PDA

View Full Version : Vanguard FAQ Update


JonnyG
06-02-2004, 08:41 AM
The official Vanguard site has updated their FAQ (http://www.vanguardsaga.com/faq.php).12.1 Will there be player owned housing and how will that work?

Players will be able to build and own houses and other types of structures, as well as store items in those structures. This will include residential areas for storing goods, commercial areas in wich you can have a vendor sell your wares for you, as well as 'industrial' areas that will help crafters refine and assemble goods.

Also, in addition to owning buildings on a character level, player controlled villages and cities are expected to appear over time. More on this later.Player housing from day 1, and commercial and industrial areas. Interesting, I love the player controlled villages and cities too. Although I'd like to see how they do it before I jump fully into that.1.4.3 What makes Vanguard really different? Can you talk about exciting new features that really set the game apart?

We can go over a few, and more and more as time goes on. We do need to keep some of our truly third generation ideas under wraps for a while, both because we want to make sure they work the way we envision, and also because other MMOGs are coming out first.

1. Bring back the challenge without all of the tedium.

2. Create a truly seamless world where you can see for miles, and just about anything you can see, you can travel to.

3. Integrate a 'mult-sphere' system where your character is both an adventurer and crafter at the same time, with unique experience pools, skills, and items. You could, in theory, be a level 10 Ranger and a level 15 crafter. Likewise, you could ignore one sphere, and focus only on the other.

The following was posted elsewhere in answer to how we would make the game more challenging but also not tedious, but I think it elaborates a bit and also describes even in more general what makes this game different than the rest:

----

The game is going to be challenging.

The game is going to focus on character advancement, item acquisition, and interdependence to build community and teamwork.

If I had to compare it to another game, take original EQ, Kunark, and Velious -- that sort of challenge.

One of our big goals is bring back the challenge we feel is being abandoned in MMOGs as of late, but without a lot of the tedium. We want travel to be fun, and there to not be a lot of teleporting around. We want exploration to be key and for you feel compelled and then rewarded for exploring and traveling.

We really don't want camping, where you sit in one spot waiting for a spawn. We have plans to have our encounter system strongly encouraing moving around, 'doing' a dungeon. We want to have cool vehicles, whether they be horses that you can equip and also use for storage that help you move across land; we want you to own ships and sail the oceans, but not empty oceans -- oceans filled with content as well -- sea monsters, pirates, and lots of little islands en route to your destination.

Additionally we will have areas that are more geared for one of the categories: casual, group, and raid. The casual areas require less of a contiguous time committment and you don't need a full group. The grouping areas, well, require you to group. Think classic, old school grouping. Then the raid areas, well that's pretty obvious.

Both risk and reward will be present, however, so one shouldn't expect to see as much of a reward in a casual area vs a group area. It's something to do when you have less time, and it should be fun, but you're not going ot get the fiery scimitar of ultimate doom in a casual region.

Also, our crafting system is there and arguably just as important as the adventuring side of things. So if your buddies aren't on one evening yet you still want to play, you could go and hone your crafting skills, and then return to adventuring the next evening when the guild logs on and off you go.

The interface and character class selection is also somewhat newbie oriented if you want it to be. We don't want to beat the noob over the head with all the depth and detail of the game right off the bat. It's intimidating. So if you choose the noob path to character creation, expected to be gently led into the UI, the gameplay, etc.

Basically, we want to remove as much tedium as possible, as well as barriers to entry. But, and this is key, we strongly feel this is NOT mutually exclusive with making a darn hard and challenging game. Battles will be tough. NPC AI will be smart. Lots of group tactics will be used, with even more collaberation then you've probably seen before, and an even more visceral feel.

Dungeon crawls will be back, and those who risk the depths of these nasty areas and return alive will most likely have some pretty awesome loot.

Death will have a sting, and it's mostly classic corpse retreival with a few variations like we'll make it easier to find your corpse, yet you'll still have to fight to it. Also, corpses will never truly deterioriate as long as a certain amount of loot is on the corpse. And, the way the game is designed, you are expected and will need by a certain level to start putting together multiple sets of armor (gets into situational stuff that I can't talk a lot about now). In any case, the old 'gotta head back into the dungeon naked to my corpse' should pretty much go away, as you will have spare/alternate set(s) of equipment relatively nearby.

Anyway, tough, yes. Rewarding, yes. Challenging, yes. Tedious, hopefully no. Camping, minimized the best we can. Travel, fun and dangerous in and of itself. Needing to group and work with others to really advance optimally and get the phat lewtz, yes.I like a lot of what they say, especially the dungeon crawl part. But I still think instancing is the way to go. Because of better monster AI, destructible environments, having the environment react to the player (ie. gates close, pits open, etc.)

Moloch
06-02-2004, 02:23 PM
It's clear that Vanguard has its conceptual roots firmly in the past. From the classic high fantasy setting, to the explicit references to EQ, corpse retrieval, the emphasis on travel, and the raid being the endgame. All done, of course, with the benefits of new technology.

However, the question is how many people want to play a prettier EQ?

esion
06-02-2004, 04:05 PM
me!

Leoghan
06-02-2004, 04:13 PM
Thanks for posting this Jonny...

The key to the whole thing is if they can actually remove the tedium. For instance, if horse are easy to obtain than that removes the tedium of having to travel through areas you are not interested in.

I like that they want to remove tedium, but until I hear more I am not sure it will happen.

Midsummer
06-02-2004, 04:55 PM
One player's challenge is another player's tedium

I bet that the majority of players have other things to do than play games all day so they want something fun and quick to do when they have a free moment. From what I read nothing in Vanguard will be "quick" :)

BigJonno
06-02-2004, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Moloch
However, the question is how many people want to play a prettier EQ?

No, the question is how many people want to play a better EQ?

Leoghan
06-02-2004, 06:08 PM
I'll be honest, no matter what adjective you use I will be leary about playing a new "EQ".

But I think the devs at Vanguard trying to recapture parts of EQ and fix or eliminate others parts.

Do I think V:SoH is going to appeal to everyone? No! But I don’t think there will ever be a game that does.

Look at CoH, it has captured the minds of lots of people, but let’s be honest many of those will leave the game in a few months unless they find a way to bring everyone long term fun.

I love CoH, but I don’t think it will be the Messiah of MMOs, to be honest there never will be a MMO Messiah. There will be lots of good games (Auto Assault, Matrix Online, WoW, Tabula Rasa etc..) but none of these is going to bring all the MMOs players together. We are all going to have our favorites and that’s great. As long as there is one game out there that makes you happy and makes you want to play, we know things are going in the right direction.

*steps off soap box*

Midsummer
06-02-2004, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by BigJonno
No, the question is how many people want to play a better EQ?

me, which is why i'll be trying out EQ2 because it has solutions for all the things i didn't like about EQ. they are aiming directly at people who played EQ and got fed up with it. i don't think that is Vanguard's targetted audience.

Leoghan
06-02-2004, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Midsummer
me, which is why i'll be trying out EQ2 because it has solutions for all the things i didn't like about EQ. they are aiming directly at people who played EQ and got fed up with it. i don't think that is Vanguard's targetted audience.

In some ways I think you are right, but remember most of the Vanguard devs worked on EQ before it became a part of SOE. I think their target, is not EQ fans who are fed up with the unfixed problems, but EQ fans who want to see the basic concepts of EQ used to forge a new game.

Note that this is a subtle difference from making another EQ. This is just the impression I get from talking to some of the devs and seeing their ideas.

Moloch
06-02-2004, 07:47 PM
And as I've suggested before, SOE and Sigil will be in mortal combat for roughly the same EQ "evolved" market segment.

Leoghan
06-02-2004, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Moloch
And as I've suggested before, SOE and Sigil will be in mortal combat for roughly the same EQ "evolved" market segment.

I agree, or at least agree that this will be the case at first, but really in the end both will be successful only (or if) they realize they really have different markets in mind.

I think the whole history behind this two games and companies is going to cause the competition not so much the actual game designs.