Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Aradune speaks
Wickes
Member UncommonPosts: 749
I thought some of you might find McQuaid's comments today in the FoH forum encouraging. Music to my ears at least.
******************************************************************
When we're looking at revenue forecasts as well as when we're designing the game we're looking at long term customer retention with the realization that the majority of money made from MMOGs is from subscriptions not box sales. 250,000 I think is conservative... 500,000 would be just fine... both look pretty good though when doing the math and planning on players playing months and even years.
If the 'core' gamer is running out of things to do now (and I say 'core', not hard core, because I'm not just reading posts and talking to people who are part of that minority of gamers who play like madmen), then how much longer will the 'casual' gamer be entertained?
I'm not here to criticize Blizzard's plan (nor am I even privy to it), but I can say what ours is, and it's to keep the average MMOG gamer around for a long time. And we realize this likely means we won't see sales in the millions. But we took EQ 1 up to 400,000+ for three years with very few cancellations, and I know the game continued with those numbers for quite a while after I left. And that's the kind of success we're looking for again with Vanguard.
I know the counter-argument, that those players won't tolerate another EQ 1 and its advancement pace -- that MMOGs have to be designed differently now, targeting the more casual gamer and also the gamer who allegedly has less time to play than he or she did in the past, or who just wont tolerate anything even resembling a grind.
But I don't buy it. Sure, some people are burned out. But we also hear from a LOT of old school MMOG gamers who want that longer term game again... who want a home again. And if we combine those people with even a small percentage of new MMOG gamers, who were probably exposed to persistent worlds by games like WoW, then it's simply not that crazy to assume we can get the numbers I'm talking about for Vanguard.
Only time will tell, and I know people will disagree with me. But we really need to be right -- not just for Vanguard, but for the genre in general. We can't just give up, throw our hands into the air, and say EQ 1s were a fluke and that core gamers have somehow fundamentally changed since then such that they won't or can't subscribe for years ever again. Were that true, we'd never see the virtual worlds of the scope and scale we all dream about developed. Maybe we are old school, maybe past successes were a fluke, maybe were dinosaurs. But Im betting not.
Comments
Kudos Aradune (Brad)!!!
About time someone came around that kept us veterans in mind.
All the new gamers out there dont know what it's like in an MMO because well..they are new (Newbies)
Make games like they used to be..Fun and Challenging. Dont cater to the newbies (And their views of what MMOs should be like) but instead let the Veterans be heard, make that great game and REALLY TEACH the Newbies how MMOS should be!
Newbies should learn and excel, Veterans should NOT lower themselves back down to the "Learning Level" (Games that hand you everything...levels..."I WIN" buttons..ect)
About F***ing time someone says, "Newbies should learn from the Vet." This is NOT quoted from Aradune but it's exactly the way it should be.
Put the Challenge back into MMO..Let the player play the game, feel the game, live the game!!
Peace
Nobody is perfect...My name is Nobody
You know, I'm one of those 'new gamers' that you speak of, and quite frankly I find it hard to take anything you say seriously when in every one of your posts you constantly speak down at people who like these 'newbie games' like WoW and EQ2. For your sake, I'm glad that Vanguard is heading in the direction that you want it to, and I hope you find a game you enjoy in it. However, I find it extremely immature how you consistently speak of players of these newer games as if they are second-class citizens in the MMO world.
Actually, what pisses me off the most about you hardcore gamer types is that you always make yourselves out to sound like some grizzled Vietnam war vet reflecting back on "when things were REALLY rough", but what it boils down to is you're just someone who has simply spent a WHOLE lot of time playing a fucking GAME.
Sorry...I feel better now.
LOL, venting is good
You almost got through it clean, but then in your last sentence you had to do precisely what you criticize him for ... put down people who like things different from you.
Some people want more difficult games. That's all there is to it. If you are a new gamer you may find that the day comes when the ease of the newer games no longer turns your crank and you want more. Some other people have already gone down that road ... simple as that. Many who played earlier games simply find current offerings too unchallenging. Don't take it as a personal attack.
While i agree with Brad's approach to making the game viable over a long period the fact remains that if a games mechanics suck ie. EQ2 then it doesnt matter what your goal is for retention. EQ2 was meant for long term retention but i believe most of its subscription numbers are due to SOE's all access pass rather than actual numbers of people playing. So from what i've read theres alot of EQ2 ideas going into Vanguard with yes a little bit of new stuff. The majority of EQ2's system wasnt very appealing to me. Lockout combat is stupid. Heroic Opportunities are stupid. Fighting a tradeskill contraption is yet 1 more reason why tradeskills are stupid (when did a carpenter ever die to a lathe?). The seperation of group mobs and solo mobs is stupid ( gee thanks for marking it group i'd hate to actually die or something). Mass instancing is the death of mmorpgs as ddo will learn the hard way( dont worry i'm omw to join you.. oh damn which one are you in antonica 1,2,3,4,5?). I didnt like the way spell progression was handled in EQ2 either (wtb my next spell.. 25 gold wtf you just made 50 of them). Everything i've listed completely kills the immersion factor.
Immersion is why EQ succeeded over the long haul. When you logged into halas then zoned into everfrost and you actually got a chill from the snow. Being able to help those in need was erased from eq2. They sacrificed way too much to try and stop the powerlevelers. They sacrificed way too much to stop the exploiters. Personally if those are the lengths you need to go to in order to stop those kinds of activities i'd rather you allow them. There has to be a level of lawbreaking involved with any game or the game will be too bland. I see all these things people say destroy games or game economies but yet i see absolutely no evidence that it actually hurts the game. I've been playing MMoRPG's for 6 years and alot of stuff used to bother me. The fact that i had 1 pc and the druid next to me had 2 and was pl'ing toon after toon used to bother me. Watching afk druids forage for tradeskill items used to bother me. Watching afk toons skillup tradeskills used to bother me. After 6 years i say so what! If they're willing to take the risk and the game maker is willing to do the policing SO WHAT if a few people get away with some things it adds character to the game.
If Vanguard wants my subscription it has to be immersive. It has to free the player. It has to be FUN! It must be hell to grind! I want to kite! I want to group! I want to raid! I want to explore! I want EQ! oh wait um well you know EQ wasnt a bad game until luclin!
Make a difference!
Yeah, I did go overboard in paragraph two, sadly
.
It's not really the style of gameplay that gets me about those who have played these games for years--I totally dig and respect that. It's just the holier-than-thou attitude of many of these people that gets me. To use an example from the person I quoted in my last post, he makes mention of new players needing to be 'taught' how to play an MMO. I'm sorry, but I don't need to be taught how to have fun in a game; I do just fine, thank you very much
That's pretty much what I was talking about
Ok, I've done my gripe about Vanguard forcing players to multi-group in order to advance. That alone makes me refuse to even consider playing it. But I've already said my piece about that so I'll give it a rest.
But even if they convinced me that people who don't like devoting their lives to being a faceless minion in one boring, hours long raid after another would have some chance to 'succeed' in the game I still don't think I'd play it. Why? Because they aren't really trying to create a virtual world, which is what I've been waiting years for. They're just continuing on with the old -carrot on a stick- trick to keep people plodding along in their game.
The magic of EQ was due in large part to the fact that thousands and thousands of us were all newbies together in EQ. EQ came out just when MMORPGs were catching on and for a heck of a lot of us it was our very first MMORPG. We were a bunch of naive newbies and EQ was a magical experience for us. We didn't know enough about MMORPGs to realize how shallow and linear the game was. We had no opinion about things liked -raiding required- and -planned obsolescence of items- because we hadn't experienced it yet.
And when we did begin to see the game for what it really was, when we began to be disillusioned,...well, it was still our first time through something like that and a lot of EQ players clung to the hope that there would be something great just over the next hill (the next level or the next raid). And we had fallen in love with the game because of that newbie magic and the nostalgia of those days kept a lot of us going for years, just hoping that someday, somehow...the magic would come back. But it never did.
But anyway, I'm starting to ramble a bit. Some of you might be wondering what I'm talking about with -planned obsolescence of items-. Yeah, well, that's the carrot on a stick trick. Instead of doing anything creative; instead of making an interesting virtual world; what they do is give you shiny loot to lust after. "OMG, I gotta have that item." "Wow, look at that guy. He looks so cool in that shiny armor. I won't rest untill I get that stuff."
A game like Vanguard has one simple goal: chasing after equipment upgrades. But here's the trick that most of you should have caught onto by now: As soon as most people who can get the top end loot...have gotten the top end loot...they add new and even better loot to the game so that you will have a new goal to chase after.
That's what I'm talking about with planned obsolescence. Like good little subscribers you are supposed to lust after the uberest of the uber loot. But that loot is intended to be the most uber only for so long as it serves it's purpose in keeping people hooked (chasing after that carrot). The devs know full well that they will render the best loot obsolete as soon as too many subscribers have gotten their grubby little hands on it. They keep that carrot dangling just a few inches in front of the donkey's nose (you're the donkey) so that he will keep plodding along pulling the wagon (paying his subscription fee).
Now maybe a lot of you don't have a problem with this but to me it seems like such a shallow and unimaginative gimmick. As long as MMORPGs rely on tricks like that to provide us with goals we will never have a virtual WORLD. All we'll ever have are these silly little -whack a mole and get a prize- games.
To be fair about it I should point out that EQ and Vanguard: saga of zerglings (whoops...let my attitude get the best of me there) aren't the only games that use this trick. But surely I'm not the only one who has gotten fed up with this gimmick. I've read some things that refer to Vanguard as a 'next generation' MMORPG. Sorry, no. Any game that relies on an such a shallow, linear, and unimaginative gimmick to give players something to do, is not a 'next gen' game.
Why do I bother complaining about stuff like this? Because I want something better. I want a deeper game. I want a virtual WORLD not a silly little whack-a-mole game. But as long as game developers think that we want silly little shallow games...that's all they will make. So from time to time I voice my opinion on this stuff. I know that my opinion is just a drop in the bucket. But what the heck, if I can add my one drop to help tip the scales towards something better then I will.
You're right, we're never going to be mmorpg newbs again. Does that make it impossible to have another experience as great as the early days of EQ? Honestly, I don't know. Doesn't look promising, does it
I'm ready to take the shot though. What I want personally is to be thrown into a miserably tough world ... one where even survival is a great challenge. And I would like to take that challenge on with like-minded people. At the risk of being called an elitist, I really want to get away from 90% of the people I see in current games and current game forums. They seem to have what they want - now I'd like to get a shot at what I want.
I guess I don't connect with your objection to chasing equipment upgrades. Seems logical to me, and it never bothered me. It was fun having new upgrade goals, and it was fun getting them. I liked having constant new goals. Heck, I like to get a new car or stereo in RL now and then ... what's the difference.
Honestly, I thought DAOC's equipment sytem was the best ... stuff just wore out and couldn't be repaired anymore, and the higher it was above your skill level the faster it wore out. That made sense to me. Of course, not too many people liked that, did they
I absolutely WANT forced grouping. Soloers have enough choices out there.
I think it makes it impossible for a shallow and unimmersive game to capture our imaginations like early EQ did for those of us who were newbs in it. Something I've said before is that I miss the game I imagined EQ to be before I knew too much about it. Early EQ really was a virtual world for me simply because my own imagination made it a world. Before I realized how shallow and linear it was. I doubt that anyone who has played a MMORPG can ever get swept up in that sense of newbie wonder again and let their imaginations fill in the gaps. If I am ever going to recapture that feeling I need a game world that really tries to be a world and not a shallow, linear progression through one make-work goal after the other.
I agree completely with that. But if I was going to be cynical I would question whether Vanguard will really be tough. Does slower progression equal difficulty? Or is it just slower so that they can milk subscriptions longer? Either way, the intent of making it more difficult is one thing I like about Vanguard.
But how can survival be a challenge in a game with no perma-death? Survival can't be a challenge unless there is some risk that you might not survive. And for that you need perma-death, which Vanguard doesn't have.
It's ok up to a point. But when it's the sole focus of the game it's just a crutch for unimaginative devs. It's such an artificial way to provide us with goals. I find it almost insulting to be honest. The devs wave a shiney trinket in front of us and like Pavlov's dogs we all start to salivate. We get that trinket and play with it for a while. Then the devs, fearing that we might get bored and leave the game, pull out a newer and even shinier trinket, "Here boy! Look boy! See this boy! See it!....Go get it!"
If that's the only thing they can think of to make a game 'interesting' and 'fun' then there is something seriously wrong.
Yeah, and I don't blame you. This is just a matter of preference I suppose. It seems fairly obvious that there won't be much grouping in a game unless people NEED to group. My own personal problem is that I want a grouping game that doesn't force me to multi-group. I love being part of a group...but I hate it when I'm just a face in a crowd.
I love relying on my groupmates and having them rely on me. I hate it when there are so many people that most of them wouldn't even notice if you went link-dead.
I love working together with a group to defeat some difficult beasty. I hate it when I'm just guildy #83; told to sit down, shut up, and do as I'm told.
I love it when I get to save my group from impending disaster and it gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling when someone else in my group saves my bacon. I hate when I'm just cannon fodder to be thrown at a boss mob so that the guild leader can brag about HIS achievments.
I think that needing to group is a good thing for a MMORPG. But if it's taken to the extreme of forced multi-grouping it stops being a good thing and starts to be a joy killing chore.
Yeah, I agree, the days of newbie wonder are gone. And I also agree that our imaginations, and our ignorance of the EQ world, contributed to the total immersion. I don't think that was all of it though. I think the high level of challenge and the absolute need to interact with other people and depend on each other contributed heavily to creating a real society. At this point, if I could just get halfway to what I want, that would beat the hell out of what I have to choose from right now.
Can't go with permadeath though - it is entertainment, after all, and there are too many problems and issues associated with having to start over. To me the harsh penalty for death in early EQ, coupled with often hellacious CR and occasional worry that your corpse would be lost, was far more than enough to keep my attention and get the adrenalin flowing. Plus, danger was everywhere back them. Even in zones you'd outgrown, you could go take a leak and come back to find yourself dead from some wandering high level mob (god knows why they left that aspect out of EQ2). Bottom line, pay almost constant attention or pay the price, which wasn't pleasant. And you certainly needed friends too ... often help from others was essential. In current games, who even cares about dying ... means next to nothing ... therefore, zero immersion. And you rarely really "need" other people, except at raiding levels.
Will Vanguard be that tough? I doubt it. I don't think there are enough "extremists" around to support a large scale game. But like I said, halfway beats where we are now.
And yeah, it does seem you must have forced grouping or people won't group. We had fabulous community in EQ ... love em, hate em, whatever ... it was a real society. These days people just roam around doing their own thing for the most part. As far as multi-grouping, I sure as hell hope they don't go off the deep end like EQ gradually did. A bit is okay with me. I did enjoy some raiding, they just took it too far.
Old world+kunark+velious was a true world, luclin and sucesive expansions ruined the immersion, i had countless hours runing between npcs to hear their stories. It's not about newbieness, it's about a good design, form the sucesive expansions, the only one that i really enjoyed was pop, but only because POJ prisioners and their stories(it's a must read if you enjoy with ingame stories).
Daoc was a world too, and an interesting one, but daoc's lore was worse than original everquest one, so the world was less apealing than original EQ's one.
Im looking for an indeep lore, interesting npcs stories, a cool history...
I know that im no longer a newbie, and i will never be able to feel the joy of exploring my first MMORPG, but in the same sense that i can enjoy multiple single player games, im sure that i can enjoy another mmorpg as i enjoyed EQ.
Unimaginative devs? i dont think it so, there is no need to innovate in order to create a good game, wow is not a innovative game, but is a good mmorpg(unfortunately is somewhat boring because is too easy)
Vanguard devs are bringing some new ideas, like crafting, a tactical aproaching to combat or the diplomacy sphere. They are not looking to create a game that is complelty different from other games, they are trying to capture what made EQ a great game and enhace it with good ideas from newer games and some new ideas.
Innovation is something secondary, creating an interesting enviroment and a good game is more important than having the most innovative ideas ever.
Slower means a longer life, if the game is interesting enough to provide contents for that slower gameplay, it will be a good game, if they fail to privide it, vanguard will be just a farm fest... but since brad made EQ, and EQ had a very deep history, a lot of interesting npcs with interesting stories, im sure that he will make a good and interesting game with a very rich world for those that try to explore it.
It's going to be harder than other games? i dont know, the skill will matter so that is an interesting point, the success of your combat will depend of your decissions instead of your reflexes wich is another interesting point...
Im looking for this game, i know that i will never be able to feel the same that i felt my first day in EQ, but i hope to enjoy vanguard for a long time like i did with EQ.
I have to say I respect you guys for not descending to personal attacks. And if Vanguard is the game for you I do hope you enjoy it for a good long time.
Maybe I'm just jealous. You guys are getting a game you'll like (hopefully) but I'm still wandering the world in search of the Holy Grail that I'll probably never find. It gets really depressing at times; wishing for a game I can fall in love with but not seeing any hope in sight. There is one game in development that gives me a tiny shred of hope but it might be vaporware. If that one falls through I will probably give up on MMORPGs entirely.
I won't promise not to spout my opinions on this stuff occasionally but I am glad we could keep it relatively polite.
Well the simple fact that what they said was going to be in the game is similar. Heroic opportunities, instancing, fighting tradeskill containers... Did you not read the E3 statement? I'm sure the people that took over EQ2 after Brad left were thinking their ideas wouldnt effect immersiveness. I want the best for this game because i need it to be great but when i hear stuff like i heard in the E3 statement i get worried.
Make a difference!
I think you may need to re-read the Vanguard info ... you seem to be hearing something quite different from what they are saying.
McQuaid was never involved in EQ2. He left SOE in the middle of EQ1.
LOL Brad was involved in EQ2 for quite awhile. I think you need to read what he's already stated on this very forum. I don't need to re-read the Vanguard info i'm very well informed thank you
The thing is the game isnt even in beta yet so nobody really knows which direction the final product will take. It's through discussion and community feedback that developers can really notice whats going to fly or not. I've read so many things on Vanguard that after awhile it all gets to be a blur. All i'm saying is what they said at E3 worries me.
*edit* for those to lazy to search for it lol
Make a difference!
Tough to believe when you haven't managed to discover their stance on instancing
McQuaid was involved in plans for EQ2 bearing no resemblence to what was ultimately made. As you may note from your study of Vanguard, the EQ2 which was made is essentially contrary to everything he promotes.
LOL Brad was involved in EQ2 for quite awhile. I think you need to read what he's already stated on this very forum. I don't need to re-read the Vanguard info i'm very well informed thank you
The thing is the game isnt even in beta yet so nobody really knows which direction the final product will take. It's through discussion and community feedback that developers can really notice whats going to fly or not. I've read so many things on Vanguard that after awhile it all gets to be a blur. All i'm saying is what they said at E3 worries me.
*edit* for those to lazy to search for it lol
For one, I recall Brad saying EverQuest II is VERY different then the EverQuest II he was working on way back when. If you recall the old features, most of what was supposed to be in EverQuest II isn't there now.
Also, in Vanguard there will be no instancing, combat is more... slower paced, and tradeskills aren't just the click click click it was in EverQuest II.
From what we understand, TS are sort of similar to EQII. Difference is you have multiple choices instead of just clicking the button that pops up.
This is how it goes that I understand it
You have a pool points. Before you start, you choose some of your TS abilities. When the encounter starts, there's various problems that are going to come up, you can DECIDE how to handle each problem.
I forget what the points are for...
But there's no instancing at all.
Since I recall Brad left Sony in 2000 (I think) and I believe EQII started development in 1999... Yeah, I seriously doubt it's the EQII he was working on.
Well i'm glad theres no instancing
I'm hoping Vanguard is more of a EQ part 2 than EQ2 was. I'm actually kind of counting on it because i'm feeling kinda lost atm. I guess thats why i get so jittery when i hear things that remind of the bad time EQ2 was lol.
Make a difference!
What else to add.
I mean, this guy thinks exactly the way I do.
Brad is smart enough to understand the reason why Everquest was a success.
The reason?
One word..............community.
The only way to build a strong community is having class interdependency.
I never experienced the need to group in any other game I played.
An example of ideal EQ group:
-Tank (Warrior, Paladin)
-Main healer (Cleric)
-Mana Buffs/slower (Enchanter)
-DPS (Wizard, Necro, Beastlords)
-Defensive buffs (Shaman, Druid)
-Puller (Monk, Paladin, Ranger)
In EQ having a good variety of classes was really important because that would guarantee a good balance of buffs, which were essential for the surviving of the group, and if only one of them screwd up, the group was doomed.
Also Necro, Beastlord, Druid and Bard were able to solo quite easily, so if you liked to solo, you were more likely to choose one of those classes, which, as a counter balance, were less vital in the group.
An ideal EQ2 group:
-Tank (Guardian)
-DPS 1 (Wizard)
-DPS 2 (Wizard)
-DPS 3 (Wizard or assassin/brigand)
-Healer 1 (Templar)
-Healer 2 (Templar or Shaman)
The rest of the classes are quite redundant, and they are used to fill the spots when nothing else is available.
In EQ2 buffs are not really important, quantity is what counts.
So having 2 healers and 3 wizard will garantee a kick ass group even if the players spamclick the mouse mindlessly.
In short what makes a community is the fact that each class is needed and counts, so everyone is proud to play their classes because they know that in a way or another they are useful.
In games like EQ2, unless you are a Guardian, a Wizard or a Templar, you just feel like a useless piece of shit.
Also, as I stated several times, there is a good market, between 250K to 750K players, that want to play a more challenging game, like EQ (in response to all the dumb whiners that keep saying that no one wants to play an EQ style game.........except the 500K eq players and the 250K EQ2 players, of course...............and DAoC players and probably few hundred thousands of newcomers that would like to play such games. But problably this people are better in bullshitting than they are in math)
Brad is aware of it and is trying to win the favour of those players by producing a game that is more challenging and immersive, his aim is to satisfy the desires of the CORE player base (not hardcore), which, although is a minority, it is still a large number.
That s the reason why I trust Brad McQuaid (and his vision) so much.
I think he knows what we want, and certainly he knows how to deliver it.
Vanguard an EQ clone? who cares.......... go and play something else.
And just to make it clear, Vanguard won't be an EQ clone, so if people is so closed minded not to understand that updating a good concept doesn't mean cloning it, then it is not even worth the time to convincing them of the contrary.
So bring on EQ part 2
Go Sigil
05.05.29
"teaching noobies" ... yes, noobies have to be taught. Like the clerics that spent all their money on armor and a weapon so that can mele with the tanks, and did not have any money left over to buy healing spells, after all with more of us hiting monsters they die faster and there is no need to heal.. of magicians that prefeer to only use aoe spells since that does a little dmg on alota monsters and bringing in all those adds just gives the tanks more to kill... or the shaman that decided since bufs wear off it is not important to buf tanks nor slow mobs they are just there to get their loot befor the tanks scoop it up... or the chanter that does not think mez is important since so many monsters resist it, so why bother casting it!
McQuaid 'resigned' in 0ct 2001 (Luclin & DX8 dec 2001,) and formed Sigil in Jan 2002 and inked a deal with MS in Apr 2002. As SOE was going to fire 1/3 of Butler's GMs (save $) and increase the subscription from $9.98 to $12.95 (more $ apr/may 2002.) I think after 1 or 2 years no competition clause expired Saga showed up beginning 2004. (For a long time the name was secret.)
Trost was the 'creative director' in EQ2 in Apr 2000, and the core designs were not in place till dec 2000... shortly after EQ went to DX7. Recal they caned trost after the delays in getting the DX9 (july 2003 to mar 2004) to work in EQ, swg & EQ2 worked out. And used ldon (sept 2003) to iron out the EQ2 instancing problems. (We were expecting to begin beta testing EQ2 winter '03.) By july 2004 the EQ2 alpha was having constant problems & SOE enforced a total blackout on those problems... EQ2 was supposed to retail xmass 2003 and the many problems were pushing it back at least a year. Heads rolled and lotsa swg guys moved into EQ2 dev.
Saga retailing in 2006 will have to face dual core cpu, W64 and gpu doing +50GB/s bandwidth and mayby physics processing units. But reviewing their sites indicates they may retail end of 2005 !! That means beta testing within two months!!! (Aug/Sept till Nov. 2005.) And Sigil is accepting Saga of Heroes GM Resumes
Preface : I know that you clarified your statements later in the thread. But... While I have to admit that your opinion here is sometimes true, more often than not it's inaccurate. I just desire something you don't. There's no right or wrong here. There's preference. Which is a very important point in this discussion that seems to glossed over by people on both sides too often.
I have no disdain for the game mechanics of EQ2 or WoW. Or any other game for that matter. They just don't align as well with my desires for a game as Vanguard promises to. But logic dictates that not all games can be all things for all people. It's very simple really, and I don't see the point in even arguing it. There are those that want something more involved, more difficult, and more deep. Is it better if it has those things? For me, yes. For you, maybe (how can you know if you don't try it?). For some, absolutely not. But the genre as a whole is better served when that choice is available to all customers.
After playing EQ for 5 years, and a host of other MMO's for a few months at best, I know that I find games on the market now lacking in some areas. Those areas are being brought to the forefront in Vanguard. And because of that, I desire to play it, and it alone.
First, there's no indication whatsoever that Vangauard will be focused entirely on raiding. There will be raiding, to be sure. There will be raiding at most levels of the game. There will be raids on varrying scales. But there will also be a good deal of group content. And some solo content. I can't think of a game in the mainstream market that doesn't have raiding, including the solo-fest of WoW. (solo-fest not being a deragatory term, simply a descriptor for a wide ability to solo).
The second part of that quote suggests to me that you may be very uninformed as to what Vanguard actually is. Not creating a virtual world? ... That comment actually completely dumbfounds me.
Diplomacy will allow a character to speak with nobles and merchants to establish trade routes, supply caravans between cities and towns, and broker deals to build PC towns. It allows for PC's to builds governements, aid city factions in actually effecting the outcome of NPC conflicts.
Crafting allows for filling orders for supplies with NPC factions, who are then more able to effect the gamespace. (As an example, if you craft a bunch of weapons and armor for a city's militia, that militia is then more able to enforce the laws in the city.)
That's a more in depth virtual world than I'm aware of anyone ever attempting before. And it's just a tiny fraction of what the game has actually announced as being implemented. Not to mention the stuff that they still hint at but refuse to disclose. I would like clarification on how you think it's a lacking virtual world, compared to the "go attack NPC 'X' at spot XYZ that is always there or respawns there in a couple of minutes with absolute regularity to get xp and loot. Rinse and repeat."
This game will be neither linear, nor shallow. Two things that, ironically, or reasons why many immediately proclaim it to be a power-gamer haven, and an over-demanding title for a player's time.
Guess what: That's the case in every game out there. Without exception. If there is an expansion, and there is item acquisition in the game, then the expansion ups the ante for loot. Period. The trick is in not letting the inflation go too out of whack. Something that the Sigil devs have a lot of experience with, and 20/20 hindsight to draw from.
Copeland : Well the simple fact that what they said was going to be in the game is similar. Heroic opportunities, instancing, fighting tradeskill containers... Did you not read the E3 statement? I'm sure the people that took over EQ2 after Brad left were thinking their ideas wouldnt effect immersiveness. I want the best for this game because i need it to be great but when i hear stuff like i heard in the E3 statement i get worried.
The Heroic Oppurtunities of EQ2, and the Perception system Vanguard are quite dissimilair, although they might seem the same on the surface. In EQ2, every character has a static button they press to start a chain, which another player can then advance. The main point here being that it's static, and it's a gaurantee as long as all parties press the right buttons in the right order. In Vanguard, a character's perception score (a score they choose to develop or not) dictates how many oppurtunities they might recognize. It's based on the actions of the NPC, not on a static timer with static results. And the NPC's use the same systems. These oppurtunities can varry widely in a given number of scenarios, including damaging attacks, defensive moves, protective moves. And again, based on NPC reactions to the PC actions. It's a logical system of combat, not a set-in-stone button mash fest with a pre-determined outcome.
What instancing? There isn't any. Some boss mobs will be triggered spawns as results from quests. That's as close to instancing as it gets.
Fighting Tradeskill containers... Sure. I'll give you this. Did you read all the rest that crafting involves? It's 10-fold deeper than the EQ2 system, and having one semi-similar facet of the whole does not an equal make.
I am absolutely positive that this game will not be appealing to a lot of players out there. However, it is the last great hope for many others. I find it exceedingly annoying that those that will not be entertained by it continue to try to both change it, and spread misinformation about it to further some uneducated opinion on it.
-Feyshtey-
What else to add.
I mean, this guy thinks exactly the way I do.
Brad is smart enough to understand the reason why Everquest was a success.
The reason?
One word..............community.
The only way to build a strong community is having class interdependency.
I never experienced the need to group in any other game I played.
An example of ideal EQ group:
-Tank (Warrior, Paladin)
-Main healer (Cleric)
-Mana Buffs/slower (Enchanter)
-DPS (Wizard, Necro, Beastlords)
-Defensive buffs (Shaman, Druid)
-Puller (Monk, Paladin, Ranger)
In EQ having a good variety of classes was really important because that would guarantee a good balance of buffs, which were essential for the surviving of the group, and if only one of them screwd up, the group was doomed.
Also Necro, Beastlord, Druid and Bard were able to solo quite easily, so if you liked to solo, you were more likely to choose one of those classes, which, as a counter balance, were less vital in the group.
So bring on EQ part 2
Go Sigil
I really need to comment on your "community" remark. This might come across harsh to some people so please don't take it as an attack. There is a class of player I like to refer to as the internet social butterfly. This is the pale, introvert who lives in his parents' basement and whos entire social circle exists as other people in online games, people on msg boards, etc.
Not everyone who plays a MMORPG is looking to log into a graphical IRC session. Personally, I have my circle of friends at work, my wife, other friends and when I log into WoW (or formerly EQ) it wasn't that I was anti-social, its just that I didn't want to RELY on making a huge gaggle of online "friends" just so I could play the game and get something accomplished. Taking it a step further, on the server I was on in EQ (TMarr) I actively avoided some people because of the enormous amounts of drama that seemed to follow them around. EQ, especially among the top end players, seemed to attract some real nutballs. For that reason, I personally can't see playing another game where your success and ability to get anything accomplished rely on you getting on some sort of regular schedule or planning around meeting up with certain people and then realizing you are SOL when the cleric doesn't log in.
I really enjoy the pace of WoW. I enjoy that I can find 4 other people and do an instanced dungeon and not worry about someone else jumping in and messing with us. I absolutely detested sitting around LFG in EQ and then having to ask "Gee, whats NOT camped in Sebilis tonight?". Don't even get me started on how much I detested the entire concept of camping and sitting in one spot (and as such you couldn't truly "crawl" through a dungeon in EQ lest, God forbid, you encroach on someone else's camp).
I think Vanguard has some promise, but I get REALLY nervous when Brad starts invoking the "EQ early days" really heavily. Yeah, I look back on those days with Nostalgia but i would NEVER go back. Concepts such as camping a room in a dungeon ... 1 hour long CR's when a raid wipes ... a god-awful, practically non-existant quest system and killkillkill-level-killkillkill gameplay are things that need to stay in the past.
And quite honestly that was unecessary.
There are some lonely people that lives just for games, it is true, but it is not just restricted to EQ.
I go out friday and saturday nights with my friends(none of them play games), got a girlfriend and I got a rewarding job.
Yet my hobby is Videogames, so when my RL allows me, I dedicate my spare time playing games.
Some people like fishing, some other play football, some collect stamps, some people rob banks, I prefer using my sparetime playing games.
And when I play games, any kind of games, I like to play to win, to be the best.
I like playing challenging games, where your skills make the difference.
Whether I play Doom 3, Unreal Tournement, EQ or Pac Man, my challenge is always to be the number one.
I am an Achiever, with the capital A.
Like me, there are lots of people out there with the same competitive spirit.
Wanting challenge doesn't necessary equal being a recluse.
So next time you feel like analyse people, and generalise, think it twice, because you might risk to insult lots of people.
And by your remarks, I know it wasn't your intention.
I know you don't agree with "EQ old days", but unfortunately this game is going to be about that.
It is not the game for you, leave this game to people that liked the original EQ and try not to diminish the ego of people that doesn't fit your play style.
Take care
"Not targetting your remark specifically, but I did notice in previous posts a resentment and dislike for instancing. Can someone explain this to me? I absolutely love that I can go with my group or my guild into a dungeon and not worry about other people interfering. The drama, headaches and territorial behavior I experienced in EQ are things I never want to experience again."
Oddly, you partly answered the question yourself.
The drama.
There's a rush and a tension with direct competition that many find appealing. Even as they hate it. They love it when they win without recognizing why, and hate it when they lose. The loss causes some to cement their resolve to win the next time. It also forces players to react more quickly. You can't just sit there and discuss how you're going to go after that mob when there's another party marching towards it as well. Those with more experience (as players, not the characters) often find greater success because of this.
But that is only a part of it. When you're in an area with 50-100 other people, there's actually a sense of community. There's an ability to randomly help and be helped. With that there's a greatly likelyhood of meeting allies you might not otherwise have met. There's also a greater ability to recognize people of the community because you are always interacting with people outside of your group. Not only are you granted a greater chance of cataloguing people you respect, but also people you chose to avoid. Short version : it hightens your participation in the community. And for a ton of people, that means a greater game experience.
There are more reasons than just that, but at least you might get the idea why some people really try to avoid instancing. It's not for everyone, and some people really could care less about what community they are a part of in a game. But for others, it's paramount.
-Feyshtey-