[MUD-Dev2] [OFF-TOPIC] A rant for Vanguard

[DANIEL Harman]

I know it's hip to dislike traditional DIKU derived games, and I started 
playing Vanguard expecting very little - after all by the time I finished EQ 
I was in a guild of 100 people and the game had become a job, not 
entertainment. However, there are some things they've done well, and I think 
they deserve comment :

- Distance is meaningful. There are no teleport spells (except to stand in 
for the broken ships at the moment). So if you want to get somewhere, you 
have to see the world. You can buy a horse at level 10, about the time you 
need one as you'll have explored enough of the locations within reasonable 
running distance and be ready to move on. There are 3 major continents, each 
with a separate auction market. It is perfectly possible to arbitrage 
between them and I have done so.

- Diplomacy. This is lacking in polish, but has great potential. Yes it's 
just a card based game against npcs (pvp to come we are assured). What is 
more surprising  however, is how you can manipulate triggers in cities by 
organising groups of players working npcs in unison to get desired results. 
It is a parallel path of advancement/entertainment and not simply another 
axis of combat. You are of course arrayed against npcs, but it invites 
co-operation between players, which is surely what everyone wants?

- Entertainment. I've only played to level 25 or so, but I have not once 
been at a loss for something to do. There are so many quests and dungeons 
that you run out of time before outleveling rather than feel compelled to 
grind on the same old mobs endlessly. Sure it's still a DIKU derived game, 
but the combat is well paced and entertaining - at least if you like that 
type of thing (which I do).

- Vistas. It's true, the graphics are beautiful. You can see for miles and 
it is wonderful. If you don't believe me, roll in the draw distance with the 
'[' key and you'll immediately appreciate quite what it does for immersion.

- Depth of class design. The classes have an attention to detail that I've 
not seen elsewhere. You can see how they've coded systems specific for each 
class and whilst small details they add colour and interest. e.g. Monks 
abilities are powered by a chi force unused by any other class charged up by 
combat. Paladins are powered through a spritual energy, and shamans have 3 
seperate career paths to choosed from (when selecting their totem) at level 
16.

- Complexity. The game is complex with lots of systems to understand. It 
isn't pandering to the lowest common denominator IQ 80 guy, and it works - 
despite what some members of this list have argued in the past. Ultimately, 
time is the final arbiter of progress, but at least skill is rewarded.

- Grouping. Class interdependency has been engineered so that you do need a 
group for some dungeons and encounters, but it hasn't been done in the rigid 
fashion of EQ. There is so much class cross over in fundamental skills 
(ability to take damage, generate damage, heal damage & buff - this is a 
combat based game after all) that you don't have to rigidly follow a group 
member archtype to succeed.

- Combat. They've found that certain balance that means you aren't just 
grinding on autopilot. Encounters can go badly wrong, but there is often a 
chance of hauling back from the brink - if you have sufficient skill.

- The players. This game has attracted a more hardcore demographic, it must 
be said. However this means you aren't dealing with the type of players that 
make low level WoW (at least at launch) such a depressing experience. They 
may have the most players, but as a proportion, the number you'd want to 
have a conversation with is alarmingly small. Generally in Vanguard, there 
is a level of competency and sociability that I've not really seen 
elsewhere. You can be doing a bit of a quest and someone else in the area 
will inevitably ask if you'd like to hook up to complete it. This works 
perfectly because the quests are generally bitesize and if you click with 
the person there are invariably a few more in the area to do together, or 
build a group for. My conclusion so far, is that grouping works better in 
this game than any other that I've played, and I've played most of them.

- Developer player interaction. The devs actually talk to the players on 
their own forums without the need to channel everything through a corporate 
mouthpiece unable to countenance that there may be issues. They've been 
pretty up front that they ran out of cash and that things aren't perfect. 
It's an interesting gambit I grant you, but the honesty is refreshing and 
buys rather a lot of tolerance.

There are plenty of systems that aren't in place yet, but regardless it is a 
good game. If we get the promised ship to ship combat, player cities, 
encounter engine & etc all the better.

As to complaining that you don't get shown the whole world at the start, 
many people enjoy that. A game that slowly draws you in and reveals its 
charms, rather than throwings off its clothes immediately to better 
facilitate a 20 minute review. A flying mount is a reward for getting to the 
top, and just as it's inappropriate to let a level 1 kill the end game 
dragon, it is perfectly reasonable to withold this as a motivation to 
progress. If you want to see from up high, climb a mountain.

I'm off on holiday for 10 days tomorrow, so my post is a little rushed and 
perhaps not as well argued and considered as I'd like, but I felt compelled 
to defend a game that is actually rather better than I had hoped. I'm 
certainly enjoying it more than I did WoW. Remember, not everyone wants to 
holds hands, hang out with 'trendy' IBM execs or have furry encounters in 
2nd life. Nor do they want to be part of some radical & interesting to 
design, but exteremely tedious to play, social experiment so often 
postulated on lists such as these. What's wrong with just making a good 
game? I really wonder if people don't lose sight of that sometimes.

Dan