Vanguard: Saga of Heroes Forum » General Discussion » After one week of playing Vanguard....

The folks at Sony hopefully will wake up and see they have a gold mine here in Vanguard if they market it and come out with a new and good expansion. I know they have said they are not but times change and i do not know of anyone who works for Sony that turns down there paycheck.

Nice try at viral marketing.  Aside from the still present and varied bugs, the game is too old school and doesn't even do that good of a job at it either.  This is a niche of a niche game, get used to the really small number of subscribers, because that's the best this game will ever do.

---

Originally posted by Vrazule
Nice try at viral marketing.  Aside from the still present and varied bugs, the game is too old school and doesn't even do that good of a job at it either.  This is a niche of a niche game, get used to the really small number of subscribers, because that's the best this game will ever do.

---

I'll probably regret it, but I'm curious. What was the purpose of writing your response? What result are you wanting from it?

Originally posted by Mardy

<<snip>>

Since SOE is running a business, they have to cut the team members, or distribute them to other games.  Blaming SOE for why Vanguard never reached potential is getting old.  I played VG hardcore for 1 full year, saw the dev team go from 100 people to less than 10.  I watched how the game progressed, and while they made improvements, they just didn't do it fast enough even back when they had 100 people on the dev team.  The game is the way it is today not because of SOE this or SOE that, it is because Sigil failed to deliver, and they lied on too many occasions about what features were to be in the game, what they had planned, what their visions were, etc...  

 

Vanguard was never to reach its potential since the failed launch, only people who can't see that are those still in love with the game and don't want to see the game end.    <<snip>>

Vanguard got a second chance when soe bought the assets of sigil.  The game was only 5 months old and most games can stabalize a decent population within the first year if they make enough improvements within 6 months.  The problem is that from minute number one soe took actions that ensured that game would have no chance at recovery.  Removing the best team members, slashing the dev team so deep, tyring to lure players away to EQ2, removing some of the unique features, etc.  It is exactly what a lot of people were predicting would happen the moment sigil partnered with soe. 

Did soe really "save" vanguard?  Soe saved vanguard like someone pulls a drowing victom out of the water, breaks an arm or two, pushed him back into the deep end and then walks away. 

Just to clarify, I am not someone who is afraid to see the game end, but I don't think is serves any purpose for that to happen now.  I'm of the opinion that vanguard should have died and never seen a release and a second company should have never bought it only to let it slowly die to neglect.  Vanguards failures just might scare companies away from making games with many of the games etter features and there are a lot of them.

Originally posted by Daffid011

Vanguard got a second chance when soe bought the assets of sigil.  The game was only 5 months old and most games can stabalize a decent population within the first year if they make enough improvements within 6 months.  The problem is that from minute number one soe took actions that ensured that game would have no chance at recovery.  Removing the best team members, slashing the dev team so deep, tyring to lure players away to EQ2, removing some of the unique features, etc.  It is exactly what a lot of people were predicting would happen the moment sigil partnered with soe. 

 

Ok you admit the game was 5 months old when it got bought out, and that most games could stabalize if given enough improvements within 6 months.  SOE didn't axe employees until rough 6-7 months in.  Fact is they were *not* making improvements fast enough, it's why so many people left because the game was too buggy and most people even with latest hardware could not run the game well.  This isn't SOE's doing, people were leaving the game long before SOE started firing people.

You are giving Sigil too much credit by saying how SOE fired their best team members.  How do you know who was the best?  Vanguard did release under such "best members" didn't it?  So maybe the best of the best couldn't pull it off, that's why they got let go.  The best of the best gave us the Vanguard we saw from launch for 6 months after.  No they were not getting the job done, VG didn't get their engine stabalized and many essential bugs fixed until 1 year in.

I'll agree with one dev member that I knew was good.  Steve "Aruspex", he was the head of diplomacy and he was working hard to improve diplomacy, making diplo one of the few unique experiences in Vanguard.  When he got let go in October 2007 (10 months into game's release), it was a sad day, and it was a day people knew diplo was going nowhere.

If you want to know what went wrong, besides mismanaging $30mil budget, is that Sigil didn't hire enough good programmers, and they didn't have QA.  They admitted after it all fell apart that they were lacking coders.  You know how big crafting and diplomacy spheres are in Vanguard, they didn't even have a dedicated programmer to fix and implement new additions to these 2 big huge aspects of the game.  So everytime when they got huge list of bugs to fix, and there were thousands in the crafting and diplomacy spheres, they had to wait in line for coders to free up from fixing the rest of the game, including engine issues, bugs to adventuring aspect of the game, and add in new features.

And yes they also admitted they had 1 person testing the game during development.  How can you make a game and not have enough testers?  Anyways, all these are issues inside Sigil long before the game got launched.  It has nothing to do with SOE.  Yes SOE did save the game, because it would have been shutdown 5-6 months into release, and become one of the fastest games to get shutdown with a $30mil budget.

It IS a brilliant game, and I would say its one of the best on the market.

But the replies in this thread highlight peoples ignorance, and why it will never reach the recognition it deserves! - its population is just too small and there is no pvp (ok there is a pvp server but this has even less people playing on it)

But yea, unfortunatly SOE have all but buried it, it needed a 're-release' but even at SOE's fanfest they done even mention it, they are still glued to Everquest like its still the most popular mmo or something.

I weep at Vangaurds fate.

Originally posted by Mardy 

Ok you admit the game was 5 months old when it got bought out, and that most games could stabalize if given enough improvements within 6 months.  SOE didn't axe employees until rough 6-7 months in.  Fact is they were *not* making improvements fast enough, it's why so many people left because the game was too buggy and most people even with latest hardware could not run the game well.  This isn't SOE's doing, people were leaving the game long before SOE started firing people.

 

You are giving Sigil too much credit by saying how SOE fired their best team members.  How do you know who was the best?  Vanguard did release under such "best members" didn't it?  So maybe the best of the best couldn't pull it off, that's why they got let go.  The best of the best gave us the Vanguard we saw from launch for 6 months after.  No they were not getting the job done, VG didn't get their engine stabalized and many essential bugs fixed until 1 year in.

 

I think you are partly mistaken about some events that happened and misreading what I said.

SOE only rehired about half of the sigil team when they purchased sigils assests.  They didn't "fire" anyone when they bought the game.  They did immediately move the most experienced team members, including jeff butler and several other devs, to another mmo project within soe. 

www.playfuls.com/news_10424_SOE_Acquires_Sigil_Starts_New_MMO_Prototype.html

And finally, WarCry has word that Sigil's other co-founder, Jeff Butler, together with a team of five developers is moving to SOE's San Diego office to prototype a potential new MMO project. Note the italics!

I'm not giving to much credit to sigil at all.  It is obvious they dropped the ball numberous times.  However I don't think soes actions should be classified as "saving" the game, because there are just to many actions they took that ensured the game would never rebound starting with their very first action of removing the core members. 

At the end of all Sigils mistakes, SOE was handed a game with a better foundation than anything they had put out in years and they chose squander it.   Once Vanguard wasn't a real threat to the EQ/EQ2 subscriber base, what incentive was there to revive it? 

Originally posted by Mardy

Originally posted by Daffid011

Vanguard got a second chance when soe bought the assets of sigil.  The game was only 5 months old and most games can stabalize a decent population within the first year if they make enough improvements within 6 months.  The problem is that from minute number one soe took actions that ensured that game would have no chance at recovery.  Removing the best team members, slashing the dev team so deep, tyring to lure players away to EQ2, removing some of the unique features, etc.  It is exactly what a lot of people were predicting would happen the moment sigil partnered with soe. 

 

Ok you admit the game was 5 months old when it got bought out, and that most games could stabalize if given enough improvements within 6 months.  SOE didn't axe employees until rough 6-7 months in.  Fact is they were *not* making improvements fast enough, it's why so many people left because the game was too buggy and most people even with latest hardware could not run the game well.  This isn't SOE's doing, people were leaving the game long before SOE started firing people.

 

You are giving Sigil too much credit by saying how SOE fired their best team members.  How do you know who was the best?  Vanguard did release under such "best members" didn't it?  

**********************

Anyways, all these are issues inside Sigil long before the game got launched.  It has nothing to do with SOE.  Yes SOE did save the game, because it would have been shutdown 5-6 months into release, and become one of the fastest games to get shutdown with a $30mil budget.

Well I haven't seen one of these discussions for a bit.

I think anyone who was in Vanguard beta (when Microsoft was running it or even later...) or was at launch (or both) has a pretty good clue why the game didn't stabalize in this period of months after launch.

Just random things I think of when I type that...

Remember logging out.. and logging back in.. in the middle of the ocean or on an island?  Even tho you had never been near the ocean or the island.

Falling through a ship and dying to over 10,000 (or was it 100,000) falling damage because I landed on water.

Hand in a quest and go linkdead (as going LD was common) then you log back in and had gained 20 levels... (this was a bug that showed up with turning in at least certain quests and going LD)... Its not about if you did it on purpose.  Its about suddenly from something beyond your control you can't group with your friends...

Petition this.. and you get a response that they aren't going to do anything about it... but thanks for letting them know.  (I don't think I ever got 20 levels in an MMO before due to a bug and was told by their customer service they wouldn't revert me.. let alone actually ever have it happen like that before.. ever).

I remember boars that had spears on their feet.. because the "templates" were never removed... (some may not understand what this means.. don't wanna use a wall of text to explain it).

just random things...

I remember things said in beta that I kept for a long time as logs... and when they fired people.. there were two people kept.. that had no business EVER having been team members to begin with.  So I'm not sure how it worked on who they decided to keep...  There were things said on the Sigil beta boards by dev members that make any "outrage" post by a SWG team member look tame and highly intellegent and well thought out. etc etc

Where did the $30 million figure come from?  Far as I knew when Microsoft flushed this game they had spent more than that (of microsofts money) for a demo... which was more or less why MS flushed it... not because there wasn't a beta running.. but because the demo they were being shown.. wasn't the game in beta.

Far as I knew the figure at that point was in the $58 to $60 Million range....  and that was before SOE agreed to publish the game (let alone bought it out).

I liked a lot of things in Vanguard tho to be honest... its too bad the game wasn't ever made into what it could have been.

I don't enjoy talking about the above.. because I think there was a lot of time and talent on this game and I think it obviously couuld have been one of the best MMO's... so its more of a tragedy that it ended up the way it did...

I was in the VERY EARLY stages of the beta in 2004 or 5 I think.  The game was a lot different then than it is now.

After saying that, the difference between launch and now is wonderfull.  The game is a lot more stable.  THe hitching and lagg spikes everyone is referring too is when there are numerous people in the area.  There are a lot of different looks that a character can have and they need to download it to the clients from the main server.  While still not gone it is way more manageable than it used to be.

Yes, this should not be so bad I agree.  It comes down to the game engine they used and the amount of customization they have, and the LOS and hidden polygon counts that are in there as well.  <-- Too much info???

The game is still fun to play and combat has some subtlties to it that make it even deeper ( weaknesses and exploits ).  It is not something you can buy a lvl 50 character and play.  There is too steep of a learning curve on all of the different abilities and how and when they should be used.  This is something you figure out when coming up in levels.  Something that seems to be lost in many MMO's lately.

LAGG spikes will make your day horrible and some times there is no lagg at all.  Some times in a particular location I just have to leave because it is actually getting me killed.

Another thing I like about combat.  There is no easy.  Tanking is not easy.  Healing is not easy.  DPS is not easy.  Aggro management in this game is an art form.  Where it shines is when you can get a good group together who know their character and know the weaknesses and exploits for their class. 

THAT is when the game looks easy.

Antarius, your sig is cracking me up.

After reading some of the horror stories on VG's launch and early months, I'm glad I never tried it then. The game in its current form is stable enough for me to enjoy it a lot. Sure there are still some issues that are annoying, but nothing that's a game killer. At least so far.

I'm hoping they continue to fix the annoying bugs. I don't expect the game to ever rise out of the ashes as a fiery phoenix and conquer the MMO market though.

Originally posted by Daffid011

I'm not giving to much credit to sigil at all.  It is obvious they dropped the ball numberous times.  However I don't think soes actions should be classified as "saving" the game, because there are just to many actions they took that ensured the game would never rebound starting with their very first action of removing the core members. 

At the end of all Sigils mistakes, SOE was handed a game with a better foundation than anything they had put out in years and they chose squander it.   Once Vanguard wasn't a real threat to the EQ/EQ2 subscriber base, what incentive was there to revive it? 

To say Jeff Butler was one of the most experienced is to say Brad McQuaid was one of the most experienced.  The fact is they were the suits, they were responsible for mismanaging $30mil budget.  They didn't hire the right people, didn't hire enough coders, they hired many unqualified cousin of someone's brother (they admitted this), and they were responsible for releasing the game unfinished and broken.

So to say SOE was handed a quality game with a better foundation than anything they had, that's quite laughable.  I was one of the die hard VG fans that used the "foundation" argument to support Vanguard before.  But after a year, I realized the game was seriously broken, from engine to gameplay to content.   It actually would be easier for SOE to fix a game that they've developed, rather than to try to fix a game that other people did a poor job piecing together.

Ever try to figure out Vanguard's lore?  It's chopped up, not connected, and ingame it felt like there were 5 departments that were working on separate projects.  And during a release rush they put together everything they've done so far to that point, and called it a game.  That's what VG felt like the first year.  That's not good foundation, a broken badly hacked Unreal 2.0 engine is not a good foundation.  The game released with no complex game developer utility for them to create new content was not a good foundation.  It took them a year to get raiding coded in, to get developer utility coded in so game developers could actually create new content properly.  That's not good foundation.

Anyways, just my opinion.

Originally posted by Nizur

 

---

Originally posted by Vrazule
Nice try at viral marketing.  Aside from the still present and varied bugs, the game is too old school and doesn't even do that good of a job at it either.  This is a niche of a niche game, get used to the really small number of subscribers, because that's the best this game will ever do.

---

 

I'll probably regret it, but I'm curious. What was the purpose of writing your response? What result are you wanting from it?

You're kidding right?  There is no more purpose to my post than that of the OP.  He states  that everything about the game is fabulous and everyone should be lining up to play.  I'm pointing out that it's not and that one of the reasons why it lacks so much popularity is due to it being too old school rather than because of persistent bugs.  There are plenty of games that are at least moderately popular that are buggy, but people continue to play because the game itself is really appealing.  Not so much for Vanguard, as the proof is in the pudding.  If the game really was that appealing, then bugs alone wouldn't keep people from coming back eventually after they'd been fixed.  Yet this game, after almost 3 years, is still struggling to survive.  You do the math.

By the way, this is a discussion board, what do you think are the motives of anyone posting here?  Did it occur to you that maybe I just wanted to express my opinion, just like everyone else.  Or are you just like all of the other rabid fans of Vanguard trying to downplay any criticisms or dissenting views?

That's the beauty of un-contested viral marketing.  They point out all of these wonderful things about the game and none of it's faults that can and often do ruin the player's gaming experience.  It really does help to see people posting differing views on the topic.  It helps to paint a larger picture for those who might have a vested interest.

Originally posted by Mardy 

 

To say Jeff Butler was one of the most experienced is to say Brad McQuaid was one of the most experienced.  The fact is they were the suits, they were responsible for mismanaging $30mil budget.  They didn't hire the right people, didn't hire enough coders, they hired many unqualified cousin of someone's brother (they admitted this), and they were responsible for releasing the game unfinished and broken.

So to say SOE was handed a quality game with a better foundation than anything they had, that's quite laughable.  I was one of the die hard VG fans that used the "foundation" argument to support Vanguard before.  But after a year, I realized the game was seriously broken, from engine to gameplay to content.   It actually would be easier for SOE to fix a game that they've developed, rather than to try to fix a game that other people did a poor job piecing together.

Ever try to figure out Vanguard's lore?  It's chopped up, not connected, and ingame it felt like there were 5 departments that were working on separate projects.  And during a release rush they put together everything they've done so far to that point, and called it a game.  That's what VG felt like the first year.  That's not good foundation, a broken badly hacked Unreal 2.0 engine is not a good foundation.  The game released with no complex game developer utility for them to create new content was not a good foundation.  It took them a year to get raiding coded in, to get developer utility coded in so game developers could actually create new content properly.  That's not good foundation.

Anyways, just my opinion.

So Brad Mcquaid and Jeff Butler do not have the business savy to run a business and manage a project on their own.  I don't think that is being disputed and yes that is the root of sigils problems.  However as game designers they are very experienced.  So much so that SOE immediately gave Jeff Butler his own team and his own project.  They didn't hire him to run the business, they gave him his own team to design games.  Would you rather promote some to manage your mmo from the SWG team or have one of the original creaters of everquest?  Honestly soe has lost a lot of key figures to other companies like bioware, studio 38, etc. 

Also note I never said vanguard was a quality game handed to soe.  It was however a better foundation, not in coding or performance (a true nightmare), but it terms of gameplay and design philosophy.  Just look at how far soe missed the mark with EQ2 and how much they had to retool that game over the first few years.  Once you look past the technical issues of vanguard it is a solid game design almost right out of the box.  It just wasn't finished in many regards.  Real housing, functional ships, large open seemless world, diverse classes, deep crafting, a new system for non-combat advancement with npcs (diplomacy), many many huge dungeons, etc, etc.  Design wise it was much better than anything soe has done in a long time despite the team being filled with amatuers and relatives. 

Hmm people still play Vanguard Last I checked matter of fact... Even though SOE seems to have almost abandoned it. Its numbers and population is actually on an upswing... The devs that are still working on the game are doing an amazing job if you ask me.

The 2 biggest problems I see with Vanguard now is lack of an AA system (which is soon to be implemented so that will be fixed) The other thing is Art Direction. While so much of the world is so amazing looking. The Archetecture and many of the character and gear models need a total revamp. Its like a 50/50 world Half the time your amazed at the backdrops and the way the world looks then the other half you like Mehh looks like poo.

Personally though even with its faults I love the game. Even though I am not currently playing I still keep tabs on it. I stopped back in January to take a break and try out other things. Currently playing WAR and enjoying that.

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by eddieg50

 I have an e8500 and an ati 4870 and the game runs poorly by that I mean hitching-you will be running one way and all of a sudden everything freezes and then you are running the other way LOL,  its a good game but still with some major performance issues, I guess if you played diplomacy all day and did not move much it would not be so bad but dont go near a city.

 

Hmm, could it be a ATI issue? My Nvidia card runs it fine.... Could be that it is not optimized for ATI. Of course my GFX card runs somewhat faster than yours (source: Toms hardware) but it shouldn't be enough to make that difference.

Maybe your computer is clogged up with programs in the background?

It's just complete horse sjit that you need today's top of the line GFX card to run the game properly.

Fact is, that the game is just poorly coded. They just managed to wreck an excellent Game Engine and make it run absolutely horrible and instable.

They got a lot of credits back in January 2008 when SOE actually had put some credible tech devs on the game during the course of 2007 to fix the performance of the game.

But as it's appearent that those same devs have been axed from the Vanguard team and replaced by interns, the last 2 updates have pretty much killed all the hard work the tech devs did back in late 2007!

The result today is that the game ran a lot better back in january 2008 on my GeForce 8600 GTS 256MB on a single core AMD CPU, 2GB RAM... then today on my AMD Dual Core (or my gf's AMD Tripple Core) with GeForce 9800 GTS/X 512MB and 4GB of RAM!

Not to mention that after a couple years, the game is still full of graphical glitches and armor / clothing klipping issues!

It's a shame tho. As the gameplay is pretty neat.

Just that SOE never has given and will never give it a proper chance! Instead they just try to bleed every last cent out of your pockets together with the addition of Live Gamer!

Pretty much the reason why me and my gf gave up on the game and moved on!

-----------------------

And you know what's even more funny? That The Smed's sick tactics are now finally shimmering through and how he manages to stay on the CEO position all these years.

It's a very shady tactic to boost subscription numbers on your quarterly financial reports, by reactivating subs for a month every quartly period.

It took me a while to figure this out, but I always wondered why SOE was so desperate to reactivate my Vanguard sub every couple months the last year or so. Just like he does it with Everquest 2 now and then, when the game is in a sub dip.

I now know why.

Originally posted by Guillermo197

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by eddieg50

 I have an e8500 and an ati 4870 and the game runs poorly by that I mean hitching-you will be running one way and all of a sudden everything freezes and then you are running the other way LOL,  its a good game but still with some major performance issues, I guess if you played diplomacy all day and did not move much it would not be so bad but dont go near a city.

 

Hmm, could it be a ATI issue? My Nvidia card runs it fine.... Could be that it is not optimized for ATI. Of course my GFX card runs somewhat faster than yours (source: Toms hardware) but it shouldn't be enough to make that difference.

Maybe your computer is clogged up with programs in the background?

 

It's just complete horse sjit that you need today's top of the line GFX card to run the game properly.

Fact is, that the game is just poorly coded. They just managed to wreck an excellent Game Engine and make it run absolutely horrible and instable.

They got a lot of credits back in January 2008 when SOE actually had put some credible tech devs on the game during the course of 2007 to fix the performance of the game.

But as it's appearent that those same devs have been axed from the Vanguard team and replaced by interns, the last 2 updates have pretty much killed all the hard work the tech devs did back in late 2007!

The result today is that the game ran a lot better back in january 2008 on my GeForce 8600 GTS 256MB on a single core AMD CPU, 2GB RAM... then today on my AMD Dual Core (or my gf's AMD Tripple Core) with GeForce 9800 GTS/X 512MB and 4GB of RAM!

Not to mention that after a couple years, the game is still full of graphical glitches and armor / clothing klipping issues!

It's a shame tho. As the gameplay is pretty neat.

Just that SOE never has given and will never give it a proper chance! Instead they just try to bleed every last cent out of your pockets together with the addition of Live Gamer!

Pretty much the reason why me and my gf gave up on the game and moved on!

-----------------------

And you know what's even more funny? That The Smed's sick tactics are now finally shimmering through and how he manages to stay on the CEO position all these years.

It's a very shady tactic to boost subscription numbers on your quarterly financial reports, by reactivating subs for a month every quartly period.

It took me a while to figure this out, but I always wondered why SOE was so desperate to reactivate my Vanguard sub every couple months the last year or so. Just like he does it with Everquest 2 now and then, when the game is in a sub dip.

I now know why.

Great you moved on,so why are you here in the VG forums? oh,wait you are a troll then,because what other reason would you be here if you have moved on.

Originally posted by Crackerrjack

Great you moved on,so why are you here in the VG forums? oh,wait you are a troll then,because what other reason would you be here if you have moved on.

As far as I know these are still discussion forums. So who is the troll huh? Take a look in the mirror.

At least I took the time to write down constructive feedback. That is more then what I can say about you.

Cheers

I don't want to get into who is trolling whom :)  But it is absolutely, positively false that you need a top of the line GFX card to run Vanguard.  Sure, if you want to run it in 2560x1600 with everything on max like me, yes... a 280gtx will do the trick.  But running they game in more normal resolutions you'll do just fine with a series 8 card (sorry, don't know the ATI heirarchy).

Vanguard is more likely find a bottleneck with a single core processor as the game is CPU intensive.  I upgraded 2 years ago from a single core 3.0hgz to a dual core and the performance boost was at least double. 

Originally posted by boojiboy

I don't want to get into who is trolling whom :)  But it is absolutely, positively false that you need a top of the line GFX card to run Vanguard.  Sure, if you want to run it in 2560x1600 with everything on max like me, yes... a 280gtx will do the trick.  But running they game in more normal resolutions you'll do just fine with a series 8 card (sorry, don't know the ATI heirarchy).

Vanguard is more likely find a bottleneck with a single core processor as the game is CPU intensive.  I upgraded 2 years ago from a single core 3.0hgz to a dual core and the performance boost was at least double. 

I would not be so quick to make such absolute statements about vanguards performance.  Vanguard has always been a game that is very fickle about the system it is being run on.  Two similar machines can often run the game with drastically different results.  That is why some people say the game runs great all the way down to those who have crippling problems. 

The games performance is just as dependant on luck as it is with the hardware powering your rig. 

Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by boojiboy

I don't want to get into who is trolling whom :)  But it is absolutely, positively false that you need a top of the line GFX card to run Vanguard.  Sure, if you want to run it in 2560x1600 with everything on max like me, yes... a 280gtx will do the trick.  But running they game in more normal resolutions you'll do just fine with a series 8 card (sorry, don't know the ATI heirarchy).

Vanguard is more likely find a bottleneck with a single core processor as the game is CPU intensive.  I upgraded 2 years ago from a single core 3.0hgz to a dual core and the performance boost was at least double. 

I would not be so quick to make such absolute statements about vanguards performance.  Vanguard has always been a game that is very fickle about the system it is being run on.  Two similar machines can often run the game with drastically different results.  That is why some people say the game runs great all the way down to those who have crippling problems. 

The games performance is just as dependant on luck as it is with the hardware powering your rig. 

boojiboy loves to make absolute statements about VG. Ive pointed this out to him on several occasions. I think most people are on to him by now.

All but about 20 of his 1209 post are in the Vanguard forum defending or praising the game. That should tell you something.

in this post www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/1236091#1236091  he claimed to run the game on the highest settings in 1600X1200 at 50fps with a 3.6 Ghz Pentium Geforce 8800 GTX 2 gigs of Ram just after release. which contradicts his last post  in this thread  /shrug
 

Originally posted by Bodeus

Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by boojiboy

I don't want to get into who is trolling whom :)  But it is absolutely, positively false that you need a top of the line GFX card to run Vanguard.  Sure, if you want to run it in 2560x1600 with everything on max like me, yes... a 280gtx will do the trick.  But running they game in more normal resolutions you'll do just fine with a series 8 card (sorry, don't know the ATI heirarchy).

Vanguard is more likely find a bottleneck with a single core processor as the game is CPU intensive.  I upgraded 2 years ago from a single core 3.0hgz to a dual core and the performance boost was at least double. 

I would not be so quick to make such absolute statements about vanguards performance.  Vanguard has always been a game that is very fickle about the system it is being run on.  Two similar machines can often run the game with drastically different results.  That is why some people say the game runs great all the way down to those who have crippling problems. 

The games performance is just as dependant on luck as it is with the hardware powering your rig. 

boojiboy loves to make absolute statements about VG. Ive pointed this out to him on several occasions. I think most people are on to him by now.

All but about 20 of his 1209 post are in the Vanguard forum defending or praising the game. That should tell you something.

in this post www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/1236091#1236091  he claimed to run the game on the highest settings in 1600X1200 at 50fps with a 3.6 Ghz Pentium Geforce 8800 GTX 2 gigs of Ram just after release. which contradicts his last post  in this thread  /shrug
 

 

Your flippant statement makes it clear you don't realize the difference in running this game 2560x1600 windowed mode versus 1600x1200 non-windowed.  That is a huge difference in GPU processing power as anyone that knows anything about GPUs would tell you.  I got a 30-inch Gateway monitor and run it in native.  Actually, I think the system stress in running windowed is more on the CPU than it is on the GPU.

I've also posted (gee funny, you didn't include that post) that when playing in 2560x1600 windowed with everything maxed that a full blown raid fight will drop my fps down into the teens and being the eye-candy freak that i am, I just can't bring myself to turn off anything.  What the new 280gtx delivered was not top end fps increase any higher than 60-70, but greatly improved performance in these raid fights to 30fps.  Very GPU intensive.

Further to the point, as I've also posted (weird, you didn't include that either), my son's computer has a grand total of $270 worth of Motherboard, CPU and Ram (along with my demoted 8800gtx from my PC) and runs Vanguard in 1600x1200 at 70fps. 

So the fact remains, it does not take enormous amounts of power to run this game, especially if you are running it at resolutions more 'reasonable' than 2560x1600 windowed.  There are many, many posts on this from people that seemed surprised at the performance they get because others are so hell-bent on trying to convince them that it takes a super-computer or something.

Here is a 1600x1200 screenshot from pre-updated computer:

Here is a 2560x1600 screenshot post-monitor and GPU upgrade:

Even after upgrades, the only thing newer than 2-years old in my PC is the 280gtx.  If you don't think the difference in GPU power needed between 2560x1600 windowed and 1600x1200 non-windowed is significant, I challenge you to test it for yourself on ANY game.  I've seen the same thing with CoD: World at War, Crysis, Company of Heroes and any game that allows those resolutions.

---

Originally posted by Vrazule

---

Originally posted by Nizur

---

Originally posted by Vrazule
Nice try at viral marketing.  Aside from the still present and varied bugs, the game is too old school and doesn't even do that good of a job at it either.  This is a niche of a niche game, get used to the really small number of subscribers, because that's the best this game will ever do.

---

 
I'll probably regret it, but I'm curious. What was the purpose of writing your response? What result are you wanting from it?

---

 
You're kidding right?  There is no more purpose to my post than that of the OP.  He states  that everything about the game is fabulous and everyone should be lining up to play.  I'm pointing out that it's not and that one of the reasons why it lacks so much popularity is due to it being too old school rather than because of persistent bugs.  There are plenty of games that are at least moderately popular that are buggy, but people continue to play because the game itself is really appealing.  Not so much for Vanguard, as the proof is in the pudding.  If the game really was that appealing, then bugs alone wouldn't keep people from coming back eventually after they'd been fixed.  Yet this game, after almost 3 years, is still struggling to survive.  You do the math.

---

No, I'm not kidding. You post your opinion and then tell everyone that's just how it is and to get used to it, as if you expected everyone to agree with or at least submit to your superior logic. Or that it would somehow bring the discussion to a halt because of the finality of the statement.

Did you even read the OP's post? He's not all roses and flower petals on VG. He's stating that he's enjoying VG, DESPITE it being resource intensive and having a small population. And in his opinion it's the best MMO on the market besides WoW.

You contradict one sentence with the very next one. "There are plenty of games that are at least moderately popular that are buggy, but people continue to play because the game itself is really appealing. Not so much for Vanguard, as the proof is in the pudding." The first sentence is a true statement, the second one is just your opinion trying to pass as a fact. You don't like VG. Great! You've shared it. Move on! Don't try to paint your dislike of the game as the final word on it. The game IS appealing to people, just not you. No it's not appealing to millions of people, but most MMOs out aren't either.

---

Originally posted by Vrazule
By the way, this is a discussion board, what do you think are the motives of anyone posting here?  Did it occur to you that maybe I just wanted to express my opinion, just like everyone else.  Or are you just like all of the other rabid fans of Vanguard trying to downplay any criticisms or dissenting views?

That's the beauty of un-contested viral marketing.  They point out all of these wonderful things about the game and none of it's faults that can and often do ruin the player's gaming experience.  It really does help to see people posting differing views on the topic.  It helps to paint a larger picture for those who might have a vested interest.

---

I have no problems with others sharing their opinions (pro or con) as long as they back it up, and don't try to paint their opinion as the final word. I'm certainly not a rabid fan of VG, but I do enjoy playing the game. My main issue is with extremes. Extremes on either end don't help the game or potential players. Post pros and cons, share your opinion and let the players decide.

Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by boojiboy

I don't want to get into who is trolling whom :)  But it is absolutely, positively false that you need a top of the line GFX card to run Vanguard.  Sure, if you want to run it in 2560x1600 with everything on max like me, yes... a 280gtx will do the trick.  But running they game in more normal resolutions you'll do just fine with a series 8 card (sorry, don't know the ATI heirarchy).

Vanguard is more likely find a bottleneck with a single core processor as the game is CPU intensive.  I upgraded 2 years ago from a single core 3.0hgz to a dual core and the performance boost was at least double. 

I would not be so quick to make such absolute statements about vanguards performance.  Vanguard has always been a game that is very fickle about the system it is being run on.  Two similar machines can often run the game with drastically different results.  That is why some people say the game runs great all the way down to those who have crippling problems. 

The games performance is just as dependant on luck as it is with the hardware powering your rig. 

I don't think it's luck, but Vanguard is finicky and it's a matter of finding out what the hang-up is for those that are having problems..  I completely understand people wanting to install a game and not have to worry about hardware requirements and/or video settings. 

A cheap upgrade on memory might do it, driver updates, don't burn DVDs while playing :)  But in the end, anything 2-years or newer should run VG just fine.  If people are having issues, posting system specs and logs goes a long way.  I've seen everything from BIOS upgrades fixing crash issues to simple upgrade from a series 7 card to series 8 making all the difference.

I'm not saying Vanguard isn't particular, but if someone has a decent rig and is still having issues, there is usually a cause that can be addressed.  There are settings that you can get away with on a series 9 card that you can't with a series 8.  I use Bloom Effect and it has no impact on my fps, others with different cards will see a fps hit.  I had to turn Hardware Occulsion off with my 8800 because it would cause textures to disappear, apparently ATI cards don't do thata.

Originally posted by Antarious

 I don't enjoy talking about the above.. because I think there was a lot of time and talent on this game and I think it obviously couuld have been one of the best MMO's... so its more of a tragedy that it ended up the way it did...

Yea but comon!  those are bugs!... just because a house has pests doesnt mean the house itself isnt truly awesome.

Bugs can be fixed and they did get fixed, but people like you just cant let go and realise that mmo's do develop and they do improve.  I mean if I were to judge you as you are now comapred to what you were like when you were 4 years old shitting the bed I think you would have something to say about it!

And its also for people like you that who cling on to this idea that once bad always bad, and VG will never recover from it.

Even with all these bugs I still loved and played the game for many many months when other games with hardly any bugs saw me loggin in but a few hours.

The core of this game is awesome, it truly is but its a massive and complete world which needs players and lots of them.  Now I dont mean to blame you for this problem because its also SOE's fault for not giving it the re-launch it deserves, but your certainly not innocent.

If a group of say 20 of my friends decided to to play VG, I would drop everything, take two weeks off work and have a fantastic time of it.

Originally posted by boojiboy

Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by boojiboy

I don't want to get into who is trolling whom :)  But it is absolutely, positively false that you need a top of the line GFX card to run Vanguard.  Sure, if you want to run it in 2560x1600 with everything on max like me, yes... a 280gtx will do the trick.  But running they game in more normal resolutions you'll do just fine with a series 8 card (sorry, don't know the ATI heirarchy).

Vanguard is more likely find a bottleneck with a single core processor as the game is CPU intensive.  I upgraded 2 years ago from a single core 3.0hgz to a dual core and the performance boost was at least double. 

I would not be so quick to make such absolute statements about vanguards performance.  Vanguard has always been a game that is very fickle about the system it is being run on.  Two similar machines can often run the game with drastically different results.  That is why some people say the game runs great all the way down to those who have crippling problems. 

The games performance is just as dependant on luck as it is with the hardware powering your rig. 

 

I don't think it's luck, but Vanguard is finicky and it's a matter of finding out what the hang-up is for those that are having problems..  I completely understand people wanting to install a game and not have to worry about hardware requirements and/or video settings. 

A cheap upgrade on memory might do it, driver updates, don't burn DVDs while playing :)  But in the end, anything 2-years or newer should run VG just fine.  If people are having issues, posting system specs and logs goes a long way.  I've seen everything from BIOS upgrades fixing crash issues to simple upgrade from a series 7 card to series 8 making all the difference.

I'm not saying Vanguard isn't particular, but if someone has a decent rig and is still having issues, there is usually a cause that can be addressed.  There are settings that you can get away with on a series 9 card that you can't with a series 8.  I use Bloom Effect and it has no impact on my fps, others with different cards will see a fps hit.  I had to turn Hardware Occulsion off with my 8800 because it would cause textures to disappear, apparently ATI cards don't do thata.

Bios upgrades, new memory/motherboard/cpu, drivers, tweeking ini files, graphic settings different for ati/nvidia, posting system specs on the forums in the hopes of help and any other issues in the circus of problems this game has all based on random dumb luck of how vanguard decides to behave on any given computer?  What game serious requires bios updates? 

You are talking about the "fact" that vanguard can run on a modest computer and that people are hell bent on making the game look bad, but at the same time you gloss over how commonplace it is for people to have issues with the game from moment one out of the box.  Most games are simply install and run with almost any problem being solved by selected the hardware appropriate setting.  High quality, balanced, performance, etc. 

Most people will not have the ability to solve the issues if vanguard decides it doesn't like any number of aspects of your computer.  Maybe luck wasn't the best choice of words.  Would random be a better term for how vanguard might perform on someones computer without going to extremes?