Vanguard Beta In Trouble? 176
Heartless Gamer writes to mention a blog post exploring potential problems with the Vanguard Beta. The hardcore MMOG in development by Sigil has had some rocky times of late, and it sounds like the beta testers are right up at the top of the list of problems. From the article: "To the detriment of Vanguard, they (Vanguard's community) will protest any implementation that even remotely resembles a mechanic within World of Warcraft. Good or bad, it doesn't matter. If it's something within WoW, they want it O-U-T. Likewise, if you are from WoW, they want YOU out, too. They've already succeeded in driving out many of those testers. They're long gone and I can't say I blame them." Read on for other sites' commentary on this issue.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In some ways I can understand it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In some ways I can understand it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In some ways I can understand it (Score:2)
Good, become the polar opposite to the community you hate and become twice as obnoxious as a contrarian.
Re:In some ways I can understand it (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm gonna have to ask you to clarify that. Define "hard". Keep in mind that "takes a long time" isn't hard, it's annoying. Something that requires skill is hard. Something that just anyone can do over a long period of time isn't hard, it's boring. The reason I ask is because you're apparently an FFXI player [slashdot.org] and the standard FFXI player seems to think WoW is "too easy" because things don't take forever.
Quick returns are good, keeping in mind that a quick return can still be a failure. FFXI has plenty of things where you get one try every day (real time) or so. They're "hard" because you have to beat out the 20 gold farmers camping the single spawn point. Succeed in getting it, and you have a 1/20 chance of getting the drop. While that does mean that it's hard to get the drop, it's not hard due to any skill requirement. It's hard because it requires a lot of luck and time.
Compare with WoW, where you might have a 100% chance of getting something if you complete some difficult task. There are plenty of instances in WoW where you'll have to use a large set of abilities to manage to succeed. Fail, and you can try again very quickly instead of packing up and waiting until tomorrow. That's hard, but not due to a time requirement, due to a skill requirement.
So, please. Explain your statement. The rest of your post I agree with completely, I just want to understand why you think WoW "dumbed down" gaming. If anything, WoW is harder to play than FFXI in terms of skill - although not time.
Re:In some ways I can understand it (Score:3, Informative)
That is the same crap a bunch of EQ2 players think is hard. Needing to wait days or hours in realtime for something that can be killed in 30secs isn't 'hard', it is completely assinine. Hard requires some kind of skill, not how much you can ignore real life and h
Re:In some ways I can understand it (Score:3, Insightful)
In EQ, skill was more of a strategic/tactical sort of ability, and you could be quite effective with latencies as high as 1 second as long as you were playing smart. That particular aspect of EQ I miss, and I think WoW raids suffer as a result.
Plenty of people will weigh in on real time combat versus other mechanism
Re:In some ways I can understand it (Score:2, Insightful)
I have to disagree with this and point out something here. You're saying that WoW has "do this hard task and you get an item
Re:In some ways I can understand it (Score:2)
Re:In some ways I can understand it (Score:2)
Have you played the high end game in WoW????? Try this for levels 55-60 tier 0 equipment:
1 dungeon run = 1-3 hours (plus time to get organized and started)
Your loot drop rate = 8%
If there are more than one person who needs it than your odds are cut in half for the random item roll.
I ran over 75 dungeon runs (keep in mind thats not 75 different dungeons, that's the same 5 over and over) and got onl
Re:In some ways I can understand it (Score:2)
I kind of miss the old-thrill of the guild dungeon crawl in UO, when you never knew if the PKers were out. Playing in a "safe" dungeon, where you only have to worry about stategy against the monsters, while is still entertaining, it just doesn't have the same adrenaline flow. But at the same time, I don't miss the lack of griefers, and the ninja looting.
Game design is always a trade-off. The majority has voted that they don't like perma-death.
Re:In some ways I can understand it (Score:2)
The question is how hardcore you have to be to get to the top. In EQ only really good guilds made it. They gradually relaxed a bit so less hardcore guilds could stand a chance (but only that), but that was
Re:In some ways I can understand it (Score:2)
Re:In some ways I can understand it (Score:2)
We're comparing PvE gameplay in MMOs right? So which implementation of a player up against a shell script with stats is "smarter"? Why?
Re:In some ways I can understand it (Score:2)
But when I tried "roleplaying" with some people in an MMO I was in (SWG, to be precise), it simply came across as forced. People st
Re:In some ways I can understand it (Score:2)
For instance, if you have a channel that broadcasts to anybody in the game, or the area, it better be labeled OOC. Either that, or every character in the game has a 500-decibel voice and perfect hearing. The rules in WOW RP servers actually *oppose this directly* by saying that the "area" channels are IC
Can't say I blame them... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even though WoW is fun (and addicting), if I was playing another game it would be rather annoying to see WoW with just another game engine slapped over it. If you want to play WoW, then it is already there and waiting for you.
For those who want to play something different... Well... It would be nice to have sometehing other than the old "kill things over and over to level up to kill bigger things over and over again to level up to kill bigger things over and over again" because that is pretty much the same formula of WoW, EQ 1/2, and every other MMOG known the man these days. (SWG and UO rest in peace)
Re:Can't say I blame them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Vanguard could use elements that work great in WoW and implement them with their own gameplay elements. For example, WoW has proved that instances are fun and needed. Not to mention instances allow very creative encounters and great rewards for players because the designers control everything (including the number of people involved in the instance). Take away instances and you have good old issues that plagued EQ: boring fights, retarded competition for mobs where by guilds/players camp mobs. It augments the number of support calls and it encourages griefing. Which avenue did Vanguard chose? No instances. Yes they are planning to put boss mob encounters "on demand", sort of semi instance but even then, they will never be able to make awesome and complex encounters like WoW endzones have (well minus MC). You can't have a complex scripted encounter if you can't control the number of people during the encounter (aka no instances) because guilds will "zerg" it. EQ has proved that.
The more and more I look at Vanguard reminds me of EQ with all their faults. Lot of grinding, no instances, heaven for griefers and gold farmers. Most modern games have implemented ideas from other games, WoW is a perfect example of very little innovation but they cherry picked the stuff that worked in other game. Instances from Anarchy Online, fast paced combat from City of Heroes, PvP from DAoC, humor from
Vanguard will be a huge flop. The designers who were responsible for the worse flaws EQ had didn't learn from their own mistakes, they are the ones designing Vanguard.
Re:Can't say I blame them... (Score:2)
Ah... I was under the impression they were bashing anything "Grind-esque" and lumping WoW and EQ into the same branch of game play. WoW and EQ are pretty much the same to me except WoW is easier (and more fun) to play and has taken care of a great deal of problems EQ had.
I was thinking they were scraping both for something new, but it appears by what everyone is sa
Re:Can't say I blame them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Grinds- check. Expect a long hard grind for levels
Farming- check. Expect to do tons of cash farming
Camping- check. No instances, so expect either a "play nice" rule or guilds fighting for spawns
Death penalties- check. Harsher than EQs, according to articles I've read
Long travel times- check. No fast transport or teleports at all.
Yup, not touching this one with a 10 foot pole.
b) from the get-go (Score:3, Interesting)
Instancing is a Good Thing on busy servers. I agree. However I think they are some of the more creative minds creating games right now and I'm excited to see the alternatives they are implementing. Non-instanced housing I think will be amazing, for example. Seeing housing that belongs to players in a city just makes the world that much more real and identifiable.
Re:b) from the get-go (Score:2)
Re:b) from the get-go (Score:2)
Not 5 million but big enough. See Everquest. It is still alive and kicking. They are still releasing expansions, and even though they performed server mergers last year to keep a certain "critical mass" of people on each server they are opening at least 1 if not 2 new servers next month.
You can't please everyone, but there IS a balance.
Agreed - but they are favoring this balance towards the more hardcore gamer instead of the casual one. That's fine by me.
Re:b) from the get-go (Score:2)
Me too (Score:2)
Re:Can't say I blame them... (Score:2)
The article is pretty specific that the problem is with testers that want the game to be absolutely nothing like WoW in any way shape or form...but WoW is just an RPG...how can one make an RPG with absolutely ZERO elements in common with WoW? WoW presents absolutely NOTHING original to the genre, not a god damned thing.
Sounds to me like these people don't want an RPG, but the developer is making an RPG and trying to
Re:Can't say I blame them... (Score:2)
Guild Wars was different. Vanguard looks like it's shaping up to be like WoW- nothing new, just the (good?) stuff that's tested true.
Hell, that's even how they describe it in the FAQ.
Re:Can't say I blame them... (Score:2)
You should check out Puzzle Pirates, or the "just reached beta" Bang! Howdy from the same company.
More mature players, you don't
reap what you sow (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:reap what you sow (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:you forgot Ultima Online and Eve (Score:2)
Re:you forgot Ultima Online and Eve (Score:4, Interesting)
I've played many of the larger MMORPG's out there (UO, EQ1/2, SWG, WoW, and EVE). EVE is truely unique. CCP has bucked the trend in a lot of areas and almost all of them work. 1 server. Letting you know the population (which continues to go up all the time). Skills train over time, even when offline. No way to speed up the process (except learning skills that aid in the processes).
Roleplay is a little difficult because there really isn't an Avatar running around. You are essentially your ship. But other than that, the game has a lot to offer. I jumped in late(Jan 06), years after release. However, the way everything is layed out, you don't feel completely useless unless you grind to the top. Because there is no top. You just keep learning skills.
Re:you forgot Ultima Online and Eve (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, I'd be inclined to disagree. In Eve, roleplay takes it's form in Corporation Management. So you can't pretend to be a dancing catgirl. Instead, you take a leadership role that requires the player to act the part. Be responsible, smart, and decisive. Or you can choose to be a pirate, ruthless and coldblooded. So you just wiped out someone's work for a month in thirty seconds. He should have payed the ransom.
Interpersonal politics make a huge part of the Eve experience. From forming alliances to elbowing out rivals, the role playing element of Eve isn't dictated by the cute and fuzzy animated cartoon, but by the results your actions bring. The hand-off approach from the creators really pays off when your corp takes over a new zone to bring it's own brand of order. You *can't* script that.
Re:reap what you sow (Score:2)
-Rick
Re:reap what you sow (Score:2)
Re:reap what you sow (Score:3, Interesting)
Many upcoming (and some existing) games are getting more and more dynamic. With these more dynamic worlds, hitting the max out level is not always the primary goal. Sure, hitting the max level is great, but who really cares? Crea
Re:reap what you sow (Score:2)
I don't know of anyone who plays WoW because they want to hit 60. I'm sure they exist, but its a minority. They play because they like the social aspects, or the combat aspects, or the instances, or some combo of these. Self actualization has nothing to do with it.
Re:reap what you sow (Score:3, Interesting)
I couldn't disagree more. If you took leveling out of the game entirely, and just put everyone at level 60, the game's population would plummet.
-Rick
Re:reap what you sow (Score:2)
Re:reap what you sow (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, I prefer a player skill based, quick leveling style MMO, but if you strip out the character development, all it is, is a first person shooter (button masher, click once, or combo based depending on the specific game).
-Rick
Vanguard fails... (Score:2, Insightful)
Shocking, we are hearing reports of them struggling.
Re:Vanguard fails... (Score:2, Insightful)
But what is wrong with slow leveling? Fast leveling separates friends from each other. A friend in WoW I met in my 30s just blew past me to 60 and we couldn't group again for weeks. Fast leveling means you never really
Re:Vanguard fails... (Score:2)
And if you can produce a working game design that does that while still supporting thousands of players, I know a few people with a lot of money to spend who would be very interested in seeing it.
Re:Vanguard fails... (Score:3, Insightful)
You have three thousand people playing the same game. How many of them are going to overthrow the Iron Throne? How many princesses are out there waiting to be kidnapped? Will each and every one of them get to start a war in the Seven Kingdoms?
The reason that online games tend to be filled with repeatable, low-impact content is because even after one group of players goes through it there will still 2,994 other people who want to keep playing the game. The reason
Re:Vanguard fails... (Score:2)
Secondly, players when faced with a challenge like this devote scary amounts of time to it. Unless you insert an artificial time delay into rescuing said
And yet (Score:2)
Vanguard will be huge. Lots of us are just biding our time waiting for its release. Quite frankly, I say its a Good Thing that they get rid of anything WoWish. The core Dev team has its roots in EQ (989 studios / verant interactive / etc). It is expected that this game will cater to the hardcore gamer, not to the casual one.
Re:And yet (Score:2)
"...this game will cater to the hardcore gamer, not to the casual one."
I don't see how this can be anything but mutually exclusive.
WoW has a lot of content for both casual and hardcore gamers, and has become 'Huge'. (The amount of content available to each group is debatable.)
The number of casual gamers out there far outweigh the hardcore ones.
If a new game (Any new game) caters only to hardcore gamers, the numbers in the potential customer base will prohibit it from becoming anywhe
Re:And yet (Score:2)
I don't care if I am close minded. There are a lot of us waiting for a game that is hardcore, that has strict rules, that doesn't hand you levels and gear on a silver platter. Remem
Re:And yet (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't say successful. I said 'huge' - your terminology. To me, 'huge' means large number of players. I would consider WoW to be 'huge'.
'Successful' is a much more subjective word. If their goal is to make a game and sell it, they can easily 'succeed.' If their goal is to make enough money to sustain itself, but not be a major phenomenon, then they might succeed at that as well. The latter goal isn't a rare
Goths? (Score:4, Insightful)
Listen up, guys, WoW has 5.5 million+ subscribers because what it's doing is good, not bad. It's not dumbed down, and if - like me - you spent hardcore-style hours raiding to get the best stuff, you'd know that.
But no, like the guys at Vanguard, you can't get past appearance. If it's popular, it must be bad.
Re:Goths? (Score:4, Insightful)
Listen up, guys, WoW has 5.5 million+ subscribers because what it's doing is good, not bad.
Reality TV gets a lot of viewers - as does Fox News for that matter. McDonalds sells a lot of burgers. The Da Vinci Code book/movie/hype train is sheer nonsense yet it's taken millions already. This is not because what these ventures are doing is good per se - it's because they've been designed to reach out to the lowest common denominators in order to have a broad appeal.
It's not dumbed down, and if - like me - you spent hardcore-style hours raiding to get the best stuff, you'd know that.
Oh I beg your pardon - I thought you were talking about WoW but clearly I must have misunderstood.
Re:Goths? (Score:2)
WoW is not impressive by most veteran RPGers, by any stretch of the imagination.
WoW is first and foremost designed as a time, and by extension via their payment model, a money sink. Period.
There is nothing innovative, new, or interesting in WoW. It does package up everything that is tried and true in the area with a nice pink bow though in just such a way as to hit that lowest common denominator as hard as possible.
There's simply no way those same 5.5 million l
Re:Goths? (Score:3, Insightful)
Veteran RPGer here. Started playing AD&D back in 1980...then went on to Call of Cthulhu, Morrow Project, Danger International and Fantasy Hero blah blah blah. Me and my group of friends were pretty hard core about it all, but just to have a lot of fun and laugh our asses off.
Then I got into MMORPG's, got on to EQ a few days after it's original release. I knew from the very start it was NOTHING like role playing games. No com
Re:Goths? (Score:2)
I'm arguing against those that can't make the distinctions that you do. Those that condemn WoW while stating they are RPG purists, or those that worship WoW because of it's obvious RPG goodness. Thankfully, there are some people out there that realize that WoW is simply an online game, and that there are also some people that enjoy it for what it is, never mind the crap
We're on the same page, I just didn'
Re:Goths? (Score:2)
PVE: Death is basically Zero Risk.
PVP: Death is Zero Risk.
Skill tree: Almost zero risk change at any time for little cost.
Overall there is little advantage to intelligent game play. EX: 2-3x exp advancement or 2-3x PVP rank advancement.
Now let's look at EVE:
PVE: Death = loss of ship, 70% of gear, but no loss of implants.
PVP: Death = loss of ship, all gear, and probably all implants. Vs. Win = 30% of players gear.
So their is risk in death.
Overall intelligent game play makes
Its not the best, it attracts the baseline gamer.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Vanguard is going to be a hardcore MMO. This news article is music to my ears. The core dev team has its roots in EQ. This game will be challenging and give you a
Re:Its not the best, it attracts the baseline game (Score:2)
OK, we know you're on crack so we can ignor everything else you have to say.
What's WoW's nick again? Yeah, you got it.
Not a time sucker, my GOD have you been had...how much have they sucked out of your wallet?
Re:Its not the best, it attracts the baseline game (Score:2)
Fact of the matter is it doesn't take much time to get your levels in WoW, compared to a "hardcore" MMO like Everquest or even Everquest 2, and then you are stu
Re:Its not the best, it attracts the baseline game (Score:2)
Couldn't do many quests without raids. Couldn't do much that was useful but grind as a group, that wasn't fun. PvP in eq was horrifying, you couldn't really do that.
Re:Its not the best, it attracts the baseline game (Score:2)
As you rightly say, the old UO / EQ days of the early MMORPGS's had the whole risk/reward ratio heavily weighted towards time -- I'll say it was idiotic to camp a mob for 4 hours, just to have one item drop -- I got better things to waste my time on. WoW has changed this to be more rewarding with less risk/time required -- at least up to the mid-game. (Allthough travelling still sucks in WoW, du
Re:Its not the best, it attracts the baseline game (Score:2)
Why must there only be one of something? There is no one way to do things. These are games. Man, what stupid arguments.
Re:Its not the best, it attracts the baseline game (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, MMORPGs are hobbies. Or part-time jobs. They have characteristics of both.
But they're not just "games" these days.
Re:Its not the best, it attracts the baseline game (Score:2)
Let's not confuse the two.
Re:Its not the best, it attracts the baseline game (Score:3, Insightful)
WoW for case in point.
No you can't sell something that people have zero interest in, but the game is not what it is marketed as or purported to be by the company that created it.
The game was very carefully designed to suck you in, and require just enough of your time, to get you hooked and keep you paying that monthly fee...these decisions were absolutely NOT made by a group of people sitting around going, what is the BEST rpg we can put together given this IP. A large number of the mechanics and b
Re:Goths? (Score:2)
McDonalds sells millions of burgers because the food their making is good, not bad. Anyone who wants something that takes longer than 3 seconds to cook in a microwave is obviously some sad nerd...
Please raise your hand if this surprises you (Score:5, Insightful)
And the same "I am Jack's Ass" crowd is full of people with an over inflated sense of self importantce who believe that being invited to join a beta test and asked for some constructive feedback makes their voices more important than those of people who have been developing the game for years, and they regularly hold public roasts of any member of the development team who still cares enough to attempt to communicate with them?
I would be shocked and appalled if it weren't for the fact that this is exactly what has happened with every single game relased this century. The same arrogant twits infest every forum, loudly proclaiming that they now own the game and that those pinhead developers had better start doing things their way or else they're going to leave and take all six billion of their friends with them to whatever the next unreleased game is. The only thing that's surprising about this is that the writer says that Brad McQuaid is still trying to give them what they claim they want.
People often wonder just why it is that game developers often don't participate in their fora or talk directly to the players, and why they are often secretive about what they are working on. This kind of thing is exactly why they do that. Having to deal with this kind of abuse on a daily basis will turn anybody into a recluse.
Re:Please raise your hand if this surprises you (Score:2)
Re:Please raise your hand if this surprises you (Score:2)
There would simply be no way to get enough developers testing your game for enough time to be of any relative use at all, let alone get any real testing done...never mind that these developers are working too many hours on their own games at the same time.
Re:Please raise your hand if this surprises you (Score:2)
Inmates running the asylum. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Inmates running the asylum. (Score:2)
I rerolled on EQ1 recently just for shits and giggles after a year and a half of EQ2. It was fun and really cool taking a look back at my favorite zones -- some of them are really well designed. But on the whole I found that the zones are not as big as I remember, nor nearly as interesting. Gameplay is boring as hell. Levels take for
Not exactly getting both sides of the story are we (Score:3, Insightful)
There seems to be some hatred against WoW players. I can only imagine that this is the same hatred that Counterstrike players get. I was in a beta for a couple of more realistic shooters and we had good reasons to loathe CS players. They would get their beta key and instantly demand the game be turned into a CS clone.
If you get a post like "they should do X like they it in CS" or "this game sucks because I am good at X in CS and I suck at it in this game" then there really isn't much you can do.
So the players who like the game as it is fight the players who want to change the game. This nothing new. Just try following a debate on language reform.
The example of a corpse run is mentioned. Corpse run is a penalty for dying. Everquest 2 for instance punishes you with an experience debt unless you go back to where you died and reassorb your ghost. Other games leave your equipment lying out in the wild forcing you to go back to get your loot.
It makes the game more of a challenge forcing you to think about a battle. Not just wether you can handle that boss you need for a quest but wether you will make it back out again.
Without a corspe run you run the risk of players just using dying to get back to the city to sell their loot. Ask Star Wars Galaxies with the Trials of Obi-wan expansion. For that matter it existed before where people would kill themselves to get rid of a doctor buff that was about to run out so they could get a new one.
Kinda ruins the atmo when you got people begging to be wiped out. "Hey you want to go hunt rancors tonight" "Sure, let me just kill myself before we head out okay?" "Eh, right".
WoW for all its success is not everyones cup of tea and it can be disappointing to see every game try to emulate it. Again, look at SWG. It tried to WoW people and is near dead because of it.
So yes forum discusssions can become very heated BUT there is always two sides to a story. The person comments we read in the main article claim that the hardcore resisted attempts to add WoW elements to the game. Eheh, meaning he wanted to make the game into WoW. Is he basically upset because he didn't get to mold the game into his vision?
MMORPG's are very hard games to produce and if the designer doesn't 100% believe in what he wants to do there is the risk that he could start to believe that the tiny vocal minority on the forums somehow represents the majority. On the other hand if he ignores them he risks that they are infact the majority.
You can't please everyone but you sure as hell can upset everyone.
Re:Not exactly getting both sides of the story are (Score:2)
But what if they should do X like they do it in CS/WoW/whatever other game you hate? What if it is a really valid suggestion, even for this different game? You should judge an idea based on its merits, not on it's origin.
Beta testing != design (Score:2)
Re:Beta testing != design (Score:2)
Usually not a choice like that (Score:2)
Wich is better? Neither. It is a design choice and will determine the kind of game it is. Yes there are some things wich should be done the same in most games. The move to TCP/IP for multiplayer games was for instance a good move and every game was right for copying it.
Introducing a system to stop cheating would also be smart to follow.
But not every FPS needs to include a warthog ju
Re:Not exactly getting both sides of the story are (Score:2)
Not any more. No more corpse runs in EQ2. Now you get 10% equipment damage and a small amount of debt (less than 1% of level). Honestly I've never seen the debt be really a serious problem. I don't think I've ever had more than 2% debt. City of Heroes had much harsher debt penalties (I think they've reduced i
Nintendo's Plan of Attack (Score:2)
The games should be made to be fun, and when it is, people will come. It seems that games nowadays are made to be a bragging grounds, fun or not. It has to be an overly difficult game that rewards time (and lots of it) to pander to the "s
Keep 'em out (Score:3, Informative)
There is something to be said for having to wait for 30 minutes for a boat ride from Freeport to Butcherblock with islands to visit on the way. It keeps people more inclined to explore their current environment instead of looking for the fastest way to level up and going to the appropriate zone to do that.
I do hope the game lives up to what it is being advertised to be.
And I'll say it one more time: THEY HAVE BEEN ADVERTISING THAT THEY DON'T WANT THE "WOW" CROWD FOR YEARS. That alone has driven up their popularity with the hardcore MMORPG gamers because honestly, very few hardcore people even PLAY WoW to begin with.
Hell, yes (Score:2)
Re:Keep 'em out (Score:2)
That's because there are very few (but mouthy) "hardcore" players to begin with, which is why this will fail.
Re:Keep 'em out (Score:2)
I'm not saying that Vanguard will succeed just that I bet there are enough hardcore gamers to support a game like that.
I tried out Eve and after my two week trial realized that it was too hardcore for me. Nonetheless it is a popular game with a dedicated (if small compared to WoW or some other MMOs) group of players.
Re:Keep 'em out (Score:2)
Yeah, it made me say "Gee, I'm glad my wife plays a wizard and will get ports in a few levels."
I, too, want the game world to feel big. The later editions to EQ, especially the Plane of Knowledge ports, r
Re:Keep 'em out (Score:2)
- Time: walk/run your way across the land
- Money: pay for a port
- Networking: get ports for free by networking with others
- Personal Effort: Level up as a porting class
In short, provide a variety of means for players to short-cut the distance problem. That allows players to choose their mode of travel based on their
Re:Keep 'em out (Score:2)
With that, then you realize using the words "hardcore-only game" to represent "hardcore role-playing" is a little misleading. There are various types of hardc
Re:Keep 'em out (Score:2)
I totally agree with the first sentence, and disagree with the rest. Which is the whole point-- different games for different niches. It's not too surprising that the Vanguard testers are WoW-phobic, since making it WoWish kills off its unique selling
Re:Keep 'em out (Score:2)
That's impossible for many reasons.
(1) Players with retarded names. As soon as you log on and see someone with Drizzzzzt DoDurddden as character name, immersion breaks. There are also superb names like Scratch MyBalls or xTerminatorx and so on.
(2) These games have quests that everyone does. Oh wait, he killed the evil knight, wait, me too, him too, good bye immersion. Same thing with dragons that need raids to take down. That dragon will "magically" respawn in
SOE is their biggest problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Star Wars Galaxies Combat Upgrade
Star Wars Galaxies New Game Experience
It's so bad that mmorpg.com has posted a stickied "Official SOE hate thread" in the forum of every SOE game.
Naaaah (Score:2)
(you have to remember there is a distinction between the design/engineering team and the people that do the hosting/admin stuff. Sigil is the former, SOE is the latter)
Re:SOE is their biggest problem (Score:2)
I think the problems with SWG were (1) shitty devteam, (2) shitty management deadlines, (3) too many restrictions with LucasEtc looking over their shoul
Well written article (Score:2)
Corpse runs are definately something that should be left in the past.
Hum.... (Score:2)
The first is that Vanguard is not aimed at the same user base as WoW. WoW is clearly a more 'casual' game than EverQuest before it, and Vanguard looks to be designed to be a more sophisticated version of EverQuest's original vision for reward-and-punishment systems, perhaps even harsher. Is the potential playerbase for a game of Vanguard's sort as large as WoW's has proven to be? I've always thought that it wasn't by at least one order of magnitude, perhaps more, and though
A Response (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A Response (Score:2)
Fundementally flawed. (Score:2)
I can't be content with being Joe Soldier in a huge army, I want to be special in the game world (Although, thinking that some celebrities play MMOs anonymously, maybe they want to be 'ordinary' for a change) I wasn't satisfied with leaving Everquest until for one thing I was the first player in the game to do it.(Actually solving a challenge when there was no online walkthrough!)
The other side is that few people are willing to go through
Vanguard = Not for Carebears (Score:2)
Games such as WoW are one giant safe zone really. Not counting the
Re:Vanguard = Not for Carebears (Score:2)
n a true MMO world map, loot drops and such don't need instances
You should have to fight it out with others
The "danger" adds a level of fun, excitment and randomness to it
No 'I' statements here. It's a fact that WoW is for the 'lighthearted'. It's a fact that WoW isn't a 'true MMO world'. It's a fact that you should have to 'fight it out with others'.
In my post below, where I said that the sort of players Vanguard attracts seem more dogmat
Re:Vanguard = Not for Carebears (Score:2)
Re:Not Invented Here (Score:2, Insightful)
Way to RTFA.
It's not developers that are doing this, it's the hardcore, epeen waving, fanbois that have the WoW hate-on.
Re:Vanguard is an attempt at Everquest III (Score:2)
Vanguard apparently wants to bring back what even EQ had to do major gymnastics to code around. Guilds spending more time finding third party programs and strategies to ensure other guilds won't progress rather than working on progression. (If you played EQ during the PoP era and were in a high end guild, it was common to make sure one or both Decorins were moved under the world to make sure nobody got flagged for Rallos Zek until the servers got rebooted.)
So true, although I was out by then. Lum the Mad s