Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Nothing new here.
Mrbloodworth
Member Posts: 5,615
Or am I wrong, I cant find anything in this game that is not just a rehash of the past, no progression in the MMO development on this one. Everything on the site is just a bunch of wispy comments on what they "want" to do, its all Fluff in the FAQ, none of it answers anything, and it reads like a "look at me look at me, im brad!". 
I don't get where everyone is getting that this game is so revolutionary. Its clearly not.
Any one wish to correct me?
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
Comments
No, you are right, nothing to see here, move along
Thanks for clearing that up.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
"We used to laugh at Grandpa when he'd head off and go fishing. But we wouldn't be laughing that evening when he'd come back with some whore he picked up in town."
-Jack Handey
Kunark & Velious is what they openly aim for.
However, check for old EQ but the new expensions, and it should give you a LOT of insight of the recents directions Vanguard is going toward...so yes, you should check DoN, Omens, GoD...they are all a ''generally vague'' idea of what they are heading for. Remember, SoE and Vanguard share many emotional links. Vanguard left the wheel at SoE office, they will make a new wheel, but it will be pretty similar, but ''better'' then the old wheel.
However....SPECIFIC SERVERS rules. A simple non-raiding server would make me quite happy personnally, especially if you fine tuned it to give the uber loot in groups encounters on this special server...(I dont care if Afterlife call it the noob server, I can deal with that and answer them they are on the tedious server
)
I wish they would focus a little energy on solo, but well, the grouping aspect may be enought...maybe not. We will see. Vanguard have all the edges and the flaws of taking a successfull past team, they start with a huge lead compare to many noobs devs, however, they are also resistant to needed changes(not the WoW trashy way, have no fear, solo and casual are 2 very differents things). It is a little like the ''DREAM TEAM'' seeing a eastern country kicking their arse playing basic basketball, they need to adjust some features of their gameplay, in this case, solo. I will be looking for Vanguard for the grouping game they offer, and the non-raiding server is an obligation for someone like me, as I will not play on ''a raiders abuses all players server''!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
ah, so supper level grind, forced grouping, Items = "uber" mentality, you suck unless you have "X" item, crafting is trivial, and you need at least 40 hours a week to stay completive?
Sounds, .........outdated.
No one has time for such things any more. I'm sorry, but even if they released eq in its original state (before it all went "bad"), no one will play it (some would im sure), That game style doesn't fit in 2005 or 2008.
I just get what the big deal is about, nothing on there site holds any water, It always looks better on paper, And just because someone made a good game all those years ago, doesn't mean they them selves have evolved with the times. (no disrespect) Some people are just one trick poneys.
untill i see somthing other that wispers in the wind about this mythical and its vague watery "features" on there site "perfict game" ill just watch.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
See guys..............
Insisting in passing Vanguard as an innovative game, you are just instigating people to write threads like:
-"nothing new here"
-"Vanguard coping EQ"
-"I saw the FAQ, but there is nothing new"
-"I heard Brad McQuaid interview and there is nothing new"
-"This game suxx, cause there is nothing new"
-"There is nothing new why bother?"
-"EQ rip off"
-"Vanguard is obsolete"
-"Vanguard is outdated"
-"Vanguard suxx big time"
-"Vanguard will suxx"
-"I don't know what to post so I will post something about Vanguard that is an outdate game and I won't play it, because it s not innovative, therefore the game suxx, and the devs are lame"
-"insert your own 'Vanguard is not original' theme here"
Aren't you bored about those posts? How many more of them you want to see?
Because if you keep like this you will se hundreds like this.
I prefer to talk about the quality of Vanguard rather than arguing forever if this game is innovative or not.
I beg you to stop saying that Vanguard will be innovative, for 2 reasons.
1)It won't be innovative, and lots of people will be disappointed, so the critics can say " I told you so".
2)You give fuel for all the people that want to write how much Vanguard is not innovative, just because they want to start a thread.
When EQ2 was in development, SoE insisted that EQ2 would be different from EQ and quite innovative.
Well, after a couple of months of playing it, I thought: "What a bunch of liars, this game is just a piece of shyt".
Yes, not only EQ2 wasn't innovative but it borrowed the wrong features from EQ1, Immagine the immense disappointment.
I am proud that there is nothing particularly new in this game, all Vanguard fans should be proud of it.
Stop trying to fight the innovation corner, as if not being innovative is such a filthy thing.
So again, there is nothing new here, move along.
Anyone interested in innovation please buy the latest Album of Radiohead, that s innovative (although I doubt 90% of people would like it, but hey.......... that's the beauty of innovation).
"We used to laugh at Grandpa when he'd head off and go fishing. But we wouldn't be laughing that evening when he'd come back with some whore he picked up in town."
-Jack Handey
Barthen I did read your posts, but I think you don't get the point.
You don't have to convince me, about the qualities of Vanguard, you have to convince the scepticts that browse this forum.
The sceptics already have made up their mind, and they decided that Vanguard is outdated.
There is nothing you could do or say that could change their mind.
Post like yours just give more fuel to those people to argue about this subject.
I f you want a proof of the effectiveness of your posts, here a response to one yours:
As you can see you didn't achieve anything with your "trying to explain that Vanguard could be innovative".
People just like taunt people like you into arguments, and you seems to fall for it.
I don't want to see Vanguard forums full of "Vanguard is outdated" posts, I would like to see posts about the qualities positive or negative about Vanguard.
It will become another "Is Guild Wars an MMORPG?" thread, where every day people post a new post about this subject, because they know the fans will try to explain to them that GW is indeed an MMORPG (who cares?), no matters how many times this topic has been discussed.
Making a big issue about the innovativeness of the game, will attract lots of trolls that want to start an argument about this subject with Vanguard fans.
On the other hand, when you admit that there is NOTHING new, there is nothing else to argue about, because we agree with them, and it is not fun having an arguement when people don't answer you back.
So hopefully they will stop posting.
Sigil said that there will be something revolutionary, and I tend to believe them, but til this news will be announced it is better to play it safe:
In my view, it is better to say that this game is not innovative, and having some positive surprise later, then saying that the game will have some innovative elements, and having the forum populated with hundreds of "So nothing really new after all....." posts of disappointed people, as it usually happens.
You can keep arguing with those sceptics if you like, we are in a free world and forums are made to discuss.
Personally I think you are wasting your time, and you should wait til E3 when you will have real bullets to fire.
And if there will be something revolutionary, I will be more than happy to join your cause.
For now I am happy to have a game that get inspiration from EQ, and I am not ashemed of it.
Take care
lol, man what kind of a lame argument is that? So in these 5-7 years ppl have suddenly gotten much less spare time (while our society have become more and more efficent?). Personally, I have more spare time today than I had back in the days while I was playing EQ. Do you mean that suddenly the "MMO playerbase" collective decided they didnt want to spend that much time on MMO:s anymore? Or that everyone suddenly adapted the "why play EQ when I can lvl much faster in WoW" way of thinking? Don't think so. I really hope that it will take as much time to get anywhere in Vanguard that it did in EQ. Not everyone play to get max level in a month, its mainly about beeing part of a great community. If you only got an hour, you can still solo in Vanguard. Or just chat with some friends and work on your tradeskills.
wow, you missed the point yet again. I HAVE NOT TRIED CONVINCING ANYONE AT ALL THAT VANGUARD WILL BE INNOVATIVE. I have simply stated that it is too early to make the call one way or the other. It is your strongly biased opinion that adds fuel to the fire, after all it certainly can't be mine because I haven't even given a single opinion on the issue in any of my posts. You are dillusional.
the end, this arguement is an exercise in futility.
"We used to laugh at Grandpa when he'd head off and go fishing. But we wouldn't be laughing that evening when he'd come back with some whore he picked up in town."
-Jack Handey
Me I keep posting because:
- I want a game that will be good enought to interest me and ALL my RL friends.
So the game need to interest folks having DIFFERENTS tastes. A game that automatically focus on PvP alone, or on Raiding, or on Solo alone, is invariably doomed to failure.
The point of playing a MMO is to be playing with my friends, ALL of them. The soloer need to be online soloing whatever he like in whatever crazy farmland he is with digits that give vertigo. The raider need to be with his uberguild doing whatever they do in whatever dragon's arse! The grouper need to be grouping in some system they like. The casual need to want to log and be good and RULING Crushbone better then anyone could.
Then, and only then, may I hope to group ALL my friends a LOT more. Okay, sometimes they will say: No, I am commited to raiding this. Sorry I am soloing that for this reason...okay they will DENIED me the groups, but they will be playing and I will be able to group them later!
Yet, every game out there keep taking a narrow thinking, we will please this type of players only...
Well, I am sorry, but if you cannot please ALL(or nearly) type of players, soloers, groupers, raiders, hardcores, casuals...then if you dont please them ALL, then you are not a pure MMO and are not really above this ''single RPG'' I can play in a dark cave with no link to the outside world.
So if I post, I post because it keep me dreaming about a game where ALL gameplays are taken into account.
Why on the Vanguard board? SPECIFIC SERVERS rules is definitely a step in the right direction, only need to be able to group RL friends on other servers, with strict rules(maybe the receiving server enforce harsh rule on the incoming players...maybe with a neutral harsh world...harsh for all...the goal is to make peoples group in harshland only when they are with RL friends...if not RL friends, they should stick to their specific world they love so much). Specific server broaden the gameplay style that are playing the game, grouping the RL friends on other servers is a better problem then grouping someone not even playing the game.
Anyway...blame me all you want for dreaming...I wont stop! (and at work I have to much free time to write here niak niak niak).
PS: Of course you can accuse me of preaching for my land. As a grouper, a game that allow me to group all my friends is definitely the best grouping game I can hope for. Yes, I rather have a raider RL friend and a tradeskiller junkie in my group then any group loving stranger...and odd is they are likely to prefer grouping with me and the others rl friends then be in their limited aspect of the world. Of course the soloer will more likely prefer a group of 2 or 3. The raider will prolly prefer a group as big as possible...all fine with me, as long as I am with rl friends, I would be happy to be soloing in the meanwhile until they are availale to group...or I would be happy to be grouping strangers while waiting(better then soloing for me) if I cant group my friends...and yes...oh yes, I would ditch any group of strangers as soon as my rl friend is available, unless he is welcome to join the group and want to(the soloers will prolly not want to group strangers and would prolly want to duo with me or build groups with RL friends). Yes yes, even the raid lovers, they rather be with RL friends then be raiding...and if they know I wont be raiding, they will often be joining the groups we offer them...not always, but often, as they prefer this to anything with strangers most of the time...maybe we will be happy to join a few raids even with extremely harsh rule features once in a while and help his guild, even if we would be weak in this game session, it is temporary, we will resume our respective uberness as soon as we leave that raid, we are helping RL friend to succeed in whatever they are doing, so it is fine to be quite weaker then usual to maintain the raid server balance while we are helping them...in return, it need to be only local, only temporary, we need our self uberness to our sectors of the game to be motivated in the game. And when the raider friend come to our aspect of the game, he need to be the guy lacking at that moment, we are in another domain where folks earn the local uberness and the balance need to be maintain so only folks that earn it are good here...so yes, casuals need to rule Crushbone better then anyone else if they spend whatever little work they have to! Odds are we will developp this casual uberness partially, not really caring, but sometimes yes, only to help him, or to see how fast it is...but since we will have play with the casual local rules, it will be fine and acceptable, we would only be on par with the casuals when we earn as well the local stuff...which is acceptable.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
No offense but you're living in a dream world. You can't (at this time) make a game that caters to everyone.
Also for all the talk about nothing innovative etc, there's a new interview up on Gamespy about some Qalia stuff including a new class which sounds quite innovative. Go check it out
To cater every group, you simply need to make 1 high end per gameplay and that high end only give stats for it own purpose.
Quite simple.
Exemple: A solo item give raw 60 hps. A group item give 20 HPS X number of peoples in group. A raid item give 10 HPS X number of raiders in raid. That is only 1 exemple...quite easy to have 20 high ends in 1 game if necessary. You should also prioritise your groups. Tradeskillers or raiders are not majorities, they never will be...so if you only developp a few system, prioritised groups, solo and PvP(not at the expense of each others, PvP zones only give PvP uberness, nothing else).
Pretty easy to make everyone above level 15 a level 15 in Crushbone and have the casuals happy since no lame level to much farm and kill the whole zone. And so on. Casuals need to rule casuals zones, nothing more, nothing less. If someone level up to 20 in order to abuse Crushbone, he kill the game for the lowbie and he wont enjoy a lasting result. If he cant earn any level past 15 to help him in Crushbone, he will fght his way in and learn how to master Crushbone without ruining or abusing any casual game experience(or as little as possible if a total jerk).
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
In my opinion, trying to satsify everyone is the quickest path to not satisfying anyone.
If you give any playstyle a reward that's 'better' than another playstyle, people will get pissed. And it doesn't matter if the item is actually better. If it's percieved as better for whatever reason, there will be complaints. It's a nice thought, but realistically it resolves nothing.
You give the grouper the 20hp x (group size) item, and the grouper gets pissed because when he does want to solo, he only has 20hp. But this guy that solo's get's 60hp? (Disregarding of course that multipliers on equipment based on group size is a blatantly contrived mechanism that's just generally annoying). Compound that complaint for the raider who wants to try to solo, but only has 10hp x (raidsize) items.
You won't satisfy anyone with a system like that except the soloers. And you punish the groupers or raiders when they do want to solo a little. One of the arguments of the soloers is that you can't always get a group. Well, you're basically telling soloers," go for it! Solo! You'll be great at it! And we'll help you be great at it!". But at the same time you're telling people who group that they better always be able to get a group. Because if they don't, their gear is going to suck for solo'ing.
Brilliant.
-Feyshtey-
No, im saying that using the old mechanics that were in EQ1 for a new game in 2005 doesn't fit with the current world of 2005. The people that at the time were playing eq1 are grown up now, and in most cases don't have time for that style of game. There have been many studies about this topic and current trends on players of MMO's, look some up, you my be surprised. The level of involvement you needed to progress in the original EQ wont work in 2005,(time or interaction).
And its no argument.
Requiring a huge chunk of time does not = Challenging.
For the rest of you, you don't need to convince me, I was just wondering if there was something im missing.Imp not, there is nothing new here. The developers have not progressed passed the first generation, and have not considered today's market. While polish is nice, they are going to be using ideologies that wont work in today's playerbace.
This is my opinion, based on facts,and what i have read on the site, Take it or leave it.
"Hardcore" players are no longer the majority. Any game based on that target will be very sad they did, as many will leave the game to find one that better suits there time allowed, and the level of "achevment" they expect.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
Sadley, this isnt a social game, its a grind fest. They sate that in there F.A.Q.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
Yup, I'm with you on this one. I can't believe a bunch of MMORPGERS can't understand this. I mean...come on, in a skill based system what happens if you try to be good at everything? you are gimped at everything. In a class based system, well that is why they have different classes, because you need specialization.
Anyway I know this is not an absolute truth or anything; I'm just saying it is more probable that no company will have the resources to implement every aspect that interests different player types, or that they would ever be able to integrate those different styles smoothly and please everyone. I would rather play two niche games than a composite that is weak in both those areas.
I dunno if Vanguard will succeed or not, I hope they will...and I will certainly give my honest opinion, as a player(a hardcore grouper and soloer, dunno which I am more, guess it vary in time).
The day you settle and say you cant please ALL, is the day you settle for mediocrity, you cant succeed if you dont try. I rather have teams that say they will do everything and fail relatively close to it, then have a team that succeed at crossing the street. If the Kenedy would have say it was to hard to reach the moon and settle to sabotage Spoutnik and all USSR sattellite, it would have been a lot less work, a lot easier, he would prolly have succeed...but what would he have achieve?
You need to please as many players style as you can, and you need to start with the biggers groups of players if you are seriously thinking about making money. Dont fear, raiding is prolly the 6th or 7th group, which mean they can focus plenty of efforts on raiding and made it extremely appealing.
Most of my friends work in the ''computering'', many are devs...some are bumping from EA to Ubisoft and earning more $ in a year then I earn in a decade. Some earn even less then me when I was teaching...
Interesting gameplay is not(or rarely) build by the high salaries earning devs. The balance is toward ''leet graphics''. You need to give more freedom to the gameplay developpment inside the world, yes, I know, those silly devs at the bottom of the actual industry, those who where at the top of it in the late 80s. Dont ask someone like Woody to build a nice gameplay system, odds are he wont, and even if he succeed, he will prolly ignore quite a lot of important stuff(no offense to Woody intended, great artist).
Peoples are enjoying the ''my side only, screw the others''. Well, as a hardcore grouper I can tell you this very attitude automatically screw grouping with my RL friends and it send me toward my ''Hardcore soloer'' side a lot more.
To developp on every(or many) aspects of the gameplay you talk like it is huge ressource, it is not even doubling the dev teams, and it is adding those who cost the less $ on the payroll, so chill out! It is cheap and affordable to offer 10 gameplays into a game instead of 1, you dont even double the cost of production, yet you more then 10 times offer an interesting product that may appeal to customer...if you do the math, this is a good operation if the starting product is worth it...now if the starting product lack, it is investment on a diseased horse.
PS: With specific servers rules, althought I cant say he agree, I ''feel'' Brad kinda think toward this direction, even if for some silly reasons, he seem to aggro on soloers like there is no tomorrow. Happy soloer = online population who may be converted toward grouping. Unhappy soloer = logged off or unhappy online player that we dont want to group anyway.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Vanguard may fail, but as promising future games go Vanguard is the Chiquita of the bunch!
For those following Vanguard and have not seen yet:
The Official Site has released its first in game music piece that you can find here as well as new lore about Qalia.
Gamespy also has a huge article about building Qalia as well as an announcement of a new class and a playable height-challenged race in Vanguard. That preview can be found here.
And for the encounter system. Gamespot has another interview in which they talk about how to deal with content without instancing
That full interview can be found here
You can also see the dev responses to the new release of information in the official vanguard forums
Seems a good bit of old school and innovation in the mix to me. E3 will bring even more information about Vanguard to the surface. So I will have to disagree that there wil be nothing new.
Show me a TV show that everyone universally likes.
Show me a car that everyone universally likes.
Show me an operating system that everyone universally likes.
Show me any product in pretty much any market, and I will show you an alternative product with alternative characteristics that a portion of the market likes better.
Trying to cater to everyone is the epitomy of mediocrity. It is a balancing act, placing all values nearest the centerline, so that the most people possible are satiated. It is deliberately aiming at 'average'. The 'average' gamer will like it.
The world is comprised of a huge variety of peoples, all with a variety of likes and dislikes. Mediocrity is something that most people will agree on. But only a subset of those people with their variety of tastes will ever be completely satisfied by the average, the norm, or the medium (Mediocrity).
There are people who like sportscars, and those that like trucks. There are those that like comedies, and those that like dramas. There are those that like whole milk, and those that like 1%. Varrying products, with varrying target audiences is the only way to avoid mediocrity.
-Feyshtey-