A: AoC for 360 is not confirmed (but I admit likely, and quite unfortunate )
B: First hand means FIRST HAND.. I PLAYED THE GAME and it blew goats... Even taking changes from beta to gold into account, there are just too many fundimental problems with this NEW visions (diplomacy=ultra-mega-timesink-grind=LOL) and the fact that its just another iteration of EQ... which I enjoyed at the time, but this is a new time and Vanguard is an OLD game...
Of all that is written, I love only what a person has written with his own blood. -Nietzsche
Originally posted by johnvsimpson Well I know WOW has camping too, but I assure all those who started with WOW, its really nothing compared to the camping times of EQ1 or even EQ2. Really. If you only know WOW camping, you dont know camping at all, or rather camping as it was. I vividly and painfully recall how often I camped a boss mob literally hours and days, only to see it stolen from some passer-by group. I have played over a dozen of MMOs, some of them many years, I can assure you, there is just no way you can prevent it. Every system has a hole, and some people will be clever enough to absue it and steal your mob. Believe me, there just is no 100% certainty to prevent camp stealing.
Been raped in America is nothing as bad as been raped in Africa according to your logic...
Vanguard is in BETA, so it is nowhere close to the behavior of players on LIVES servers.
Vanguard camping issues will be compared to...Instancing. Some games gave you the possibility to have everything you want in an instanced format, so nobody ever KS you. Been KSed 1 time or 10 times doesn't make a big difference, the person who bear it once will bear it 10 times, the player who would leave the game after benn KSed won't stand it at all, once is too often.
That's been said, we will have to wait, the game is no where close to it final status, but the game will have to compete with Instancing, the players will be unforgiving about any issues that they have that would have been solved with instancing.
Thinking otherwise is putting your head into the sand.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Originally posted by Sturmrabe Originally posted by matraque
You seen it first hand ? Does seen means play ?
A: AoC for 360 is not confirmed (but I admit likely, and quite unfortunate )
B: First hand means FIRST HAND.. I PLAYED THE GAME and it blew goats... Even taking changes from beta to gold into account, there are just too many fundimental problems with this NEW visions (diplomacy=ultra-mega-timesink-grind=LOL) and the fact that its just another iteration of EQ... which I enjoyed at the time, but this is a new time and Vanguard is an OLD game...
I for one am glad to see the likes of you having such intent on tearing down any game that you don't like. First of all it makes you look like an unintelligent source of information; therefore useless. I am also glad because you will not be playing, calling diplomacy a grind with no accurate (in this case complete) sources of information is rather immiture of you. Diplomacy will only be a cardgame in so far as the user interface, once it is developed you should be able to participate by using types of arguements following logic. As for a truely dinamic diplomacy experience, there is no technology in existance that can accurately simulate a detailed conversation depending on what you and the NPC previously states. It may find it's way into games eventually, but that is for later...particuarly once it is developed. Personally I think it is refreshing to find a development team interested in creating other methods of rising to power in an mmorpg. I'm glad to finally see a game which impliments additional challenges other than adventuring. I'm also glad to find a game focusing on what mmorpgs were originaly ment to do: create a gameplay experience based on social interaction. I don't consider the ideals of EQ or Brad Mcqaid outdated in the least. Which leads me to believe that you are misinformed, that or simply ignorant which at the moment I don't have a hard time believing. Many members of the development team specificly state in many interviews that they believe that they can create a rewarding experience without making the effects of death devestating. I beleive they will create a system of risk Vs. reward based on player skill rather then simply camping. Unfortunately I have no sources of information for that seeing as you'd need to derive that from playing in beta (which I have done). The development team has many new ideas which they are implimenting to be used in the context of the "old school" mmorpgs. Unfortunately, I am not at librity to discuss them (here, anyway). All I can fathom you have done in the beta was log in (with a pecemist's outlook no less) and checked out a few features then deemed it irrelevent in the current mmorpg market. I'm glad I won't be seeing you in game soon, have fun soloing in AOC. Never bother me again...kisses and lollypops, me
Not having a go grnyoswarjoe, but how about some paragraphs, I nearly went cross eyed reading your post.
Seriously though, why not introduce something like tagging an area before something spawns for example if you want to spawn camp monster boss Elite X, then you can wait where he spawns and if you wait there for say 10 minutes and don't leave the immediate vicinity (say 100 metre area) then you have that area tagged so that when the boss spawns then he will spawn tagged by you or and your party. This way whoever arrives first in an area with the object of spawn camping it is first come first served. This is just a suggestion and there are probably bad things about it.
Just interested to hear what people think, as everyone has different ideas about what is good and what is bad.
Originally posted by daniel240279 Not having a go grnyoswarjoe, but how about some paragraphs, I nearly went cross eyed reading your post.
Ahh, yeah sorry about that, Just kinda lost it a bit there. I don't take kindly to people who appear ignorant. As for your idea, the only way I could really see it work is if they did it the right way. For the most part I disagree, I think that mobs should be killed on a first come first serve basis. Kinda detracts from the immersion, don't you think? Also, with how big the world is and major quest mobs being only attackable by people on that quest I really don't see a big issue. If the mob you wanted to kill for a quest is down, why not simply work on somthing else or do another quest? I really doubt with Vanguard's size there will be a lack of quests and oppratunies for excitement.
Originally posted by dtox I would take camping for rare mobs any day over instanceing. In the end its the same result. When you camp you can kill mobs at the same time as you keep track of the rare mob. In instances you have to look for a group, sometimes short times and sometimes an hour or more. Then sell your soul and a rolex to get the phone card to call god and ask him to bless your group.
If you dont like the idea there is allways wow.. I hear its doing good these days with all those millions of subscribers
Exactly. If an item, any item no matter how good, is to have any value they devs need to control the rate at which that item enters the game. If they dont everyone has one in very short order and it looses all its value.
If boss mobs are instanced you can potentially have a lot of them killed at any given time, so the devs have to reduce drop rates forcing you to kill it over and over to get the reward. If they are out in the world on a timer the devs can limit the number of times the boss is killed and therefore increase the chance that it drops the item you are looking for.
Ultimately its six of one a half dozen of the other. The only difference is personal taste. Some people cant play a game without taking a go-go-go constant movement constant fighting attitude. Others can appreciate a slower more thoughtful and strategic game that offers more opportunities for socializing and role play. You can even find a balance where there is content to satisfy both crowds, though you inevitably get people who complain if every last bit of content in the game isnt aimed at their preferred playstyle.
Personally I like the balance EQ2 has struck. Many spawn every 10 min, while others have placeholders and are somewhat random. For example Ive killed placeholders for 2 hours to spawn the weaver in RoV and then seen him spawn 3 more times in the next 30 min. Longer camps can still occur but on average these mobs take 45 min or less to kill, so you can do 1-3 of them in a 2 hour play session.
If you dont want to do it you can simply avoid the quests that require it, and if you like a more social outing with friends/guildies these shorter camps can be a lot of fun.
Originally posted by daniel240279 Not having a go grnyoswarjoe, but how about some paragraphs, I nearly went cross eyed reading your post.
Seriously though, why not introduce something like tagging an area before something spawns for example if you want to spawn camp monster boss Elite X, then you can wait where he spawns and if you wait there for say 10 minutes and don't leave the immediate vicinity (say 100 metre area) then you have that area tagged so that when the boss spawns then he will spawn tagged by you or and your party. This way whoever arrives first in an area with the object of spawn camping it is first come first served. This is just a suggestion and there are probably bad things about it.
Just interested to hear what people think, as everyone has different ideas about what is good and what is bad.
I think they are building some form of this into their encounter system. As far as I can tell a mob spawned by a group going through a dungeon on a quest will be only be targetable to the people who spawned it. For the mobs that are simply on a timer I really dont think its needed as long as the camp times for quest mobs are not extreme. Most people will not be willing to make enemies in a game like Vanguard where you need other people to succeed.
I know there are some people that dont like that type of dependency and prefer to go it alone, but this is not the audience Vanguard is targeting. People really do need to get over the notion that every game should be targeted at them, and that every bit of content in the games they play should be targeted at them.
The biggest source of complaints for Vanguard already seems to be that it isnt aimed at people who want it to be exactly like WoW, but it isnt supposed to be like WoW its targeted at different people. There are reasons for these design decisions and if former WoW players give it a try they may come to understand these decisions or they may just decide it isnt for them. Neither is right or wrong, its strictly a matter of taste, and some people just need to learn the distinction between not for me and bad.
Originally posted by lomiller Exactly. If an item, any item no matter how good, is to have any value they devs need to control the rate at which that item enters the game. If they dont everyone has one in very short order and it looses all its value.
In a cooperation game (PvE), opposing and confronting players is a bad idea. Players should never be confronted to other players, always see them as a bonus, an edge, an extra.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
I'm pretty sure that back in the early days of mmo gaming, when "rare spawns" on a timer were introduced, 'spawn camping" wasn't anticipated or intended. I think the Devs originally expected that players would now and then happen across a rare mob and fight it, not sit there for days waiting to fight it. Arguably it should have been anticipated, but I give them a pass on that one as they hadn't seen as much player behavior yet. Curiously, though, once they saw what players were doing they didn't adjust the spwan rate most of the time ...
So far as what Vanguard will do on this, I expect they will have some rare spawns. But whatever they do, they do it eyes open since these are the guys who made EQ.
I have mixed feelings about it. I can still remember nearly wetting my pants with excitement after Hadden spawned 6 hours after I began my camp, and dropped the fishbone earring. Good times. But I'm older now and I don't think I could do that again (much less a three day camp I did for my epic).
I think the market for people who still want to do that is a lot smaller now that people have experienced other games. It kind of reminds me of an old Bennie Hill skit.
Wife slaps husband. "That's for being a bad lover!"
Husband slaps wife. "That's for knowing the difference!"
Now people know the difference.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Originally posted by Balisidar Sorry...I guess I'm a little slow here or not understanding something. Or maybe some people are getting off on tangents and not staying on subject. So I'll ask this direct basic question and the answer will definately figure into whether I buy this game or not. Are the FAQ's wrong? Is spawn camping alive and well and necessary in Vanguard?
No the FAQ is not wrong, the O.P. is just a troll and has obviously not even read the FAQ. There won't be spawn camping, at least not as we loathed in EQ, in Vanguard.
So if the mob is bound to you for a short period of time and you are in one of 10 groups doing the quest line how do you prevent kill stealing then? If it is for a short time and you are not able to kill it before you log out then what happens? Do you have to start over on the whole line? What guarantees that it wont happen repeatedly?
Just to explain to those who have not experienced real eq style camping. Some people loved it, some people hated it. Eq1 was an open world, with no instanced dungeons, just like Vanguard. It was a large world, but it had a limited number of "boss mobs" that dropped the good loot. These rare mobs had the loot worth having, so players were always competing with each other to kill them. There were group boss mobs and boss mobs that took a raid guild to drop.
The group type boss ( 6 person party) was typically in a dungeon, and was on a spawn timer (say 2 to four hours) or had a placeholder that spawned every 15 to 30 minutes. You might have to kill the placeholder once, or you might have to kill it 20 times, before the rare boss would spawn. The boss spawned close to the same area each time, so groups would fight their way down to that spot, and "camp" the boss. They would kill the placeholder over and over until the boss spawned,then kill the boss. Then wait for the placeholder and start the cycle again. Point is, only one group in the whole world of eq, on that server, could kill that boss. Anyone else had to wait their turn, or kill steal it from the folks already there. The boss had a varied loot table, so if you wanted a certain item from that table, you might have had to kill the boss multiple times.
In an instanced dungeon, you form a group, zone in, fight your way to the boss , kill it (hopefully) then leave the instance. Multiple parties on a server can go after that boss at the same time, because the boss is waiting for them as soon as they zone in to their own private instance.
Raid bosses worked much the same as group bosses in eq1, except the raid bosses might take 5, 6, or 7 DAYS to spawn. Only one guild on each server could kill that one raid boss during that 7 day period, everyone else on that server was out of luck. So usually one or two or three uberguilds (sometimes called "hardcore" guilds) on each server would race each other to the raid boss spawn point, and systematically kill all the raid bosses on that server as soon as they spawned. Only the top raid guilds on a server got the really good raid loot armor and weapons, so the members of those guilds looked different from everyone else.
In a game with instanced raid zones, anyone on that server that can form a guild capable of learning and beating a given raid encounter can kill that boss, and get the great raid loot armor and weapons. The raid bosses are available to multiple guilds, rather than just one or two like in a non-instanced game. Since more people can kill the raid bosses, you have people saying " everyone looks the same".
We don't know for sure yet if Vanguard will have a way to prevent boss camping and uberguild raid dominance. Some players loved it ( mainly those in uberguilds), and some players were hoping to never hear of camping again.
Spawn camping is in almost EVERY multiplayer game... I never expected Vanguard to be different. For me, spawn camping is nothing really bad though, I don't really care... I'm patient.. i'll come back another time.
Quake - Spawn Camping, Flag Camping, Weapons camping
RTS games - Crates, power ups camping...
I even saw some spawn camping in games like EVE hehe.
I don't really know how they could make it differently... Unless they want to respawn the creatures, npc or whatever in a totaly different zone ?
Originally posted by Ponico ... I don't really know how they could make it differently... Unless they want to respawn the creatures, npc or whatever in a totaly different zone ?
Well, not a different zone. Since there aren't really any. But, what would be wrong with said "boss mobs" having the chance to re-spawn anywhere on the continent. Or, even the world; if it's supposed to be rare enough.
I'm pretty sure that would limit the "spawn-camping". If you killed a boss mob on one side of the world and then it re-spawned on the other side. Given that travel won't be a quick spell to jump to wherever you want. That would pretty much limit the amount that any one group or guild would have exclusive "rights" to a mob.
Originally posted by Dimitrio Actually world of warcraft players also know what is spawn camping. Yes, it world of warcraft there's spawn camping. For example most of the rare named in world of warcraft are spawn camping mobs. If you don't believe me, go and read some http://www.rpgexpert.com
True, like tracking down the wandering giant as part of the chain of quests to free the trapped "princess".
Best example I can think of though is any hunters who wanted broken tooth.
Some would camp for weeks with no luck.
Camping in itself isn't a bad thing, its when camping is forced on the player because it becomes some type of barrier that involves sitting on one's keyster accomplishing little else.
I never felt gimped as a hunter because I didn't camp and aquire broken tooth. Now if a quest involved killing broken tooth...and it delayed your whole friggin game experience by weeks. That would suck.
Most of the time camping in WoW was either completely on the side, or involved a reasonable time span that could be combined with doing other things.
WOW... Stranglethorn vale was a fair example of camping for a quest... yeah, if camping doesn't pause your progression then it's not a bad thing really.
I love ice fishing (in RL) and it's basically camping lol :P
Originally posted by Sturmrabe Looks like Doctor Fanboi is in fantasy land again... Diplomacy is something for people to do because they can't get anything done cause they are competing for a camp (yeah, I'm really gonna play tiddlywinks with the guy who is trying to killsteal me) or to do with an NPC while you are waiting for a party to go... wait for a camp... Retardation at its best...
I'd say it would be a bit retarded to have this as reason driving aim for diplomacy too but since I regard this as a misunderstanding on the part of the person who wrote the article, I can dismiss it. Notice that he mentions the other spheres as having this purpose as well which makes no sense. Crafting will require being in certain locations and if you're in those locations you ain't "spawn camping." I've yet to hear a single dev talk about diplomacy in these terms either. The person quoted merely says that players can engage one another in diplomacy but does not say that they regard this as a feature meant to alleviate the tedium of spawn camping. The purpose of diplomacy is to alter civic behavior.
The writer seems to be confusing spawn camping with merely waiting for something to spawn. Spawn camping implies being on or near the spot of the spawn, protecting it and giving it your full attention. If all it took to camp a spawn was to know about when it expect it it would never have been seen as a tedius exercise in the first place. You could go do a quest, craft, do diplomacy, then come back in time for a spawn. You haven't camped anything.
It's more accurate to say that these features are meant to make spawn camping a less necessary thing to do in the first place and not merely less painful.
Comments
A: AoC for 360 is not confirmed (but I admit likely, and quite unfortunate
B: First hand means FIRST HAND.. I PLAYED THE GAME and it blew goats... Even taking changes from beta to gold into account, there are just too many fundimental problems with this NEW visions (diplomacy=ultra-mega-timesink-grind=LOL) and the fact that its just another iteration of EQ... which I enjoyed at the time, but this is a new time and Vanguard is an OLD game...
Of all that is written, I love only what a person has written with his own blood. -Nietzsche
Been raped in America is nothing as bad as been raped in Africa according to your logic...
Vanguard is in BETA, so it is nowhere close to the behavior of players on LIVES servers.
Vanguard camping issues will be compared to...Instancing. Some games gave you the possibility to have everything you want in an instanced format, so nobody ever KS you. Been KSed 1 time or 10 times doesn't make a big difference, the person who bear it once will bear it 10 times, the player who would leave the game after benn KSed won't stand it at all, once is too often.
That's been said, we will have to wait, the game is no where close to it final status, but the game will have to compete with Instancing, the players will be unforgiving about any issues that they have that would have been solved with instancing.
Thinking otherwise is putting your head into the sand.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
A: AoC for 360 is not confirmed (but I admit likely, and quite unfortunate
B: First hand means FIRST HAND.. I PLAYED THE GAME and it blew goats... Even taking changes from beta to gold into account, there are just too many fundimental problems with this NEW visions (diplomacy=ultra-mega-timesink-grind=LOL) and the fact that its just another iteration of EQ... which I enjoyed at the time, but this is a new time and Vanguard is an OLD game...
I for one am glad to see the likes of you having such intent on tearing down any game that you don't like. First of all it makes you look like an unintelligent source of information; therefore useless. I am also glad because you will not be playing, calling diplomacy a grind with no accurate (in this case complete) sources of information is rather immiture of you. Diplomacy will only be a cardgame in so far as the user interface, once it is developed you should be able to participate by using types of arguements following logic. As for a truely dinamic diplomacy experience, there is no technology in existance that can accurately simulate a detailed conversation depending on what you and the NPC previously states. It may find it's way into games eventually, but that is for later...particuarly once it is developed. Personally I think it is refreshing to find a development team interested in creating other methods of rising to power in an mmorpg. I'm glad to finally see a game which impliments additional challenges other than adventuring. I'm also glad to find a game focusing on what mmorpgs were originaly ment to do: create a gameplay experience based on social interaction. I don't consider the ideals of EQ or Brad Mcqaid outdated in the least. Which leads me to believe that you are misinformed, that or simply ignorant which at the moment I don't have a hard time believing. Many members of the development team specificly state in many interviews that they believe that they can create a rewarding experience without making the effects of death devestating. I beleive they will create a system of risk Vs. reward based on player skill rather then simply camping. Unfortunately I have no sources of information for that seeing as you'd need to derive that from playing in beta (which I have done). The development team has many new ideas which they are implimenting to be used in the context of the "old school" mmorpgs. Unfortunately, I am not at librity to discuss them (here, anyway). All I can fathom you have done in the beta was log in (with a pecemist's outlook no less) and checked out a few features then deemed it irrelevent in the current mmorpg market. I'm glad I won't be seeing you in game soon, have fun soloing in AOC. Never bother me again...kisses and lollypops, me
Seriously though, why not introduce something like tagging an area before something spawns for example if you want to spawn camp monster boss Elite X, then you can wait where he spawns and if you wait there for say 10 minutes and don't leave the immediate vicinity (say 100 metre area) then you have that area tagged so that when the boss spawns then he will spawn tagged by you or and your party. This way whoever arrives first in an area with the object of spawn camping it is first come first served. This is just a suggestion and there are probably bad things about it.
Just interested to hear what people think, as everyone has different ideas about what is good and what is bad.
Exactly. If an item, any item no matter how good, is to have any value they devs need to control the rate at which that item enters the game. If they dont everyone has one in very short order and it looses all its value.
If boss mobs are instanced you can potentially have a lot of them killed at any given time, so the devs have to reduce drop rates forcing you to kill it over and over to get the reward. If they are out in the world on a timer the devs can limit the number of times the boss is killed and therefore increase the chance that it drops the item you are looking for.
Ultimately its six of one a half dozen of the other. The only difference is personal taste. Some people cant play a game without taking a go-go-go constant movement constant fighting attitude. Others can appreciate a slower more thoughtful and strategic game that offers more opportunities for socializing and role play. You can even find a balance where there is content to satisfy both crowds, though you inevitably get people who complain if every last bit of content in the game isnt aimed at their preferred playstyle.
Personally I like the balance EQ2 has struck. Many spawn every 10 min, while others have placeholders and are somewhat random. For example Ive killed placeholders for 2 hours to spawn the weaver in RoV and then seen him spawn 3 more times in the next 30 min. Longer camps can still occur but on average these mobs take 45 min or less to kill, so you can do 1-3 of them in a 2 hour play session.
If you dont want to do it you can simply avoid the quests that require it, and if you like a more social outing with friends/guildies these shorter camps can be a lot of fun.
I think they are building some form of this into their encounter system. As far as I can tell a mob spawned by a group going through a dungeon on a quest will be only be targetable to the people who spawned it. For the mobs that are simply on a timer I really dont think its needed as long as the camp times for quest mobs are not extreme. Most people will not be willing to make enemies in a game like Vanguard where you need other people to succeed.
I know there are some people that dont like that type of dependency and prefer to go it alone, but this is not the audience Vanguard is targeting. People really do need to get over the notion that every game should be targeted at them, and that every bit of content in the games they play should be targeted at them.
The biggest source of complaints for Vanguard already seems to be that it isnt aimed at people who want it to be exactly like WoW, but it isnt supposed to be like WoW its targeted at different people. There are reasons for these design decisions and if former WoW players give it a try they may come to understand these decisions or they may just decide it isnt for them. Neither is right or wrong, its strictly a matter of taste, and some people just need to learn the distinction between not for me and bad.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
I'm pretty sure that back in the early days of mmo gaming, when "rare spawns" on a timer were introduced, 'spawn camping" wasn't anticipated or intended. I think the Devs originally expected that players would now and then happen across a rare mob and fight it, not sit there for days waiting to fight it. Arguably it should have been anticipated, but I give them a pass on that one as they hadn't seen as much player behavior yet. Curiously, though, once they saw what players were doing they didn't adjust the spwan rate most of the time ...
So far as what Vanguard will do on this, I expect they will have some rare spawns. But whatever they do, they do it eyes open since these are the guys who made EQ.
I have mixed feelings about it. I can still remember nearly wetting my pants with excitement after Hadden spawned 6 hours after I began my camp, and dropped the fishbone earring. Good times.
But I'm older now and I don't think I could do that again (much less a three day camp I did for my epic).
I think the market for people who still want to do that is a lot smaller now that people have experienced other games. It kind of reminds me of an old Bennie Hill skit.
Wife slaps husband. "That's for being a bad lover!"
Husband slaps wife. "That's for knowing the difference!"
Now people know the difference.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
So if the mob is bound to you for a short period of time and you are in one of 10 groups doing the quest line how do you prevent kill stealing then? If it is for a short time and you are not able to kill it before you log out then what happens? Do you have to start over on the whole line? What guarantees that it wont happen repeatedly?
Just to explain to those who have not experienced real eq style camping. Some people loved it, some people hated it. Eq1 was an open world, with no instanced dungeons, just like Vanguard. It was a large world, but it had a limited number of "boss mobs" that dropped the good loot. These rare mobs had the loot worth having, so players were always competing with each other to kill them. There were group boss mobs and boss mobs that took a raid guild to drop.
The group type boss ( 6 person party) was typically in a dungeon, and was on a spawn timer (say 2 to four hours) or had a placeholder that spawned every 15 to 30 minutes. You might have to kill the placeholder once, or you might have to kill it 20 times, before the rare boss would spawn. The boss spawned close to the same area each time, so groups would fight their way down to that spot, and "camp" the boss. They would kill the placeholder over and over until the boss spawned,then kill the boss. Then wait for the placeholder and start the cycle again. Point is, only one group in the whole world of eq, on that server, could kill that boss. Anyone else had to wait their turn, or kill steal it from the folks already there. The boss had a varied loot table, so if you wanted a certain item from that table, you might have had to kill the boss multiple times.
In an instanced dungeon, you form a group, zone in, fight your way to the boss , kill it (hopefully) then leave the instance. Multiple parties on a server can go after that boss at the same time, because the boss is waiting for them as soon as they zone in to their own private instance.
Raid bosses worked much the same as group bosses in eq1, except the raid bosses might take 5, 6, or 7 DAYS to spawn. Only one guild on each server could kill that one raid boss during that 7 day period, everyone else on that server was out of luck. So usually one or two or three uberguilds (sometimes called "hardcore" guilds) on each server would race each other to the raid boss spawn point, and systematically kill all the raid bosses on that server as soon as they spawned. Only the top raid guilds on a server got the really good raid loot armor and weapons, so the members of those guilds looked different from everyone else.
In a game with instanced raid zones, anyone on that server that can form a guild capable of learning and beating a given raid encounter can kill that boss, and get the great raid loot armor and weapons. The raid bosses are available to multiple guilds, rather than just one or two like in a non-instanced game. Since more people can kill the raid bosses, you have people saying " everyone looks the same".
We don't know for sure yet if Vanguard will have a way to prevent boss camping and uberguild raid dominance. Some players loved it ( mainly those in uberguilds), and some players were hoping to never hear of camping again.
Vanguard to be different. For me, spawn camping is nothing really bad
though, I don't really care... I'm patient.. i'll come back another
time.
Quake - Spawn Camping, Flag Camping, Weapons camping
RTS games - Crates, power ups camping...
I even saw some spawn camping in games like EVE hehe.
I don't really know how they could make it differently... Unless they
want to respawn the creatures, npc or whatever in a totaly different
zone ?
I'm pretty sure that would limit the "spawn-camping". If you killed a boss mob on one side of the world and then it re-spawned on the other side. Given that travel won't be a quick spell to jump to wherever you want. That would pretty much limit the amount that any one group or guild would have exclusive "rights" to a mob.
True, like tracking down the wandering giant as part of the chain of quests to free the trapped "princess".
Best example I can think of though is any hunters who wanted broken tooth.
Some would camp for weeks with no luck.
Camping in itself isn't a bad thing, its when camping is forced on the player because it becomes some type of barrier that involves sitting on one's keyster accomplishing little else.
I never felt gimped as a hunter because I didn't camp and aquire broken tooth. Now if a quest involved killing broken tooth...and it delayed your whole friggin game experience by weeks. That would suck.
Most of the time camping in WoW was either completely on the side, or involved a reasonable time span that could be combined with doing other things.
I anticipate this being not much different in VG.
yeah, if camping doesn't pause your progression then it's not a bad
thing really.
I love ice fishing (in RL) and it's basically camping lol :P
I'd say it would be a bit retarded to have this as reason driving aim for diplomacy too but since I regard this as a misunderstanding on the part of the person who wrote the article, I can dismiss it. Notice that he mentions the other spheres as having this purpose as well which makes no sense. Crafting will require being in certain locations and if you're in those locations you ain't "spawn camping." I've yet to hear a single dev talk about diplomacy in these terms either. The person quoted merely says that players can engage one another in diplomacy but does not say that they regard this as a feature meant to alleviate the tedium of spawn camping. The purpose of diplomacy is to alter civic behavior.
The writer seems to be confusing spawn camping with merely waiting for something to spawn. Spawn camping implies being on or near the spot of the spawn, protecting it and giving it your full attention. If all it took to camp a spawn was to know about when it expect it it would never have been seen as a tedius exercise in the first place. You could go do a quest, craft, do diplomacy, then come back in time for a spawn. You haven't camped anything.
It's more accurate to say that these features are meant to make spawn camping a less necessary thing to do in the first place and not merely less painful.