Nino...One of the upsides of VG.

[Maxxius]

Originally Posted by Aradune Mithara

. . .

Certainly none of the above mistakes were planned for. Many/most were unexpected. . . .

Many/most were pointed out on this forum ad nauseum. Sadly, you simply turned a deaf ear to them.

[Cuppycake]

You all are funny, praising Brad for this post. Its another one of his lame posts - its just spun a different way. I don't think there was anything to commend in his post. His game tanked, we knew it would tank, he explained the negative concerns, we know the negative concerns...run along now, nothing to see. Its great that we can see now that the CEO of the company realizes all the areas that they've failed in, but personally I knew he'd have to be blind not to see what he's done wrong.

Bottom line - That's great that you're nearing 200,000 box sales. Lets see your subscriber count, considering the ~10 people I know who bought the box have cancelled.

[Zehn - Vhex]

You're so mean. 8(

[Bongk]

Originally Posted by Cuppycake

Bottom line - That's great that you're nearing 200,000 box sales. Lets see your subscriber count, considering the ~10 people I know who bought the box have cancelled.

I know of about 8 box sales myself, none of them are playing anymore including myself.

[kcxiv]

I only know 1 person that quit, who puchased the box. I have also found many more i knew from EQ while exploring. I also have a few more friends that will be incomming soon as they can upgrade.

[Draegan]

Originally Posted by holymight

Different people want different thing. Personally, I find dungeons fun because of the exploration. I couldn't stand instances in WoW because they were so linear and had very little exploration. So yes, most of the boss mobs in Vanguard are more difficult versions of trash mobs. There are a few exceptions though. Some bosses might heal for example which changes the strategy quite a bit.

The scripted bosses like the Godking spawns adds as the fight goes along, as well as forces the person he is agro on to feign death. Makes for an interesting fight.

The difficulty at 50 comes from different things depending on which dungeon you are in. In Necropolis it comes from the amount of mobs you need to kill at the same time, while beating a very fast respawn time (which they are lengthening). In Rahz Inkur it is all about not getting adds and having the tank hold agro on many mobs. There is no CC available in Rahz as they are all giants. Splitting pulls also makes it quite difficult or easier depending on how you look at it.

Do you macro your responses? You've posted the same thing a million times already. You must be getting carpal tunnel syndrome.

[lumberjack]

Originally Posted by Aradune Mithara

4. Marketing. There are two groups of ex-EQ 1, UO, DAoC, etc. players out there: the ones that look back fondly on the years they put into EQ 1 and those who don't -- either they're upset or, more often, they simply have had their lives change and they don't have the time to play another EQ 1. So when they heard about Vanguard and all of the EQ 1 people working on it they didn't even give it a chance -- they simply assumed Vanguard would be as hard core as EQ 1 (when it absolutely isn't). We totally underestimated that second group, and I think if we had got the message out that Vanguard was not just another EQ with all of its time sinks, tedium, leveling times, necessary raiding, need for contiguous time commitments, and somehow got that message clearly and strongly through to that second group we would have launched more strongly. This is another issue, however, we will survive, not just by changing the marketing message, but mainly through viral marketing. Those ex-EQ 1 players who *do* buy Vanguard, and enjoy it, *will* slowly but surely let that second group of people know that Vanguard does *not* equal EQ 1 with better graphics in the ways some people look back, sigh, and mutter 'never again', but that it *does* have the elements in it that made EQ 1 a great game (as well as many of the cooler UO/SWG elements, new systems like Diplomacy, greater immersion, etc.)

exactly, and frankly i don't exactly have the time or inclination to trust you on this, thus i did not nor will i play vanguard, sorry... but for me at least you dont have much credibility in this area

that being said, my and my ex EQ guildmates (we pretty much all left EQ when WoW came out), still do fondly remember some of the times in that game, as well as a lot of reasons why we left it

i hope Vanguard succeeds, really i do, i just don't have a desire to play it at this time.... that may change over time, but i doubt it with some of the other MMOs that are coming out that look kind of interesting to my taste

[kohl]

Originally Posted by kcxiv

I only know 1 person that quit, who puchased the box. I have also found many more i knew from EQ while exploring. I also have a few more friends that will be incomming soon as they can upgrade.

Awesome. I encourage you all to create a Fellowship, purchase and ride flying mounts around the nice huge world of Telon and maybe even partake in some caravan expeditions!

[Fog]

Originally Posted by kohl

Awesome. I encourage you all to create a Fellowship, purchase and ride flying mounts around the nice huge world of Telon and maybe even partake in some caravan expeditions!

I hear he can pilot a player-crafted boat in real-time to see the sights of the Telon coasts and deliver his party between the vast continental lands, is this true?

[Vinen]

Originally Posted by Fog

I hear he can pilot a player-crafted boat in real-time to see the sights of the Telon coasts and deliver his party between the vast continental lands, is this true?

Yep

Riding my boat around is probably one of the most enjoyable things I've been doing recently... fun coming across an area nobody / very few people have been to (You start getting first kills / loots, etc)

[Shaof]

Originally Posted by Neric

I predicted that they will release together with Vanguard and I gave you a reason why. They did release together with Vanguard and the reason turned out to be quite effective. What else do you need? An official statement?

Anyone with a minimum of business competence would have done the same and if not, that person would have to be replaced. It's that kind of decisions that seperates the sharks from the fish and if you want to be successful you better be a shark.

Also you really need a lesson in Ockham's Razor or Bayes mathematics. It is very unlikely that both products that take so much work and effort are ready for release at the exact same time. It would involve too many lucky coincidences. If both products get released at the same time, it's far more likely that one side (in this case Blizzard because in contract to Sigil they had the option to release or not to release) has planned it to be that way.

The argument that Blizzard could not have released earlier than they did does not matter, because they didn't have to. Sigil released earlier than expected after all. What Blizzard would have done if Sigil had waited a bit longer is unknown and you cannot derive any argument from it. Simple logic...

Of course unlikely doesn't mean impossible and the version I described is the most likely one from a business point of view. It doesn't mean it happend that way though. A certain margin of error cannot be avoided when you make an educated guess.

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand business practices in this industry. All MMO's on the market benefit from any game in the circle building the entire pool of users. It has nothing to do with taking users from other titles. A failing MMO is bad for all MMO's. A successful MMO like WoW is good for all MMO's.

If you look back to the EQ era, EQ, DAoC and AC had to compete from that same pool of players, because it was limited. Blizzard grew the pool by using a business model that took a loyal fanbase from other genres and migrated them into a fun MMO. That only helps the genre as a whole. It's a good thing for the gaming industry.

You probably never followed the F/22 competition the military contracted out to two companies. The short of it is, both teams helped each other when needed because the success of both aircraft was necessary for the success of the program.

But whatever. The last thing Blizzard needs to worry about is losing subs to competition. If you saw Bill Gates in the news prior to the release of Vista, he was asked how he felt about the latest attack ads by Mac. His response was, 'It doesn't bother me. We have 90% of the market share'.

[Zehn - Vhex]

That's assuming WoW has actually created new MMO gamers and isn't just a standalone phenomenon. I submit that it may be far more likely that people either just get bored and quit altogether or go back to playing other single/multi-player non-subscription games.

The amount of people who quit WoW and think, "Man, I just gotta have more!" seems more then likely to be pretty limited.

[kohl]

Originally Posted by Shaof

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand business practices in this industry. All MMO's on the market benefit from any game in the circle building the entire pool of users. It has nothing to do with taking users from other titles. A failing MMO is bad for all MMO's. A successful MMO like WoW is good for all MMO's.

This is a bit of generalization. With regards to WoW, you have people who came from previous MMOs, people who were fans of past Bliz games and folks completely new to the genre. Not all categories of people are going to run out and purchase other MMOs.

The biggest problem for VG is that the current crop of MMOs are much more professional; much more refined. I'm not talking vaporous talk of potential, I'm talking actual new user experience. The vast majority of people who come from those games are going to be absolutely appalled by their experience with Vanguard.

[UnchainedAcolyte]

Let's see...


To reply to Draegan regarding the differences in combat, I guess the basics are the same. Button-pushing quickly with certain tactics involved.

I was one of those early on before Vanguard launched who was looking forward to a RT/turn-based hybrid of a combat system that used the AES to perceive weaknesses in certain areas of the monster that could be exploited. As far as I heard, mechanics, implementation problems, and beta feedback nixed that idea and made it into the system it currently is.

To confirm: I have never played WoW, although at some point I plan on getting at least a trial subscription. I've heard a lot about it from reputable sources, mostly positive. To be honest, the aspect that kept me away were comments about the community, although my co-workers are trying to sway me into trying it. Until I do, though, I have to plead ignorance regarding the game.


To Brad: Good to see you posting here, as well as Nino, to create some dialogue.

However, one thing I do have to disagree with you strongly on is the management of expectations.

... at the same time I also made a huge effort to manage expectations and let people know what might not make it in release, what was an expansion idea, etc. Sure, that changed as we got farther along with development. You can look up my posts and look at old copies of the FAQ and see the scaling back that took place (both what Kendrick mentioned and other stuff). And thinking back on it, while I posted a lot of these changes, the FAQ should have been kept more up to date.

I don't think you're the one solely responsible for this; fans of the game (including me for some time) did not manage their own expectations. The other problem is that in regards to viral marketing, you can't be selling Vanguard and at the same time "managing expectations" directly, since they work against each other. Not to mention that managing expectations is an ongoing process, and was not done during the early phases of the development of the game from what I've read and later experienced.

The other devs did try to explain a lot of details when it came to elements such as crafting (no alchemist class ) and diplomacy and how those changed over time. However, whether due to concern over the competition or a desire not to discourage players, the massive changes in mechanics such as AES remained undisclosed until open beta/launch. The problem is, silence on these issues created an even larger firestorm between fans and others because of speculation.

I'm not saying these things to roast you on a spit, like some would. I play and enjoy the game for what it currently is, and for what it could/might be. I look forward to great things for the game - if it does not water down its core concepts (Content is King?) to be marketable, which sadly I see starting. I appreciate the communication you and the devs have had with the community for some time, and want to see Vanguard realize its potential. However, when discussing possibilities and long-term ideas, you might want to say, "Our goal is to develop RTS elements within player cities" etc. Just throwing ideas out there (while I do see the need for, and appreciate visionaries and dreamers) implies that those will be implemented. I'm going to be playing the game for the content today. As content is added and mechanics and other elements are improved, great. But I realize as a gamer and consumer that "Vision" alone is not enough - there has to be "Actualization".

Finally, while I can appreciate the attempt to make the game more appealing to a larger casual player base by increasing adventuring experience, please stop at this point, or even back up. By increasing the adventuring experience you're trivializing the amount of content in the game, as players can quickly out-level good adventuring areas/dungeons.

Either it was listed in a dev statement or in the content of patch notes, but one of the reasons for increasing adventuring experience was that the overall player base was not advancing at the rate the devs expected them to. What about those of us who enjoy crafting and diplomacy? Or simply doing a little exploring? Was the slower progression of the multi-sphere/level-casual people taken into account? I'd like to know what information was used in coming to this conclusion.

[Twobit Whore]

WoW will bring in and keep non-MMO players. VG will not. VG will appeal to former EQ players and that's about it. And it won't appeal to all of them, only the ones who sit on forums and reminisce about how fun the game was pre-Luclin and how the spires and the bazaar and GYs and PoK ruined the game. Not the actual content of the expansions, just the fact that it was 'dumbed down'. So you have a subset of people within a subset that Vanguard appeals to. Then on top of that you have people who think VG isn't anything like what was promised and how brokers and the idea of makiing death penalites lighter and travel more convenient is akin to Luclin/PoK in EQ. So now you have alienated a subset of your subset within a subset.

It doesn't matter how 'core' or 'casual' you try to make Vanguard, it's not going to get new people to the genre like WoW simply because of the preconceptions and early word of mouth. All it will do is alienate even MORE of the people inside a subset within a subset within a subset.

Tack on the ridiculus hardware requirements/performance issues and it adds yet ANOTHER subset to the initial bunch.

Honestly, the best thing they could do at this point is increase the death penalty, make levelling slower, remove brokers and the idea of 'faster' travel. Call the game a niche game for the hardcore and keep your 50k or so whatever people that will play it for the next 5 years.