grouping / interdependency " building a community.... that's pretty much BS, IMO. Yes, like-minded "nut-grinders" who like the idea of "uber guilds" are a community too. (But a niche community)
Yes, the ability (itself) to group fosters a community, but so do lots of other things in a MOG... and do so at a more natural flow, like guild mechanics, trading, randomly helping someone in trouble, etc. etc. etc. A "force mechanic or design" causes people that are not "like minded" to quit, since there is no "freedom of playstyle" (or so perceived by the bulk of the playerbase).
So the bottom line is... The difference between Brad and I... "focus on one playstyle and make it as fun as possible for THAT playstyle alone" vs. "support many playstyles and make it as fun as possible for ALL of them."
Brad is too concerned about "building a community", IMO. He's so intent on it, he feels it must be forced down the player's throat. "Be a part of the community or go away", attitude.
Heh. That makes a lot people throw up their middle finger.
Of course, that ain't gonna happen... which is why you see people like Mithan, I and a few others that have posted here, basically sending a message to Brad that we feel he's going for a niche market.
Regards,
-----signature-----~~~~~~~
If you have any questions please ask. I have moved on to WoW from eq and no longer have any desire to play a dead game. Thank you. (posted by another selling his account in EQ1)
I agree with you to MOST extand. Best soloers should be soloers. But getting Brad/Sigil to understand that is pointless. See, their tiny programmers have to overcome a LOT of technical issues to make it a "MULTIPLAYER" game, it hurt them when someone want to solo with their work. It is part of their ego-issues.
On a side note, best groupers deserve to be groupers; aka not soloers nor raiders. See, take a game like CoH...and developp from there, add powers that work only in groups that must be earned in groups...and powers that work only while you solo, that must be earned solo. (Power is a generic term that can refer to abilities, levels, gear, whatever that give an edge) We are not talking about enforcing anything, since if you want a power to be good in group, then you are kinda a grouper, ain't you? You can "enforce" an activity that is DIRECTLY linked with the reward he wants. So if something make someone good at everything, it has to be earned in EVERY activity (not just any, but every). If something make someone good at a particuliar activity, then it has to be earnable in such an activity. That should be design 1.0...but there ain't any serious class about Design, so you end-up with everyone able to claim they are designers without any formation or preparations, including me. (althought I did design MANY flash games at least)
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
haha you are so obvious in your bait attempts its hysterical, hate brad all day every day for all i care. its pretty damn funny you are so emotionally attached to a video game developer though, i can see you screaming and yelling and the screen as your typing all your idiotic hate brad mcquaid posts.....heh.
this is sebbonx
"Simple, logical and efficient"? I honestly have no clue at all what you are even attempting to say here. Does anyone know what the above means? Re-read your post and tell me that you see your point coming through clearly there.
I *think* what you *may* be trying to say is that the primary indicator of if a game is geared towards grouping (vs raiding or soloing) is if most groups are looking for "groupers" to join them.
If this is what you're saying, it's patently ridiculous. Only on idiotic forums where people talk, whine and complain about gaming rather than playing (b/c for them, talking and complaining is what the TRULY enjoy), are things so cut and dry as this.
What is a "grouper"? What is a "raider"? What is a "soloer"? It's infuriating how these things are boxed so neatly on these threads. Any MMO is going to have BIG challenging content (NOT necessarily at the end game either!) that requires more than 1 group to defeat. Generally, the items gained from these encounters (there must be SOME reward in ANY game right?) is going to be better since the challenge is bigger.
There is nothing wrong with that. A game that didnt have that would need to probably be completely PVP focused (like Guild Wars) or it would get boring. I think EVERYONE who plays any of these MMOs finds themselves participating in those types of encounters now and again. So we ALL "raid". And I dont think there are too many people who really refuse to group EVER (of course there is the occasional oddball who is anti-social yet chooses to play a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER game). So we are ALL "groupers".
In every game, on every server, there are always (quite naturally) unions of those who play the MOST. There is nothing wrong with that. To "fix" it you'd have to artificially level playtime which would be pathetic capitulation to those who can't deal with a societal hierarchy. Those folks with the high playtime tend to get branded as "raiders" because most games rely on raiding to fill the time once your character is maxed out. MOST, but not all. PVP games generally feature these same folks dominating PVP.
So this has nothing to do with play style (grouping, raiding, solo). Everyone does all three of those. This debate on this thread is, as usual, coming down to this pathetic "haves" vs "have nots" conflict that exists in every community and afflicts some percentage of the population.
"Raid free" servers are truly sad. They would basically be made up of the people who wear their lack of playtime like some kind of badge of honor, but yet are so embittered over it they don't want to even be NEAR those who have more playtime than them. The irony is that even on the non-raid servers, there will be those with higher playtime than average. And as a result, the hierarchy will exist and the people whose really problem is that they need some psychological counseling will find themselves bitter and frustrated AGAIN. Because even without "raiding" there will have to be SOME "end game" or "big event" type content and those that scream loudest for this type of segregation will no DOUBT end up "second class".
I would love to hear a rational explanation of what the upside would be of a server that deliberately removes certain content (content that tends to be the more interesting content in most games, to be honest). The people that LOVE this idea - what the heck is it you feel you are gaining?! You'll be the only losers since most normal people would stay far away from a server that "offered" less content at the SAME PRICE, so think carefully about what you're looking for.
I think the above post is calling for a server that gives all of the rewards of raiding but hands them out only to people who group. Either that, or a server where "the best you can be" comes only from grouping and there is no raiding. Well I'll tell you what - here comes the slippery slope. Next soloers will complain that "groupers" get "all the good stuff" and "why should they have to group". I guess a "solo only" server is next? And what about the groupers who have more time than average? Should there be a "non-raid - casual grouper" subserver that hands out great rewards for even the most minimal effort???
People that feel they "need" these things should really revaluate these types of games. I dont think they're healthy for you. I've gone from very high playtime to very low playtime in a dozen different MMOs and currently keep three different MMO accounts alive that I dabble in. None of these "issues" have ever caused me stress like this. I dont NEED to have "the best" gear. I've never run into a game, contrary to the FUD, where I could do NOTHING because I wasnt "the best". And if there is something I'd like to have that requires a raid, then I try to put the effort in to get it. If I cant, well then I live without it. You know - kind of like LIFE. What do you people do in your real life? Do you want Ferrari banned or something b/c you'll probably never afford one?
I like the idea of raid free servers, or at the very least raid lite. 12 players could take down anything within their teir and it would respawn fairly quickly (1-2 hours at most).
People complain about FFA PVP but high end raid guilds can be just as damaging. Especially when progress is bottlenecked and spawn times drug out for days.
I would just like to say that I would like a raid-free server.
Reaching level cap in WoW about 2 years ago and then realizing that my reward for this was raiding, was horrible for me. I hate raiding. I hate waiting for other people to assemble, which takes forever in large raid groups. I hate feeling like a cog in a machine. I hate it all. And this was as a priest when (because the game had just come out and there weren't many 60s back then) I was in demand and had no trouble at all getting raid groups. I felt like the game had betrayed me. I had had this fun, entertaining, mildly social clime to 60 with fun quests, only to have to do this WORK at the end of it. I played on a pvp server, not because I like pvp'ing (I don't) but because the added challenge of people trying to kill me as I did quests from 1-60 kept me entertained.
I like City of Heroes a lot. I think it is nice that it's missions scale to the number of people in your team and that you can set your difficulty. I like City of Heroes enough that, after soloing a while, I can occasionally group and have a lot of fun. My final percentage seems to be about 70% soloing and 30% grouping. I'm happy with this percentage. The problem with City of Heroes is its getting old. I've seen all the content, done all of the stuff multiple times, tried out most of the powersets, and really just need to move on.
I'm really looking forward to Tabula Rasa and Warhammer.
I'd like to get Vanguard, but whenever I start reading the FAQ on the official page I get worried. Why?
(1) He talks about "twitch" to dismiss dexterity and the skill involved with that. That's too bad, as I really think more analog-based firing/shooting/activiating skills would revive MMORPGs. If you shoot someone and hit them, you should have hit them, not have to roll some silly dice in the background to see if you hit. If they dodge, they dodged. Etc. So I am not sure why he is dismissing actual skill as "twitch".
(2) He talks about time invested being the main indicator of progress that they are going to use. This seems like a real tired idea to me. Shouldn't smarts or cleverness or dexterity or (in short) some actual skill measure your progress?
(3) He talks about you don't need to raid, but if you want the best gear you had better raid. See my dislike of raiding above.
(4) He talks about helping the poor misguided people who don't want to group by being a good samaritan. But then says if they insist on not wanting to group you will eventually have to abandon those poor, deluded souls. Whatever. I like soloing mainly and occasionally grouping. It's not that I'm antisocial. I have a fine social life, a wife, and a kid. It's not that I'm not smart enough. I have a Ph.D. in math from an Ivy League university. It's that I, simply, want to solo most of the time, occasionally group, and never raid. But if this makes my character inferior to another character because it means I won't get the best items, and items are all that matters, I'm not going to have fun.
(5) He talks about rewards being mainly items and abilities and having to do raids, etc., to get the best of these. I really want MMORPGs to move away from this item-focussed behavior. You have to get 1337 items, and then expansions release better and more 1337 items, so you have to get those, etc. etc. They need other gameplay goals, like controlling cities (realm vs. realm pvp stuff I suppose) or helping people or hearing great dialog. One of the nice things about City of Heroes for me is that items don't matter. (As I side note, I'm not very excited about the "invention" system they are going to be releasing for CoH.)
In conclusion, I want to like Vanguard and will prbably end up ordering and playing it for a bit, but I am really worried by all of the warning signs I'm seeing. A raid-free server would do a lot to alleviate my worries. A raid-free pvp server would make me even happier, but maybe that's just me... A lot of the people wanting raid free servers are not, by and large, trying to steep hate on people who like to raid. I'm not. It's just that if there is going to be some server variety to help appease different personalities, this would clearly be a good choice. There is demand for it.
Askatan - I think that they would rebalance raids for "raid-free" servers to instead be group content. This would cause them additional test and development time though which is part of the reason they haven't embraced the idea. The other part is that even raiding guilds don't like dealing with DKP systems and having to organize large groups of players. If you gave people the option to get raid loot without raiding, then most of the people who "like to raid" would move to the raid-free servers.
It's the same thing for the idea of making servers with rulesets that do not have harsh death penalties. While some people say that they want death to be harsh so that they can feel punished for death, the vast majority of them would choose to play without death penalties if the option was available. If you have a game system that is unpopular, giving people the option to avoid it will alter the game's design completely because the game population would suddenly become dominated by mainstream gamers who vastly outnumber hardcore players.
The company can decide to design "against the mob", but if they grant the mob concessions like servers that turn raids into group content or servers that don't have harsh death penalties, then they'd suddenly be coding two games. In all likelihood, they would put the mainstream gamer's concerns first because they would be the majority. You can bet that Brad McQuaid knows that his Vision is not popular with mainstream players and would not survive options.
Who would actually want to play on a non-raid server except for a very small minority of players who feel 'stung' by the endgames of WoW and EQ?
Spiritglow
Spiritglow