Vanguard’s Beta Break: The Missing Leak
As the title suggests I was unable to find the other beta Vanguard synopsis I wanted to reiterate from a more trusted source. Several months ago I had ninja pasted the leak in a document file and placed it on my wide screen desktop, which is always cluttered and never organized, when clutter is at full capacity, files are thronged into a folder off the main desktop into what I deem a secondary desktop, which holds even more clutter and sub folders, making sifting through this library of train a huge pain in the ass. It’s possible, I accidentally deleted the file as I frequently tend to paste numerous things in certain text files with names that don’t match the criteria. Yes, my computer organization skills are slob like and I’ve spent several hours scouring forum threads for the missing leak only too no avail. I do remember the gist of the author’s argument which primarily focused on the difficulty and boredom they experienced during Vanguard’s early beta phases.
[Disclaimer: Vanguard is in an early beta development phase, the design will change and fluctuate, nothing I mention in the gist of the author's synopsis is finalized for retail]
* Lack of content: Vanguard promises content for all levels and playtypes; including meaningful content that will support the leveling curve for Vanguard’s three different progression spheres or main systems: crafting, adventuring, and diplomacy. The problem the author discussed is that for early beta testers most of these systems are broken and need more fine-tuning and polish. Ultimately, there was not much content implemented because the foundation of those systems were still being worked on.
* Long travel times: The author discussed concerns for long distance traveling, Vanguard wants to be perceived as a virtual world more than a gamey world, so even with vehicles like horses available players in the early levels, players will spend a decent amount of time traveling. Traveling falls under the game versus world argument, if you want a vast virtual world, long travel time is almost an evil necessary, but long travel times have inherent problems, accessibility barriers for those who play in short bursts and the repetitiveness factor.
* Death penalty & Mob difficulty: According to the author Vanguard’s death penalty was experience debt that stacked, the problem expressed with mob difficulty, even with appropriate gear, there was a high risk of dying to a mob that was even con, so eventually after numerous deaths the debt would only continue to stack eventually to the point where it would take hours to work off. A strict death penalty doesn’t make sense, not in a beta, if you are asking for testers to test content, unless they are specifically testing the death penalty.
*Solo versus Group: This also falls under mob difficulty, the author claimed soloing up until level 12 was possible, but anything after, for meaningful progression experience wise a group was required. Another problem was finding groups in higher level rangers, low population numbers and beta testers patience for grouping together waning, but the low beta population Might explain why Sigil is revving up to distribute the Vanguard beta client through FilePlanet. Certainly by reading various forums there is a high interest in Vanguard from enough players to expand the beta pool if it is needed, the forums saw around 50,000 registrations, which all met the deadline before beta invites were sent out.
Final thoughts: It’s obvious Vanguard still needs a lot of development and content implementation, the development team suffered a huge blow with two key senior designers leaving in the last year, designers who were a cohesive part of McQuaid’s infamous original vision. Still Vanguard holds a lot of promise and I have to appreciate Sigil’s tenacity in wanting to evolve concepts and push some innovation into the genre. However, it’s not all about mechanics and systems, overall actual meaningful content is king and what is even more important in a pve based mmog as most mmogs show so many similarities amongst each other.
About this entry
You’re currently reading “Vanguard’s Beta Break: The Missing Leak,” an entry on Plaguelands
- Published:
- 03.22.06 / 1pm
- Category:
- Beta Leak, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes

plaguelands.com





Hi Krones,
I enjoy reading your blogs and although I’m not in Vanguard’s beta, I have been following the game for some years now. Has it been that long? uhhh, yep
In all honestly, I’m disappointed with all the news. It’s not about the beta leaks either. I expect negative reviews from those who don’t like it.
What disturbs me most is the little progress I’ve seen in all this time gone by. (E3 videos, pics vs. McQuaid hype) I guess I just expected more by now and definitely more in the way of something different.
I see nothing different in combat. It sounds like EQ2 reactions. The tradeskills sound totally overbearing to even bother with, and I’m an avid fan of tradeskills! But to group with someone in order to obtain my materials? That’s just not going to work for me.
Another non-selling point for me is the FAQ and the 20% solo experience. I’m not even the least bit enthused about that prospect. In my experience, I envision a bunch of hardcore fans going in there and secluding themselves to DKP guilds with stringent rules that would ruin my life again if I let it.
What also bothers me is reading the attitude of the company as of late. There was an implication by McQuaid about not only banning their NDA breakers, but doing something more to them which he cannot disclose. I don’t know how you feel, but the idea of suing an NDA breaker for a negative opinion of their product doesn’t sit well with me. I believe that while those testers should abide by the NDA, implying that they’ll sue them if they speak poorly about their product during the process just makes me view Sigil as very insecure.
I’ve worked for a lawyer for 8 years now, and even my boss believes there is no “trade secret” violated and a Judge would probably scrap most, if not all, of their “online” NDA - but to even suggest or imply that they would even attempt going in that direction with their testers, just makes me think the whole situation has toppled overboard.
I’d highly caution anyone getting involved with this beta for that reason. It seems to be a volitile “opportunity” at this point. Even if my application was picked in the future, I’d decline the invitation from what I’ve read this week. It’s just getting too ridiculous now. It’s starting to remind me of the original Everquest staff arrogance.
So if you think you’re going to get frustrated by all the McQuaid hype and be tempted to “tell the truth”, don’t bother, IMHO. It isn’t worth the implied threats he’s now making.
I understand they want to make a profit, but there’s also a responsibility in meeting the hype one has delivered. I don’t believe he has met that threshold, hence the negative reviews.
Hi back,
I feel your pain, if I could change the stars knowing what I do now, I would have not devoted so much of my time into following Vanguard for the first two years. I had placed my faith into McQuaid and have been let down, but I take the bad with the good, learn from the experience and move on and try to not relish in the negative.
I don’t want Vanguard too fail either, some readers may form that impression if I write/wrote about the game or a developer in a negative manner. I may not agree with McQuaid on some aspects and tenets, I appreciate the genre as a whole, but when it comes to Vanguard specifically, overall I felt like you, disappointed.