1. General

1.0.5 What do you mean by a ‘third generation MMORPG’?

We usually use the word ‘generation’ more like an 'era'... when a group of games come out around the same time, were in development mostly around the same time, and therefore couldn't use each other as reference nearly as much as older games, we call that a generation.

Under that definition, M59, UO, AC, EQ, etc. were all first generation. They pretty much just had MUDs to look back on and be inspired.

When you get to AC 2, SW:G, EQ 2, and WoW, all of the developers are able to look back not only at MUDs but also at what worked and didn't work with the first generation of MMOGs.

Vanguard will have the advantage of looking back at both generations, learning again from what worked and didn't work with all of those games. In other words, we will be able to analyze EQ 2, WoW, etc. too.

That doesn't mean our definition of 'generation' is 'right' or 'official', but that is the rationale we use when we refer to Vanguard as a 3rd generation massively multiplayer role-playing game.

1.0.6 How does Vanguard and Sigil relate to EQ1, EQ2 and SOE?

Actually, I *was* the Creative Director and Executive Producer on EQ 2, as well as the author of the first EQ 2 design doc, from 1999 (its inception) to October 2001 when I left SOE. I was also the Producer on EQ 1 for its full development period, co-author of its design document, and also either Producer or Executive Producer on Kunark, Velious, Planetside, Sovereign, and SW:G.
Also, several other key people at Sigil were also on the EQ 2 team in varying capacities, some up to the April 2002 time frame or so.

Our goal at the time (1999-2001) was to make a true sequel for EQ and to improve upon it.

Obviously, after I left, the game went through several more executive producers and managers and designers and doesn't resemble very much in its final form what it was designed to be early on. The game evolved, design changed, goals and target audience changed, etc. (note, this is not a criticism in anyway, but merely what naturally occurs when the reigns of a project are handed over to other people during the development cycle of a project, as well as the natural result of changing goals (for example, I believe SOE has since made it very clear that later EQ 2 was *not* designed to be a true sequel to EQ 1 but more of a complementary game, designed to appeal to other types of gamers, and to co-exist with EQ 1, *not* replace it)). In other words, I am *not* commenting on how EQ 2 turned out or changed in terms of whether I agreed with those changes – truly, that’s not my business, but SOE’s.

But there are undoubtedly some obvious similarities because of the people involved during both the origin of both games. That said, Vanguard's design was created after we left SOE and was written from scratch, without any reference to EQ 2 (those designs, afte all, did not belong to us) and the core game, many of its goals, and its target audience are very different, especially if you dig a bit below the surface.

Some people have called Vanguard the spiritual successor, or at least a spiritual successor, to EQ 1, and while that’s not technically true, I can understand people’s reasoning. At the time, I and others were tasked to create a worthy sequel to EQ, and while again the Vanguard design was written both later and separately and by not only me but many other people, some of whom were at SOE and some of whom were not, and some of whom were involved with EQ 2 and EQ 1 to some degree, while others not, it was not meant to be a sequel at all, but truly its own game. An analogy might be that a music album was made, and then the group broke up, and some went on to make a new band, while others stayed and re-formed the original band, and then they both went and made new albums.

With Vanguard, though, we took a step back and did not explicitly design a game to be the sequel to EQ (whereas with EQ 2, that was our task and goal). Rather, our goal was to design a next generation fantasy MMOG based on a totally different world, along with old ideas that trace back before EQ to the MUDs we played, as well as with the goal of building new systems on top of proven foundations (for example, Diplomacy). So, similarities, yes – that’s natural, given that we're talking about some of the same people. But built on our original design for EQ 2? Absolutely not. We started anew, looking back at EQ 1 again, other games we'd worked on, and then back to the MUDs we'd enjoyed so much previously to working on EQ 1.

EQ 1 in many ways was a an attempt at translating mechanics and ideas we'd examined in detail while playing those MUDs from a non-commercial text based medium into a commercially viable 3D world. With Vanguard, we went back again to those core MUD fundamentals and, taking what we'd learned since then, and also considering both the successes and mistakes we'd make in that first 'translation', approaching the core foundation of the game again, trying to do an even better job this time. And then, as mentioned, building upon that foundation other, newer, more untested ideas like Diplomacy, or reactive combat systems, Perception, meaningful travel, a seamless world, etc. In other words, ideas that occurred to us after we'd formed Sigil as ways to grow the genre and move it forward into the 'third' generation of MMOGs. But again we built these newer systems on top of our latest attempt at capturing what made MUDs tick, such that were one of new ideas to fail, we'd still have that proven foundation to fall back upon.

So instead of Vanguard descending from EQ 2, which did descend from EQ 1, which did descend from MUDs (mostly of the DIKU variety, which were our favorites), instead we went back to the source, and built the MUD foundation again, and then took all of our experiences and lessoned learned, and built further from there. So more accurately Vanguard descends from MUDs directly, with these new ideas built on top and then our experiences building EQ 1 as well as being involved in the genesis of games like EQ 2, EQoA, SW:G, and several other MMOGs being referenced as learning experiences, helping guide us to hopefully do a better job at both making a commercial and graphical MUD as well as bringing the genre forward with new ideas built upon a solid, proven foundation.

Anyway, I thought this was a good opportunity to talk about this, although I've made similar posts in the past, because people do note some similarities between Vanguard and both EQ 1 and EQ 2 (and other MMOGs), and so questions and observations are made. But when you dig deeper, you find many of those similarities superficial and actually dissimilar more than similar when you look even deeper, below the surface, examining our actual approach, philosophy, and, most importantly, implementation.

Ultimately, Vanguard is not meant, nor was built, to be a better or different EQ 2, nor an EQ 3, but its own game. Rather, it was built to be a better commercial graphical MUD than what has been built to-date (and when I say better, I mean better for our target audience, not better period). Superficial or 'skin deep' similarities exist because many of us worked on all or some of those games to varying degrees and at different times, and because we are always determined to learn from the strengths and weaknesses of other, previous MMOGs, as we'd be fools not to.

Lastly, in one sense WoW too is very similar to EQ, as is DAoC and other similar games. That is because those developers too wanted to make a similar type of game (a graphical, commercial MMOG built on solid MUD principles). Other online games, say Tabula Rasa or D&D Online, have clearly not been built similarly, but with very different goals and approaches (see another post I made about the different types of MMOGs and the varying approaches and motivations behind them). The difference with Vanguard is, unlike, say WoW or DAoC, Sigil employs key people who actually worked on EQ, EQ 2, etc. whereas these other developers did not, or at least did so to a much lesser degree. (This answer courtesy of Sily Venom.)

1.0.7 Why should I play your game? I already have a guild and massive time invested in another MMOG.

All games age, even massively multiplayer games with content that can be patched and updated. Economies grow old and inflated, the 'newness' and reward for exploring the world wears off. Technology also continues to advance and games probably can't be updated indefinitely, especially if that level of flexibility wasn't built in from inception.

Really, though, you, your friends, and your guild need to decide if you're ready for a change. Our goal with Vanguard is to take everything we've learned ourselves in the last 8+ years and by watching and playing other MMOGs and take the genre to the next level. We're certainly ready for a new game, and we hope many of you are as well and will give Vanguard a try. If what you learn about Vanguard from this FAQ and elsewhere intrigues you and sounds like something you might enjoy, we don't think you'll be disappointed..

1.0.8 What aspects of Vanguard do you think will especially appeal to the female gamer?

That’s a difficult question, because I think every gamer, male or female, is different. I tend to be more of a power gamer, whereas some of my friends enjoy questing above all else. The best things about Vanguard, in my opinion, are the immersion and the diversity. Like I mentioned above, I believe the intricacy and care with which Vanguard is being built will really shine, and be an escape beyond everything that has come before. – Amanda Poe @ Girl-Gamer.com

1.0.9 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 'multi-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 encouraging 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 commitment 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 to 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 collaboration 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 retrieval 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 deteriorate 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.

1.0.10 How do you intend to improve on EQ1 and others?

What exactly is going to separate Vanguard again?I hear you, and I realize that you are concerned that by using exp debt or loss as opposed to just exp loss you think Vanguard will therefore be a much less challenging and therefore less rewarding game. That said, I do have to respectfully disagree. I’ve posted a lot in recent days about why we chose to use debt. Others are likewise concerns that by using the travel journal to locate your corpse, or by including limited in-game mapping systems, etc. that we are retreating too far away from what made EQ 1 such a great game. I do think, however, that we can use some of these different approaches, aids, etc. to help reduce some unnecessary tedium that did exist in some of the earlier MMOGs but at the same time retain what made them more challenging and therefore rewarding in ways that are also not unnecessarily tedious and will hopefully make community building, finding groups, etc. easier and less frustrating.

We made some mistakes with EQ 1, despite what a great game I will always consider it to be, and despite how proud I am of how popular it was and how long it remained popular. Relying on others to bind yourself I think did more harm than good. Staring at a spellbook while medding, while more realistic, turned out to be ‘going too far’. Long, boring ship rides were *not* the best way to keep the world epic and travel meaningful. Super long downtimes between battles, where people were finished Robert Jordan novels, were simply unnecessary – while downtime is important such that player have a chance to socialize, or plan for that next battle, or to use the restroom or grab a coke, they really didn’t need to be *that* long nor become longer and longer just because the player was leveling up. The possibility of permanent losing a corpse was also taking things a bit too far, creating more fear of death than is really necessary. Likewise, losing levels and skills by dying we don’t think is necessary to make dying truly sting and something to be avoided. Death should hurt so that people respect the environment and play carefully and develop tactics, but it shouldn’t be so severe that many or most players are afraid to brave the depths of dungeons.

So while we are indeed proud of our heritage, and are also very determined to make a challenging game, and while we strongly believe there are a lot of ‘core’ gamers out there who have missing such a game, we also think many of these older mechanics could use some tweaking in order to remove needless frustration at the same time.

more on this theme...

Well, there are quite a few reasons, but one of the big ones is this: some of Vanguard’s features and mechanics, when we've announced them but not always taken the time or been able to elaborate on exactly how they work, have often been immediately compared to a system from EQ 2 or another game that the person didn't care for and the assumption is therefore made that the system we've announced or are talking about will also therefore turn out with the same problems or weaknesses or results.

Some examples:

We chose to use more advanced graphics technology, just like we did with EQ 1 (it was one of the first hardware only games, for example), in order to take advantage of this technology in order to create a more immersive world. Some people initially reacted poorly to this, however, fearing that our game would look overly plasticy or contain other problems other games who have used advanced shader technology like specular lighting and bump mapping have encountered. Now, as our tech has matured and our screenshots improved, I think a lot of this has gone away, but it still remains a concern out there in places.

Also, our job system, where in order to avoid the specialist vs. generalist problem seen in EQ 1 and elsewhere… it’s been compared to the archetype system used in EQ 2, where many feel the result was that the classes ended up feeling too much the same. We've stressed that our job system, while indeed making sure that a healer, regardless of class, can perform his fundamental job as well as any other healer, will also involve lots of features and abilities that truly make you feel like you are playing a very distinctive class -- for example, playing a shaman does *not* feel like you are playing a cleric, even though they both ultimately heal just as well, albeit manifested in different ways.

Our more involved reaction based combat system… When people saw early screenshots showing parts of this system in Vanguards UI, many people immediately assumed it would be exactly like EQ 2's system, which some have asserted doesn't really add anything to combat that's meaningful and is just about more button mashing. So we've gone out of our way to explain in detail how our system involves abilities that are in trees and that selecting which bridge or finish really is different in result depending on the encounter and context. That reactions like rescuing or countering spells really does add a lot of tactics to gameplay and the need to learn parts of the game first, to become familiar with a mobs abilities, because whether you finish a chain, or counter an ability, or instead rescue another player -- that decision, depending upon the situation, can lead to either victory or utter defeat.

I could go on and on, but our heritage and involvement in these previous games is both a blessing and a curse. Most certainly it's been a tremendous advantage for Sigil that we employ many of the people who were intimately involved in previous games that a lot of players enjoyed. As a start-up, we’ve avoided many of the pitfalls other start-ups have to over come – for example, we already have over 40,000 people signed up on our message boards without any formal marketing being done yet. Why? Because people recognize my name and other involved with Vanguard.

But at the same time, because of these inevitable similarities, many of which are only superficial and skin deep, people who didn't enjoy some of those games automatically assume that anything even remotely similar in Vanguard will therefore be unappealing to them just like it was in that ‘other game’. Likewise, while many people are drawn to Sigil and Vanguard because of the ‘vision’, other people sometimes assume that the Vision not only means sticking to a plan and caring about the long term health of the game and being willing to make hard decisions that were sometimes unpopular but usually were best for the game as a whole, especially long term, but also that it automatically includes an unwavering commitment to unwarranted and tedious downtime, or frustrating binding, or hell levels, or rampant nerfing, etc.

So I've made an attempt from the beginning to not hide our heritage and previous accomplishments, and to be clear that we are very proud of them. But I've also made a very real effort to make it clear that Vanguard is its own game and while it may share some of the same goals as other games, the way we are going about achieving those goals is more often than not very different and also hopefully something you will likely enjoy. That the Vision is indeed alive an well, but that we are at the same time more than willing to admit mistakes of the past, and that while we are stubborn at times, and while we won’t sway in the wind, being tempted to alter our game fundamentally just because another game comes out that is both different an popular, the Vision is also not so set in stone that its completely static and unable to improve and be refined and polished. (This answer is courtesy of Silky Venom)

1.0.11 Timesinks! Why even have them?

I want to state that I've never run across an MMOG designer that put a 'time sink' into an MMOG to keep a player playing longer purely for financial gain or reasons. Time sinks are used as penalties to make the game challenging and accomplishment meaningful. If they are too extreme, players are driven away. If they are too lax, players typically do not get a sense of accomplishment sufficient for them to feel that they truly achieved something and the pride and satisfaction that goes with it. The degree to which time sinks 'sting' or how high or low they are varies in MMOGs and the tolerance level for the individual MMOG player varies as well. So what penalized one player but still encouraged him to go back and try that encounter again to finally achieve the reward could, for another player, frustrate him sufficiently that he would lose interest in the game. And this is normal, that such variances would exist, because everyone is different... personality-wise, how much time they are able to commit to a game, how many MMOGs they have already played in the past, etc. And as I've said many times, now that the MMOG gamespace is growing, designs are maturing (although I'd argue we are still very much in the genre's infancy), there are more and more choices so players with differing tastes hopefully have the opportunity to play the MMOG that suits them the most as opposed to having to play the best game available, yet one that still doesn't disagree with them on every level they theoretically could. And, of course, in the future, assuming more and more MMOGs are developed and a sufficient percentage of them are successful, the genre will grow and we'll see more and more types of games, not just in terms of theme or style, but also in terms of 'challenge' level, time necessary to commit, etc. And again, this is a good thing(TM). Choices = good. Options = good.

Since the primary advancement mechanism of MMOG is time invested (there are others -- player knowledge, tactics, even 'twitch' to some degree, depending on the game), it's logical that the primary means by which to penalize the player for error, bad planning, whatever, is for them to therefore 'lose time'. There may be other MMOGs that come out in the future that don't use time investment as their primary advancement mechanism, but one hasn't popped up yet. Eventually, one very well may appear, creating quite a paradigm shift, although I suspect we'll see more variations on the existing theme first (games with time invested still as the primary advancement mechanism, but with more stress and therefore importance placed on other secondary means by which to advance, be it twitch, or knowledge, or tactics, or strategy, or ways to advance based on outside means (games where purchasing items for real money is part of the design), etc.

In any case, I can assure you that the motivation behind MMOG designers for putting in time-based penalties is not based primarily on getting people to subscribe longer for financial reasons... or, at least, that's not the primary reason. Rather, it's really a natural by-product. What MMOG designers *are* trying to do is create risk vs. reward scenarios such that as players advance their characters (either by level/exp, skills, item acquisition, popularity/recognition, ownership of in-game property (player housing, vehicles, etc.) they take pride in their accomplishments because said advancement was a challenge.

Keep in mind that MMOGs, or at least EQ/WoW/etc. style MMOGs, are descendents of text based MUDs that have existed for decades and that these MUDs also used time as both the primary advancement mechanism as well as, conversely, a way to penalize a player when they've messed up. When you take that into consideration, combined with the fact that the majority of text based MUDs pre-date commercial and/or graphical MMOGs, you can pretty accurately conclude that the motive behind these designs, whether in a new MMOG, or one of the first MMOGs, or one of the first free MUDs going back to the 1980s, was not to make money per se, but to make a compelling game world that kept people playing month after month, year after year. With a commercial game, this is of course a good thing for the developer and publisher who need profit in order to continue to pay for the costs incurred by making these games. No one is denying that. But the primary reason is simply to keep the game healthy, attractive, and compelling, and that is something all MMOG and MUD developers want, whether they are working on a free MUD or on a commercial MMOG.

Character advancement, community building (encouraging interdependence via mechanics such that new friendships and relationships are formed in-game), player recognition (leaving a mark on the world), player ownership of virtual entities (houses, vehicles, etc.), and then the reward of exploration (seeing new sights (or reading their descriptions in text MUDs), encountering new mobs, etc.) are all the keys to what makes these games tick.

The problem, as mentioned above, is that people have varying tastes and tolerances in terms of how severe these time penalties are. Additionally, the eternal challenge of the MMOG and MUD designer is to make it such that character advancement is not only challenging and thereby rewarding, but also fun at the same time. Because MMOG and MUDs have an issue with 'ground hog' day, with the world resetting and content repeatable (something that can be avoided in a single player game meant to entertain for a few weeks or a month or so and then be finished), consuming the content in MMOGs to advance your character can be and is boring at times. This is where words like 'grind' come into play, where you are repeating gameplay in order to advance, but the repetition makes the entertainment value of these activities diminish the more times you experience the same content or similar content. To minimize this propensity for MMOGs to feel like a grind, many new ideas have been introduced (of which, unfortunately, many have failed). Also, the sheer amount of content has been increased so that there is less obvious repetition, more rewarding exploration, etc. And then lastly, the speed at which characters advance has been tweaked so that those who are more sensitive to the inevitable grind experience a more minimized grind or potential for grind because you move through the content more quickly and therefore encounter new content and challenges and places to explore and experience at a faster rate. The challenge there, of course, is how does one create so much content and keep it compelling and different enough and hand-crafted enough. Some ways to deal with that have been introduced in the last several years, including algorithmically created content, but then it seems to never be nearly as compelling as hand-crafted content. Also, Instancing has been used to combat the ‘grind’ to some degree, although it creates other problems too (see my long missive on Instancing I posted a couple months back). Ultimately, it unfortunately often simply comes back to budget, where the more money the developer has to spend to build a team to produce as much content as possible, the less of a grind the game feels like. (This answer is courtesy of Silky Venom)

1.0.12 Some MMO's abruptly change their focus or systems after release to cater to what's popular at the moment. You have your Vision – are you going to stick to it?

As for the Vision(TM), love it or hate it, love me or hate me, it is what it is. We do listen. It does change when it needs to. But what it doesn't do is radically transform into another vision. It adapts. It expands. But the core is the core. In other words, to be more blunt, we're not going to suddenly decide we're taking on WoW directly and making a WoW clone, nor a D&D clone, nor an EQ 2 clone (although many have pointed out the obvious related heritage). Vanguard is its own game, built on the vision, which comes from both EQ and from the MUDs we played before that. To that extent it is very consistent.

We have identified our target audience, the core gamer. Please look up previous posts where I've said alot about who I feel that is. Then we are also going to try to attract more casual and more raid people. People on both sides. But never putting the core gamer at risk. And then we are going to branch out almost from a genre-standpoint. We are doing things like very involved harvesting/crafting, diplomacy which touches, eventually even on RTS elements, and more. We're taking combat really far. Good luck on two-boxing. You need to pay attention in this game. Every once in a while somebody sees a level one in Vanguard and is concerned the game pace is to slow. I promise you, you want the general 'round' to be that long, because even at mid levels there is THAT much going on. You need to be aware of who is doing what, what NPC is on who, what abiliity they are about to use, if you have a counter. You could be using a combat starter and a bridge could pop up that forks. Which related ability do you want to use? Make your choice. You don't have much time. Oh wait! While you were thinking, in those brief seconds, another icon popped up. A counter ability/spell. Now you need to decide whether to finish your chained attack (and which bridge to take), or to counter that ability. What do you now about that abiility? Is it critical enough to counter no mattter what or can you let it slide? But wait, while you're pondering all of this, two more icons pop up giving you the opportunity (and letting you know) that your secondary defensive target, say your cleric, was just aggroed. You have the option of rescuing him.

So you can finish you attack, counter, or rescue. Add to that our emphasis on multiple mob encounters (hard to seperate a group), and you get more chaos. Add in situational awareness. Is my cleric ok (I'm RPing a warrior here). Is my sorc ok? Did either the sorc or the ranger just do so much damage they may draw aggro? Or do they have some abilitiy to mask that....

It goes on and on, but hopefully you get my point. I could go on and on about the other spheres, and I and others have already. Lots of revolutionary stuff, IMHO, built on that solid foundation which I know now, at least as a level 30 Warrior playing the game daily, is damn fun in a group situation outdoors and in the depths of a dungeon. So new stuff, but sticking to the vision, the core.

Why won't we suddenly change and try to mimic ?

Couple of reasons.

First of all, we don't want to. We love this game. This is what we want to make, not a clone or mimic.

Second, we are confident that our target audience, while likely not as large as WoWs, is plenty big to make the game successful, make MSFT happy, make Sigil happy, and support us in our future endeavors. I know people debate this. It's niche! Well, does niche = 500k because WoW has 4 million? If so, I like niche. If it's 100k, well, that would be sub-optimal, but I'm not too worried

Third, and this is the one you can take to heart if you don't have that Sigil-Faith We couldn't change the game right now to mimic something else if we wanted. The momentum is there. We're in beta. Yes, I know games have changed late in beta before, even after launch. I don't know of any success stories, there, especially with MMOGs. If you can name one, please do. So to change I'd have to be ignoring what's happened to other games who've tried to change their vision (assuming they started with one) and their target audience this late. Financially, bad move. Then I'd have to make catastrophic changes to Sigil, the team, the structure, the schedule, and more and more. Honestly, I doubt MSFT would want to pay for the ramifications, and nor would they appeal to Sigil.

So, being wordy today, there are my reasons why you can have faith that the Vision(TM) shall remain what it is, love it, hate it, whatever.

Lastly, nor do I expect any major overhauls of systems post-launch. With no disrespect to any other projects or teams, my guys are simply that good. Not just good, but they have the experience few others do. They know how to make a solid system. Sure, it will need tweaks. No, it won't be perfect. But throwing out a combat sytem entirely, or changing the advancement rate of the game across the board or something crazy like that just won't be necessary. My team and the external beta testers and MSFT wont' let that happen.

What you should expect is that many of the newer systems appearing in the game, in various phases (I won't say stages, because each phase will be complete in and of itself, just not fullly realized according to our wild dreams), to be elaborated on. Expanded. Brought to the next step, the next phase. I can't spill any sekret sauce, but when you have basic city building and a RTS like tech tree, where would you go next? There are many such systems that will be fully realized over the years post launch. I can't wait!

I also agree there is a danger is trying to fix issues in older MMOGs by creating more complex systems that end up doing more harm than good. By trying to impede or eradicate a certain behavior, say, the result is that the game feels too restrictive for everyone -- you end up doing far more harm than good, assuming the system even did fix the original problem.

I want to assure you that we are keenly aware of this. We can react two ways: 1. just leave old problems alone to make absolutely sure we don't end up making the situation worse or 2. experimenting with mechanics that may address some of these issues in beta and then assessing to what degree they are (or are not) effective. If they do more harm than good, we yank them.

We obviously prefer #2 most of the time. We talk about the vision, and others joke about it, either admiring that we stick to our guns or lamenting mistakes we've made in the past because we were too stubborn. I think we've learned a lot, and while the core of the game is built indeed on a strong vision, a strong foundation, many of these other ideas (whether they are a feature or a system to address a problem found in earlier MMOGs) are NOT sacred cows. And I think we've been pretty clear about those areas we're very committed to (say no instancing, and having CRs) vs. areas we want to work with (say, TLC).

We've even said that if we can't make travel meaningful, we will put in some sort of teleportation. At this point in Beta 1, I still think we'll not need them, but the fallback plan IS there. (This answer is courtesy of Silky Venom)

1.0.13 Are you promising / attempting too much for Vanguard?

There have been many promises out there, and it's harder and harder (and more expensive and requiring larger teams) to make these premiere MMOGs. Because of this I've been trying very hard to get people excited about the game but also manage expectations (and this is no easy task, I assure you). That's why I'm willing to be straight up, even in this email for example, and say "I don't know to what extent player run cities will manifest themselves by launch". Another example would be flying mounts and going anywhere you want (as opposed to, say, griffons on rails). Our engine can do this already. And we want to implement flying mounts. But we're not sure if we'll have time to get them in properly by launch. So they may be part of an expansion.

So while I think Vanguard offers a lot of new ideas, mechanics, technology, and ways to immerse yourself in an MMOG, I also am keenly aware of the dangers of over promising. No, not advertising something to trick people -- we're just not that kind of company. But it's still tempting to talk about something we want to see ourselves one day, or that MIGHT make it in by launch. We want to talk about it because it's exciting. But we still have to hold back.

I think with what we've revealed already, plus what we'll be coming out in the marketing campaign that will be starting in the next couple of months, that there will be more than enough to attract old school EQ fans, new MMOG players wanting more of a challenge, etc. I think we have some revolutionary ideas, but that we're building them on an evolutionary, solid foundation. So if one of them doesn't work out, we can yank it without harming the rest of the game. As we become more and more confident about certain mechanics or features, we'll reveal them. Also, when it comes to something controversial like TLC, I'll bring them up to get feedback to help guide us.

I think they key is to also manage your own expectations. Sure, be excited about Vanguard -- we are, and we want you to be. By no means am I advocating that you set your expectations low. But at the same time realize that there's no way it can be all things for all people, nor, especially at launch, have every cool feature or mechanic that we all want.

I do this with movies I'm excited about -- I don't let myself get too crazy imagining that it will be the best movie of all time, because then, no matter how good the movie actually turns out to be, I end up feeling let down to some degree (currently doing this with Narnia btw -- but man, after watching those trailers, it's hard not to explode with excitement and anticipation). (This answer is courtesy of Silky Venom).

1.0.14 Does it cost money to play Vanguard: Saga of Heroes?

Yes. Most likely the game will follow the traditional model of buying the box in the stores, receiving a free trial period, and then paying a monthly subscription fee. Other payment plans and options may be made available.

1.0.15 Will there be a product to buy in stores?

Most likely, yes.

1.0.16 Will there be a monthly fee to pay to play?

Most likely, yes.

1.0.17 Will there be alternate ways to pay to play other than a credit card?

There may be other payment plans available, yes.

1.0.18 Why, in your opinion, do the monthly subscription costs of MMOGs seem to going up?

In a nutshell, this relatively new industry (MMOGs) is trying to see what the consumer is willing to pay for, what it wants out of MMOGs going forward, and what the market will bear.

The money is being used to pay for larger teams, bigger games, and, of course, an attempt to make more money.

The initial $9.95, I believe, was set by UO in the 'early' days and the rumor is those making the pricing decisions were not all that confident as to how popular these games would be and priced the monthly rate relatively low. (Boy am I going to get in trouble for saying 'low', but that is what I've heard).

On a side note, this issue is probably at least to some degree related to the costs of movie tickets going up in the last decades. We all complain, but then we also like the new technology and masive bucks spent on Ep. 2 and The Return of the King too :)

1.0.19 Who are you guys? What is Sigil Games Online, Inc.?

Sigil Games Online, Inc. is a game studio dedicated to the development of massively multiplayer games. Formed in January 2002 by Brad McQuaid and Jeff Butler, both key figures in the development of the massively multiplayer runaway hit EverQuest, Sigil Games plans to play a key role in taking MMOGs into their third generation and beyond.

Currently, Sigil has built a team of experienced developers and is well underway working on their first project, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, an MMORPG funded and to be published by Microsoft Game Studios (MGS).

Sigil’s goals are to remain focused on creating great games, games developed by gamers, and to maintain a culture of passion and dedication. Indeed, everyone here is determined to follow-up our past successes with online games that are nothing less than revolutionary and stunning.

1.0.20 What is Sigil’s goal as company?

Our goals are primarily defined by what we love to do. We’re devoted to making massively multiplayer games, so it's unlikely we'd make anything else. We also like smaller company cultures, so it's unlikely we'll grow too big. It's also improbable you'd catch us working on more than 2 or 3 titles at once.

One way we've described our goals in the past is in homage to one of the greatest game development companies out there: Sigil would like to be the 'Id Software' of massively multiplayer gaming.

1.0.21 What is Sigil’s goal for Vanguard: Saga of Heroes?

Quite honestly, our goal is to make the next number one massively multiplayer role-playing game. With EverQuest behind us, taking the genre to the next level is really the only thing that could satisfy this team and company.

1.0.22 Who is your target audience?

Our goal is to be as inclusionary as possible, but at the same time to not alienate existing, core MMOG gamers.

First and foremost, we want to appeal to gamers who have enjoyed the games we've worked on in the past. Then we want to expand outward and appeal to other core gamers with new and extended gameplay they might have found missing in previous games. Lastly, we want to grow the MMOG gamespace by appealing to 'non-core' gamers, but, again, never at the expense of the playerbase who already identifies with our goals and our previous work.

1.0.23 How will you address players with different amounts of time to play? There are casual players, players who like to group, and players who liked to be involved in massive raids… can they all co-exist?

They can definitely co-exist and even play together in an interdependent environment.

Vanguard's world will contain areas designed for casual, group, and raid experiences. Risk and reward will vary in these areas, as will the amount of playtime necessary to complete quests and other activities.

And these different areas aren't there just to appeal to people who always have more or less time. They are also there for the gamer who often does play longer hours but at times wants to log on and play a shorter session, or for the person with less time who wants to occasionally devote an entire Saturday to playing.

1.0.24 Will you attempt to appeal to other types of gamers?

Definitely. Vanguard will offer new experiences that we feel will attract gamers who might have found the feature sets in previous MMOGs lacking or less interesting.

1.0.25 How important is player interdependence and how does it relate to community development?

Player interdependence is the key to community building.

Friendships and alliances often form when a player needs another player to be more effective or to complete a task. This is the stuff that helps to form healthy, active communities. The real world isn't made up of 'jack-of-all-trades'; a virtual world shouldn’t be either. Different roles and responsibilities should exist. Many or most of those should offer a fulfillment of other characters’ needs. This will be especially true in our group areas and a must in our raid areas.

We should emphasize, however, that interdependence shouldn't be tedious, nor, in effect, a 'denial of service'. In other words, if you can't find someone to help you with a task one evening, there ought to be other things for you to do -- perhaps something you can do on your own, or with fewer people, or with other characters you do encounter that evening.

1.0.26 Some MMOGs have focused more on the ‘sandbox’ or the ‘virtual reality’ and ‘simulation of real life’ aspect of online gaming. Others have focused more on gaming and entertainment. Where does Vanguard: Saga of Heroes fit in?

Our focus is first and foremost on making a great game. We want to build on the solid, proven foundation of what makes these games fun and then innovate on top of that foundation.

That said, we are involved in a fascinating industry where projects have usually tried to include both gameplay and social components. We believe that building and supporting community and in-game friendships is a vital part of an immersive game.

Our goal is community involvement and exciting, rewarding gameplay. Our goal is not academic -- we'd much rather receive an award in a games magazine or from a community web site than recognition as computational anthropologists from a university.

1.0.27 Are you building Vanguard: Saga of Heroes more to expand the gamespace and appeal to new gamers, or to appeal to existing MMOG players, or both?

Definitely both. We know there are a significant number of players out there who have enjoyed the games we've worked on in the past, and we want them to enjoy Vanguard as well. But we also want to grow the gamespace -- massively multiplayer games are still relatively new. It is our firm belief that there are many more people out there who will enjoy Vanguard and other future MMOGs.

1.0.28 How do you propose to draw in people who have not previously played MMORPGs?

Really in a number of ways. Better community support and interaction as well as better targeted marketing and PR will help considerably. Likewise, the expanded features and activities one can experience in Vanguard should interest both those new to gaming and those new to MMOGs. As more people try online gaming and as there are more types of gamers, the gamespace should grow. Vanguard will attract 'old school' MMOG players who enjoyed the games we've worked on in the past as well as new MMOG players looking for a game with more challenge and depth.

1.0.29 How do you intend to make a game that is challenging but not overly tedious?

Challenge should also be fun. One of Sigil's tenets is 'the path of least resistance should also be the path to the most fun'. What this means is that players shouldn't encounter an intersection where fun is to the right, but the more efficient route to character advancement is to the left. Ideally, they should be one and the same.

It's also a balancing act. Certainly not everyone will agree as to how challenging an MMOG should be. But there are already quite a few MMOGs out there to play. Some are easier than others, and some are more difficult. Generally, if you enjoyed the challenge level of EverQuest and its first couple of expansions, you will likely enjoy Vanguard as well. But, just as importantly, those areas most people found overly tedious (boat rides with nothing to do, or camping hours in one spot) will be addressed with newer, better game mechanics.

1.0.30 Where can I find out more information about the team, their experience, and their accomplishments?

You can find out detailed information about the Sigil/Vanguard Team at the Sigil web site.

1.0.31 Will the development team be playing Vanguard: Saga of Heroes?

Absolutely. First of all, we're all gamers. We're here first to make games we want to play ourselves, otherwise where would the passion come from?

Not only that, once we near and enter beta, it will actually be mandatory for the team to play, and that includes everyone... producers, designers, programmers, artists... even our office manager.

1.0.32 I've heard that Sigil has a number of 'tenets' related to MMOGs... could you share a few?

Here are a few, in no particular order:

1. More smaller carrots, more often.

(Meaning, control the rate of advancement of characters, but have them advance in smaller ways more often so you get feedback/new abilities/etc. more frequently but in smaller doses).

2. Content is king.

3. The path of least resistance shall also be the path to the most fun.

(This is more about the fact that many gamers and in many games have come to a crossroads: to the 'left' is more efficient advancement but less fun (say, camping, or even 'grinding' in general), and to the 'right' is a more fun experience. It puts many players in a situation where they feel it's imperative they choose the more efficient but boring path... but then they're having less fun.

That should ideally never occur (although it's been commonplace in many/most MMOGs). The more efficient way should also involve fun and what the designers had in mind for their target audience).

4. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

(This applies to a great many things, but in general to the recent reactionary trend to respond to traditional MMOG mechanics that have had some problems by completely removing them as opposed to fixing them. Travel is tedious? Remove travel! People are camping and ninja looting and being rotten to each other in a dungeon? Remove the other people! (Instancing). Sigil, rather, is intent on fixing and tweaking traditional MUD/MMOG mechanics that have existed for so long, not throwing them out).

5. The collective long term happiness of the playerbase and therefore the overall health of the game is always right.

(This is in reponse to the assertion that the 'customer is always right'. The assertion is correct, but since players are in a world shared by other players, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or the few; likewise, what is good for the game long term takes precedence over the short term, in that it's in both the developers and players interest that the game retain its long term health).

1.0.33 Many of the current Sigil Games Online developers have previously been involved in the creation of high-profile MMORPGs. What lessons has the development team learned from these experiences?

There are a lot of pitfalls that one can fall into when making an MMOG, from artists making halls too narrow for creatures to pass through to designers not recognizing an exploitable system - and a million things in between. Though we're certainly going to make our share of mistakes, our combined experience will hopefully help us avoid the big ones. – Steve Burke @ Starglade.org

1.0.34 Who is your publisher?

"We are co-publishing the game with Sony Online Entertainment."

1.0.35 What can you tell us about your relationship with Sony Online Entertainment?

We're very excited about our new co-publishing agreement with SOE. After working with Microsoft for several years, both Sigil & Microsoft, given the scope and scale of Vanguard, mutually and amicably decided that it would make more sense if Sigil found a publisher focused on massively multiplayer games. So Sigil is in the process of buying back the publishing rights from Microsoft and has signed a co-publishing deal with SOE. It's great to work with old friends again and also a company with unparalled experience in launching, maintaining, and hosting MMOGs

1.0.36 What sort of creative freedoms do you have?

As co-publishers of Vanguard and with Sigil owning both the IP and publishing rights for the game, we have an unprecedented degree of autonomy over the game. While we look forward to and appreciate SOE's input, we retain complete creative control over the game.

1.0.37 Who will host the game’s servers and where will they be located?

SOE will host the game -- the locations of the servers is TBD.

1.0.38 Give us three reasons to be excited about the collaboration between SOE and Sigil Games Online.

We began working on Vanguard with Microsoft Gaming Studios, but in mid-2006 made the decision to switch to SOE as our co-publisher. We did this, and the change was amicable for both Sigil and Microsoft, because it became apparent that a game with the scope and scale of Vanguard needed to be co-published and hosted by a company with lots of experience launching, marketing, and maintaining massively multiplayer games. We were also given the opportunity to purchase back the publishing rights from Microsoft such that Sigil will own both those rights and the IP for Vanguard, given us unprecedented control over the design, testing, launch, marketing, and overall influence over Vanguard. It was a tough call, but an opportunity we couldn't pass up. Microsoft remains very excited about Vanguard, even though the game will be a third party Windows title now instead of a first party. Both Sigil and Microsoft agreed that the best move that would help insure Vanguard be the success it is turning out to be in beta.

1.0.39 What is this XNA I keep hearing about from Microsoft and how will it affect Vanguard?

XNA is a growing group of software tools that allow developers to more rapidly develop their games. Additionally, Microsoft wants to share tools and technology between its different platforms (e.g. Win32, Xbox, future platforms).

Vanguard is one of the chief early adopters of this ever-growing group of software. For example, we will be using technologies from Xbox live, voice communication, and already have the ability to play the game via an Xbox-style controller with a tiny keyboard attached to it (a TID).

There will be more information about all of this later.

1.0.40 Does this mean that Vanguard is a multi-platform game?

Vanguard has been announced as a Windows game. We remain open to the idea of taking advantage of future architectures, but nothing is written in stone. Certainly, Vanguard would not run on the existing Xbox platform.

1.0.41 This is more of a general question about MMOG developers, publishers, etc., and how those relationships work, how profit and contracts work, etc. Could you give us a summary of what might be typical in this industry? Specifically, what makes more profit, box sales or subscription revenue?

Both really, but the monthly subscriptions in the long run. The initial box sales help pay for the initial development cost, although it typically still takes several months of subscription revenue before the entire development, marketing, etc. costs are paid for.

After that, the revenue comes in the form of the monthly subscriptions and the periodic expansion releases. Every 2 or so expansion releases it's also a good idea to put a 'gold' or 'platinum' version of the main game out that includes the older expansions. This 'freshens' things, and keeps two SKUs (boxes) of your product on the channel/on the shelves simultaneously, which is also good. We've found that a new expansion also renews interest in the game itself and that sales of the original game or the re-packaged game (and therefore overall subscriber numberes) go up as well. I assume this is because existing players are excited about the expansion, the expansions get reviews in magazines, etc., so the word about the game gets out to new players as well.

The costs, however, continue as well. Not only do you have the marketing dollars necessary to put the expansion and refreshed main product out there (both ads as well as channel marketing dollars (end caps, PoP (point of purchase) materials, etc.) but you also have the continued cost of the Live, Expansion, Operations, and CS teams (not to mention the infrastructure costs themselves -- the server farms, the bandwidth costs, etc).

The way a developer/publisher relationship usually works is that the developer is paid advances on the game in order to fund development. The publisher sets up milestones and other metrics to make sure the developer is doing their job (e.g. making the game, preferably on time) and then pays the developer a portion of the agreed upon advances at those milestone dates. This money is then used by the developer to pay salaries, rent, buy computers & software, vast quantities of diet Mountain Dew, etc. Rarely is any money kept around except maybe a small fund for an emergency because a smart developer wants to spend that money on more employees, tools, equipment, etc. so that the game turns out that much better.

The contract the developer usually has with the publisher includes the total advance amount, the milestone schedule, and the royalty percentage.

(The other way, which is more rare, is that the developer raises funds through Venture Capitalist or Angel Investors or the founders themselves were already very affluent and also willing to put their own money on the line).

So when the game comes out, all revenue goes first into paying back the development costs (e.g. nobody is making any money). Once the costs of development are paid, both the publisher and developer make (hopefully) a profit. The developer gets a percentage royalty payment on an agreed to frequency, and the publisher gets the rest. (The Publisher usually gets the majority because they fronted all of or at least the majority of the money and therefore assumed the vast majority of the risk).

The developer can then take that profit (again, assuming the game was successful enough to have paid of its development costs (and MMOGs are VERY expensive, btw) and do any number of things with it. They can pay out royalties to their employees and/or a bonus or some such, or they can put the money away to build up a 'nest egg' hoping to eventually be able to self-fund a game.

Very successful developers (say ID Software, for example) I believe (don't know this for a fact) pay for the majority of the development costs for their games such that they assume the financial risk and therefore receive a much higher royalty. This is atypical, however -- it typically requires a developer that's stayed independent and been around quite a while and has a long history of hit titles behind them.

Developing, launching, and maintaining massivley multiplayer games is more complex, however, since MMOGs are not 'fire and forget' like many conventional video or computer games, the costs keep recurring. Money still has to come into the developer to pay for the Live, Expansion, and CS teams. So, typically, the developer also at some point executes a contract (or amendment to the first contract) to receive advances even after the game is launched. This is, of course, a good thing because no one wants to lay off their talented and experienced staff after the MMOG is launched. Royalty percentages, etc. are also figured out then for both the expansions and the overall success of the game in terms of retention and monthly revenue the game generates. Sometimes royalties are not a set number but can go up (or down, but hopefully not) based on how successful the game is (e.g. if the overall revenue or profit reaches a certain point, the developer's royalty could go up).

The profit margin for an MMOG can be very good relative to other games because of the recurring monthly subscription revenue. If the operation of the game is kept lean and mean but also at the level that the customer is sastisfied and therefore keeps subscribing, the margin can be very high (up to 40%-50%). This is one of the reasons, especially early on in the UO/EQ days that everyone and their dog wanted to make an MMOG (regarless, unfortunately, of whether they truly had the talent and/or passion for this particular genre).

The fact of the matter, however, is that while those profit margins are indeed attractive, it takes a LOT more to make an MMOG than a typical game. It's a lot harder IMHO, takes a talent pool that is not necessarily the same as what it takes to make a single player games, and that talent pool (since there are far less MMOG experienced developers out there) is much harder to find. Then you need good operations people and a good operations infrastructure to launch the game and maintain it after launch (you all know the struggles many companies have gone through with launching theses games). The development cycle is also typically longer (3-5 years) and many people simply aren't willing to devote that kind of time only working on one title. And, as mentioned, the expense is very high (becuase of the infrastructure necessary as well as the longer development cycle), so it's often hard to find a publisher/funder willing to assume that level of risk. Bottom line: there are far easier ways to make money in the computer/video game business -- you really need a developer and publisher committed to the genre.

But, of course, if all goes right and the game is a success, in the end a lot of profit can be generated. Again, most of this typically goes to the publisher. The money that goes to the developer, as mentioned above, can be used for royalties, bonusses, or saved (or some combination of the three).

Typically, if the developer is in it for the long haul (and the mentality of the developer who wants to make an MMOG is typically oriented thusly), they try to keep much of that profit to put into future games and endeavors.

The other scenario that can occur if the game is very successful is that the publisher or someother enterprising entity will buy the developer after the game launches and looks like its going to be a success (or even before, if everything looks very promising). An example of this would be SOE buying Verant not long after EQ came out. And if the developer is employee owned (e.g. the employees have stock options), this can be a way to make good money more short term as opposed to staying independent and amassing royalties. There are, of course, downsides to 'selling out' as well, and it's an interesting (but probably overall good) 'problem' to deal with.

I hope this answered your questions -- the short answer would be to say that box sales drive the initial big hit of revenue (and payback of development costs) but the real profit comes from long term subscription revenue that a successful and popular MMOG hopefully generates (and then, of top of that, successful expansions).

1.0.42 What sort of technology are you using for your primary graphics engine for Vanguard?

We're using a heavily modified version of Unreal 2.x, and it continues to be heavily modified in just about every area -- we'll re-do the network code, we've already just about totally re-written the rending side of things to get bump mapping, etc. in there, we've made it seamless world, we've completely replaced the player character technology (skinned FPS models don't cut it in an MMOG), plus a lot more.

We feel very confident this modified engine will be perfect for Vanguard at release (just as, like you mentioned, the L2 guys successfully morphed the engine for their MMOG).

Will we switch to 3.0? Well, we look at 3.0 and learn from it all the time, but as to officially switching over to that code base, it would be huge endeavor... it would both slow us down right now, plus 3.0 just isn't as mature as the 2.x code base so we'd be taking some risks. That said, at some point after Vanguard's release, I could certainly see us making the transition.

1.0.43 Is there a plan to hamper IGE type companies?

Yes, it's very difficult to stop entirely, and nor is there a simple solution, but that doesn't mean we don't plan on doing everything we possibly can to minimize the harmful effects this sort of thing brings to an MMOG.

1.0.44 A lot of games list System Requirements that often prove false upon release. Does Sigil plan on being as close as possible to the truth on game requirements?

I hear you. We will be as honest as we are allowed to be (it's not all in our hands, but the marketing departments seem very cool about these things -- I'm just saying I don't have authority over that area, just influence).

But I think you guys know I'm very straight up with you. I'd like to post minimum specs that are really minimum specs (e.g. you can play the game and have fun, but all the graphics goodness slider bars will be turned off), and then recommended which would be the slider bars in the middle, and then 'crazy' or some such, which would be the best system you could buy at the time. Though keep in mind the best system buyable during beta or release likely will not be able to have everything turned all the way up -- the game has to scale both backwards and then forwards into time so it still looks great years after release.

The reason we are not talking about specs now is that it's just not a good idea for the following reasons:

Thus the system I use to run Vanguard today in alpha mode will likely be MUCH cheaper when the game comes out (or even during beta), and also I'm running on relatively unoptimized code (though we are putting some optimizations in for E3 demos and such).

1.0.45 If I don't have the best set-up, will there be a lot of lag?

Lag from internet latency. This is the one that I think will be around for a while. We have experience coders who code very efficient network engines. But again, there are two factors. We still can't push a ton of data out to the player, and we'll still have situations where the player can't get a good connection to us. We'll do everything we can to minimize this, but I want to be straight up and say that the Internet still isn't where it should be, though things have gotten a lot better.

Lag as framerate. The answer here is, like I mentioned, lots of options that a player can turn off if he happens to be in a raid or near a ton of other people. That and hopefully a smart system that will adjust things in real time for you. This is important to us because we are pushing technology with this game. I'm glad we are, but it does mean we will be more subject to frame rate issues than, say, WoW. It also means that our min specs will be higher. It also means we need to have lots of options and also do a lot of optimization, both of which are in progress. (This answer is courtesy of Silky Venom)

1.0.46 What about a 64bit client for Vanguard?

We will likely have a 64 bit client before launch -- it's just a matter of priorities. Btw, even though the client is still 32 bit, I've run some tests and you get around at 5% (sometimes up to 10%) performance boost running on XP64. And this wasn't just running Vanguard -- I ran 3dMark too -- I can dual boot my 3.2EE dual core into either XP 32 or 64 since it's a newer chip and supports the 64bit instructions, and I've run the game and third party 3d tests on it.

A 64-bit client will also allow Vanguard to load up huge amounts of the world at one time, assuming you also have the RAM to support this. And while currently such a system is cost prohibitive, in 1-2 years they won't be nearly as so. Our engine is very scalable, so in the future by using 64 bit technology, additional RAM, and other advanced hardware, we will take advantage of that technology and not only from the additional performance, but, using one example, while you can see 4-6 km in the game right now in clear areas, in the future one could see 10+ km using a 64 bit client and a lot of RAM. (This answer is courtesy of Silky Venom)

1.0.47 Will Vanguard run on MS Vista?

in the works will also be Vista clients, but their availability will have to do with the OS's release first.

I can't go into details, but it is important that Vanguard not only runs on Vista but also takes advantage of many of Vistas new features, especially as they relate to graphics. And yes we do have Vista beta. Beyond that it's too early to comment further, other than to say that personally, while Vista is still pretty early on, I'm really excited about it... some features have been pushed into later service packs, but overall I think it's going to be a great OS and one that moreso than any previously helps out games. (This answer is courtesy of Silky Venom)

1.0.48 Will Vanguard Require DX10?

Not for a *long* time. At some point, you do have to upgrade an MMOG to a more recent version of DX, but it's when the currently used version becomes several (2-3) versions behind (we did this in EQ too). Definitely nothing to worry about for 1-2 years minimum I wouldn't think. (This answer is courtesy of Silky Venom)

1.0.49 How do you guys feel about the secondary market?

RMT (real money trading) is an interesting problem. I recently had a conversation with the Publisher of a certain gaming magazine about RMT and its role in the marketplace and I'm going to talk a little bit about why it doesn't work for a company like Sigil, what can be done to combat it, why some of the ideas in this thread would work, why they won't work, and what can be done about it.

First, Sigil Games Online has no problem with RMT.

I know that this seems contradictory to any previously published statement, but allow me to explain our position. We do not care if people engage in RMT in any game where the developer and publisher has authorized it. There are several great examples of games that have incorporated RMT into their game, Second Life, There.com, and others. There's an enterprising group of MIT students working on a 2D/3D futuristic MMO with RMT built into the economy from the ground up -- and we support that.

However, we do not support it when it happens to developers or publishers without their consent. We spend 4 or 5 years building these games and we expect that when we license them for use to people, that they accept the terms under which we license it for their use.

There are rules for use. Just because an automobile can go 140mph doesn't mean that you get to go 140mph. When you buy a car, you agree that you will only go as fast as the speed limit. Do some people break the rules? Yes. Is it illegal? Yes. If you get caught, is there a penalty? Yes, and 'but the car can go that fast' isn't a sufficient excuse -- nor is, 'but there's a market for RMT.'

Yes, there is a market for it. Wherever the value of time is greater than the value of money, there will be a market for it. Whenever time can be commoditized and sold, there will be a market for it. It is, actually, the same mechanic that drives outsourcing.

So, other than the philosophical, 'we don't like it' let's look at why we don't like it. Let's separate out two things that are often lumped together -- for the purposes of this discussion, I'm only going to discuss the sale of items/money, explicitly excluding character sales -- that's a different issue.

As for currency sales, there are several reasons we choose to disallow it from the game:

1) Community

Games like Lineage2 have been ruined by PvP farmers who attack anyone that comes near their spawn points of the most lucrative NPCs. Games like World of Warcraft have had the entirety of their game database stolen from them by willing users of UI modifications that submitted every piece of data to a localized server. That data can be mined for which areas are the most profitable per minute, per hour, per drop. That is where you will find the farmers, monopolizing the camps and driving away paying customers.

2) Game Balance

So, as a game developer, how do you balance the game? You look at the economy and you have to look at the average rate at which money enters the economy per player, scale it by level, and then price things appropriately. Now, when someone dominates the normal camping spots for a given level range, or a place where you're counting on evening out the money curve for people in a particular level range, they naturally fall behind the curve, behind unable to afford things that, as a developer, you expected them to be able to acquire/afford.

Secondly, you're stuck with a situation wherein, if you want to curtail the activity, you have to balance it against a player that is playing in excess of 20 hours in a day -- you're shifting the rate of acquisition curve to the right, substantially.. And what does that do to the people on the left of the curve? It short changes them, and in order to stay competetive, they participate in the secondary market -- congratulations, you've just created your own problem.

As a potential solution to problem #1, some people suggest instancing. Hey, there's no competition if you don't see those people. Well, that's true. However, basic economics tells us that the value of any given thing is relative to both its supply and demand. If any given item has an uncontrolled supply, demand will decrease and its value decreases. Rare items are no longer rare if their rate of entry into the world is not controlled.

So if you spawn an instance any time someone, or a group, enters, and any rare tradeable (or even non-tradeable if you can just run someone through the instance to get the loot at the end) loot then drops, you have a situation where you have mass currency deflation. It’s akin to printing money whenever the supply runs low – countries like Argentina have tried this with decidedly poor results. When this happens enough, you have situations like occured in Asherons Call (or Ultima Online, I don't remember which one), where the players create their own currency -- the currency had deflated to a point of being near worthless and the players found a reagent that had a given fixed rarity that they then used as currency.

If you cede control of drop rate to an uncontrollable mechanic, you cede control of your economy.

Now, let's talk about some of posts in this thread.

First, not all farmers are from China and not all people from China are farmers. I realize that there is a perception that many of the farming operations are Chinese, but in fact, the most successful, lucrative, profitable, and insidious operations are American.

Why? Because you don't notice them. They're your local uberguild who farms the 2nd tier ubermobs for loot that they liquidate and sell off the money to a website, they're your bazaar trader who spends weeks watching the prices and buys from other traders and sells at a markup, turning that profit into a car payment, a house payment, or college tuition.

Are any of those causes worthwhile? Sure. But they're still damaging.

And why don't they get the press? Because they don't stick out, they're not different, they speak English.

FFXI is going through a transition right now where many of the farming operations have just figured out how to gain access to some of the higher end areas of the game, sky. They're now farming Ullikummi for triggers (nevermind if this doesn't mean anything to you) and they then sell those triggers for 18m or more per. Some of those guilds cheat and bot, and there's very little that can be done about it.

Someone earlier said, well, we should be able to report those people.

Yes, you can. But we can't just take your word for it. Yes, I know who the farmers are on the servers of the games I play. But I also know why the companies do nothing about it.

Because all it takes is one innocent person to steal someone else's Orc and be given the scarlet letter of plat seller and the whole system falls apart. "But what if it had to be multiple reports." Ok, now we have entire guilds flagging people. "But what if the GM has to investigate each report." Ok, that's what we do now.

But it's also important to note that farming, in and of itself, is not against the rules. Where do we draw the line? Is the guy who farms so that he can sell the money to a website different from the guy who farms so he can buy himself the ubergear item that he's been coveting since he was level 5? If yes, when? When they actually execute on intent? You then fall afoul of social justice issues, guilty unless proven innocent? Guilty based on intent? Tom Cruise did a movie about that...

I am not an attorney, but just for the record, EULAs are enforceable, even the part about sharing accounts. It's important to note why that rule exists though.

It's simply because it's a Customer Support nightmare. I worked as a GM on EverQuest for several years. I will tell you that I spent more than 40% of my time investigating 'item loss' and 'hacked accounts'.

In all that time, I only had 1 account where I ever had found someone had their password brute-forced (and it was partially cuz they chose a bad password). In every other case, the items were taken by someone with whom they shared their account. Sometimes a spouse, a parent, a friend, a guildmate, some random guy on the street... all of whom they swore were their bestest of friend who would never ever ever do anything like that to them.

The account problem is mostly pragmatic. Everyone knows when an account is sold and the guy who bought it doesn't know how to play the character.. they get marked by the community pretty fast. The company stance's are mostly practical.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled program..

What can a company like Sigil do?

We can look at heuristic economic modelling... that's one thing we intend to do. We can see when the economy begins to move at a rate faster than we intend and look at causes. We can identify trends and isolate the individuals that are causing those trends.

We can ban the Johns. I know that's a difficult approach and will be largely unpopular. Everyone cheers for this idea until it's their friend, their guild's cleric or more common than you'd believe, their treasurer.

We can be public about those that we terminate. Not sure that we would actually do this beyond the actual number due to privacy concerns and the lawyers that would descend upon us, but that would likely be a deterrent.

We can require validation. However, as a company, the higher the barrier to entry, the harder it is for us to gain customers and to retain them. There's a tolerance level here and we have to weigh it carefully.

We can pursue violators legally. Yes, we could do this, but then you risk vilification like the MPAA and the RIAA.. not exactly something that any company would relish, even in the face of having to protect their Intellectual Property.

We can investigate complaints as they come in. As many companies already do, it really is about allocation of resource here. When there's bugs out there that affect the immediate enjoyability of the game for a large number of players, the long-term damaging effect issues oftentimes get relegated to back-burner status in the face of pressing issues.

We can appeal to those of you who find worthy causes in those issues of social justice. Most of the people who are doing this work aren't compensated appropriately, they don't have health care, they don't make living wages.

And lastly, we can rely on the Community to help us come up with innovative solutions, not simply variations on existing themes.

That's where you come in. We get lots of emails from people telling us all we need to do is ban all Chinese IPs. You know why that wouldn't work, in addition to it being completely xenophobic? Because of IP tunnels, because of proxies, because of AOL NAT (if you don't know what that is, don't worry about it..).

I'm not a firearm advocate, but I'm going to shamelessly borrow from their PR folks. If you make owning a firearm a criminal act, you ensure that only criminals will own firearms.

In the end, this is a social problem, it's a game mechanic and balance problem, it's an ownership of IP problem, it's a game enjoyment problem, it's a community problem, and it's also partially a problem of enforcement.