Originally posted by gordiflu

Originally posted by Asamof

Originally posted by xDayx
The review is based on someone with a "new normal" opinion of how the themeparks should be in there opinion. What they fail to see is that the mass-appeal market is saturated with rifts, gw2's, swtors, etc. We don't need another one of those. I will agree on the F2P being restrictive, that's the only thing they said right... But then again it's done typical Sony style.

how's vanguards model different than those theme park games that you listed?

I asume you are not actually referring to the revenue model, since the three games have a different model right now. So I ll guess you are talking about the game itself.

It's different in so many ways... however, the main difference is depth and scope. VG was not created as a quick grab, but as a very long journey with an insane amount of options. It focuses on community and encourages grouping. Even when farming crafting materials it is more profitable if you do it in a group. And is way way deeper and more inmersive than any of those themeparks. Sumarizing, it's way deeper and wider than your average MMO, and is aiming for a more demanding kind of player.

This is why, despite all the rampant bugs and horrendous release, it is still surviving. Agonizing but surviving. I doubt any of these modern games would have managed in a similar situation.

I hope I did not sound like a fanboi, sigh. It's just an honest opinion.

 

I was talking about gameplay, thanks for answering! 

iirc this game was supposed to be a spiritual successor to EQ1? so that would mean soloing is possible, but puts you at a big disadvantage compared with grouping? I know about diplomacy and crafting being their own entities, but can you be more specific on the depth part? compared to other current mmos today

Originally posted by rochrist
This is an awful review. How about telling us what the F2P restrictions you go on about ARE?

The link to the restrictions is right in the article.

I'm not playing Vanguard now. But I have in the past. In my opinion this was a very bad review. There's no real argumentation, the author's biases are the only reasons I can find for some of the scoring. However, if the review is only based on the F2P implementation (which the text doesn't really suggest it is) then I have no remarks (since I have no real experience). 

Oh, and bring back /flush in more games, it's sorely needed. /flush is honest to god a godsend. GW2 memory leaked like hell in some areas, I would have loved a /flush command to just reset my cache, instead of having to restart the whole game (I've had memory leaks in most MMOs at launch, GW2 is just a recent example).

Originally posted by erictlewis

The vangaurd comunity always goes after anybody who has negative thigns to say about their game. However I think the writer actually give Vanguard a good score 6.5?? I was like that is 2 points too high. So a lot ofwhat I read can be just chucked out as they are flaming and trolling.

Diplomacy was strange when I was in beta, and I admit you either loved it or you really hated it, I hated it and ignored it.   Crafting on the other hand was down right great, it was the one thing that kept me in game for 3 months at launch wile the rest of the folks were leaving.

I got to say I tried free to play, but the game still has massive amounts of lag, It had some great ideas, but it is old and tired, and will only appeal to a certain type of player.   The ones who want instant gratification might as well go back to wow or something, as there is nothing instant about vanguard, and that is where I think they made a misjudgement of the type of player they were shoot at with free to play.

Me I deinstalled vangaurd last week end to make room for something more interesting.

True about the 'community' and I also agree about the score. I thought the review was not only fair but also generous in its score.

As to being 'old school', I think some people confuse sloppy design and buggy implemention with challanging game play.

Originally posted by Paladrink

I still fail to see why the devs of most of the games that lack of population are reluctant to put AI on their side, saying put god damn hierlings!! DDO has proven to be probably one of the most succesful games on history despite the hate, still collects on the top 5 mmos to the date, and this is purely due the synergy between players, but not alone that, it allows the players to play their heart content at their own peace by placing healers, tanks and casters at their dispossal.

Even using the horrid AI that hierlings have DDO has made what others not, the viability of playing on your own or play in group as you please, if this system were to be introduced on Vanguard i assure you the experience would be amazing, the main problem of vanguard is the huge world, is so inmense that you barely see any npc, and aside of Qualia main city you feel totally alone.

Seriously, having another server handling the Hierlings is not expencive if you think there are 2 servers now and one of them is dead, merge them and optimize your resources, and let the devs work on a hierling system that would revive this game.

If you mean like EQ mercs then VG does have it according to a thread on the VG forum.

For the few latency issues people complain about at FTP launch, you try jamming 100+ people on the Isle of Dawn which is relatively small.

If you go there now it is better after server fixes and you don't have to choose to go there at all to start.

The review was spot on IMO.  I know that upsets the games advocates, but this is a game that takes a lot of time to learn.  There is just so much to do.  And the occasional lag is very annoying.

SOE has made f2p options so restrictive as to make the game almost unplayable.  I would not even use the term f2p with this game.  It is more like a free trial.  If you really want to play this game you are going to have to sub.

To read people above saying you can play this game without paying a dime is really amusing, as while it might be possible, the point of a game is to have fun and that would definitely NOT be fun.

Hmmm a bit harsh on the review score.  I think this game is more in line with the 7.5 user score.

Some good points about the F2P restrictions being limiting (at least give everyone all blue items geeez) and the game engine or lag being annoying.  At least you can complete all the quests (unlike Lotro) although you may not be able to use the rewards lol.

However, I think that the reviewer simply doesn't like old school slower paced games in general based on his comments.  I almost feel like there were two points off coming into the review due to personal preference. 

I think Vanguard stands out from the crowd on several fronts. 

- Crafting is not unbelievable but fking unbelievable.  If you take time to get involved its hugely addictive and rewarding.

- Housing??? not mentioned in the review.  I don't know any other MMO where you can buy a plot of land, craft every item in the house and have it all on show in the open world. No instances.

- Diplomacy is a great concept and sadly not utilised in other MMO's.

- Exploration.  The game is huge and there is a real feeling of a massive world to explore. 

- What about the epic missions to learn how to make a boat, then building it and then sailing off in it?  There are so many side lines in this game its hard to fathom.  I would prefer to see a new Vanguard released with the quality and graphics it deserves.

I don't play it anymore but that is due to lack of time and Vanguard is a group intensive MMO.

Originally posted by Asamof

Originally posted by gordiflu

Originally posted by Asamof

Originally posted by xDayx
The review is based on someone with a "new normal" opinion of how the themeparks should be in there opinion. What they fail to see is that the mass-appeal market is saturated with rifts, gw2's, swtors, etc. We don't need another one of those. I will agree on the F2P being restrictive, that's the only thing they said right... But then again it's done typical Sony style.

how's vanguards model different than those theme park games that you listed?

I asume you are not actually referring to the revenue model, since the three games have a different model right now. So I ll guess you are talking about the game itself.

It's different in so many ways... however, the main difference is depth and scope. VG was not created as a quick grab, but as a very long journey with an insane amount of options. It focuses on community and encourages grouping. Even when farming crafting materials it is more profitable if you do it in a group. And is way way deeper and more inmersive than any of those themeparks. Sumarizing, it's way deeper and wider than your average MMO, and is aiming for a more demanding kind of player.

This is why, despite all the rampant bugs and horrendous release, it is still surviving. Agonizing but surviving. I doubt any of these modern games would have managed in a similar situation.

I hope I did not sound like a fanboi, sigh. It's just an honest opinion.

 

I was talking about gameplay, thanks for answering! 

iirc this game was supposed to be a spiritual successor to EQ1? so that would mean soloing is possible, but puts you at a big disadvantage compared with grouping? I know about diplomacy and crafting being their own entities, but can you be more specific on the depth part? compared to other current mmos today

You can solo all your way to level cap and craft yourself gear as good as anything you can get from outside raids. But it's going to take you long. You are not forced to group unless you want the very fancy raid gear that you don't need anywhere else anyway. However, grouping is way more efficient instead of what happens in most modern games, where soloing is the fastest way to level cap.

The disadvantage has got nothing to do with gear or gold income or anything similar if we exclude raids of the equation. The disadvantage in this case would be that the soloer will have to work harder to get to level cap with gear as good as the guy who groups a lot.

Answering your crafting and diplomacy depth question. I won't get into the details, but just for starters crafting is really versatile. You can suit whatever you craft to your needs since you can add lolzillion different modifiers to most of the stuff you craft. The amount of options is insane. It has also got to do with interaction. I can craft normal armors myself, no problems. Now, if I want to make some relly good piece of armor I am going to need a tailor to do some parts for me. The same way, if a leatherworker wants to do some very fancy armor he needs me to craft him some parts. If you want to build something big like a ship or a house you need lots of different type of crafters working together or at least trading stuff.

Also, crafters need materials. Many people who don't craft gather those materials anyway, and they want good harvesting gear that crafters can make for them.

Crafters can also make stuff for diplomats, the same way diplomats can provide crafters with some local crafting buffs. There's even a raid boss that needs crafters working during the fight.

Diplomats can provide nice buffs to whole cities. You enter the city and you get the buff. There are lots of different buffs that affect diplomacy itself, crafting, and adventuring. And, surprise, if you get several diplomats coordinated, getting those buffs is way easier.

Diplomats are also needed to start certain events that can open new quests, encounters or trade options.

Sorry for the wall of text. As you can see, VG's depth has got to do with interaction a lot and about options.  I hope I answered your questions.

For people that are complaining about F2P please stop. If you left becuase you don't want to play they do not want you back because you will still not pay a dime. 

The only reason SoE made the game F2P is to cater to the new public or the people that are friends with people that have been advocate for the game or enjoy the game a lot for a long time. This type of system allowed me to try out games I wouldn't have before and allow me to decide if I would want to pay.

I am now lvl 49 and still enjoying the game on a free vanguard account but because of the fact I want to play a SPECIFIC class that is not free I am probably going to reroll and subscribe after I hit cap. 

Please answer me this, if item restrictions/class/race restriction were taken off that would the people that have been paying get that the F2P players don't have?

Pretty cash shop coins for exp boost because not like the veterans aren't capped already. 

Pretty mounts/apperance item in a game with crappy character graphics?

The amount of people complaining if EQ2 and Vanguard lift all those restrictions the amount of money they will lose from the current subscribers would probably be 1000x more. 

Because if all those things were lifted I would personally not pay a dime for any of those misc things that you can buy. 

Originally posted by ozerinx

For people that are complaining about F2P please stop. If you left becuase you don't want to play they do not want you back because you will still not pay a dime. 

The only reason SoE made the game F2P is to cater to the new public or the people that are friends with people that have been advocate for the game or enjoy the game a lot for a long time. This type of system allowed me to try out games I wouldn't have before and allow me to decide if I would want to pay.

 

I am now lvl 49 and still enjoying the game on a free vanguard account but because of the fact I want to play a SPECIFIC class that is not free I am probably going to reroll and subscribe after I hit cap. 

 

Please answer me this, if item restrictions/class/race restriction were taken off that would the people that have been paying get that the F2P players don't have?

 

Pretty cash shop coins for exp boost because not like the veterans aren't capped already. 

Pretty mounts/apperance item in a game with crappy character graphics?

 

The amount of people complaining if EQ2 and Vanguard lift all those restrictions the amount of money they will lose from the current subscribers would probably be 1000x more. 

Because if all those things were lifted I would personally not pay a dime for any of those misc things that you can buy. 

 

 

I am all for class / race restrictions in the F2P model. No problem with that.

But! Item restrictions is the worst F2P implementation I have ever seen! It's terrible and an instant turn off for many many new players trying the game.

Nothing! and I mean NOTHING! is more frustrating than enjoying and playing the game, doing quests and get a nice drop or "worse" a nice quest reward.... making you glow of enjoyment and then trying to equip it and being faced with a message saying you CANNOT friggin' equip it!!

It's an instant turn off! I can't emphasize more in how terrible this is!

Gate content! Like Turbine did with DDO and LOTRO! Let people pay for quest packs, dungeon packs, etc.

But never ever block people from equiping items! It's just terrible! As it's the MAIN element in character progression!

That's why EQ2's free 2 play failed misaribly!  That's why Vanguards free 2 play will fail miserably too!

It's a real shame that SOE just can't get things right anymore these days! They just keep on screwing up.... over and over again. /shrug

Restricting items that you can loot from drops is pretty lame. It kills all motivation to actually complete anything as you wont be able to use the reward.

I have been playing on and off since closed beta and some bugs have definately been fixed but there are still graphical bugs and hitching issues. You can still fall through the world by crimmeny.

They seem to have removed some solo friendly content to force players into main quest hubs. The TOD area used to be a great solo quest hub for level 10 - 15 but when I went there a few weeks ago there was nothing on offer.

"Diplomacy & crafting are a chore"

That's so incredibly stupid i don't even know how to begin to comment it...

Diplomacy and crafting are two "pros" of this game, FFS.

For once, crafting is not automatic, thank god !!!

Where Sony continues to fail is in its conversion of Subscription to F2P is penalizing past subscribers. Both EQ and Vanguard did this very badly. As a previous subscriber, I return to see how things have changed and find may items locked, bag size warnings and other general restrictions tied to a past character. The F2P in Sony game models really only work for new players or old players willing to start over.

Until they fix that number one issue, converting to F2P will never draw the numbers back to it. Starting a game as F2P or being a new player to a F2P title wether it old or new, the restrictions are not cumbersome as you know them going in. I am enjoying DDO on occasion, despite the restrictions because I never played the game as a subscription as an example.

As far as Vanguard is concerned, I agree with the review with the exception of the Crafting and Diplomacy being a chore. Vanguards system for those things is what originally made many of us want to play the game. And some of the many changes they did to those systems during the first couple of years is what drove many of us away.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

The review was spot on IMO.  I know that upsets the games advocates, but this is a game that takes a lot of time to learn.  There is just so much to do.  And the occasional lag is very annoying.

SOE has made f2p options so restrictive as to make the game almost unplayable.  I would not even use the term f2p with this game.  It is more like a free trial.  If you really want to play this game you are going to have to sub.

To read people above saying you can play this game without paying a dime is really amusing, as while it might be possible, the point of a game is to have fun and that would definitely NOT be fun.

 

All this tells me is that you haven't tried the F2P model.

The F2P options are not particularly restrictive beyond the class choices - and even with those you get a fair breath of playstyles.  There's also the option of unlocks for classes

The platinum cap is absurdly large - 2p is a LOT of money in Vanguard for a very long time.

The item restrictions are annoying, particularly if you're a crafter or diplomat - but they're hardly crippling, for any sphere.  Adventuring alone you can get by with F2P usable gear quite easily, there are multiple people in my guild doing so.  And again, item unlocking options if you really want that item.

Bag space and quest limitation are probably the most annoying factors - one of which is solvable by just getting a large bag, the other of which I agree is restricting.

Stating that the game is almost unplayable is an exaggeration so large that it completely discredits anything you might say, pro or con, about the game, as it shows that you clearly haven't tried the F2P model.  It's one of the more permissive F2P models in the MMO market, while still being designed to do what companies exist for - make profit.