Hello Telonians, It's been almost three months since I joined the Vanguard team, and I've really enjoyed my time here. As I mentioned when I came on board, I had been an occasional players since the days of beta, but this is the first time I've delved so deeply into the game. There is a lot of depth in Vanguard, and it's easy to see why so many of you have stayed so passionate about it for the nearly six years of its existence. As we prepare to celebrate the holidays, I'd like to go over some of the initiatives we have planned that we think will improve the game as we go forward. Change doesn't happen overnight, but our team loves Vanguard and is committed to making it more stable, polished, and fun. Performance It's no secret that one of the big issues that has plagued the game since its launch is performance. While today's PCs allow Vanguard to run pretty well on modern hardware, server performance--especially in raid situations--remains a problem. Hobart has made many fixes and optimizations that have improved performance in the last few months, but it became clear that more drastic steps were required. As he mentioned in his own thread, Hobart has begun ripping out the old network layers of the game and is incorporating modern tech that is used in other SOE titles. This should bring a lot more stability, and will give us better tools and information to isolate problem areas. It's a huge undertaking, but it's worth the investment. You should see the fruits of these efforts arrive early next year. Polish I'd be willing to bet that Vanguard had more content at its launch than any other major MMO had at its release. Even today, after a number of smaller content updates but no major expansions, Vanguard still has more places to go and things to do than many other games. Unfortunately, it's not quantity alone that holds an audience over the long term, but quality of content. And quality is one of the places that Vanguard has always been most lacking. Bugs, poor implementation, and overcomplicated design have hindered wider acceptance of the game. We can't change the past. What we can do is make our best effort to improve things going forward. The main point I've tried to emphasize since joining the team is improving the quality of content in Vanguard. We've squashed a ton of longstanding bugs, and made tweaks both major and minor to the game that have improved the overall experience. We're certainly not perfect; we have a team that works really hard, but we make our share of mistakes. An additional factor is that our tools and tech often pose challenges when it comes to reliably and predictably getting content into the game. I know you've heard that a lot, and it may seem like we're making excuses, but please believe me when I say that we're as frustrated as you are when things unexpectedly go wrong. This team is able to achieve more with stone knives and bearskins than many other teams with much more robust and reliable tools. We'll keep doing our best and hopefully we will get better and better as we go forward. We will continue to fix and polish existing content in an effort to make it as smooth as possible for new players to come into the game. New Content Even after the recent launch of City of Brass, our veteran players need more new content. The next zone we will roll out for high-end players is Pankor Zhi, which begins a storyline that will carry forward into future content. The team is really enthused about revisiting this under-utilized area and adding a compelling new experience to the game. Pankor Zhi will feature content for soloers, groups, and raids. Obviously this is an ambitious undertaking, but we feel we have a realistic scope that can be achieved with our team. · Solo - We want to add a new path for post-50 players working toward the level cap. Solo content won't be the focus of this zone, but we have space to add enough of it to help players along who have found their options limited. The intent is to make this content rich and rewarding, centered around the story of what's going on in this zone. · Group - Group content will make up the bulk of this release, since the interior of Pankor Zhi is well suited for this style of play. Our goal is to offer group encounters that help gear up players who haven't completed Pantheon content, while also providing a new path for those who have. (I'll go into this more in a bit.) · Raid - For those who master the group content, Pankor Zhi will offer multiple raid encounters. We really want to push the level of challenge here, giving guilds fun fights that reward perseverance. Obviously this is a lot of content. Rather than hold it back until every bit is complete and tested, we'll be rolling it out in phases. The solo and some group content will come first, which will set the stage for what's going on in the storyline. Later we'll roll out more group content and introduce raid targets. But as much as we love our veteran players, we need content geared toward lower-level players as well. We've been working on a revamp to the Lomshir area, polishing existing content and adding new stuff to do starting at level 10. This progression will take players through Lomshir Plain and Hag's Coastline, freshening up some classic content. We plan to makeover other former starting areas, perhaps targeting other level ranges that could use a burst of new content. Look for the Lomshir revamp to hit Test server in January. Character Progression Those of you who have been at the level cap for some time, or who will be reaching it shortly, obviously want new goals to achieve. Unfortunately, character progression in Vanguard has been haphazardly designed and inconsistently implemented. Players reached stat caps far too quickly, and rather than address the core issues, new systems were piled atop old ones. What this amounts to is that, in the current implementation, we have very little headroom to offer improved item rewards that make sense, and the only option some players have to improve their characters is to ignore core stats and chase off-stats for marginal improvements. While a complete overhaul of stats and gear would be wonderful, we don't have the bandwidth to do that. So we're targeting some achievable changes that should open up the game going forward. First off, we will be changing or removing certain stat caps and combat formulas so that we can open up item progression that makes sense. We want you to once again benefit from improving the key stats of your class, and we want to be able to get a tighter rein on how certain parts of combat work--giving us all some much-needed breathing space. I won't rule out reducing the potency of a few overpowered elements of the game, but we'll do our best to keep such impact minimal. We're not out to nerf the game or take away anyone's fun, but some sacrifices may need to be made for the overall health of the game. Secondly, we will offer new strata of gear for players to acquire. Solo, small group, and group players who have not obtained Pantheon gear and other desirable items will have paths toward equipment that, while not at the potency of Pantheon rewards in all respects, will prepare them for the more challenging content that well-geared players are already suited for. Then those players will, in turn, have new goals to achieve with gear obtained through grouping that will prepare them for new raid content. The intent is that all players, even the most decked-out of our veterans, will need to acquire new gear to be successful at the top end of Pankor Zhi. We'll roll out details on how we plan to do that as we get further into development, but I can say that it will not be through increasing the level cap. The Pantheon line will remain desirable, especially as the way to achieve your epic weapon enhancement. We just don't want PotA to be the only path to awesome gear. (continued below)
Crafting and Diplomacy Diplomacy and crafting are two spheres of advancement that make Vanguard unique, and I don't want anyone to think we've turned our back on these very important facets of the game. Unfortunately these are very complex systems with a myriad of intertwined elements, and we don't have as much experience on the team making these types of content as we do in creating new adventuring content. Nevertheless, we remain committed to these styles of gameplay. An important step is improving the introduction to both these spheres. On the Isle of Dawn and in our other starting areas, the first exposure to both crafting and diplomacy is overwhelming and a bit confusing. We want to streamline the introduction to these spheres and hopefully get more players to stick with them. Long term, we'd like to continue the saga quests for both crafters and diplomats so that there is compelling content for them all the way to max level. This would be an ambitious undertaking, and we don't have the resources for it right now. But hopefully if we can polish the core systems and get more players interested in them, we'll be able to make an investment worthy of these unique aspects of the game. Crafting content for City of Brass will be in testing soon. Realistically with the staff we have, this method of rolling out crafting and diplomacy into new or revised zones after we work on the adventuring content is the path we'll take for the foreseeable future. Free to Play Coinciding with Vanguard's sixth anniversary at the end of January, you'll be seeing some pretty substantial improvements to our free-to-play model. Our marketing folks don't want me to go into specifics just yet so that we can maximize the amount of exposure we get around the time of the anniversary, so you'll just have to take my word for it that these changes are very exciting. Our goal is simple: Make the full depth and breadth of Vanguard as open as possible to our free players, while rewarding members with compelling incentives that make membership a great value. Instead of looking at the game and saying "What should we take away from free players?" we ask "How can we make the game truly free yet even more fun and awesome for our members?" I think this is a much healthier approach for Vanguard's future. Philosophy I realize this treatise is getting a bit wordy (okay, so it passed "wordy" about a thousand words ago), but I'd like to close by talking about the philosophy behind the current team's work on Vanguard. I specify "the current team" because I can only speak for us. There have been a number of creative teams working on the game throughout its development and after its launch, and each of those groups had differing approaches to solving problems. Most of the time those philosophies weren't documented well, if at all, and I want to do that here so you can understand the decisions we make in Vanguard's development. When approaching game design, it's useful to boil down your philosophies into a few key elements that are easily digested by new people coming onto the team. A mission statement, for example, is a useful way to distill the core ideas of what the design is trying to achieve. Another such tool is a group of design razors, concepts that are foundational to the spirit of the project. When you need to make a decision about the game, you use these razors to cut to the heart of the problem and guide yourself down the path you feel most stays true to the essence of the game. After joining the Vanguard team, I spent a lot of time studying and reading about the game--both the reality of what it is as well as the original goal of what it was intended to be. I distilled all this down into four razors: · Fun - This one is pretty self-explanatory. First and foremost, the game needs to be fun to play. People tend to invest time and money in games that are fun. · Quality - I touched on this earlier. We need to hold Vanguard's content to a higher standard of quality. This doesn't mean it's perfect, but it has to meet a certain bar. · Challenge - One of the things that sets Vanguard apart from other MMOs is the level of challenge required to play it. We shouldn't be afraid of making content that demands more of our players than other games of this type--and we should emphasize challenge which requires cooperation. · Accessibility - The content we make should not be gated by bugs, poor interface design, and other inscrutable barriers. The path to enjoying fun, quality, and challenging content should be clear of needless roadblocks. If you consider these razors, you see they don't always align. Fun and quality get along well, but challenge and accessibility soon get into conflict. This is the intent. Game design isn't about having a clear and obvious answer; it's about considering your goals and making the best judgment you can about how to proceed. Challenge and accessibility often compete. Even the terms themselves--all four terms, really--are subjective and thus open to interpretation. This is what makes game design an art rather than a science. One particular player's definition of challenge will likely be different from another's, and will often be different from my own. Take, for example, recent changes we've made to certain high-end faction gains and item costs. When we reduced them, some players argued that we were taking away challenge from Vanguard. My belief is that grinds which serve only as barriers to core content are not a viable substitute for fun or challenging gameplay. They represented a certain investment of time, to be sure, and that investment has been perceived by some players as a rite of passage to separate the dedicated from the less so. If everyone got through that content the same way, I'd be more likely to sympathize; however, the number who sat AFK while someone else kited, or who exploited dupes and other unintended shortcuts, is not insignificant. Another factor in our decision was the age of the content; I think it's simply time to let newer players progress through older content at a faster rate so that we have a larger population of players at the high end who are geared up to experience the game's most challenging content--including that which is to come. (One other point I want to clarify: I am not against optional grinds for non-essential rewards. Someone willing to grind faction to achieve a rare set of clothing, or to become friendly with a certain NPC population--those are fun optional paths that are interesting to have in the game. I'm mostly targeting grinds that block off the game's core content progression.) My point is that each design decision requires a different application of the razors. Sometimes challenge wins out; other times accessibility. That may seem inconsistent to some, but it's about considering the options. Your razors only help you reach a conclusion, they don't make the conclusion for you. I've mentioned before that I was charged with maintaining the "old school RPG feel" of Vanguard. Some of you have asked how I define that. Well, the concept wasn't defined for me, either--something else open to interpretation. I won't bother trying to write out an iron-clad definition, because I think that it--like the design razors--has different weight depending on the circumstances. To me, that old-school feel is about challenge, first and foremost. Content that pushes you, that doesn't have all the conveniences of newer MMOs. And it's okay if time is part of that equation, so long as that time is spent trying to overcome a challenge that's really, really hard (as opposed to mindlessly killing the same mobs over and over and over and over trying to reach some ghastly quota or find some stingy quest drop). That old-school feel is about experiencing butt-kicking content that's fun to play, delivered in a polished fashion, and free from needless complexity that gets in the way of enjoyment. That's the kind of game I want to make, and hopefully the type of game you want to play. And Speaking of Conclusions… Okay, that's it--I promise! Thanks for reading. (Can you believe I made it all the way through without referencing "The Vision" even once?) I hope you have a safe and prosperous conclusion to 2012, and may we all enjoy a healthy and happy 2013.
I appreciate the content of your post as much as, I am sure, everyone else does. More importantly, I would like to convey that it is really nice to be able to read structured, coherent, and well-written text regarding the team's intentions. Thank you, and all the best to this wonderful community for 2013.
I think it's been a long recognized fact by players at the "end" of the raid spectrum that the current stat system needs to change for their to be a feasible progression with new content. While I, and surely many others, are happy to see that the development team has recognized this as a major issue, I can't help but admit a little trepidation as I see the potential for nearly every end-game player tiptoeing the line of maximizing their character's potential thrown completely out of whack and left to with tons of hours and plat investments rendered useless by "minor" changes. To be fair, I do see that you have alluded ever so slightly at this issue, but I have to wonder how much the development team truly understands the impact their potential changes will have. I would first say, every single change, no matter how "minor" it may seem, made to the stat system needs to be announced well in advance and frankly needs significant player feedback. I don't know how the stat system seems to a developer; perhaps it may seem relatively straightforward but I doubt they can have the same perspective as a player on attempting to min/max your character, what loot is readily available, the overall augment economy in game, and how some stats really work in-game versus what they may be intended to do. The fact is, there needs to be a healthy discussion between the development team and players who this will affect most on what the proper approach is to this issue (I assume this is the right medium to express these concerns). It's unclear to me what "minor" changes the development team has in mind here; again, I cannot stress enough that you need to run these by the players sooner rather than later. Are we talking a broad spectrum stat cap increase? All stats scale with mob level? Lowering the amount gear increases stats by to make it harder to reach the cap? Adding in new stat types to give us something new to work on capping? I don't know what the "right" answer is here and I'm not sure the development team, at this point, really knows either. As a disciple, I know what I'm looking for but what's right for me may not be right for everyone else; let's think this through and please let's avoid the situation where one day we see patch notes posted with these "minor" changes that we haven't been informed about that completely alter the balance, economy, and gear preference of the game. Beyond the obvious stat cap issue (withholding judgment until I hear a potential solution form the development team), here are the two most burning questions I'd like to see answered going forward: 1) RoRRS/CDB/RoRRs/CDB/RoRRs/CDB/RoRRs/CDB. Look. We all know it's a "broken" stat. We also all know you can't "fix" it without giving DPS classes an alternative route for increasing their DPS. I'm going to assume this is why it hasn't been changed (rather than the dev team being oblivious to the problem). So let's level here.... 1) It has to be fixed. 2) There needs to be immediate viable paths for DPS to improve their... DPS once the fix is implemented and 3) Regardless of what the solution is, there's going to be some people that (perhaps rightly so) are going to complain about it due to the time/money invested into maximizing their character through the acquisition of this stat. I don't know whether it was intentional or not but in some sense, the (broken) CDB stat has helped the game through a period without development support as basically the only viable way to for DPS to improve. But now we have developer support; let's find a better solution. What I cannot stress enough though is that, more so than any other change, this one needs to be announced well in advance and with significant forethought into what will be replacing it. Please understand that doing this fix without ample time and ample alternate options to increase DPS will neuter every high-end DPS class and significantly alter the high-end economy. So please, talk to us before this happens (I can only assume this is what is alluded to by "sacrifices may need to be made for the overall health of the game"). 2) To be a bit class/archetype centric here, something needs to be done about stats for healers. Right now, short of some equipped effect or clicky or whatever I haven't seen, there's really nothing I can do or get, or new item that can be thought up that would actually improve my ability to heal. Beyond the obvious fact that relevant healing stats are fairly easily capped, the problem is mostly related to a few factors: 1) Critical heal is kinda a dumb stat; it doesn't work on a significant number of heals (at least for a disciple) but even if it did, it's not reliable enough to actually be useful; it ends up being unnecessary over-heals more than anything 2) From the time every healer reached level 55 and got all their abilities, their gear has constantly improved (significantly, in many cases) how much their heals hit for, how quickly they can regen their mana pool, how large their mana pool is, and even how quickly they can regen their class specific points for a disciple or whatever. Which is cool and great; obviously there needs to be some progression here to match how many hit points their tanks have and how much damage the mobs they now face do. The problem is that that same heal spell that cost 500 mana at level 53 still costs 500 mana; only now it does tons more healing and you regen your mana way faster. Sure, there are probably some extreme situations that cause healers to run out of mana or at least think about what they can do to conserve/quickly regain their mana or whatever else. As a disciple though, this only happens in situations where you cannot use melee attacks (an intended weakness of the class in my eyes, but even still quite manageable), and the high-end clerics/shamans/blood mages I know do not seem to have an issue either. What I'm trying to say is that the heal costs were designed with a much weaker geared character in mind than the current end-game geared healer. So there needs to be both new ways to challenge healers and new gear/stat options for healers to improve their ability as a healer. DPS/Survivability should be an element of this but not an exclusive element. At the end of the day, I suppose the point is that the issues with the stat system are a complex web of varying factors and years of neglect; while I certainly agree with the sentiment that there needs to be a change going forward, I sincerely hope it is done after careful thought and due process. Please, let us as a community have an open discussion and come to an agreement on how best to attack this significant issue going forward with the promise of new content going forward. I think everyone is very excited about the announcement of what we can expect next year, but it simply will not be as meaningful as it could be if we do not figure out a good solution to fixing the stat dilemma and properly itemizing the new content.
I know I've said this before, but you give me hope for the future. SOE's take on F2P has largely been about 'punishing' people for daring not to subscribe--as you say, they start with the game as it was designed and then take things away. I look forward to seeing the changes you're going to make towards a model of enticement rather than punishment. And now for a long-winded tangent: In your description of upcoming content, you seem to describe solo-group-raid as a sequential progression. This is standard for EQ clones, but I've always found it arbitrary and ultimately harmful. When solo content is numerically easy, group content is intermediate, and raid content is difficult, you segregate your player base. In a game like EQ2 where the power disparity between playstyles is large, raiders completely trivialize group content and have no incentive to participate in it, while groupers/soloers can't contribute to a raid (they'll get one-shotted by the first AOE). Moreover, this design creates a disparity in time/effort invested compared to power obtained: Again using EQ2 as an example, a grouper can spend ten hours a day but will never become as strong as a raider who puts in only three hours a week--and it's not as though that raider necessarily went through the whole group progression previously; it's quite possible they were carried through by stronger guildmates in order to get geared up to a raid-worthy level. Power in EQ2 is determined by playstyle first, other factors second. The idea that solo content must be tuned for weak characters and raid content must be tuned for strong ones is arbitrary. As I understand it, EQ2 is breaking out of the old mold a bit with its new "advanced solo" content--while before a soloist was limited to boring challengeless tasks, now they can actually try something more in line with the difficulty of group content and get rewards appropriate to that difficulty. Earlier in its history, EQ2 also experimented with group content which had raid-level numerical difficulty. (But since there was no route other than raiding to get gear strong enough to survive in there, Nizara remained insurmountable for non-raiders even years down the line.) Why should players have to define themselves by the number of people they form up with? Why should challenge be available only to those who can block out a solid three hours for a raid? One of the things that attracted me to Vanguard is that not all the best gear comes from raids, and thus the segregation that I saw in EQ2 likely wouldn't be such an issue here, but if you're going to adopt the traditional structure with new content then I fear that won't be the case for long.
I think I'm as much of a man as the next guy, so don't take it amiss, Moorgard, when I say that you're a beautiful, beautiful man. Like, y'know ...you maybe wanna grab a beer sometime? (This would be my roundabout way of saying that this whole post rocked my socks. Well played, Devs.)
I think this is the largest post coming from a developer I have ever read and I apreciate the effort and time you have put into it. It's very exciting and encouraging to see that the dev team is working hard to improve the game. It's also encouraging to see the approachment of the current dev team, comunication with the player base is very important. Thank you.
I hope you dont get lost in your visions, I wish you devs the best of luck and backup - ah and a merry xmas ofc =). PS: Nice to see you are still thinking about crafting. I would like to see things like Glorianns shards, those boxes (for which u need a skellie key) to drop off Workorders too, that shouldnt be too hard to implement
much appreciated post. without quotiing souleye's wall of text let me add some thoughts along the line of stats, and personal dps / heal enhancers. We all know what a disaster doing anything with clickie items has turned out to be. The cherished items that took ages to acquire and were painstakingly macroed in for maximum effect are to a large degree still useless today. I believe the team is aware of these situations and loathe to aggravate them further as new approaches and changes are made. Having met Moorgard personally has given me a confidence that he believes in the game and will do what he feels is best for it within the confines of a marketing strategy and the code frramework. I know that he actually plays the game. It is impossible for him to devote the manhours to gameplay that we do, so he will never feel the underlying sense of entitlement that so many of us seem to feel for "stuff" we have earned along the way. I would hope that he would find a way to play a moderately geared character and participate in guild events while remaining incognito. Not as a spy, but as a player feeling the joy of a difficult kill or hearing the strat called in vent. It is this sense of kinship and camaradarie that keeps us showing up for raids long after we have filled all our slots with prime goodies. We welcome you in your dev team role, We welcome you as a player. We welcome the attention Vanguard is getting and hope to be a Vanguard for future SOE games.
I agree, one of the best replies I have ever seen from a game developer, and I thank you for taking the time to interact with the player base. But please read what Claviarm said as I understand his concerns. Quote: And now for a long-winded tangent: In your description of upcoming content, you seem to describe solo-group-raid as a sequential progression. This is standard for EQ clones, but I've always found it arbitrary and ultimately harmful. When solo content is numerically easy, group content is intermediate, and raid content is difficult, you segregate your player base. In a game like EQ2 where the power disparity between playstyles is large, raiders completely trivialize group content and have no incentive to participate in it, while groupers/soloers can't contribute to a raid (they'll get one-shotted by the first AOE). Moreover, this design creates a disparity in time/effort invested compared to power obtained: Again using EQ2 as an example, a grouper can spend ten hours a day but will never become as strong as a raider who puts in only three hours a week--and it's not as though that raider necessarily went through the whole group progression previously; it's quite possible they were carried through by stronger guildmates in order to get geared up to a raid-worthy level. Power in EQ2 is determined by playstyle first, other factors second. The idea that solo content must be tuned for weak characters and raid content must be tuned for strong ones is arbitrary. As I understand it, EQ2 is breaking out of the old mold a bit with its new "advanced solo" content--while before a soloist was limited to boring challengeless tasks, now they can actually try something more in line with the difficulty of group content and get rewards appropriate to that difficulty. Earlier in its history, EQ2 also experimented with group content which had raid-level numerical difficulty. (But since there was no route other than raiding to get gear strong enough to survive in there, Nizara remained insurmountable for non-raiders even years down the line.) Why should players have to define themselves by the number of people they form up with? Why should challenge be available only to those who can block out a solid three hours for a raid? One of the things that attracted me to Vanguard is that not all the best gear comes from raids, and thus the segregation that I saw in EQ2 likely wouldn't be such an issue here, but if you're going to adopt the traditional structure with new content then I fear that won't be the case for long.
I can see there being an argument about power levels between group and raid gear, but I don't see how solo'ing becomes part of the equation.
There's a difference between a barrier, and a meaningful time/effort investment. You are blurring the line to advance a weak argument. Something like TASC generators, dailies, or lockouts, are barriers because there an artificial restriction on how much effective effort you can perform in a given amount of time (or how much content). Having to wait 8, 12, or 20 hours to do another name run in KDQ to get rewarded, when I could do it now, is a barrier to content. Having to wait 6 days to engage a raid boss again is an artificial barrier to content. HOWEVER...gameplay scenarios that expect you do play your character for a long amount of time acquiring mats such as slivers, or rare dungeon loots, are NOT barriers to content. They ARE content. They are you... playing your character, in combat situations, often with friends, playing THE game. To say that combat RPG gameplay is a barrier is pure absurdity. . So, on the plus side... removing TASC was a good move. It preserved overall effort that a player has to invest to get something, but allows them to do it as often as they like. This was a good change and it would have been better if you had performed more moves similar to this one. Another idea along the same vein would have been to halve ALL lockouts in the game by 50%. Yes, even raid lockouts changed from 6 days to 3 (you can keep the NEW raids like Thariddon at 6). This would allow people to gear up quicker, but not altered overall difficulty. Outside a few extreme situiations, most MMO deal with older content by raising the level cap or introducing BETTER gear that is easier to get. You cut out true 'barriers to core content' (some of the epic 1.0 farms in EQ, like ragefire, or greenscale), or introduce dungeons with lower effort requirements with better loot. From my experience, not many go back and do a broad difficulty adjustments across multiple fronts in a very short window w/o raising the tier of the end game By doing broad, sweeping changes, which look ridiculous at the number level (some things increased by HUNDREDS of %) you came at the 'grind issue' in VG with an axe, and not a scalpel, and that's why you are getting resistance from some old players.
The future of Vanguard looks bright! Thanks to Moorgard and the dev team! WRT to "risk versus reward" I can appreciate what Claviarm posted and would agree to an extent. However, I think what you are suggesting would have to be implemented very carefully. Why would someone bother to raid at all if you can just get equivalent rewards by soloing or grouping? Also, wouldn't that bring about the opposite effect and trivialize raiding?
I have never quite understood why all the "best gear" is left for raids. Some of the best should be for crafters to make. Hmm don't it take a group to raid?
Great work Moorgard, thanks for all the effort the team are putting into the game, and for taking the time to explain the ideas behind it all to us. Enjoy the Christmas break. It'll be interesting to look back in a year's time and see what has been achieved by then - exciting times!
Awesome Read Devs, So happy we finally have devs that care, actually arent acting like they been moved to Basement at SoE haveing to work on best mmo they have VG.
