Vanguard: Making the game as they go?

[TrooperEbonblade]

You should ask for a salary before responding to that email.

[Utnayan]

Originally Posted by Tagad Sigil

Utnayan, you really need to go into politics because you can spin anything Take that as a compliment.

The purpose of those threads, however, is not to "have the beta players design the game". The purpose is to provide a structured forum for feedback on subjects that beta players like to normally argue about in a free form manner.

I'm /sure/ you've read the thread entitled "Vanguards Problems: The Fans?". Where people are saying that Sigil only listens to the vocal minority - and that many people are "afraid to give feedback lest they be lambasted by the evil hardcore players". Well, to counteract any of that "perception" we made the "Inside the Box" series of posts - where we simply delete any posts that go off topic or off format.

Thanks for your, strange, but continued interest in Vanguard

~Tagad

P.S. I'm still waiting to receive your resume in my email box.

Understandable for the ideas and feedback, but some of that shouldn't have to be asked. Low level combat design, what types of resources to be used in combat, death penalties, community building and high/low level interdependence - these are things that should have been thought out a long time ago to be used in skill sets for their perspective classes. I can see if you were 1 year in or still think tanking, but four and a half years later you should be tweaking those very skill sets given to classes that create that interdependence, not get ideas on how to create it from beta testers.

But the problem is, interdependence brings inaccessibility if it is done to the extreme. For example, in EQ when you couldn't find a bind for half an hour due to no casters being about, that half hour of that person's gametime is sometimes limited. They logged in, finally got a bind, and logged out. They didn't get to really enjoy the game at all. The trick is creating interdependence that can give players an easier path, but not deter them from playing the game until it is accomplished.

As it stands, hardly anyone is logging in to play the game. Accessibility, solo content, and fun ways to progress WITHOUT depending on another is just as important as it is to create reasons to group/raid/etc. You need to get that type of gameplay into the game before it ships - or quite simply, Vanguard will not live up to your expectations.

The cheese on this type of design has moved, and you need to realize that you need to move with it. WoW shows what making an accessible game does, and based on subscription numbers and popularity, people are having a blast with it or they wouldn't be playing/paying. I know you want to create your own game, and that's fine - but you aren't moving in the right direction. You can make your own game and have the best of both worlds when it is done right. You can even make vertical class interdependencies part of the solo content. I have ideas on that if you want me to email you.

The reason why I posted this is it can easily be taken that you don't know why people are not playing, and need to figure out why. My beef is that you are going with a release date of Winter (Which could mean anything between December and March) but that isn't enough time when the game is this out of whack - and you are asking beta testers for core design ideas that should never have to be altered unless you scrap them all together - and if that is the case, all I ask is that you let the people following the game know about it on your front page. As a side note, I think you give some of these beta testers more credit than they deserve. As shown here, I doubt most will know what vertical interdependence is - not even mentioning being able to give you ideas on it.

[softwillow]

What are you going to name your next thread after this one gets locked? "Vanguard: a game for masochists" seems to follow your current titling. However, a sensational, scandalous title like "Vanguard: a game for pedophiles" might get more views before it gets locked.

[Rayne]

Originally Posted by Anyen

At least Utnayan uses specifics. I don't mean to say Utnayan's not rabidly anti-Sigil or fully informed (or even close to it) but all you do is talk without saying anything Rayne.

What part of "Brad did a lousy job of managing expectations(tm)", wasn't "specific" enough for you? Just look at the official forums man. A blind man could see its gotten too far out of hand. Some of the shit those people come up with is completely off the wall.

Oh wait. Wasn't it you that called the guy that started all this shit a liar?

Incidently, i'm not anti-Sigil in the least. I actually WANT them to make a good game.

[Angry Amadeus]

Originally Posted by Utnayan

As it stands, hardly anyone is logging in to play the game. Accessibility, solo content, and fun ways to progress WITHOUT depending on another is just as important as it is to create reasons to group/raid/etc. You need to get that type of gameplay into the game before it ships - or quite simply, Vanguard will not live up to your expectations.

Sources. Are you in beta? God damned, I am so tired of having to sift through your fucking posts in every thread to try and find some refreshing, informative and *knowledgable* info. How in the blue fuck do you know about accessibility, solo content, and "fun ways to progress" other than heresay from Negative Nancy's and Billy "There's Too Much Brown" Bob.

You want the honest truth? I think you're worse than Coffee & TV. I think you're worse than Neric the Heritic. I think you're almost worse than Cad. You don't want this thread to turn into a "Utnayan's obviously a psychopath with deep childhood trauma issues" yet you're the one who started the damned thread?

Get real. It's amazing you're still able to post here.

[Greyform]

Originally Posted by Utnayan

The other thread was locked, and I asked permission to post a new one. With me behind this one, you know what you are getting yourself into. So keep the Utnayan love/hate down to a minimum, and I would like to get opinions on what people think of this.

I think they are trying to get feedback in an organized format on specific game issues.

Is that not the purpose of Beta?

Here's the game we have so far. Beyond the bugs you are reporting what do you think of the game so far how would you make it better?

Now UT I have to ask ya this man. This was one damn beautiful weekend in MN lol why don’t you go outside brother and get some sun

[Utnayan]

Originally Posted by Greyform

Now UT I have to ask ya this man. This was one damn beautiful weekend in MN lol why don’t you go outside brother and get some sun

I am at work

Otherwise I would be out on the golf course.

Is that not the purpose of Beta?

Beta should be used for testing and gathering feedback, yes. But these questions go to the heart of systems that should have been in place already. The skills and combat revolving around those concepts should already be in and being tested, and getting feedback on - not getting the actual concepts themselves or how they should implement game mechanics in areas where they do not plan content (which doesn't make much sense if I read that right). Ideas for what they should put in the outreaches of their world to make it interesting, etc. It boggles my mind that after almost five years of design on this game, they are asking those questions.

Long story short, if it was feedback for systems already in place to tweak, that would be a different story.

[Havelock]

Originally Posted by Lhon

This is a real letdown. I was hoping for a more advanced questing system. It seems like it's more primitive than WoW's. For example, it doesn't sound like it could support escort style quests, or time limit quests.

[Nairbog]

Originally Posted by Utnayan

stuff

You're missing the point - who says they're asking them to design their game? They're asking those questions because players were already arguing about them, they wanted to give players a forum for those topics that wouldn't lead to unproductive arguments and flaming. I'm sure they have their own plan for all of those things, but since players are going to offer their own ideas and ways to change the game, the "inside the box" posts were a great idea imo.

[xilsharn]

I guess my big question is this: Who cares? Why does this bother you so much? You don't want to play Vanguard, awesome. You think it's going to suck, Brad sucks, Sigil sucks, development cycle sucks, game philosophy sucks. Fine, awesome.

Quit making posts about it. No one cares.

[Rayne]

Originally Posted by Nairbog

You're missing the point - who says they're asking them to design their game? They're asking those questions because players were already arguing about them, they wanted to give players a forum for those topics that wouldn't lead to unproductive arguments and flaming. I'm sure they have their own plan for all of those things, but since players are going to offer their own ideas and ways to change the game, the "inside the box" posts were a great idea imo.

That makes a lot of sense Nairbog. And I certainly wouldn't discount it entirely. But doesn't the fact that they were arguing about those specific issues indicate that there were problems to be arguing over in the first place?

[Utnayan]

Originally Posted by Nairbog

You're missing the point - who says they're asking them to design their game? They're asking those questions because players were already arguing about them, they wanted to give players a forum for those topics that wouldn't lead to unproductive arguments and flaming. I'm sure they have their own plan for all of those things, but since players are going to offer their own ideas and ways to change the game, the "inside the box" posts were a great idea imo.

I see your point. But if the mainstay behind the reasons to make a forum behind that was to deter community go'ers from unproductive flaming and arguments, they should have banned those offenders.

Edit: That brings up another good point on the questing system. Given those limits, just how fun can a quest be in Vanguard?

[xilsharn]

Originally Posted by Utnayan

If the mainstay behind the reasons to make a forum behind that was to deter community go'ers from unproductive flaming and arguments, they should have banned those offenders.

I think you just justified your own banning.

[Havelock]

Originally Posted by Utnayan

I see your point. But if the mainstay behind the reasons to make a forum behind that was to deter community go'ers from unproductive flaming and arguments, they should have banned those offenders.

That's outstanding advice. Forum admins everywhere should take it.

[Utnayan]

Originally Posted by Havelock

That's outstanding advice. Forum admins everywhere should take it.

They should. About half the population here of the previous IGN'ers that somehow got auth'd and the other posters that flame me instead of making points on the thread would get banned. If that meant I would have to get banned to see about half of you go, I would take one for the team just to read a decent forum about MMORPG's without the idiots trying to be the next Lum the Mad popping in.