Anyone Going Trying Vanguard Out of Boredom
-
Twystyd
- A Salty Surprise
- Posts: 5056
- Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 4:09 pm
- Location: Orangevale California
- Contact:
Anyone Going Trying Vanguard Out of Boredom
Release date is January 2007. Appealing features are, it is supposed to be geared to casual players and smaller guilds as well as a development team that promises skill based pvp. Whether or not they live up to that is still in the air but I'm thinking why the fuck not with the lack of competition out there. I already know what the WoW expansion holds (lvling to 70 and *gasp* carebear RAIDS where the UI plays the game for you). If it sucks I'll just stick to WoW until Warhammer or something else worth playing . Anyone else thinking about trying it?
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
I don't know the question, but sex is definitely the answer. -Woody Allen
I don't know the question, but sex is definitely the answer. -Woody Allen
:blob8::blob8::blob8::blob8::blob8::blob8:-
Zoidmeister
- Donkey Fucker
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 10:30 am
Law,
I've been following V:SOH myself lately. I see no commitment to PVP at all and even less commitment to solo/casual/small group gameplay.
Brad McQuaid is running this show and he seems keenly focussed in making it much like EQ1. Articles at the bottom of his website pretty much confirm his disdain for "casuals" and there is no mention of PVP.
Casual Gamers: http://www.bradmcquaid.com/CasualGamers.htm
His core principle is that "social interdependance" is the key to subscriber longevity and player commitment and it's fostered by forced group play.
http://www.bradmcquaid.com/
Also good discussion thread on solo'ability in Vanguard:
http://vnboards.ign.com/vanguard_saga_o ... 599/p1/?78
The PVE may be outstanding but I don't see anything that indicates there will be any PVP.
I see nothing new here. He's pretty much stuck in his EQ1 design philosophy.
I've been following V:SOH myself lately. I see no commitment to PVP at all and even less commitment to solo/casual/small group gameplay.
Brad McQuaid is running this show and he seems keenly focussed in making it much like EQ1. Articles at the bottom of his website pretty much confirm his disdain for "casuals" and there is no mention of PVP.
Casual Gamers: http://www.bradmcquaid.com/CasualGamers.htm
His core principle is that "social interdependance" is the key to subscriber longevity and player commitment and it's fostered by forced group play.
http://www.bradmcquaid.com/
Also good discussion thread on solo'ability in Vanguard:
http://vnboards.ign.com/vanguard_saga_o ... 599/p1/?78
The PVE may be outstanding but I don't see anything that indicates there will be any PVP.
I see nothing new here. He's pretty much stuck in his EQ1 design philosophy.
-
Twystyd
- A Salty Surprise
- Posts: 5056
- Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 4:09 pm
- Location: Orangevale California
- Contact:
Zoidmeister wrote:Law,
I've been following V:SOH myself lately. I see no commitment to PVP at all and even less commitment to solo/casual/small group gameplay.
Cool man thanks. I made those comments based off the FAQ from the Vanguard site. ATM, that is all I have along with the feedback I get from beta testers. Here are a few quotes from the FAQ.
Vanguard is about being inclusive not exclusive -- we're about freedom, doing what you want, but not about long hours, camping, and frustration. We offer so much more than the current games that are out there -- please read through this FAQ, our message boards, etc. and find out about the *real* Vanguard: Saga of Heroes -- thanks!
Vanguard is *NOT* hard core and it is *not* an niche game -- we have a AAA budget behind us, having been working on the game for more than four years, have almost 100 employees working on Vanguard, and by no means are we a hard core or niche game.
Long, boring ship rides were *not* the best way to keep the world epic and travel meaningful. Super long downtimes between battles, where people were finished Robert Jordan novels, were simply unnecessary – while downtime is important such that player have a chance to socialize, or plan for that next battle, or to use the restroom or grab a coke, they really didn’t need to be *that* long nor become longer and longer just because the player was leveling up.
- 15.2 Will there be Player vs. Player servers?
Yes, and hopefully several variants. How many might be available at launch is up in the air at this point.
Most games promise shit they can't deliver (we all know this) and I'm not selling this game, just checking to see if anyone is trying it sense it seems to be the next release in the MMO market.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
I don't know the question, but sex is definitely the answer. -Woody Allen
I don't know the question, but sex is definitely the answer. -Woody Allen
-
Zoidmeister
- Donkey Fucker
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 10:30 am
Yep the FAQ is definitely a bit misleading based on every other piece of information I've read. I will always try an open beta but McQuaid's mantra is pointing toward an "improved" EQ clone. He considers 100K+ hard-core subscribers as a sign of success and is not taking aim at the 5M+ WoW subscribers at all ; which he deems casuals. His idea of an appropriate time to reach level cap is 3 calendar years 
SOH claims to be a non-camping, non-tedious MMORPG.
This FAQ item that paint the real picture...
- 1.6.2 What is Sigil’s goal for Vanguard: Saga of Heroes?Quite honestly, our goal is to make the next primiere massively multiplayer role-playing game. With EverQuest behind us, taking the genre to the next level is really the only thing that could satisfy this team and company.
SOH claims to be a non-camping, non-tedious MMORPG.
This FAQ item that paint the real picture...
- 1.6.2 What is Sigil’s goal for Vanguard: Saga of Heroes?Quite honestly, our goal is to make the next primiere massively multiplayer role-playing game. With EverQuest behind us, taking the genre to the next level is really the only thing that could satisfy this team and company.
-
Zoidmeister
- Donkey Fucker
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 10:30 am
PVP update ... all I could find on PVP :
#1 Griefers will not be tolerated; CSR's will enforce this.
#2 There will be no attempt at 1v1 class balance in the game.
So there will be PVP but no details on actual implementation and it appears that if a CSR thinks your griefing your account could be locked very quickly. The matra there is that griefers drive people from games.
No mention of ...
Faction/Diplomacy/Race/Guild/Alliance vs. same conflicts
Pickup other persons drops on death (that would be fun - like A1/UO)
World goals/rewards/objectives to PVP
Originally Posted by Aradune Mithara (Brad McQuaid)
Vanguard is primarily a PvE game.
And so it began. But actually it began a lot longer ago. Discussion about PvP in Vanguard started along side the launch of these forums. It reared it head at in the very first chat logs in IRC, and again at the first community gathering in which community members were invited to the Sigil HQ. But one thing has remained the same. Vague commitments and contradictory statements from developers. The purpose of this post is to point out an opportunity. An opportunity to improve the message currently being sent about PvP in Vanguard. I mean the vision for this entire game has been laid out since day one, yet one area is still clouded in vaguery less than 6 months till release. So I thought I'd gather up any many developer quotes on the topic and try to address what I hear being said. You can interpret the quotes any way you want, and very likely, you'll hear po-ta-toe, where I might hear po-taa-toe. Either way, feel free to make your own opinion.
"There will be at least one PvP server at launch." - Sigil Games
Brad has said this much at least several times. It's been echoed several times over. However, this is the first place where I've found contradiction or at least poor information being given. It has been said that the number of PvP servers will be related to the sell-in numbers, and once those are acquired they'll be able to calculate more accurately how many PvP servers will be available at launch. But surely you don't base server numbers on sell-in numbers only. I mean aren't estimated launch subscribers a consideration?
Sounds good so far.
It has also been said that "Sigil (sp) knows that PvPers make up for at least 10% if not more of our target audience." So now we start the nitty gritty. Sigil knows that at least 10% of their target audience will want PvP. Now we are getting somewhere. But 10% of how much? I mean, 10% of 50,000 initial subscribers sounds like a good number for at least one server. But is Vanguard only going to launch with 50,000 subscribers? I pray not. In fact it has been stated by Sigil that Vanguard is expected to achieve more than 500,000 subscribers. Actually it has been stated that Vanguard may achieve more than a million subscribers. Hmm. 10% of 500,000 is like 50k players. Going to be tough to fit 50k players on one, or two, even 3 PvP servers.
Okay now I know Vanguard isn't going to launch with 500k subscribers, but the truth is in between. They aren't going to launch with 50k, and they aren't going to launch with 500k. But when you commit to 10% of your target audience, and then short change 10% of your target audience by only committing to at least 1 PvP server. Well, the masses start preparing themselves for disappointment.
Seriously. Lets commit. For all the fans of this game who have committed themselves lets at least match their commitment Sigil. Lets start talking about PvP.
Is there going to be a FFA dedicated PvP server? "Definitely an FFA, as well as lots of other variants we want to try out." - Sigil Games
Well it turns out that lots of those other variants aren't going to see the light of day on release. Here is yet another opportunity for Sigil to commit to the 10% of PvP fans who follow Vanguard. With a game less than 6 months till release, there are still ZERO details about PvP in Vanguard. For the "strong desire and commitment" that Sigil has pledged to PvP, and the 10% of it's subscribers, Sigil has done a pretty crappy job at communicating the benefits of PvP in Vanguard.
The lack of details this close to the games release is very disheartening IMO. For some, it's not a big deal, but for others, the lack of commitment is a huge deal. Vanguard is losing PvP customers right now. Don't wait till it's too late.
"Yes, it will take some time to code and then test PvP." - Sigil Games
In fact Sigil said that PvP "wasn't (sp) going to be tacked on at the end". Yet the exact opposite is happening. Beta isn't going to be available until some time in phase 4 of testing. Nice to see that you've committed to testing such complicated system like PvP to "Phase 4: The shortest phase."
This part perhaps chaps me the most. PvP is notoriously difficult to balance. It's not just adjusting the damage factor of a static mob, or it's items. Now you are tweaking players abilities, how they perform in PvP and PvE. So you can turn down an ability that is overpowered in PvP, bringing it in line. But in the process you may make the ability ineffective in PvE. PvP games require a commitment of time and effort. One that by previous statements, worries me as that time is not being committed to.
So "phase 4 will bring about 25,000 testers" according to Sigil. I hope that those testers represent a large PvP audience. Because according to the 10% of target audience are PvP'ers, mentioned above, that would represent only about 2.5k REAL PvP'ers in beta. With 2.5k REAL PvP'ers just how many do you expect at one time on a server? 100-200 people truly testing PvP simultaneously? What a joke.
But other players will help out also, right? Nope. Bringing non-PvPers to test PvP is like bringing casual players to test raid strategies. Totally ineffective. They don't represent what will happen on PvP servers, and therefore are unable to effectively provide accurate balancing information.
"There's also Sigil people's personal desire to see great PvP in Vanguard" - Sigil Games
I desire a lot of things, and one of them is great PvP in Vanguard. But the lack of lenghty testing, the fact that it's being tacted on at the end, the reality that PvE'ers are going to be shaping the balance of production PvP servers, well. I see a lot of room for improvement.
Vanguard has a ton of opportunity in the PvP arena, and I just want it to live up to it's potential. Right now PvP is like the elephant that no one wants to talk about. It's the commitment that hasn't been communicated. In closing, I see an opportunity to improve the communcation being given about PvP.
#1 Griefers will not be tolerated; CSR's will enforce this.
#2 There will be no attempt at 1v1 class balance in the game.
So there will be PVP but no details on actual implementation and it appears that if a CSR thinks your griefing your account could be locked very quickly. The matra there is that griefers drive people from games.
No mention of ...
Faction/Diplomacy/Race/Guild/Alliance vs. same conflicts
Pickup other persons drops on death (that would be fun - like A1/UO)
World goals/rewards/objectives to PVP
Originally Posted by Aradune Mithara (Brad McQuaid)
Vanguard is primarily a PvE game.
And so it began. But actually it began a lot longer ago. Discussion about PvP in Vanguard started along side the launch of these forums. It reared it head at in the very first chat logs in IRC, and again at the first community gathering in which community members were invited to the Sigil HQ. But one thing has remained the same. Vague commitments and contradictory statements from developers. The purpose of this post is to point out an opportunity. An opportunity to improve the message currently being sent about PvP in Vanguard. I mean the vision for this entire game has been laid out since day one, yet one area is still clouded in vaguery less than 6 months till release. So I thought I'd gather up any many developer quotes on the topic and try to address what I hear being said. You can interpret the quotes any way you want, and very likely, you'll hear po-ta-toe, where I might hear po-taa-toe. Either way, feel free to make your own opinion.
"There will be at least one PvP server at launch." - Sigil Games
Brad has said this much at least several times. It's been echoed several times over. However, this is the first place where I've found contradiction or at least poor information being given. It has been said that the number of PvP servers will be related to the sell-in numbers, and once those are acquired they'll be able to calculate more accurately how many PvP servers will be available at launch. But surely you don't base server numbers on sell-in numbers only. I mean aren't estimated launch subscribers a consideration?
Sounds good so far.
It has also been said that "Sigil (sp) knows that PvPers make up for at least 10% if not more of our target audience." So now we start the nitty gritty. Sigil knows that at least 10% of their target audience will want PvP. Now we are getting somewhere. But 10% of how much? I mean, 10% of 50,000 initial subscribers sounds like a good number for at least one server. But is Vanguard only going to launch with 50,000 subscribers? I pray not. In fact it has been stated by Sigil that Vanguard is expected to achieve more than 500,000 subscribers. Actually it has been stated that Vanguard may achieve more than a million subscribers. Hmm. 10% of 500,000 is like 50k players. Going to be tough to fit 50k players on one, or two, even 3 PvP servers.
Okay now I know Vanguard isn't going to launch with 500k subscribers, but the truth is in between. They aren't going to launch with 50k, and they aren't going to launch with 500k. But when you commit to 10% of your target audience, and then short change 10% of your target audience by only committing to at least 1 PvP server. Well, the masses start preparing themselves for disappointment.
Seriously. Lets commit. For all the fans of this game who have committed themselves lets at least match their commitment Sigil. Lets start talking about PvP.
Is there going to be a FFA dedicated PvP server? "Definitely an FFA, as well as lots of other variants we want to try out." - Sigil Games
Well it turns out that lots of those other variants aren't going to see the light of day on release. Here is yet another opportunity for Sigil to commit to the 10% of PvP fans who follow Vanguard. With a game less than 6 months till release, there are still ZERO details about PvP in Vanguard. For the "strong desire and commitment" that Sigil has pledged to PvP, and the 10% of it's subscribers, Sigil has done a pretty crappy job at communicating the benefits of PvP in Vanguard.
The lack of details this close to the games release is very disheartening IMO. For some, it's not a big deal, but for others, the lack of commitment is a huge deal. Vanguard is losing PvP customers right now. Don't wait till it's too late.
"Yes, it will take some time to code and then test PvP." - Sigil Games
In fact Sigil said that PvP "wasn't (sp) going to be tacked on at the end". Yet the exact opposite is happening. Beta isn't going to be available until some time in phase 4 of testing. Nice to see that you've committed to testing such complicated system like PvP to "Phase 4: The shortest phase."
This part perhaps chaps me the most. PvP is notoriously difficult to balance. It's not just adjusting the damage factor of a static mob, or it's items. Now you are tweaking players abilities, how they perform in PvP and PvE. So you can turn down an ability that is overpowered in PvP, bringing it in line. But in the process you may make the ability ineffective in PvE. PvP games require a commitment of time and effort. One that by previous statements, worries me as that time is not being committed to.
So "phase 4 will bring about 25,000 testers" according to Sigil. I hope that those testers represent a large PvP audience. Because according to the 10% of target audience are PvP'ers, mentioned above, that would represent only about 2.5k REAL PvP'ers in beta. With 2.5k REAL PvP'ers just how many do you expect at one time on a server? 100-200 people truly testing PvP simultaneously? What a joke.
But other players will help out also, right? Nope. Bringing non-PvPers to test PvP is like bringing casual players to test raid strategies. Totally ineffective. They don't represent what will happen on PvP servers, and therefore are unable to effectively provide accurate balancing information.
"There's also Sigil people's personal desire to see great PvP in Vanguard" - Sigil Games
I desire a lot of things, and one of them is great PvP in Vanguard. But the lack of lenghty testing, the fact that it's being tacted on at the end, the reality that PvE'ers are going to be shaping the balance of production PvP servers, well. I see a lot of room for improvement.
Vanguard has a ton of opportunity in the PvP arena, and I just want it to live up to it's potential. Right now PvP is like the elephant that no one wants to talk about. It's the commitment that hasn't been communicated. In closing, I see an opportunity to improve the communcation being given about PvP.
Maybe they'll do like EQ2 and go ahead and release the game without PvP... Then they can always dangle the PvP carrot to try and keep people around as long as possible "in hopes" of it showing up... Then once they start to drop, you wheel out the PvP cart and people start flocking back.
Many others have done it as well, but that's just what popped into my mind this time...
Many others have done it as well, but that's just what popped into my mind this time...
A lot of EQ2 Hardcore Gamers (Myself Included) are looking at this game as pretty much a replacement to what EQ2 was supposed to be in terms of a combat/raiding system. I think the PVE in this game will satisfy them as will as take a few WoW Raiders who don't like the cartoonish and boring instance raid system in WOW. It will fill a nitch that some EQ1 players have been wanting for many many years and think it will do well. I haven't touched this game yet so it also could be the next DnL Failure.
-
Twystyd
- A Salty Surprise
- Posts: 5056
- Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 4:09 pm
- Location: Orangevale California
- Contact:
Hey TT which EQ2 server are you on atm? Also, would you have any advice for 4 people trying to get started fresh in the game on a pvp server class wise? ATM, I hear Assassins and Brigands are top dog on the overpower list but xp comes a lot easier if you build for grouping.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
I don't know the question, but sex is definitely the answer. -Woody Allen
I don't know the question, but sex is definitely the answer. -Woody Allen
I played Najena on Server release. I quit shortly after Desert of Flames expansion when devs still couldn't deliver the crafting revamp and the raid content they put in sucked. I not up to snuff on what class is best for grp dps anymore but when I played it was zerks. I didn't bother with the PvP servers cause frankly I knew it would be imbalanced and suck. Even the combat system seemed very hard to make pvp work. Just isn't as free moving as most games are.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests