---

Originally posted by Anofalye

What you fail to understand, an amount of lives per month would affect less than 10% of the player base, which would be peoples like you and me.  The average player would never get anywhere close to it.  For one, I rather think toward other players desires than my own...and I would really love such a challenge myself.

With the amount of times I did play old EQ, I would be affected by this lives per month, it would be a constant concern, something to work around.  You as well.  But all my RL friends that did play EQ, none of them would be affected by it.  Nope, not even 1 of them.  They just don't play enough and they just all care a LOT about losing XP/DEBT.

It all come down to choices, to which player base you are catering to, having an INCREMENTAL system favor peoples with lot of time, just like me, at the expense of casuals and peoples with less time...it also favor uber guilds.  Really, when a dev say the game focus on casuals, you shouldn't have a death system that favor peoples with TONS of time at the expanse of the peoples with less time.  That is my opinion, and I am right.  Argue all you want. 

FREEDOM:  LOL, that is the worst lie, there is NO freedom in a game where if you want to be the best grouper, you have to raid, solo, group and tradeskill, there is absolutely no freedom, this is a predetermined path and everyone will remember the activity they despite the most.

---

-_-

I think you're missing something.

There will be Soloable mobs, casual named mobs with high threat levels that drop awesome or close to awesome gear. These Casual Players will be able to confront these mobs on their own time.

Additionally, players may play casually after work for an hour and a half, and experience small death penalties that consume little or no time. And, they can play on the weekend, while their spouse is out of time and they are shirking their yard work, run a dungeons for 4 or 5 hours and recieve comperable loot.

Conversely, the ones that are going for the highest threat mobs all the time, are going to be experiencing much harsher death penalties (by an order of magnitude) and will thusly have more roadblocks ahead of them.

It is about risk versus reward for all time commitment and play styles. If you want better or the best you have to risk more, if you don't want to risk more then your options are limited. And really, you have the freedom to choose what type of penalties you are subjecting yourself to EVERY TIME YOU PLAY by choosing what creatures/quests/dungeons you are participating in.

---

Originally posted by grape
Death penalty system implementation in Beta 3. Does that strike you odd that core system like DEATH is changed for Beta? Shouldn't this be something planned since an Alpha? Or shudder, in the 'core' design vision?

Feels like they are getting cold feet on corpse runs.

---

The way I understand it, it was always the plan, just never relayed to the public. Sigil has always said that there were parts of the mechanics, mostly the revolutionary stuff, that they weren't talking about. And, Beta 0-2.5 has been about getting the environment working, quests working, and most importantly fleshing out group combat.

Corpse runs have been active in the game since the earliest of Beta phases, and (if you actually keep up on information about Vanguard) you'll know that they are turning systems on gradually.

Besides...I don't really think you stumble upon something as innovative as graduated death penalties without a little planning. They always said corpse runs will be in the game.....and they still are, if you are fighting the correct threat level creature.

---

Originally posted by CylusSigil

I, for one, am extremely excited about the Diplomacy system. (And no...it isn't faction grinding)

---

The new diplomacy system is pretty sweet, imo

---

So I've been hearing =P  Aruspex is a chatterbox

Can't wait until I get to try it out for myself (hopefully test it). Put in a good word for my guild's Beta Application, would ya?

---

Originally posted by jonaku

what makes this game great?

-- XP debt upon death (maybe some day, if we're lucky, XP loss)

-- no GPS magic radar maps

-- spawn camping for non-epic content

-- painful corpse runs

-- long travel times

-- decentralized auction houses

-- take a year to max out character level

-- requires grouping and raiding to get anywhere

-- requires MINIMUM 3 to 5 hour a night commitment, 7 nights a week. recommended commitment is probably 8 to 12 hours a day.

-- requires newest and highest end PC available on the market

-- requires absolute love and devotion to the dev "vision" and any dissent will be punished by other community members... vanguard is a disagreement-free casual-free zone thankyouverymuch

if you love all these things, you're gonna love vanguard !

---

The question was what makes the game desireable, not why Jonaku doesn't like the idea of Vanguard.

Anyways, most people, from what I can tell, find Vanguard desireable because the developers have been putting a huge emphasis on immersion and community and are trying to deliver a challenging game to oppose the recent rash of simplistic, one dimensional (popular) games as of late.

As Jonaku was probably trying to point out, although though a round about way, it's probably best to read through the games FAQ to find out if it is for you. In essence, if you found WoW and EQII were lacking and/or failed to present you with the living breathing world you hoped for, it may be worth looking into Vanguard.

I, for one, am extremely excited about the Diplomacy system. (And no...it isn't faction grinding)

---

Originally posted by Anofalye

---

Originally posted by Vengeful

---

Originally posted by Anofalye

Personnally I would be in favor of DEBT (95% of the players care about these) and an amount of lives per months (now the 5% remaining will care), but I know FoH crybabies can't stand an amount of lives per month, it mean that they wouldn't be able to zerg anymore and that they would go down the shaft. 

---

Or maybe it's just cause they don't want to be limited on the amount of time they can play? o.O

What if you have alot of time to play at the beginning of the month, and you die alot cause you're moving into a new zone, you waste your lives/month in the first week and can't play for 3 more weeks because you're out of lives?

All this system would do would make more people cheese content so they can keep playing. Arbitrary numbers of lives per month would limit game play, not enhance it from "oldschool mechanics"

---

An incremental penalty as they are doing now affect EVERY casual.

What I suggest affect only players with LOT of times, such peoples are not considering themselves casuals and are available to meet the challenge or start new toons, as needed.

While the casuals affected by an INCREMENTAL penalty, they may be too casuals to adapt.

PS: Not to forget a nice side aspect in game balancing for races, not all races need to have the same amount of lives...a side aspect, but a nice side aspect.

---

It would just change things from one extreme to the other. You'd still be limiting players and how they can play the game instead of letting the player decide what they want to do and how they want to play. I would say MOST players don't just stick with one play style or at least wish there were more available to them, and I for one, wouldn't like my option to be "start an alt"

Between Vanguard's Graduated Death Penalt and a Set number of lives per month, I'd got with Vanguard...and I'd be willing to bet that most everyone would agree with me...cause people just don't want to feel restricted and claustrophobic in the games they are playing, they want more options, not less.

...oh, hey...and "Freedom" is Sigil's lil' moto they've been tossing around, go figure.

---

Originally posted by Anofalye

---

Originally posted by Vengeful

---

Originally posted by Anofalye

Personnally I would be in favor of DEBT (95% of the players care about these) and an amount of lives per months (now the 5% remaining will care), but I know FoH crybabies can't stand an amount of lives per month, it mean that they wouldn't be able to zerg anymore and that they would go down the shaft. 

---

Or maybe it's just cause they don't want to be limited on the amount of time they can play? o.O

What if you have alot of time to play at the beginning of the month, and you die alot cause you're moving into a new zone, you waste your lives/month in the first week and can't play for 3 more weeks because you're out of lives?

All this system would do would make more people cheese content so they can keep playing. Arbitrary numbers of lives per month would limit game play, not enhance it from "oldschool mechanics"

---

An incremental penalty as they are doing now affect EVERY casual.

What I suggest affect only players with LOT of times, such peoples are not considering themselves casuals and are available to meet the challenge or start new toons, as needed.

While the casuals affected by an INCREMENTAL penalty, they may be too casuals to adapt.

PS: Not to forget a nice side aspect in game balancing for races, not all races need to have the same amount of lives...a side aspect, but a nice side aspect.

---

It would just change things from one extreme to the other. You'd still be limiting players and how they can play the game instead of letting the player decide what they want to do and how they want to play. I would say MOST players don't just stick with one play style or at least wish there were more available to them, and I for one, wouldn't like my option to be "start an alt"

Between Vanguard's Graduated Death Penalt and a Set number of lives per month, I'd got with Vanguard...and I'd be willing to bet that most everyone would agree with me...cause people just don't want to feel restricted and claustrophobic in the games they are playing, they want more options, not less.

...oh, hey...and "Freedom" is Sigil's lil' moto they've been tossing around, go figure.

---

Originally posted by Caliss
sounds a bit early for rating it. But i'm still impatient to see the game release though :p should i vote ? :p

---

I'll confess my hype is a 10, not because I don't have concerns about how successful it is, but because out of the 2 or 3 games that have got my attention, Vanguard is on top of those.

And so, AoC has a 7 from me and WAR has a 5

---

Originally posted by Anofalye

Personnally I would be in favor of DEBT (95% of the players care about these) and an amount of lives per months (now the 5% remaining will care), but I know FoH crybabies can't stand an amount of lives per month, it mean that they wouldn't be able to zerg anymore and that they would go down the shaft. 

---

Or maybe it's just cause they don't want to be limited on the amount of time they can play? o.O

What if you have alot of time to play at the beginning of the month, and you die alot cause you're moving into a new zone, you waste your lives/month in the first week and can't play for 3 more weeks because you're out of lives?

All this system would do would make more people cheese content so they can keep playing. Arbitrary numbers of lives per month would limit game play, not enhance it from "oldschool mechanics"

---

Originally posted by Anofalye

Zzzz

Risk is fun, losing 3 hours is not fun, not even for me, and I am no casual.  I can deal with losing 3 hours, I won't be happy and I am not a casual.

The overwhelming majority of casuals find the debt system in CoH to be terrible and look at it with dread.

Peoples try to define casual and hardcore with an amount of time per week.  Even if I would play the game only 1 hour I would be more hardcore than these crybabies at FoH!  Sooo...all is relative to HOW you play rather than the amount of time.  Nearly all casuals can't stand a 3 hours setback.

---

You didn't really read the info in the OP did you. The penalty is graduated with respect to your play style, the loot, and how much time you have to play.

If you don't want to face a corpse run, don't go up against higher threat mobs, and you'll simply be ported to your bind point with a small XP penalty and/or gear damage (money sink)

If you are feeling more risky, fight some mid ranged thread level mobs, risk losing a bag of gear or your corpse with a XP hit. Your bag or corpse will return to you after an alotted time, so if that's it for you for the night, log off and tomorrow you'll have your gear back.

If you've got alot of time to spare and are feeling really risky, do a dungeon crawl or and fighter high threat level mobs. You risk a full on corpse run and XP penalty. Some raid bosses might not even give your corpse back until after you kill it.

Sounds like you can play the game however you like and still have a good time =)

---

Originally posted by jonaku

You're missing the point. The beta complaint is not really focused on bugs and lags. It's focused on the game mechanics not being fun: keeping the unfun stuff from EQ and tossing the fun parts of EQ.

No amount of debugging can fix an unfun game.

---

Considering they just released brand new information about death mechanics that nobody in the community had any idea about, and that nobody in the Beta Community has experienced...well....if a GAME PLAY altering mechanic such as this is just now implimented, you can rest assured that any "reviews" thusfar have been inaccurate.

This is not simply a debug beta. This is not simply a stress test beta. This is not simply a tweak beta.

This is an IMPLIMENTATION and EXPERIMENTATION beta on top of those listed above. Meaning of course, that they are implimenting new game play elements, experimenting with them and tweaking them to make them fun while debugging the code. What makes the difference between fun and not fun could be as simple as changing numbers or as complex as re-drafting an entire system. Either way, they don't really even plan to have the final continent turned on for at least another 4 months or so.

Wait and see 'fore the bile spilleth over.

---

Originally posted by jonaku

---

Originally posted by Evilplayer
There are allot of people that hate vanguard and love it. But in my opinion, if Vanguard is release ANY SOONER then september of 2007. Vanguard will suck big time. It's NOWHERE near finish. And he was right about one thing at least, vanguard is is very choppy, if you thought you got bad lag running EQ2 on high settings, wait until you try  out vanguard on low settings! it's worse. If they take there time testing vanguard and fixing lag and glitches etc.  Vanguard will end up being the next best MMORPG.  But like i said, they have a LONG way to go and i think they plan on releasing it this year which = failure ,

I disagree about grouping, since there is only 100 people online in vanguard at peek hours, no wonder its hard to get a group. When they invite more , getting groups will be easier.

---

This is interesting. Here's someone who LIKE vanguard and is confirming that:

(1) beta has only 100 players (very disturbing that average simultaneous players is so low after 3,000 to 3,500 invites)

(2) beta is insanely laggy/choppy even with a high end system

(3) beta has many inherent problems with it, so many, in fact, that he recommend they continue beta for AT LEAST another 6 months to have any chance of launching a competent product.

Hmmmm... seems like beta aint' going so well...

---

Fixed =P

Even though 3,000 - 3,500 falls within 3,000 - 10,000, your estimate is extremely misleading. It's also important to note that these invites were sent out over an 8 month period of time and not all at once

But other than that....the other two are either kinda "No duh" or is already sorta figured into the expected release date

---

Originally posted by joejccva

---

Originally posted by CylusSigil

"I am playing Vanguard Beta... it is another healer centric, impossable to play without a group, same old crap made famous from EQ."
On the way to the level cap, I solo'd well over 3/5ths of the time.  If anything, VG is a lot easier to solo than EQ was, at least up until I quit at the end of PoP.  While VG has always been labeled as a group-orientated game, the abillity to solo has always been there, even for melee classes.
"Travel is just too cumbersome."
Apparently that person is/was ignorant of the caravan system.  Granted, it's a big world but that's what mounts and caravans are for.
" I myself have a half ass computer-and according to the FaQ on the official website, that shouldn't matter. But I've been told it does."
I believe I got into beta last September and, until I build a desktop in Oct, I have and will continue to play the game on a laptop that I bought at the end of '04.  It was fairly top of the line at the time for a laptop but not close to what I could have gotten in a desktop.  Point being, the game is currently playable on less-than-top-tier systems and will continue to be optimized as beta progresses.   Of course, FPS kiddies won't be thrilled that they are getting less than 60-100fps in beta...so sad

---

Some of us have been waiting quite a while to have the chance to test Vanguard, but have had no luck yet in being invited. It's frustrating because I really want to test the game, alot of others just want to play it.

---

---

Originally posted by Amnesiac07
Already off the list and this thread was created yesterday.  The haters rally fast.  It's still perplexing to see the fervor with which people crusade against this game.  The game has it issues to overcome, and the possibility of failure exists as it does in any project.

When I see an upcoming game I really don't like I usually just don't pay it much attention.  That seems to not be the case for those who find Vanguard not catered to their tastes.  It's strange.

As mentioned countless times, the hype meters on this or any other site don't carry much credibility.  They're anecdotal at best, just a way to kill time before a game is released.  I mean DnL was a top 7 fixture iirc, which pretty much discredits any correlation between hype meters and game success.

---

It's still up there, bro =P

It's #6

---

Originally posted by nthnaoun

I am very interested in Vanguard, but will be resubscribing here soon to SOE's Station Pass. I will be playing SWG and EQ2. I was wandering if Vanguard will be on the Station Pass also. I seen something about it a couple months ago on these forums, but I can't remember what.

---

Yup. You can get the All Access Pass and play SWG, EQII, and Vanguard for one low low monthly fee =P

...seriously, I should be on the payroll.

Despite my concerns as to the authenticity and validity of the MMORPG.com hype meters, Vanguard has returned to the top 7 again. Whether it's due to announcements about other games, new infoz about Vanguard, resurgence of fanboism, or a combination of all three isn't exactly clear.

Either way, I hope the hype isn't....well... undeserved.

---

Originally posted by baphamet

---

Originally posted by PeaCee
Maybe a littel side subject but still and interesting thing to think about.There are many similarties bewteen d&l, vanguard and darkfall. You can argue that lying is necesary in modern marketing, d&l took it to a new high though and the 2 other games will do the same imo.   Overhype is partialy the players fault,who belive in nonesens, but its steared by the developers/community managers. They promise features which were never to be implemented, they promise things as exotic as snowboarding yet they cant make the core game mechanics fun, or in fact playable.    Overhype is treated like religion by some. Darkfall and Vanguard are too extremely difrent games, yet their communties are almost the same. The Vision (tm) of both which evolved in the players colective minds is treated like a dogma and anyone suggesting changes(be it a player or a developer) is treated like a heretic, after recognising one an auto da fe follows. Interestingly the vision of the game has, in most cases, littel to do with the actual product the game company is offering.   One may ask why do they belive in obvious lies? Why do they belive in overhype? Beacuse its used by the community managers as a means to secure sales even of a crap game(d&l), they dont sell the actual game, but instead they sale the imagine of the game they invoked into the players minds. They make gullible players belive they are right and that if they are patient enough or devoted if you will, they will be rewarded.You can argue that lying is a necesary mechanic in modern marketing beacuse in most cases companies deliver subpar products, thus to make it more applinig they lie, they overhype. They will continue to do so, as long as people will be content with shoddy products being shoved down their throats.

---

please, by all means show me a link to these alleged "lies" that sigil has made about vanguard. until then i think that is a bunch of BS regarding your comparison to Dnl and DF.

i do agree that some members of the community try and over hype vanguard but if you read alot of the posts by Dev's they do try and manage this as much as they can.

---

---

Originally posted by Morneblade

Already read it, and while they may have lessened some of the super-extreme tedium in some cases, it's still a very hardcore game. When was the last time you LOST a corpse in EQ, outside of a bug? You can do that in Vangard. When it doesnt take a year to max a character playing casually, travel is relatively easy, combat doesnt take minutes and downtime longer, the game isnt only about the best "l00t", the endgame isn't all about raiding as it has been done, come talk to me aobut being casual freindly. At it's core, this is a hardcore game, period. Not because it's difficult, just that everything takes tons of time to do. Sigil really needs to just embrace that and run with it. Hell, they could market around it.

"Are you Hardcore enough?"

Heck, throw in permadeath!

At it's core, that is what it is. They would have to re-write everything and in doing so they would loose all of their loyal fans to make it casual-friendly. They just need to let another game company do that, and focus on the Vision. They wont keep casual players because everything in the game is a timesinkor will have to be bought on ebay, and by trying to lessen some things they are going to make the fanbois irate.

---

=/  Could you show me some proof that this is how the game is? Cause I've read ALOT of the information and I just don't see it.

For all you know, this game could have all of these "hardcore" mechanics and still be casual friendly, especially when they are pitching the game as an enduring adventure and putting emphasis on discovery and exploration (as actual game elements, and not as an advertising campaign). They may just have designed the game well enough that it enforces playing the game in this style and casuals won't notice or care that they've taken so long to reach max level. Everything I've stated here are obviously wild guesses...but hey, I'm not going to rule it out when I havne't played the darned thing.

Though, I will say, if the game doesn't sound fun to you...I support your choice to not play it.  Cause really, we all just play to have fun.

---

Originally posted by Morneblade

I really havent seen anything that is going to make things more fun for the casual or even core player. Yes, some things have been made less tedious, but I really havent seen much fun stuff. It's still all about loot. Not only that You better horde it, for that 2nd, 3rd and 4th sets of armor for the dreded corpse run. That is going to open up the 2ndary markets like nobodies business and those are not casual or core freindly at all. I havent seen much on combat is going to work, if it's going to be tedious 3 minute fights with long amounts of downtime ala EQ. Neither is for the core or casual player. It's tedium, artificial time sinks. Travel is going to be very tedious. High end content=Raiding; only for the hardcore. Sigil just needs to call a spade a spade and go after the hardcore group that really wants this game.

---

Well, if you read the OP, you'll see that the penalties/rewards will scale depending on what you're doing, and if we all understand it right, Soloing will be similarly as rewarding as raiding.

There's what I don't understand about your post though, you say "all about the loot" but you don't suggest any replacements for the reward system. What type of rewards do you want in an MMO? Most MMOs to date, rewards involve making your character better by either leveling up or raising your "stats" by achieving some goal (i.e. Loot by Quest or Mob Drop). Though, I would say...there seem to be other methods of reward here, including Player Housing...but it may just be me.

Also, if you read there section of "Issues in Previous MMOGs" on their official forums, they talk at length about the pitfalls of games like EQ. They don't believe there should be unnecissary tedium such as standing around waiting for a boat or resting...they think those are times whent he player should be doing something or interacting with the game (Note: There is still some downtime, but nothing like EQ)

Max Level Content = 80% for groups of 1-6

---

Originally posted by Porfat

What MMORPG has been successful for a decade?   With new games coming out all the time a 5 year run like EQ will get harder and harder.  WoW has been going on strong for almost 2 years now.  I can't predict the future but even if WoW subscriptions decline to almost zero in the next year.  It would still be a success.

Never said it wasn't a success. WoW, unfortunately for most, has a very small lifespan for players at this point. You can see everything there is to see and do everything there s to do in about a year. What determines how long people play after that is how long they can stand hanging on from patch to patch and how much time they're willing to invest in alts.

I've always said I'd be very interested in seeing the rate at which new accounts are created and the rate at which accounts become deactive/cancelled and the rate of change.

As for selling a lot of boxes its first week.  Yes it did.  But that doesn't explain why so many are still playing.

It's a good game for alot of people, I'll just say that =) 

EQ2 sold quite a few boxes it's first couple of weeks.   And then alot of people quit.   I understand the game is doing better now.   

EQII had a few other issues to deal with. The fact that it's a sequel MMO (just look at AC2, had the same problem), the added competition of WoW, and the fact that EQII was an insuperior product. But, as I said... So long as you have a smooth launch, you sell alot of boxes, and your game isn't complete ass you'll do fine....I'd consider EQII a success...especially over games like The Matrix Online or DDO.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is people don't play a game for years or even months without the game experience being rewarding to them.

This is true...but, once the game stops being rewarding, MMO players often continue to play their drug of choice for months or years longer than they should, solely on nostalgia, community, and habit.

While new games shouldn't try to be a knockoff of WoW (That is a recipe for failure)  They should take note of it's success and don't be dismissive.     Actually I've haven't found any game company that is dismissive of WoW  just players.  

You speak the truth.  

---

I suggest reading the newly released information about Vanguard Death Penalties.

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/86997

It's not as hardcore as everyone thought it was.