Jump to content

Talk:Vanguard: Saga of Heroes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Missing the key element?

[edit]

Surely the main feature of the VGSOH lifespan was the huge potential versus the epic failure of delivery. The crafting and diplomacy systems really were excellent (there's still nothing better anywhere 5 years later) as were several of the housing and transport concepts. In many ways it was the most optimistic MMO for a long time, yet no mention is made of any of this? It should be the textbook example of how mismanagement can destroy an excellent product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.219.185 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Un-Official Server" listings

[edit]

I can understand French speaking servers, or language specific, but what the hell is "Oceanic"? Is that Australia, Hawaii, Philipines, anything on the coast of an ocean? Only people who live on boats? Nschubach 05:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oceanic is, yes, New Zealand, Australia, Japan and anyone who plays in that particular timezone. If you look on the Official Game Affiliate site, Ausguard (link available through SOH site), you will see that Targonor is the nominated PVE server and Tharridon is the nominated PVP server. Many timezone or language-specific communities will nominate a server in this way because being the only one on during your primetime sucks.Therian 06:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening

[edit]

I'd remove the references to the pre-orders as it is going live in three days. Tdewey

[edit]

Instead of a page full of affiliate site links, perhaps we could just replace the entire section (bar one or two informational sites) with a link to the Official Affiliate Site list?Therian 03:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of links is ridiculous, I'm getting on to this. GBobly 02:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I've shortened the list of links considerably, linking to the official affiliates webpage. After all they link to official affiliates and fan sites, people should register there instead of everyone adding a link to wikipedia, it's becoming crazy.
I've kept under the official affiliates link 6 main websites offering news, message boards, galleries, radio streams, maps, quest info, ect... but also links to websites relating to the other spheres of Vanguard (VGTact ect). I've also taken this occasion to update the link title to better describe the websites linked.
Concerning the videos section, I have replaced certain videos with others so as to end up with two trailers, videos showing the mounts, a video showing diplomacy, crafting, mining and a lumberjack. Clearly labelled, this is much better than a bunch of youtube URL's.
If anyone feels that I have omitted some links that should have made it here please let me know. GBobly 03:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. The list was getting rediculous and out of hand.Nschubach 05:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I also trimmed out some dead links (like the IRC channel). It might be worth doing a page about the affiliate sites, sorting them and saying what they do... Maybe in a couple of months when the small ones have died out and new ones have com in.
Why not just delete all of the community links like the original question stated? (Barring the main one to the SoE page that is.) You don't need any of the other community links listed with the SoE link page there, and I see absolutely no reason to list them both here and on SoE's link page. Also, by doing so you won't have to worry about maintaining the community links--unless SoE and Sigil stop supporting the game anyway. If a link on SoE's page is dead, that's their problem. All or nothing would make it less of a headache dealing with miffed people whining "Why isn't MINE on that list?" Ravashack 20:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And after that last edit, "Why isn't mine first on the list?" I'm all for removing the links totally and linking to an official list. Nschubach 08:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also refer to WP:EL. --Scottie_theNerd 08:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider TheVanguardWiki a "link to avoid": "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."? I mean right on the front page it lists "The Vanguard reference that anyone can edit." and "Pages: 79 Articles: 16 Images: 1 Users: 17" How many does Wiki consider substantial? If so, what's the point of a Wiki if you can't point to other Wikis? That's not really what concerns me though. It the whole "me first" mentality. At one time I went in and listed them in alphabetic order and that lasted about 2 days. Nschubach 10:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard: Saga of Heroes character classes

[edit]

When Sigil releases information on each class Vanguard: Saga of Heroes character classes article should be started. The Races and class restrictions section should also be moved there. 550talk 16:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the information for race/class combinations currently on this page should probably be removed because it's highly subject to change (not to mention uncited), and the way sub-races are grouped is very misleading. But yes, I agree that a character classes page should be made when more information is available. --Shroom Mage 22:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's why I added the note on the table. The table does not have enough room to include the sub races class restrictions. Maybe another table would be needed to go over the sub races. However, it is straight from developer sources and if changes can be easily edited. 550talk 16:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I added in the sub races into a table of its own. Now all Races are included.550talk 01:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tables under "Race and class restrictions" do not render correctly in either FireFox (values bleed between cells), or IE (values are cut off).

The table under "Adventuring" appears completely garbled.

I have updated the table to match current in-game restrictions. Nschubach 00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links to non-VG classes are ridiculrous (e.g. the link from monk to actual monks). The links should go to VG class pages and then, maybe, on the class page there may be a link to the origin of the term monk. Generally this page needs a lot of work. I'll try to do something with dungeon section. Tdewey

WTF WHERE ARE TEH CALSSES FUCK U WIKIPEDIA IM GOING TO GO MURDER MYSELF THEN USE MY GHOST TO KILLZ U ALLZ HAHAHAH

Diplomacy section needs a complete rewrite.

[edit]

In light of the recent revelations in Jeff Butler's MMORPG.com interview.

Got a link? Powers T 21:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://vanguardradio.com/vanguard-saga-of-heroes-news/vanguard-news/behind-the-scenes-video-of-diplomacy.html GBobly 02:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

These sites are affilliated fan sites. Vanguard Spheres, VanguardTact (diplomacy) and Vanguard Crafters (crafting). It is interesting that the affiliated fan sites be listed with link, because now the VSoH dicussion will happen at the forums at the affiliated fan sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.181.21.55 (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would add all the sites listed on the official site. Tdewey 02:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomacy section reads like an advertisement.

[edit]

"The third "sphere" of Vanguard, diplomacy, takes the concept of factions and player interaction to a whole new level." Serialized 08:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • MUCH of the whole article reads like it was lifted directly from early Sigil ad copy. Note the trequent use of future tense. I am attempting to clean this up a little bit at a time. Ardwulf 16:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) Involvement

[edit]

This section is a little oddly worded:

It doesn't seem likely that sigil are maintaining an independent server farm in case something happens to the soe servers. Why would they, it's not like soe have a bad reputation for server uptime.

Secondly, is it an acurate portrayal of the deal to describe sigil as "hiring" soe?

From my understanding of the agreement, SOE is only handling the pblication and hosting of the game. I was not aware of an backup contingency. I'll have to do some more research on the exact involvement here. (It was rumored that SOE had "loaned" programmers to Sigil for the last stretch of development as well. I don't know the truth in this either.) Nschubach 23:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Spelling tag?

[edit]

Why was the spelling tag added to this page? It looks good to me. There were recently a couple of spelling changes made, but many of those were american english to british english, and one was from french to english. Cyphern 17:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's a lot of hate surrounding this game. I suspect it's just that. Nschubach 13:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it initially, but readded it due to the fact that there are a few spelling errors that exist. Running through it now Obsideus 20:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed some things, but there are a bit of grammatically incorrect sentences and paragraphs, in addition to a number of spelling errors. Unfortunately, I can't change these at the moment. Obsideus 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed a number of spelling and grammar errors (that/which usage, primarily). Left the british english spellings intact. Edited as 128.123.125.210 (forgot to log in ...) Spelling tag remains. Perhaps there's more to do, but I think it's all good. --Martinship 04:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the spelling tag. If you want it back, no objections, but like I said the article looks good to me.--Martinship 09:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be kidding me. Why would you take that tag down? This whole article is in Engrish. I would correct the mistakes by myself but it could take me a whole week.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pay to play?

[edit]

is the game pay to play or what? How does it make the company money?

Yes, it's part of the Sony Station, and a part of Station Pass as well. $14.99/month on a month to month basis or $24.99 on Station Pass which gives you access all the games on the Station Pass subscription service. Nschubach 14:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over "Retail Beta" claim

[edit]

I'm sending the "early release" issue to mediation. The last thing Wikipedia needs is people like Nschubach deleting content at will because they don't like it. In fact, if you read Wikipedia's own information about how to handle disputes it says, in bold letters, not to simply revert. Despite your erroneous claim to the contrary, nothing in my addition is opinion at all. The game was released early. That's a fact. People have complained that it is still in beta. That's a fact and it wouldn't take you long to verify it if you were more interested in accuracy and objectivity than your own opinion. There is no marking on the retail packaging to indicate the game was released early. That's a fact as well. Brad McQuaid, the developer, has said it was released early and that it needs patches and bug fixes on par with Beta 5. Nschubach, you are a great detriment to a site like this because you care more about your personal opinion than objectivity, and if something doesn't align with your personal opinion you want to make certain that no one reads it. People like you are the reason Wikipedia has taken a lot of flak over the years.

I've created a new section called Community Concerns on the page that your content concerns should go in. Nschubach 14:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

Just took one look at this article and my eyes are bleeding. I don't what editors have been trying to do, but from my perspective, this article is trying to be a Wiki of its own. Please read WP:NOT and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games guidelines. Wikipedia is not a game guide, and this article contains far too much player-orientated information. Moving to StrategyWiki and/or E-Gamia is heavily recommended. I would appreciate if a regular editor knowledgeable with the game do the move and/or trim the article; otherwise I will butcher it myself. --Scottie theNerd 08:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone has a problem with it, I'm removing the "Partial Dungeon List" for starters. That section alone could grow way out of control. Silky Venom has a good "detail" wiki that covers alot of the dungeons, mob types, etc.Nschubach 13:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned up alot of the "specifics" data on the page to generalize this to a description of the game. Whoever posted the Harvesting/Crafting info, please move it to one of the community sites and cite them for data. Nschubach 05:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The class compatibility table needs to go. It's pure game guide material and is of no use to the casual reader. I will remove the table if there are no objections. --Scottie_theNerd 05:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the final version of the table, I see no real problem with it's removal. Your going to have to do the deed though since I can't bring myself to hitting the delete button.  : sniff : Nschubach 04:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it can be ported over to another Wiki? --Scottie_theNerd 08:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventuring Classes section desperately needs trimming. Information should be a brief, useful summary for casual readers rather than in-depth information for players. Anyone with knowledge of the game should consider summarising the classes from the current extensive list. --Scottie_theNerd 08:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need links for each of the classes? I had a brain fart when editing the class links and thought I was leaving them bolded, but the intention was to remove the link completely--especially when you have a more unique class like the Blood Mage which doesn't act like a stereotypical wizard at all. Ravashack 02:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, we shouldn't even be listing out all the classes. Summarise if possible in a single paragraph; two at most. --Scottie_theNerd 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, as classes are a core game feature and a list and brief discussion are appropriate for a Wikipedia article. I DO agree that specific ingame details should be kept to a minimum for the time being, at least while the state of the game remains in flux. I think the ideal solution is to create a separate class page.Ardwulf 17:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a separate page means that it has to meet the guidelines under WP:N and WP:V. Classes more be a core element of the game, but they are not necessarily core elements of the article. A full list is generally unnecessary; if they are to be listed out, it should be done within a paragraph rather than a dot-point list. I am wary of your definition of "discussion". If this means a list with a brief description of each class, that is most likely against WP:NOT#GUIDE. If it's a discussion of examples and description of variety within several paragraphs, as long as they meet the above guidelines (especially WP:V), that would be acceptable and beneficial for the general reader. Essentially, what you need to consider is how useful a class list is going to be for someone who has no experience with the game. --Scottie_theNerd 18:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your reasoning but not (I think) your conclusion. Yes, a class page must meet the same guidelines, and should not tread into game guide waters or delve into material too detailed for a general reader. However, character classes, and the list thereof are such a central feature of this particular genre of game that I think it difficult to get even a general picture of the game without such a lit, however brief. Remember that truly "general" readers likely need not refer to this article at all; more likely, the reader will have at least a passing knowledge of PC games and of the MMO genre specifically, and will be looking to find out how this title compares with others. And the articles for pretty much every other MMO do list the races and classes (although possibly in separate articles.)
So I think there should be a list of both races and classes. I think it should be as brief as possible, and I am willing to concede that such things might be better placed in a separate article. Furthermore, I do not see how such a list would, if written appropriately, be in violation of the WP:N, WP:V or WP:NOT#GUIDE guidelines, either by a reading of the guidelines themselves or by examination of how those guidelines have been applied in practice to articles about other games in this genre. I think that if information would only be useful to someone playing a particular game, then it crosses the line and should be left out. Class and Race lists are useful to a reader comparing games, and thus I feel they are a valid (and neccessary, given existing standards) inclusion. Ardwulf 21:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This game is an online abortion and a blight on the MMO industry

[edit]

This game is horrible. It's laggy, buggy and unfun. The reviews are 90% dismal. They are 450,000 short of their subscriber goal and what subscribers they have left are leaving in droves. The commmunity forums are up in arms with how much the game sucks. The devs have admitted they released an unfinished product to market. They are partnered with the most evil company on earth (SOE). This article is like a marketing brochure. You need to put very high up on the page what an embarrassment this game is. Please fix this article ASAP... or I will. Jonawiki 22:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you come here stating the game sucks and since the article doesn't say outright that it sucks, you put up a tag to say it's not a balanced view of the game? Point me to a place in the article where it says this game is totally bug free and the best thing since sliced bread... You can post all your criticisms in the criticism section. I'm removing your tags for vandalism. Nschubach 04:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, your citation tag was completely unnecessary as all data is accurate to the game that is live as far as I can tell. Point me to a point on the page that does not reflect actual game play and I'll gladly pop a fact tag on it myself. Nschubach 04:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no footnoting, no referencing, no verifiability in this article. The Interwebs are awash in forum flames over how bad this game is.
There are tons of reviews saying how much this game sucks. I will include these reviews in my edits to the article. This will bring balance to the article.
One question: if the devs and management post in their own official forums, is that Wiki-approved source from a verifiability perspective? I want to reference these posts from a verifiability angle. From a legal perspective, they would constitute public statements. But not sure what the Wiki perspective is. Jonawiki 15:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it, flames. Flames hold as much relevance as a Wiki article itself. All the information posted here is available on the community links. Of which, I think Silky Venom has tons, as an example. While I agree, the dev comments need Cites, and I'll a fact to them after writing this, the article is, as far as I can tell written to be as neutral as possible. Even after reading your last edit, I went through and chopped some of the "Greatest" and "Most Complex" type text that I could find on a quick read through. Other than that, the detail (as noted in the cleanup) topic has also been removed, by myself. I do agree that this type of info needs to be contained on a fan site. All I ask is that you point me to a few places in the article where it sounds "weighted" and the text depicts untruths of the game. Hell, I even included a Community Concern section for all those that want to post concerns over the game, performance, or any of that. I feel as though the reader wants to know about the game and it's mechanics rather than someones feelings on how it was implemented. If they feel like reading about an opinion on the game, they can read through the concerns sections or the negative reviews on the page. Nschubach 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you have to remember too is that WoW was the exact same way, along with Star Wars Galaxies, Guild Wars, Everquest, and pretty much 90% of the MMO games ever concieved. They all got bad reviews in forums and fansites because they were all released in the same state, incomplete. Vanguard was a little more incomplete at launch I will give you that, but in a month it had alot of problems addressed and many corrected or at least paritally repaired, the GM's are very responsive and will personally assist you with most problems, try getting that kind of attention in other "Finished" MMO's. All I'm saying is they do have quite an unfinished game on their hands, but I've never seen a company work so hard to keep their customers happy. victisomega 14:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the npov-tag now. The reasons cited here are not enough to warrant such a tag as far as I can tell. Quote from WP:NPOV dispute: "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Attribution, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." Tengfred 10:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Edits

[edit]

Some of the edits I put in may be inaccurate (especially the ones under Monk and Disciple) but the format of how it was written was bugging me. I know what they mean, but explaining 'hate buff', 'DPS buff', aggro, and other terminology or even having it in there didn't seem right. Only reason why I left 'mob' in was because it was already linked. Any comments? Ravashack 23:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters Section

[edit]

The Characters section (like the rest of the article) needs a lot of work. It has too much information in most areas, and it is absolutely filled with inaccuracies and misleading facts. The caption on the screenshot is simply wrong. The team listings under Racial Emnity applies only on a single server. (A halfling, for example, can come and go as he pleases in Halgarad on any other server.) The Adventuring Classes section opens with: "There are currently 17 classes total, 2 of which did not make it to the release." There are not currently 17 classes total. There are currently 15. The class descriptions are not necessary, especially for classes that do not exist in the game. Finally, the Leveling Up section needs to either be expanded (and called "Character Advancement" or something similar) or deleted altogether. --Shroom Mage 03:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of Numbers

[edit]

In the Gameplay section, Adventuring subsection (1.1), the last paragraph says, regarding attribute points, "These points are awarded every 20% experience gained after level 10." It's not clear what is meant by that. Is it intended to mean, each time the player has earned 20% of the experience needed to advance to the next level? Which is to say, when you've gained 20% of the experience to go from 10 to 11, then when you've gained 40% of the experience to get from 10 to 11, etc.? Or is it supposed to mean each time your experience has increased by 20% from its previous total? Which would mean, if you reached level 10 with (for example) 100,000 XP, you would get attribute points at 120,000, then 144,000, then 172,800, etc. (exponentially growing at a factor of 1.2 per increment). Or it could mean something entirely different. The way it is currently phrased in the article, it doesn't have any meaning. 70.98.56.84 21:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)No signature[reply]

Fixed wording Nschubach 03:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

Did some cleanup, added citations etc. Most interesting citation I believe is the one linked in the criticism section, which is a long post by Brad (CEO of Sigil) on the FoH forum. It's several pages long so I only included 1 paragraph and a link. Elfguy 13:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on that; the parts you edited look better now. However, the Controversy section (which I'm actually about to rename Criticism, now that I think about it), still needs better citation. The new quote (with link, at that ^_^) is better than the last one, and the format is a lot cleaner, but we're going to need links on the other things, especially the disputables like underpopulated servers. I'm sure that such links will be easy to find considering the fact that these are, in fact, pretty heavy criticisms of the game.
Also... I'm still not sure this article is ready to get its cleanup tags removed. I'm going to put the tags back until it's discussed further. --Shroom Mage 04:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's still far too much game-related material for the cleanup tags to be removed. It's overwhelming in its current state, and much of the information and descriptions about character classes and servers can be summarised or removed. --Scottie_theNerd 07:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better? Or worse? Ravashack 02:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but I still think it can be cut down further. There isn't much point in going into detail about the four types of characters, as their names are more or less self-explanatory. A paragraph outlining the four classes in general is more than sufficient for the purposes of the article. --Scottie_theNerd 03:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section

[edit]

"Antagonistic community unwelcoming to new players" Is this PoV to you? Nschubach 20:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, some of the stuff needs to be re-written. In particular, the "cost" section looks like an add for the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.118.10 (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adventuring section cleanup

[edit]

I have attempted to make this section a bit tighter:

  • Tried to clean up the language a little, aiming for brevity and clarity.
  • Removed detail that perhaps would be more appropriate in a specific resource like Silky Venom. For example, the subclassing detail, and the subsequent paragraph on armor, weapons, and feats.
  • Changed class group headings to those used in the game currently: protective fighter, offensive fighter, healer, caster.
  • Changed capitalisation throughout the section to lower-case for class names.

I see from the talk page that finding an NPOV Vanguard article has been controversial. That doesn't surprise me, it's a game that some people have been angry about due to the circumstances surrounding its release. I have tried not to tread on too many toes! I have attempted throughout to remain in NPOV, though I wonder if the paragraph on the ability system might not make the grade there. I'll try to find appropriate references for things like: "a detailed combat system with some unique aspects."

I have rewritten the PvP paragraph to try to provide a more balanced viewpoint as the assertions in the original seemed questionable to me (I play exclusively on the PvP server, so it's something of a personal interest). The original, for comparison, was:

Another shortcoming of the Vanguard class concept is the lack in respect to PvP. The class design has not been initially optimized for it, and adding a good balance afterwards seems to be now almost impossible. However, the situation seems to be not much worse than in other games – in practice, players simply avoid the classes which are bad in PvP and choose those which are strong.

While the above has an element of truth in it, I disagree with the premise that balance is almost impossible. There's no question that Vanguard PvP needs a hell of a lot more work, of course! - Basie 01:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Soloplay is possible, and intentionally supported, but the classes have not initially be designed for it and differ broadly in their solo performances." I've edited this because I don't think we can justify statements about what the classes were initially designed for, at least not without a decent reference. I've tried to retain the sense of the original edit. Basie 23:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Vanguard Accounts activated

[edit]

Think it is worth noting that SOE has reactivated all Vanguard accounts, 60 days or older to play the game and experience the fixes and updated contents. --68.209.227.3 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://vgplayers.station.sony.com/newsArchive.vm?id=368&section=News

Crit. ==> Recep. Notif.

[edit]

I made a bunch of edits, mostly minor (in one edit session :o); I want to alert the people watchlistng this currently (:D) that I changed Critism to Reception, which is more atypical of articles like these.

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( t / c ) 06:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trengalkeep.JPG may be deleted

[edit]

I have tagged File:Trengalkeep.JPG, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

other stuff

[edit]

I think the article should emphasise the MS/SOE transition as being key. Microsoft 'parted' ways with Sigil and then not many months later, the Beta testers (who were generally happy) were told, "I am sorry guys but we have been told that we need to release the game now". The beta testers hoped it would be in a few months at least, but in fact, it was in the next month. The game was extremely hurried out the door just one month later (January) to everyone's horror. This was clearly because SOE didn't have the will/money to support the development of the game for longer (which it desperately needed).

I also think it should be updated with the latest changes such as the increase to the level cap and the new raid content and stuff.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.93.44 (talk • contribs)

Find some reliable sources and you can add the information to the article. Powers T 11:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game Offline

[edit]

The game is now officially offline. If I get a chance, I'll properly update the article, or someone else can do it. David Bañuelos (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vanguard:_Saga_of_Heroes&oldid=1203312089"