So I made a poll about this at:
https://www.pantheonrotf.com/polls/view/210/solo-vs-group-play-balance
but it seems that is a terrible place to discuss anything.
First I want to explain some things regarding the poll that I thought were obvious but it seems it was not.
Regardless of what option you may or may not pick, there would remain a good deal of small-large group content. This has to be the case because the prerequisite I posted was "Assume solo play takes up to twice as long to level.". That can't be done without content. Because of this, regardless of the option you may or may not pick there will always be major incentives to group.
"Most content" is in a geographical since, and just meaning more than half. "Overworld" areas (not dungeons and the like) for example. Similar to early EQ2, Vanguard, etc. Dissimilar to games like FF:ARR, SWTOR, etc. The most time consuming and meaningful content is still in small-full group areas.
And because it cut it off I will go into detail about what is meant by "bottlenecks"
Bottlenecks are parts of the game where the incentive to party if very high. Either it is mandatory to continue story or open up the next area that you level in, or it is because the loot is far to good to pass up. Examples of this are the first real dungeon of EQ2 or EQ1. Gear that would likely be 20-40% better than what you have probably found.
Now that that is cleared up I will move onto why I believe being able to have meaningful soloablity from start to finish is a must, withe the aforementioned conditions of course.
Time available:
When playing in a party I feel an obligation to said party. I don't want to get a group together and tank for all of 30 min and leave halfway through a dungeon. My guess is most people feel the same. So if, do to real world obligations, you only have a few hours to play on most nights you might be able to find a group, you might end up doing nothing. More than a few times in EQ1 as a mage I spent hours at a time LFG, though my average was only 30-45min. And that's assuming the group lasts and doesn't dissolve for one reason or another. Because when you only have a few hours even one failed group could mean you are done for the night.
If people could solo they could at least know they will be doing something fun and meaningful while they wait and the day won't be a waste. For me at least it is hard to stay involved in a game that I only actually play a few hours a week and weekends.
Time of day that people play:
Some people have different schedules of when they can play. My friend for example has overnights where he works. In most games that he plays he finds it very hard to get a group most of the time. I am sure there are more people out there than just him with odd schedules.
Relaxation, Observation, and Exploration:
Being in a group can be a rewarding experience, but it can also be stressful. There is almost always the sense of urgency and efficiency. You never know how long your party members will be on nor how impatient they are (I personally find most people are very impatient). You don't have the time to just test out skills, explore some random mountain, or just take a minute to enjoy the scenery or music. In a party you go at the party's pace, not your own. The game quickly devolves to a constant metagame grind rather than an immersive RP experience. I know this does not happen as much and to such a degree when you only group with close friends, but to some degree by it's very nature you can not completely do as you wish when others are involved. At least not without being an ass.
Solo and duo play offers a much more intimate and enjoyable experience with the game. Though it is rarely as rewarding to the character (loot, xp, etc.).
Fear of "joke mode", or an overly easy game meant to get you to max level quickly and with little difficulty to encourage a broader audience:
-An example of this is WoW, the game that defined the social mmo. It was meant to be all inclusive and easy to get to max level so you could play with your friends. You would stay not because that game was good, but because it was an over glorified version of facebook.
There are some fears that a game with meaningful soloplay would be easy. Where the wilds would hold no danger, and that there would be no risk and all reward for combat. Well that all depends on how it is implemented. If you are deep in a soloable "dungeon" or the like an add or two could spell death, just as it could for a party. If a tank can just pull a dozen MoBs and fight on endlessly or a rDPS could kite forever then yes it would be easy. The key here is balance, just as it is with party play. But I have faith in the devs.
Introverts/shy people:
Some people take a while to warm up to others or just don't group a lot. Whether it is because they don't feel comfortable with their skill level and don't want to drag others down, or just because they have fun soloing and casually playing the game. These people can in no way hurt party play, but should they choose to join a group (and they almost all do, just not as often) it could only serve to help it.
Classes:
Kind of off topic but even without solo play some classes still could solo. The downside is if you want to for any reason solo then say 12 classes can become 2 or 3. Seems like a waste of classes to me.
Harvesting:
While in a group it is considered very rude to harvest anything. It slows down the whole group for the gains of only one person. Because of this resources will be scarce since people can't play and harvest at the same time as they could if they could solo.
Party play:
If you want to party, meaningful soloplay is a must. Not having it ostracizes a great deal of people. Without them the world becomes a dead place, or at least far less alive then it could be. But if you allow meaningful soloplay with the above conditions (read: incentive to group) the game will have a much larger pool to draw from when you go LFG. Group play at it's core will remain undamaged, and the integrity of the game intact. I believe that is the definition of a "win-win situation"
I am sure I missed some things, but that is what this thread is for. Feel free to comment and voice your opinions on the matter and if you can vote! As it stands so few have done it (19 people) the poll is somewhat meaningless.
EDIT: Just to clarify it seems as if there might be a misconception here. I am in no way against grouping. Quite the opposite in fact, I am for grouping as much as possible. I want a social game with a rewarding party experience. I do NOT want a social mmo. I do not want a restrictive, dead game.
That was a good explanation Yokoshima, thanks mate. I agree there should be some solo content, without it, the game would struggle to survive, as everyone would just log out if they couldn't find a group and that is not what we want.
I would not like to see solo play easier than group play though, there needs to be an incentive to want to group but solo shouldn't be penalised either, the content should just be created with groups in mind and allow a few spots along the way for adventurers to be able to solo/duo content when nothing is available.
This is also where a good crafting system would come in handy ;)
I am now so tired and a hate so much all the "modern" MMOs which allow soloing everything but bosses from Level 1 to Max, that I need a game that privileges grouping and makes soloing about as unfeasible as it goes.
I realize that there must be some allowances for the people who have only an hour yet would want to fight a bit and an immediate group is not available.
But I would discourage systematic soloing as much as possible.
I also think there should be soloability in the game and I think VG had it right. Atleast while I was playing VG I stopped late 2008 early 2009. It is a good post but I think grouping more also makes guilds that much more important. I had 3 really good guilds I played in the first Ordos Draconium second Trinity, third was Halcyon Affinity. The fist guild I played in until a few months after apw came out and then the other 2 after. A guild always made it easier to get a sceduled times to play and do that group content with a lot of good friends and times, though there where lots of times when I soloed or harvested or crafted or diploed. I also agree nothing high end should ever be soloable like high end gear. Though there should be some. In Rift I never needed a guild until I reached max lvl and wanted to raid made for not the most indepth experiance for me.
Nice post Yokoshima
Solo balance is always going to be hard in a game that is group centric and has the Trinity + 1 (tank, healer, DPS, support). Every class in WoW can solo because arguably, there are no unique classes. Every class can do lots of damage and some can tank, heal and DPS. EQOA, EQ and FFXI had unique classes but that came at the price of not every class/job being able to solo efficiently. I want my class to be unique. And I want support classes to be important. (I understand that Enchanters and Bards were good soloers on EQ, but they had very specific ways in which to do this, I believe - like kiting - on EQOA, Bards and Enchanters were not the best soloers) It was pretty painful to solo as a cleric on EQOA, but I used to solo crazy stuff with my Druid (both healers, Druid being a hybrid). I liked that my Druid could do things that clerics couldn't. But, if you flip the coin, druids were rarely put in the main tank group in a raid on EQOA, but clerics always were. I was ok with that.
Having a soloable game is great for the reasons that you presented, but it does have some adverse effects too. I really dislike balance, in general, to be quite frank. I don't believe that classes should be equal in everything. I like when classes shine where others do not.
In order to set this game apart from every other MMO out there, it needs to focus heavily on unique classes, group content and mechanics that encourage a strong and helpful community.
I really have no problem with some solo content. To borrow terms from EQ, I am fine if your bard can charm a bear and kill "light blues" and get ok xp per hour. I am also fine if your cleric sucks at soloing and it is painfully slow.
Kilsin said:
That was a good explanation Yokoshima, thanks mate. I agree there should be some solo content, without it, the game would struggle to survive, as everyone would just log out if they couldn't find a group and that is not what we want.
I would not like to see solo play easier than group play though, there needs to be an incentive to want to group but solo shouldn't be penalised either, the content should just be created with groups in mind and allow a few spots along the way for adventurers to be able to solo/duo content when nothing is available.
This is also where a good crafting system would come in handy ;)
Agreed that would be where my crafting would take up the slack while waiting to get in a group, its actually a way of feeling like you've still moved forward, and not wasted time. Some folks might only have an hour or three per night to play, and if that group isn't forthcoming (I saw this happen in EQ1 a few times) it can be frustrating.
Zoeii said:
Solo balance is always going to be hard in a game that is group centric and has the Trinity + 1 (tank, healer, DPS, support). Every class in WoW can solo because arguably, there are no unique classes. Every class can do lots of damage and some can tank, heal and DPS. EQOA, EQ and FFXI had unique classes but that came at the price of not every class/job being able to solo efficiently. I want my class to be unique. And I want support classes to be important. (I understand that Enchanters and Bards were good soloers on EQ, but they had very specific ways in which to do this, I believe - like kiting - on EQOA, Bards and Enchanters were not the best soloers) It was pretty painful to solo as a cleric on EQOA, but I used to solo crazy stuff with my Druid (both healers, Druid being a hybrid). I liked that my Druid could do things that clerics couldn't. But, if you flip the coin, druids were rarely put in the main tank group in a raid on EQOA, but clerics always were. I was ok with that.
Having a soloable game is great for the reasons that you presented, but it does have some adverse effects too. I really dislike balance, in general, to be quite frank. I don't believe that classes should be equal in everything. I like when classes shine where others do not.
In order to set this game apart from every other MMO out there, it needs to focus heavily on unique classes, group content and mechanics that encourage a strong and helpful community.
I really have no problem with some solo content. To borrow terms from EQ, I am fine if your bard can charm a bear and kill "light blues" and get ok xp per hour. I am also fine if your cleric sucks at soloing and it is painfully slow.
To clarify my own personal opinion, I do not think all classes should solo just as well as one another because the content is so easy. But it should not be the difference between can and can not. The problem in other games is some classes could solo like gods while others couldn't kill things two levels their junior. Things like perma kiting/charming/etc. made it so that unless you had a great static group/time/etc. you needed to be one of a few classes playing one of a few ways. Each class should shine, but in it's own way. So no tanks would be killing as fast as a DPS class. Just as no mage will be able to facetank MoBs. As you said in games like WoW, SWTOR, Etc. each class was almost on par with one another in terms of out right killing power, just with some additional minor perks (such as also being able to heal, etc.) Even though I think each class should be able solo relatively well, they do so in vastly different ways. Mages for example could be able to AoE farm well, but need to rest a lot. Tanks could v1/small group at a mediocre rate and have little down time. Rangers could sustainably farm one or two MoBs at a time faster than a tank, but riskier/prone to adds/pops. Rouges could kill one or two mobs the fastest, but have the most down time. Things of that nature. At the end they can solo ~ the same (+/- 15%, so one class would get say as little as 850xp/hr while another gets 1150, so the "good" class would get up to 35% more xp/hr than the worst) but it wouldn't be as restrictive. Because of each classes strengths and weaknesses, when you put them together the party becomes far more potent then the sum of the players. That and as I mentioned before I would like the xp/hr to be double that which soloing offers in a full group.
So to summarize in case that was incoherent: Each class should be able to solo relatively well by playing to their strengths while remaining unique, but in a party each makes up for the others weaknesses in such a way that partying becomes the far more attractive option.
Kazingathi said:...In Rift I never needed a guild until I reached max lvl...
That is one thing I would not like to see. Well I don't mind not needing a guild but having almost no reason to get one 'till endgame seems kind of sad to me. Though as long as group play is incentivised this should not be an issue. I also wouldn't mind some endgame things being "soloable" either through PUGs or just plain solo content, just at a much slower rate of reward for the just plain solo option.
Here is a quote from the Kickstarter FAQ section:
"Is soloing going to be completely impossible in Pantheon?
Soloing is possible and perhaps something the player will want to do while he is waiting for his group or guild to log in. If his gear is good enough there will some overland mobs that can be soloed. That said, grouping will be significantly more efficient."
I am not sure how much of the "original vision" from the Kickstarter is still relevant, but this was the original take on soloing.
Zoeii said:
I am not sure how much of the "original vision" from the Kickstarter is still relevant, but this was the original take on soloing.
I think that part is still more than relevant.
There are many threads here about race/class differentiation and it seemed clear to me that the ability to solo will cover a quite large Spectrum from some being unable to solo for all practical purposes to others which will be very efficient.
That's how it was in EQ too - a necro was one of the best soloers and against undead the king of soloers while a rogue or a warrior couldn't solo if their life depended on it .
Of course these differences started to show at higher levels. At low level any class can solo approximately in the same way but beyond 20-30 the differences were huge.
I have been playing enchanter as my main and while the charm soloing was quite powerful, the enchanter's survivability when something went wrong (add, charm break, low mana) was much much worse than the one of a necro.
Pantheon started with a very similar philosophy of strong race/class differentiation.
I strongly believe this game should be based 100% on the group dynamic...if players are able to figure out ways to solo (emergent gameplay) I am fine with that, but the last thing I want is another solofest race to the end game without ever having to interact with anyone at all in the game. Now before you get the pitch forks and torches I understand this is NOT what you are asking for, I have just seen it to many time a game gets started on a slippery slope and you wind up with....Well with EQ in its present form.
I think you should be able to solo to max level just like in VG and most other games, but at the same time there should be reasons to *want* to group, not just because grouping is more fun and less downtime. Grouping means you can tackle harder content. Harder content = better lewtz . Also, there should be reasons you want to group for all level spans, not just max level. In VG there were armor quests for the 20s , 30s and 40s ranges where you pretty much needed a group to complete them. This is just one example of possibly many where you have reasons you want to group. There just be plenty of dungeons and fun boss encounters that require groups and raids . People will want to do this content for the fun experience *and* for the loot. Also, grouping is usually faster XP than soloing. Still, sometimes you only have a half hour or so to play after a hard day's work and you just want to unwind and don't have the time for any group play. There should be plenty of solo quests and trash mobs to kill time on when one doesn't have the time for grouping .
In EQ1 I also had one or two characters I only soloed on when I felt like being alone and just exploring . There were plenty of fun solo camps in EQ1 even high up for nameds, etc. I am all for this. In EQ1 most of my characters I preferred grouping with such as with my chanter and shammy but with my necro I usually like to kill time alone. A person shouldn't be forced to group but should be given reasons why most of the time they would want to.
I prefer grouping too but it isn't always an option. When I can't group I should be able to solo . There should be content for solo for grouping and for raiding . The greater the risk and the harder the content the greater the reward should be . Nice loot should not fall off trash mobs .
Sevens said:
I strongly believe this game should be based 100% on the group dynamic...if players are able to figure out ways to solo (emergent gameplay) I am fine with that, but the last thing I want is another solofest race to the end game without ever having to interact with anyone at all in the game. Now before you get the pitch forks and torches I understand this is NOT what you are asking for, I have just seen it to many time a game gets started on a slippery slope and you wind up with....Well with EQ in its present form.
Save the use of the slippery slope fallacy I agree with you. A social mmo/super casual game would be a travesty. But good MMOs don't come along often. Imo, we get one every 3-5 years. That is why to me it is worth the effort. This is too important. If they can't pull this off (meaningful solo play) well this game will be a fraction of what it could be. If some classes can solo to endgame with ease while the other say 10 get half xp on average I can live with that. No skin off my back so to speak if a few classes can abuse it. This game is far from finished, I am sure that the devs have enough time to alpha and beta test to make sure that does not happen. In other words, I feel the risk is worth the reward.
Jason said:
I think you should be able to solo to max level just like in VG and most other games, but at the same time there should be reasons to *want* to group, not just because grouping is more fun and less downtime.
This. The main reason grouping either flourishes or fails is not because you can or can't solo, it's the amount of incentive given to it. Humans do things for two primary reasons: To prevent a negative (such as an itch, getting fired, etc) or to create a positive (such as playing a fun video game, watching a favorite T.V. show, etc). Time and again it has been proven that positive reinforcement is far more effective (Its late, but I can link sources if requested). If the sole motivation is to prevent a negative that will put many people off. You scratch an itch to get rid of it, but most would prefer not to have it in the first place. I can not stress this enough but similar to what Jason said a lack of any motivation at all to group caused the death of grouping.
Not that this really matters but I pretty much agree with the rest of what Jason said.
I would like to see a similar solo/group balance like we had with the early VG days, they were very challenging for group and solo and they were some of the best memories I had.
I was able to solo very slowly and with decent downtime and a significant risk but it was doable, which allowed me to continue to play the game I enjoyed instead of getting frustrated and logging off. Also being able to call out in /region for help from other players was always a great way to meet new people and make new friends, that type of challenge promotes player interaction and rewards the community with stories and experiences that they otherwise may not have had if they were able to plough through content solo and never interact with another player.
There needs to be a fine balance but I am confident that Brad and the team with their experience in EQ and VG will be able to achieve that balance plus with our feedback during alpha/beta we can all help with that balance, which will be an important building step for the community and the game.
I agree with Sevens on this one - 100%. Soloing shouldn't be designed in the game. That is vastly different than saying there should be no soloing in Pantheon.
If gameplay is designed around groups, classes will find ways to solo - yes some obviously faster than others -Warriors and Rogues versus Casters/Hybrids. And, by designing the game for group content, the slower soloing exp curve and greater reward for the grouping experience will take care of itself.
Instead of clammoring that all classes need to be able to solo or that soloing game mechanics need to be present, I would prefer the alternative, since it will be a given that warriors/rogues will almost have to group to be playable, knowing that, have some innate abilities with pure melee classes that provide more benefits to the group other than button mash that will increase their likelihood of obtaining groups.
Soloing in EQ was emergent game play as Sevens posted I think, and that is the way it should be in Pantheon. Designing solo game play into an MMO IS detrimental to group-play. It's just the way it is and I really don't believe that fact can be debated (unless you have a million or more folks playing after release). If you want a group centric MMO, you must force people to group, not make it a choice. Will some players figure out how to solo some content? Yes. Those folks are the true soloers and they will find a way. But, it will be a difficult path and so the majority will still look for groups.
If the game is designed for some soloing, more people will solo (especially if it is easy to converse with others in open chats) thus lowering the number of people looking for a group, thus pushing more folks to soloing, thus lowering the number of people looking for a group etc... This is just one part of the slippery slope.
There are excellent posts/thoughts above and this post is only my opinion.
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:
Soloing in EQ was emergent game play as Sevens posted I think, and that is the way it should be in Pantheon. Designing solo game play into an MMO IS detrimental to group-play.
As long as there is incentive to group over soloing people will. But for the half dozen reasons I mentioned if you force it it will be very detrimental to the potential population. THAT would hurt ease of finding groups. Just look at the profits item mall games rake in on +15%, 25%, etc xp pots. They are almost always under the "hottest" items. Grouping would be like a free +100% xp pot. That's not small amount. Take a movement speed debuff. If you moved at half speed, even if at half speed in that game you moved faster than full speed in your last game, you would feel uncontrollably slow. It's human nature. There are only two tings that kill solo play:
1.) Lack of incentives over solo play
2.) Lack of readily available people to group with
If meaningful solo play is not implemented the latter will occur, at least to a noticeable extent. If solo play is far to easy the former will.
If the game is designed for some soloing, more people will solo
Again, not if there is major incentive to group. Never mind people find it fun and you can take on harder and more rewarding challenges, even an average of 50% more xp/hr would be enough. So +100% xp in a full party + better loot should be more than enough.
Take loot grind games like BL1&2, D2, D3, etc. I don't know if you have played them but people spent hundreds of dollars in D3 for + rare loot gear. People will farm the same area/boss over and over again for hours for meaningful loot. In BL2 people kept the +5% loot artifact on even after it was deemed useless and it gimped their character. Given the lengths people go for loot, if you say "Hey in a full group doing group content you will get twice as much good loot" people will do whatever they can to group. This has been proven time and again in many games, not just the ones I mentioned.
Yes, more people will solo BUT far more people would play to fill that gap (again, provided proper incentives remain)
Generally speaking, when forced to do something they do not want people will look for other options. If you group all the time then forced grouping does nothing to you, but it will drive others to look toward new or other MMOs/games should they become available. People who would group say 20% of the time and solo 80% of the time now group 0% of the time because they simpley left.
Yokoshima, you left out the parts of my post where I mentioned true soloers and emergent game play which are important points towards my over all opinion. I didn't say soloing should be designed against, I just said there shouldn't be design specifically for solo play.
In regards to your reply...
The argument for soloing, on these boards, has been from folks who say they do not have the time to spend getting a group, nor do they have the time to spend staying with a group for hours. These folks will be upset if they log in and solo for an hour and get little exp in regards to their grouping mates, who end up leaving them behind in 'levels'. The soloing player will continue to fall behind and eventually become dissatisfied with Pantheon, then leave the game.
I also do not believe D (diablo i assume?) can be compared to EQ, VG, SWG, or Pantheon. It's just not the same type of game. If you aren't talking about Diablo, let me know. I have not decoded BL yet. :) EDIT* changed cannot to can
"1.) Lack of incentives over solo play
2.) Lack of readily avail be people to group with
If meaningful solo play is not implemented the latter will occur, at least to a noticeable extent. If solo play is far to easy the former will."
The bold, underlined (by me) sentence I quoted from your post implies that meaningful solo play is mandatory in order to have group play (to a noticeable extent). The two types of play are not mutually inclusive.
Also, if people from other MMOs come to Pantheon, touted as a group centric game, and become upset because there is not enough solo content, or soloing is too difficult (takes too long to level, etc...) because the game was not specifically designed for such, they certainly cannot blame or complain, logically.
I will not purchase Pantheon if I see the game design has shifted more towards the newer MMORPGs, rather than sticking with the older, 'you definitely need to group', MMORPGs. If Brad decides the 'vision' must change in order to make more money, I could not find fault except maybe in a bait-n-switch kind of way. It's his game and his salary. I just don't want to play that game with the altered 'vision'. I will just continue to play EQ and save my money.
Once again, these are my opinions/reasons only. Because these are simply my thoughts, my mind will not change on this subject. We will have to agree to disagree and see what the outcome will be. :)
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:
Yokoshima, you left out the parts of my post where I mentioned true soloers and emergent game play which are important points towards my over all opinion. I didn't say soloing should be designed against, I just said there shouldn't be design specifically for solo play.
In regards to your reply...
The argument for soloing, on these boards, has been from folks who say they do not have the time to spend getting a group, nor do they have the time to spend staying with a group for hours. These folks will be upset if they log in and solo for an hour and get little exp in regards to their grouping mates, who end up leaving them behind in 'levels'. The soloing player will continue to fall behind and eventually become dissatisfied with Pantheon, then leave the game.
I also do not believe D (diablo i assume?) cannot be compared to EQ, VG, SWG, or Pantheon. It's just not the same type of game. If you aren't talking about Diablo, let me know. I have not decoded BL yet. :)
"1.) Lack of incentives over solo play
2.) Lack of readily avail be people to group with
If meaningful solo play is not implemented the latter will occur, at least to a noticeable extent. If solo play is far to easy the former will."
The bold, underlined (by me) sentence I quoted from your post implies that meaningful solo play is mandatory in order to have group play (to a noticeable extent). The two types of play are not mutually inclusive.
Also, if people from other MMOs come to Pantheon, touted as a group centric game, and become upset because there is not enough solo content, or soloing is too difficult (takes too long to level, etc...) because the game was not specifically designed for such, they certainly cannot blame or complain, logically.
I will not purchase Pantheon if I see the game design has shifted more towards the newer MMORPGs, rather than sticking with the older, 'you definitely need to group', MMORPGs. If Brad decides the 'vision' must change in order to make more money, I could not find fault except maybe in a bait-n-switch kind of way. It's his game and his salary. I just don't want to play that game with the altered 'vision'. I will just continue to play EQ and save my money.
Once again, these are my opinions/reasons only. Because these are simply my thoughts, my mind will not change on this subject. We will have to agree to disagree and see what the outcome will be. :)
I couldnt agree more BBBC! (I think the BL is Borderlands?)
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:
Yokoshima, you left out the parts of my post where I mentioned true soloers and emergent game play which are important points towards my over all opinion. I didn't say soloing should be designed against, I just said there shouldn't be design specifically for solo play.
I suppose I should clarify something to avoid a miscommunication. I think the game should be designed for both but with group play highly incentivised.
In regards to your reply...
The argument for soloing, on these boards, has been from folks who say they do not have the time to spend getting a group, nor do they have the time to spend staying with a group for hours. These folks will be upset if they log in and solo for an hour and get little exp in regards to their grouping mates, who end up leaving them behind in 'levels'. The soloing player will continue to fall behind and eventually become dissatisfied with Pantheon, then leave the game.
Assuming they have a static group that does not play only when one another are on and there is not good mentoring system. The issue with people being dissatisfied is that they would be able to do nothing. 50% xp for example is far better than nothing at all. I know I would stay if I could do at least something.
I also do not believe D (diablo i assume?)
Yeah I meant diablo, my mistake for not clarifying it.
cannot be compared to EQ, VG, SWG, or Pantheon. It's just not the same type of game. If you aren't talking about Diablo, let me know. I have not decoded BL yet. :)
Again, I apologize for that. BL was borderlands.
It is comparable in that people like good loot. A lot. those games were just good examples of how much people are willing to go through to get it. I also assume it is also the driving force behind raiding, something that I understand is quite popular.
"1.) Lack of incentives over solo play
2.) Lack of readily available people to group with
If meaningful solo play is not implemented the latter will occur, at least to a noticeable extent. If solo play is far to easy the former will."
The bold, underlined (by me) sentence I quoted from your post implies that meaningful solo play is mandatory in order to have group play (to a noticeable extent). The two types of play are not mutually inclusive.
I was saying it was needed to entice a larger group of people to keep playing. And as long as people want to party because it is much better they will. The only difference is there will be more people on to choose from.
Also, if people from other MMOs come to Pantheon, touted as a group centric game, and become upset because there is not enough solo content, or soloing is too difficult (takes too long to level, etc...) because the game was not specifically designed for such, they certainly cannot blame or complain, logically.
To an extent. Group centric means it is a game that was designed to get people to group, not that it was made to ensure that people or most classes never solo. There is no harm in having both, so long as grouping always takes priority.
I will not purchase Pantheon if I see the game design has shifted more towards the newer MMORPGs, rather than sticking with the older, 'you definitely need to group', MMORPGs. If Brad decides the 'vision' must change in order to make more money, I could not find fault except maybe in a bait-n-switch kind of way. It's his game and his salary. I just don't want to play that game with the altered 'vision'. I will just continue to play EQ and save my money.
Once again, these are my opinions/reasons only. Because these are simply my thoughts, my mind will not change on this subject. We will have to agree to disagree and see what the outcome will be. :)
That's fine. Thanks for taking the time to post. On a side note I do agree with you on one thing: If this game is like newer MMORPGs I will have to walk away. At most they entertain me for a few weeks at best. I don't like only grouping at the end when, imo, there is nothing else meaningful to do. Nor do I like it only taking a few days. Makes it not nearly as meaningful. I would like to see it take months to reach max level.