Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Which bit of Added Accessability would you like most?
dink
Member Posts: 438
.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
dink
Member Posts: 438
.
Comments
This poll seems to be made with the "why i won't be playing vanguard" or "how i think vanguard is anti-casual players..." sentiments in mind.
I do not mean any offense to the people that feel that the frist 4 options suits them, but I am just wondering if you have tried EQ2? SOE and the EQ2 team has been going out of their way to address the issues of travel time and death penalty agressivly. If you feel you need any or all of those features ("accessible" as you put it) try out EQ2. You might find it's exactly the game you are looking for - a vast high fantasy world that is highly casual friendly.
generis2 - We are the Dark Legion of Casual Gamers and we will not be happy until our all MMOs whimper in awe at our vast and unbeatable Purchasing Power.
Seriously though, I wonder how long it will take before Vanguard has such low sells that SOE forces them into making the game playable by average gamers. You know that most of the "hardcore" base that enjoy EQ's masochistic features have moved on to WoW and could never really go back to the punishment and agony of games like EQ, Lineage II, and Final Fantasy XI. Plus, some of the "core" gamers that are all about inaccessability in Vanguard now will recant their desire for painful game mechanics after experiencing their drudgery once more.
I give it 2 months before the boards are aflame with more people who want Vanguard to be accessible than core players to hush them up with demands that they go play X game instead of trying to make Vanguard more accessible to a variety of different playstyles.
My guess is that SOE will make them cave eventually too. That's when I plan on picking up Vanguard. . . when the hardcore stuff fails and they get rid of it.
Who in their right mind thinks Vanguard would be better off trying to compete directly with WoW instead of offering an alternative that doesn't currently exist in MMOs of today?
I plan on playing Vanguard but if they add any of whats on that list i'll just stick with the games that i'm already playing. If you want EQ2 play EQ2. If you want WoW play WoW. If you want Vanguard play Vanguard. GET IT?
Make a difference!
I think as competition gets tougher in the MMO market, games like these will not be able to cut it. Seriously, Vanguard may be the turning point in being the last game designed for hardcore gamers ever. (I mean serious MMOs here - not the indy shoe-string budget ones).
The thing is. . . it's not a CHALLENGE to have corpse runs, xp debt, and long travel times. Those are just frustrations. . . unless you mean a challenge of patience.
What we'll see more and more with MMOs is that they'll have to start adding more challenge in their actual gameplay. Puzzles that need to be solved to challenge our minds and occassional and/or hybridized twitch play to challenge our reflexes. MMOs really could use more challenges. . . but inaccessability is only interpreted as "challenge" in spin. Timesinks aren't challenges, they are ways to make the player have to spend more time before acheiving goals in order to extend the play-time of a game.
Still, Vanguard is super interesting for committing to these game mechanics that are so aimed at a very specific and small group.
I'm hoping the game will get the rest of it's crap together, because I'm super interested in whether a good game based on hardcore mechanics can support itself. If the game sucks, then people will blame that, so they need to get it up and working right.
The Misconceptions in this Thread - by Vengeful
1) Vanguad is intended to appeal to the 5 or 10% of the WoWish/Casual market that is looking for something MORE.
2) A very acceptable (and smart) buisness move is to not make a product that competes/compares directly with your competition for the same price, but make a product that offers something else entirely.
3) Dispite what everyone may think, 200k subscribers is successful. 200k in box sales is enough to cover most of the expenses of development, and 200k in subscribers is more than enough to keep the company afloat, produce content, and share profits with stockholders. Not every game has to match the leading game in subscriptions to be considered successful. There were successful games before WoW (that only had a fraction of it's subscriptions) and there will be successful games after WoW.
By the logic that is exemplified in this thread, one would think we wouldn't care when someone matches Babe Ruth's homerun record. I mean, why would we care? McGuire or whoever already passed it a long time ago, and many others since. Anyone who only matches Ruth's record isn't a REAL baseball player, they aren't successful...they need to match up with the currently held record or they are going to fail as a baseball player. Doesn't work, does it?
-W.
Here's the thing though. I didn't say that 200K subscribers is unsuccessful. In fact, I've posted in several places about how incredibly profitable MMOs are and how 200K subscribers can fully support a company and make money (they are actually still in the black with about 100K subscribers, but generally at this point (where game development is now) they would lose money if they did more than an occassional update to the game as they couldn't afford much ongoing development at that scale).
So. . . you aren't really disagreeing with anyone in this thread.
As far as targeting 5-10% of WoW's market? Do you really think people who have played a game with fewer timesinks will enjoy one with more? I think it is far more likely that WoW and the other MMOs that have become more accessible and thrown out these bad game mechanics have changed player expectations so that games like Lineage 2 and Vanguard will have trouble gaining penetration (in the West - and Western games will have trouble penetrating in the east just because the east is fairly insular).
But that's sort of the point really. . . It will be super interesting to me to see which one of our hypothesi will be correct.
Here's the thing though. I didn't say that 200K subscribers is unsuccessful. In fact, I've posted in several places about how incredibly profitable MMOs are and how 200K subscribers can fully support a company and make money (they are actually still in the black with about 100K subscribers, but generally at this point (where game development is now) they would lose money if they did more than an occassional update to the game as they couldn't afford much ongoing development at that scale).
So. . . you aren't really disagreeing with anyone in this thread.
As far as targeting 5-10% of WoW's market? Do you really think people who have played a game with fewer timesinks will enjoy one with more? I think it is far more likely that WoW and the other MMOs that have become more accessible and thrown out these bad game mechanics have changed player expectations so that games like Lineage 2 and Vanguard will have trouble gaining penetration (in the West - and Western games will have trouble penetrating in the east just because the east is fairly insular).
But that's sort of the point really. . . It will be super interesting to me to see which one of our hypothesi will be correct.
I would think 200k is more than enough to provide ongoing content. That's 3 million dollars a month in subscriptions, and it isn't going to take 3 million a month to just stay in buisness.
And yeah, I do think that at least 1 of every 20 WoW players is looking for something less superficial, quick, and easy. I'm one of those people, and at least 1 in every 20 people I know playing the game is in the same boat as I am. I'm one of those people who have only played the "Casual" WoW and EQII games, and in honesty....I really, really, really wish it took more to progress in them....I wish it took longer, otherwise I wouldn't need to look to Vanguard for possible entertainment.
People do it because they like the challenge. They don't want it the easy way. Yes, corpse runs and lost experience is a time sink. That time sink is the penalty for messing up. If there is no penalty, then the rewards are meaningless. Without lows, there can be no highs. I don't want a prozac game, I want the highs and the lows because it takes both to make the game truely memorable.
To be honest, I AM one of the people that have played one the newer game with your so called less "timesinks" and believed my gameing experience suffered due to that fact. The reason why I was attracted to Vanguard is because of the more traditional real world like mechanics they will be offering.
I do agree that this is not an opinion held by all but I am also certain that I am not alone either. Also to note: I am a so called "casual player" as I do have a god deal of real world responsibilities.
Where is the challenge in waiting on a boat, grinding out xp lost from a death, or having to buy new gear because a corpse is unretreiavable?
They are't "challenges". They are timesinks.
For years and years, devs used spin to describe these timesinks as challenges, but a challenge tests a person's skill. . . if you want to test someone's patience, then that is called a frustration or an annoyance. . . not a "challenge".
Anyway, we will see. I also think that very, very many of the people who are supporters of these game mechanics in theory will hate them once they actually have to grind off xp loss or debt for an hour, lose a valued piece of gear on a corpse, or have to spend half their evening traveling to their friends before they can actually play together.
Where is the challenge in waiting on a boat, grinding out xp lost from a death, or having to buy new gear because a corpse is unretreiavable?
They are't "challenges". They are timesinks.
For years and years, devs used spin to describe these timesinks as challenges, but a challenge tests a person's skill. . . if you want to test someone's patience, then that is called a frustration or an annoyance. . . not a "challenge".
Anyway, we will see. I also think that very, very many of the people who are supporters of these game mechanics in theory will hate them once they actually have to grind off xp loss or debt for an hour, lose a valued piece of gear on a corpse, or have to spend half their evening traveling to their friends before they can actually play together.
The waiting on a boat is realism, which adds immersion...which is fun. The Debt instills the FEAR of death in you, so you and your friends, and your pickups are more inclined to try their hardest. There is more at risk, and so...when you pull something off that is difficult, you feel more rewarded for it, and on top of that....you can't exploit death to get to places easiily and explore.
I think it's way cooler than some of the EZmode mechanics that are on the market.
But anyway...I think that at least 5-10% of gamers really won't like the casual play of WoW, where they can max out two or three characters in half a year and see everything there is to see without a supportive, welcoming community.
Really, I would like to see the ratio of current players Blizz has now and cancelled accounts.
The waiting on a boat is realism, which adds immersion...which is fun. The Debt instills the FEAR of death in you, so you and your friends, and your pickups are more inclined to try their hardest. There is more at risk, and so...when you pull something off that is difficult, you feel more rewarded for it, and on top of that....you can't exploit death to get to places easiily and explore.
I think it's way cooler than some of the EZmode mechanics that are on the market.
But anyway...I think that at least 5-10% of gamers really won't like the casual play of WoW, where they can max out two or three characters in half a year and see everything there is to see without a supportive, welcoming community.
Really, I would like to see the ratio of current players Blizz has now and cancelled accounts.
What about spending half your play time traveling to friends instead of playing? You didn't have a reply for that. What about having to live without gear for a while if you die in the depths of a dungeon and can't find anyone to help you get your stuff back?
Also, I don't need a penalty to not want to fail at a quest or a challenge. Failure and having to start over is more than enough "punishment" for most people, and it is has traditionally (before MMOs) been the most severe punishment someone could expect from a game. . . you know, something that should be entertaining and enjoyable. An additional hour timesink for each death, plus having to chase down a corpse and quite possibly having to lose gear for a long time if you lose gear in a place that is difficult to reach. . . well, that's not a challenge. . . it's just frustration and annoyance.
Also, I don't need realism in a game. The game can simulate my character's waiting like a movie would do so. . . this is a game. . . not real. If you were playing a pen & paper RPG and a dungeon master required that you simulate waiting for a boat to arrive for ten to thirty minutes , everyone would simply leave the game or demand a new DM. Because it's a game. . . we are trying to tell a story and become immersed in it, but long pauses without any action bring people OUT of the game. The idea that they immerse people is just spin. . . if you know you are going to have to wait for a boat for 30 minutes, you don't sit at your PC counting the minutes. . . you turn on your television or get up from the PC and fix a meal, get a drink, etc. It is a timesink - NOT immersion.
I'll totally be tracking the success or failure of Vanguard. Want to start a betting pool on how long it will take them to redesign the game with more accessible features due to overwhelming player feedback requesting this, and poor overall sales/proift? My guess is six months from release.
The waiting on a boat is realism, which adds immersion...which is fun. The Debt instills the FEAR of death in you, so you and your friends, and your pickups are more inclined to try their hardest. There is more at risk, and so...when you pull something off that is difficult, you feel more rewarded for it, and on top of that....you can't exploit death to get to places easiily and explore.
I think it's way cooler than some of the EZmode mechanics that are on the market.
But anyway...I think that at least 5-10% of gamers really won't like the casual play of WoW, where they can max out two or three characters in half a year and see everything there is to see without a supportive, welcoming community.
Really, I would like to see the ratio of current players Blizz has now and cancelled accounts.
What about spending half your play time traveling to friends instead of playing? You didn't have a reply for that. What about having to live without gear for a while if you die in the depths of a dungeon and can't find anyone to help you get your stuff back?
Also, I don't need a penalty to not want to fail at a quest or a challenge. Failure and having to start over is more than enough "punishment" for most people, and it is has traditionally (before MMOs) been the most severe punishment someone could expect from a game. . . you know, something that should be entertaining and enjoyable. An additional hour timesink for each death, plus having to chase down a corpse and quite possibly having to lose gear for a long time if you lose gear in a place that is difficult to reach. . . well, that's not a challenge. . . it's just frustration and annoyance.
Also, I don't need realism in a game. The game can simulate my character's waiting like a movie would do so. . . this is a game. . . not real. If you were playing a pen & paper RPG and a dungeon master required that you simulate waiting for a boat to arrive for ten to thirty minutes , everyone would simply leave the game or demand a new DM. Because it's a game. . . we are trying to tell a story and become immersed in it, but long pauses without any action bring people OUT of the game. The idea that they immerse people is just spin. . . if you know you are going to have to wait for a boat for 30 minutes, you don't sit at your PC counting the minutes. . . you turn on your television or get up from the PC and fix a meal, get a drink, etc. It is a timesink - NOT immersion.
I'll totally be tracking the success or failure of Vanguard. Want to start a betting pool on how long it will take them to redesign the game with more accessible features due to overwhelming player feedback requesting this, and poor overall sales/proift? My guess is six months from release.
I DO have a response. First, there's the caravan system. When you have a group of friends, and someone logs off, they bind themselves to the Caravan leader, so that when that person logs back on, they have a choice to appear where they logged off or where the Caravan leader last bound. Soooo, if your friends leave you in the dust, you can appear close to them.
And, as for the corpse runs, they are GEARED corpse runs. You are intended to keep a spare set of gear, or even two, in your horses saddlebags. If you die, you appear at your bind point, your horse is with you. You get your gear out of your horses bags and go get your main gear. If you didn't know about these fundamental mechanics, you should really do some more research before you make blind conjectures about how the gameplay is or isn't going to be.
Debt is a way to have a varied penalty. If you die more often, you are not as good of a player as say, someone who doesn't die alot. Therefore, you're gonna need more time to become proficient so that you don't piss everyone off, so it takes you longer. Sounds good to me. On top of that, I've played games with very lax death penalties...and death didn't mean poop in those. There were times in raids people would run up and /hug raid bosses just for a laugh...or jump into lava, or pull a bunch of mobs, or run past a bunch of mobs with a soulstone on. Or in EQII, people wouldn't pay attention because death meant nothing, they didn't care if they died because there was no reprocussions. It makes for very bad groups, and it makes me very frustrated.
When it comes to immersion, and waiting for boats, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. Waiting for Boats is when I talk to my friends and my guilds, or duel, or rearange my very messy bag space, re-read quest text to make sure I know what I"m doing. Usually, it's a much needed pause...it's time to take a pee, or get a Mountain Dew or whatever. I appretiate it. Also...I appretiate it when I have a group of 5 or 6 friends that are helping me do a quest and we are riding to the quest area for a good 15 or 20 minutes, we have to stop and fight a couple times. It FEELS like an adventure, unlike say DDO where you talk to a man and all of a sudden you are in a jungle... o.O WTF is that? And usuing your D&D reference...if you're DM was just letting you get on a boat and say "The Voyage takes 3 weeks, okay you're there" you need a new GM, my friend...those are the momments you're supposed to be playing your character...and if your GM couldn't come up with something interesting in the middle of the journey, say...a sea monster, or a storm or something...then he kinda sucks =P
I don't think I want to see any more added accessibility but there are some notes:
~Faster travel -- Brad McQuaid has said they have a "Plan B" to include very limited long distance teleportation if they decide that it is really necessary. It's not very likely, but it's not totally ruled out.
~Faster travel -- Flying mounts for high level players to be added later. This is not "instant" teleporation, but it will be faster. (Dev travel test: Crossing an ENTIRE continent with a Rank 3 non-flying Mount, sticking to roads only (no cross-country), avoiding aggro, total time -- 49 minutes. That seems reasonable to me.)
~Corpse runs -- There will be some inconvenience with this. Players will have to adjust their "level of risk" downwards. However, also adds the "fear factor" to the game, which overall I think is good. (But, no, I won't "like" doing corpse runs -- I don't think I am supposed to, heh.)
~XP Debt -- I believe BMcQ said he favors debt over loss, even though many fans were wanting XP Loss. I, personally, was in favor of XP Debt (and no level loss) so I am pleased. (Level loss can occur at MAX level to discourage "transporation by death.")
Just one other thing.
I really don't think Vanguard will be nearly as "hardcore" as many think. Compared to some games I have played it doesn't seem to be either terribly punishing and unforgiving or "easy mode."
Seems to be a bit more "middle of the road" to me.
~ Ancient Membership ~
49 minutes with a flying mount? Good lord, unless you caravan, you won't ever get to play with friends. . . .
Corpse runs and xp debt, etc. - The result is that people won't risk dying. Xp debt and corpse runs will be such a pain in the ass that people won't use PUGs unless they absolutely have to and they won't trust people or want to teach people who are new and bad at MMOs. Thus new people will be quickly blacklisted by whole guilds. Also, players will use online spoiler sites to know exactly the challenges and strats for beating said challenges before taking them on because dying will suck. Plus, they'll bring more force than is needed in order to minimize the difficulty of the content. Players will dual box and have their highbie toons stand off in the wings to oversee their younger toons to take out annoyances like adds during boss battles, etc. Basically, all the stupid things that people do to avoid horrid death penalties will be back. . . and what for? So people don't use death to save them 5 - 10 minutes traveling? This is ridiculous logic.
Also, if you compare the accessability of Vanguard to UO or AC or EQ. . . any of the really early games whose biggest competition was their own inability to produce enough new content to keep their audience enthralled (and thus designed these timesink game mechanics), then you might say that this game is not designed only for hardcore players. . . but if you compare it to modern games that are successful like Guild Wars, WoW, & CoH/CoV, well only one of them has an xp penalty with death. . . and it is the least successful of the three.
Go figure.
No.
I didn't feel like searching for and linking the time/distance tests that Brad McQuaid and another Dev ran. They ran (technically, RODE) several time/distance tests and 49 minutes was the LONGEST time which was done with level 30 test characters on a NON-flying (a horse) mount, with aggro turned ON and invuln turned OFF (in other words, they had to avoid mobs.
In the "long" test they also did NOT go cross-country, but stuck to the roads (not the shortest way to go) which are twisty-turny.
The "shortest" test was run cross-country, straight line, as the crow flies, level 30 test character, rank 3 mount (horse) and it took 31 minutes.
Now, a flying mount would be faster than a riding mount, would avoid all aggro from mobs and would travel in a straight line (hopefully). They did not run a test with a flying mount but noted only that it would be "much faster." (Guess: 20 mins?)
Also, the continent was Thestra which is longer from north to south -- so they took the LONGEST cross-continental distance.
In addition, bindpoints will be conveniently located NEAR dungeons, in small towns and outposts. A fairly short run back. And, of course, there is always the possibility of being rezzed. (I've rezzed more people than I can even count.)
~~~
As for corpse runs and XP debt -- I beg to differ.
Your doomsday scenario will NOT come true. Not only will people risk death constantly, but will only feel the thrill of challenge when they do so.
Contrary to your assertion, I am fairly sure there is NO direct connection between "XP-debt death penalty" and "MMORPG success."
Cheers.
Random thought: I will also be starting on a PvP server, anarchyart. Heh, heh, heh.
~ Ancient Membership ~
1. My scenario is not "doomsday". People use dual-boxing or highbie guild mates to protect their lowbies and marginalize content in games whent there are heavy death penalties. People out-level or outnumber content in order to not die when there are heavy death penalties. People are unforgiving of newbies that are not good players when there are heavy death penalties. People use spoiler sites more often when there are heavy death penalties. All of these things are true in other games that had these now mostly abandoned game mechanics, so why would they stop being true in Vanguard.
2. There aren't any scientific studies based on this, however, if you look at game populations for various games and graded them by the number of timesinks they contain, it is obvious that you would find a corollary that shows that games with heavy amounts of timesinks are less popular than those with fewer timesinks.
3. Thanks for updating your information on the mounts. From what you are saying, it sounds like people (after level 30) will mostly be able to play with one another as long as they are on the same continent and own mounts. Though traveling for 30 minutes is a drag, I know from FF XI, that it could be worse.
I gotta admire you to try to argue these points in a Vanguard forum, it's a challenge! It reminds me of the saying: "preaching the wrong religion in the wrong church...". I do not mean this as a personal attack, but surely you could be more prepared to argue these points.
And why have you not tried EQ2 like I suggested previouly? It's a perfect game for you I would imagine...
Generis2, the unofficial EQ2/SOE spokesman who is awaiting Vanguard.
Where is the challenge in waiting on a boat, grinding out xp lost from a death, or having to buy new gear because a corpse is unretreiavable?
They are't "challenges". They are timesinks.
For years and years, devs used spin to describe these timesinks as challenges, but a challenge tests a person's skill. . . if you want to test someone's patience, then that is called a frustration or an annoyance. . . not a "challenge".
Anyway, we will see. I also think that very, very many of the people who are supporters of these game mechanics in theory will hate them once they actually have to grind off xp loss or debt for an hour, lose a valued piece of gear on a corpse, or have to spend half their evening traveling to their friends before they can actually play together.
Where is the challenge in instant travel? Where is the fear of death when death has no penalty whatsoever? Where is the sense of accomplishment if everything is easy enough to do and failure means nothing?
BTW, if you don't like time sinks, you are in the wrong place. GAMES ARE TIME SINKS.
As for some people hating the challenge, I am sure you are right. But then again, people who used to complain endlessly about those mechanics are the one's who now realize how flat and boring MMOs have become without them. Death means nothing. The lows aren't very low, and the highs aren't very high. There is no sweaty palm time, and there is no jumping for joy when you pull out a tough fight. All I want is something other than today's prozac games.
As far as EQ2 goes. I played it and quit it because it is awful. . . do you still play? I was amazed that they shipped a game that had NPC mobs that would chase people for so long that they would become broken and get stuck in walls where they would attack players but players could not attack them back. Additionally, they have quests that end with boss fights and these boss mobs may or may not spawn in certain areas. . . after the players beat successive groups of mobs that also spawn in the same area. . . plus the meager artistry and terrible animations make the game feel ugly and wrong. The guild ranks were based on repeating incredibly boring and unrewarding quests over and over, and after you get to level 20, it becomes difficult to find quests or mobs to fight for xp.
Horrid game. Maybe they've improved it, but I won't buy their expansions. . . evidently they like to charge people for updates in addition to their monthly subscriptions.
No. I'll just continue playing Guild Wars or WoW until Tabula Rasa, Age of Conan, or Gods & Heroes come out. And I'll keep following Vanguard to see how it turns out. If it gets good reviews, I'm going to pick it up for a front-row seat. I think Vanguard is an endangered species of game design. . . I think it might serve as a case study in regards to timesinks and accessability in game design textbooks.
If it is successful or a failure, either way, I'll learn something. . . and I agree with Vengeful that it doesn't have to have a million subscribers to be a success (or at least profitable enough to not only support it's server costs but to support continued development). 200K subscribers would mean they could continue development with a live team AND make a profit. Still, they'll need that 200K and it is releasing against 3 really strong looking new MMOs and the WoW expansion, and the fall/winter crush of console and PC games.
Edit: I can't seem to make my text in the quote less huge. . . Wonder what happened there.
Come on. I'm not flaming. I'm arguing. Reply intelligently and not with all the crazy Machiavellian stuff and I'll pay you the respect of replying intelligently back. If you aren't sure how, look at some of the other posts before this one. There are a lot of people who are disagreeing with each other in this thread without getting all "internet Jerry Springer".