Vanguard: Making the game as they go?

[Utnayan]

Originally Posted by Slick Willey

Wrong

I won't be saying I told you so to anyone. I won't need to gloat. The very fact that the game fails at that point (Failure meaning under 150k subscriptions) will be good enough for me, because it will show me that people are turning around and not putting up with shit in the genre. And maybe, just maybe, some of these people behind the hype may put out a decent game next time. After they get the wooden spoon of no dollars slapped on their asses.

[keflex]

Originally Posted by karisa

Traditionally speaking, beta is the late stage prototype that goes out to your testers/users to get both qualitative and quantitative data as you drive towards a feature complete release. A beta release needs to have implemented all of its required features.

You'd be surprised at how many people think that beta is simply a late-stage alpha.

[Deris]

Originally Posted by karisa

I’m a qualified designer with formal qualifications in design.

Traditionally speaking, beta is the late stage prototype that goes out to your testers/users to get both qualitative and quantitative data as you drive towards a feature complete release. A beta release needs to have implemented all of its required features.

The indications are that Sigil is still changing its design principles for vanguard. Without these principles how could they have even scoped their required features?

Required features beingggg? All I would want for a beta is some major stress test work, graphics/frame rate optimization, netcode optimization, (you know -the things you actually have to test with alot of people), hammer out some processes, then once all of those are fine and dandy, start knocking back the major player complaints, and change things.

You can always change in-game systems on the fly - even after release. Optimization has to take place during beta for the most part, because without those the game can be unplayable, but design features are completely malleble - nothing is set in stone, and almost always things are changed for the better.

[Eomer]

If you do, I'll post one from my P4 3.6, 2gig mem, x800 (256) system which runs the game at low quality render just so I can move the clipping plane out two notches above the minimum (@ 1900x1200 reso). Horrible animations aside, my major visual complaint is that my clipping plane has to be so close just to get a decent fps. The choppy animations only make a decent fps feel like it is worse than it really is. Love or hate WoW all you want, but god damn that game has the smoothest animations ever.

Not sure what flavor of X800 you have, there's about a billion of them. But if you expect to run ANY current generation game at 1900x1200 at anything other than low settings on one of them, you're being completely unrealistic. While it's an overly simplistic comparison, 1900x1200 vs. say 1280x720 requires roughly 2.5 times the rendering power. Of course it won't run well at that resolution.

[Rayne]

Originally Posted by Soygen

It's thinking like this, that is just as(if not more) retarded as the blind vanboism displayed on the VG forums. Do you really think that people are hating on Utnayan because they like Vanguard?

Thinking like this has spared me plenty of cash. Personally, I could care less who hates Utnayan or why. Hes stirred up a clusterfuck for Sigil to take into consideration. One that needed to be stirred. Brads done a piss poor job of "managing expectations", its bitten him in the ass, and its coming around for another bite.

I really think that Vanguard is targetted towards what I call the core gamer. It's the people in this chatroom; it's the people making this game. The people who play a few hours a night, maybe raid on a weekend. That's our target audience, the gamer that early EQ and other muds and games targetted.

WTF? That says "casual player" through and through. Yet day after day, regular as clockwork, theres 500 asshats on the official forums arguing "casual vs. hardcore" and "raiders vs. non-raiders". With Brad not confirming anything either way, nobody knows what the fuck is going on. So they grab onto whatever little piece of out of context info they can, and hang onto it for dear life to "prove" the game is whatever they believe it is.

He needs to get on the ball. Update the outdated-as-all-hell FAQ, and start telling people what going on. Most of those people have no clue if what they're arguing over is right or not. Its all too confused to be certain either way.

[slitz]

Originally Posted by Utnayan

The reason why you aren't seeing if happen in EQ2 is, in my opinion, due to the fact that there isn't a population to warrant it. They don't even have half the subs EQ had at peak, which arguably, doesn't mean much since a good chunk of those 430k were double, triple, quad accounts - but still. Less players over 2 expansions = of course you'll be able to find a group in a static dungeon when the game isn't near as popular. EQ2's leveling curve is also MUCH faster - so people absorb content at a quicker pace leaving static dungeons open to play in.

Seriously, you're talking out of your ass here. It really doesn't matter if a game have 500.000 subscribers or 10.000, as long as they don't have too many servers for their subscriber base it doesn't matter at all on the local dungeoun.
I for one think EQ2 have done a very good job on keeping most dungeouns none instanced and critical parts of the dungeouns instanced. It makes the game feel a lot more alive than WoW ever did for me. Sure you have the annoying 1-2 minutes where you're fighting next to a group, but most of the type you're playing with people with common sense and thus you will split up the next oppertunity you get.
So while you might hate none instanced content, not all share your views (and maybe it's finally time for you to understand this?) on it and it has nothing to do with old EQ1 nostalgia.

[Utnayan]

Originally Posted by slitz

Seriously, you're talking out of your ass here. It really doesn't matter if a game have 500.000 subscribers or 10.000, as long as they don't have too many servers for their subscriber base it doesn't matter at all on the local dungeoun.
I for one think EQ2 have done a very good job on keeping most dungeouns none instanced and critical parts of the dungeouns instanced. It makes the game feel a lot more alive than WoW ever did for me. Sure you have the annoying 1-2 minutes where you're fighting next to a group, but most of the type you're playing with people with common sense and thus you will split up the next oppertunity you get.
So while you might hate none instanced content, not all share your views (and maybe it's finally time for you to understand this?) on it and it has nothing to do with old EQ1 nostalgia.

I do not hate non instanced content. See Vorph's post, I think he explains it perfectly.

[slitz]

Originally Posted by Utnayan

I do not hate non instanced content. See Vorph's post, I think he explains it perfectly.

So instead of defending your statement, which IMO is totally wrong and a clueless statement, you tell me to read someone elses post. I did quote your post because I disagreed with your post, not Vorph. If I had a problem with his post I would quote him.

[Vorph]

Originally Posted by Eomer

Not sure what flavor of X800 you have, there's about a billion of them. But if you expect to run ANY current generation game at 1900x1200 at anything other than low settings on one of them, you're being completely unrealistic. While it's an overly simplistic comparison, 1900x1200 vs. say 1280x720 requires roughly 2.5 times the rendering power. Of course it won't run well at that resolution.

Definitely have to agree, I have the best X800 (GTO2 that unlocks/oc's to X850XTPE and beyond) and I sure as hell wouldn't try to run Vanguard at 1920x1200 with it. 1680x1050 would even be pushing it for medium settings, ~70k clip plane, and HDR.

[Soygen]

Thinking like this has spared me plenty of cash. Personally, I could care less who hates Utnayan or why. Hes stirred up a clusterfuck for Sigil to take into consideration. One that needed to be stirred. Brads done a piss poor job of "managing expectations", its bitten him in the ass, and its coming around for another bite.

I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the insinuation in your post that those who are arguing with Utnayan aren't seeing the forrest for the trees. The majority are just arguing with him, because it's him and they don't really give a fuck about Vanguard. I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, but that's what I got from the original post I quoted from you.

[Utnayan]

Originally Posted by slitz

So instead of defending your statement, which IMO is totally wrong and a clueless statement, you tell me to read someone elses post. I did quote your post because I disagreed with your post, not Vorph. If I had a problem with his post I would quote him.

And I referred you to his post because he said what I would have said in my reply.

Instanced content in EQ2 is above and beyond anythingh non instanced. Give me an example of a non instaned dungeon in EQ2, and you can blow it away with anything instanced. Why? You can do more. Personalized content, feel like yuo are having an impact in the dungeon, possibly change the layout with a script, and above all, not having to compete for fun and advancement, nor wait in lines.

[slitz]

Originally Posted by Utnayan

And I referred you to his post because he said what I would have said in my reply.

I was merely discussing the fact that you were clueless enough to believe that the lower overall population of the game had a direct impact on the dungeouns.
Vorph didn't bring this up in his post.
Now swallow the pride and don't respond to this again since you will just look more foolish if you actually try convince me why having a 5 million playerbase is better than a 300k for my specific none instanced dungeoun.

Instanced content in EQ2 is above and beyond anythingh non instanced. Give me an example of a non instaned dungeon in EQ2, and you can blow it away with anything instanced. Why? You can do more. Personalized content, feel like yuo are having an impact in the dungeon, possibly change the layout with a script, and above all, not having to compete for fun and advancement, nor wait in lines.

The problem with you (IMO) is that you state everything like it's some fucking fact and you expect people to actually worship you and agree with you for bringing up this secret fact. It's a bloody opinion and you are as entitled to it as everyone else, but stop say it's like this and that when it's clearly a preference.
While you think none instance dungeouns is the way to go, I believe the oposite. It has nothing to do with the content in the dungeoun or the cool scripts that are easier to control in instances, it's all about the immersiveness to me. I don't get the same feeling of immersiveness in instanced dungeouns as I do when I have more people around me, as simple as that.
I see the big benefits of having instances I'm not arguing that, but don't fucking try to convince me it's the way to go for everyone's enjoyment.

[Eomer]

Brads done a piss poor job of "managing expectations", its bitten him in the ass, and its coming around for another bite.

I've asked this question to Neric and Utnayan before, and haven't received responses from them. Maybe you'll amuse me and respond! What exactly is it about Vanguard currently that is not living up to the expectations that Aradune has set for it that are confirmed, final issues? What specific features or promises have been cast by the wayside? Don't give me "combat sucks" because that's still in flux. They promised sail boats, have they been cut? Player owned housing? An extremely large game world? Those still remain. So again, what specific promises or features are no longer part of the game that has gotten your panties all in a wad?

I'm honestly curious, because I really don't see how people outside of beta can make an objective judgement on whether or not expectations have been handled well or not.

[Esmo]

Originally Posted by Eomer

Not sure what flavor of X800 you have, there's about a billion of them. But if you expect to run ANY current generation game at 1900x1200 at anything other than low settings on one of them, you're being completely unrealistic. While it's an overly simplistic comparison, 1900x1200 vs. say 1280x720 requires roughly 2.5 times the rendering power. Of course it won't run well at that resolution.

I didn't say it was realistic but it demonstrates (imo) how Sigil has put too much emphasis on technology and not enough on style.

Do you think my system specs are so sub-optimal that I should have to run the game at the lowest settings at release? Despite the age of the system and especially the graphics card, it is still above average. When Vanguard is released (pretend xmas is realistic) I would guess my specs to be in the 50th percentile still - meaning 50% of gamers would have superior machines and 50% lesser. With that logic I *should* be able to run the system at 50% of max settings upon release but I won't even come close to that I assure you. There is absolutely no way Sigil can optimize the graphics engine to improve performance by 50% upon release. Anyone who claims otherwise is utterly ignorant.

Don't start claiming that gamers all have top-end machines. Hardcore gamers might but not the elusive "core gamers" that Brad is supposedly attracting.

I've just come to the realization over the last four years that Brad McQuaid is completely delusional. He has no clue as to what really makes MMOGs tick, what makes gamers sit down and *want* to play night after night, what constitutes "community", how to design interdependence without shoving it down people's throats and most importantly what FUN really is.

Bottom line: Vanguard design came from an unemotional left-brained robot and it shows. There is no passion, no emphasis on fun. It is all "how to hook people", "how to retain people" and other uninspired hack.

[Rayne]

Originally Posted by Soygen

I was talking about the insinuation in your post that those who are arguing with Utnayan aren't seeing the forrest for the trees.

Here? Here that observation is subjective, perhaps. On Vanguard's official forums, its religion. A religion that Brad simply refuses to put in check when his community members don thier flame retardent suits.

Most of what Utnayan is posting currently, is actual "tester observation". And like it or not, a vast majority of whats been stated in the past few weeks has been pretty consistant. The most important being, Vanguard ISN'T much "fun". So little in fact, that testers can't be assed up to even log in to test.

And in the context of that observation alone, anyone who can't see it isn't just missing the forest, they're missing half the planet. Regardless of whether they're being told by Utnayan, NDA breakers, or anyone else.