Yokoshima said:
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.
CLIP
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.
Yokoshima, thank you for the post & insight. Wondering, did you play EverQuest..?
Not sure at times, as You're so abstract and seemingly on want to pursue RPG in terms of just EXP & levels/stats.... and maximizing efficiency & rate of return on killing a mob, etc. (understand, EXP was not achievement)
We are suggesting to you, that even with identical character builds... identical spells/armor, that many of the same classes couldn't solo certain mobs.... while they stood bye & watched really crafty people do it. Sometimes, you had many people standing around watching. BECAUSE it wasn't the norm.
Though, after such acclaim & notoriety, others soon followed... and studied and learned and applied his technique to those & other similar mobs, etc. It was emergent and only stumbled, or calculated upon by those who tried, or rallied another class to come along and figure out how to solo/duo a mob, etc. You heard it all the time in world chat: "Anyone available, I wanna try something SK, or necro plz..". EQ was about possibilities, it was all about wild-wild-west. It was about knowing your roll, not damaging a mob. Wizards SAT during most of the battle... his job was to sap EXP... and don't let a mob get away to run and get more mobs. Enchanter changed the group dynamic tremendously, allowing off tanks, with ranger/druid heals, instead of needing a Cleric. It was about using what you had and seeing if it worked. Some groups didn't start until certain monks, wizrds, or clerics logged on. They knew the role of Wizard, better than the last 5 who tried.. so they help clean the head of the dungeon (break the entrance), then other incompetent PUGS follow.. with chides across zone chat. + rep
EverQuest on March 16th 1999 was like a Chemistry set for roleplayers... look at some of the early group photos of guilds.. all the hodgepodge armor, weapons and goofy looking people. That was because everyone thought differently... and didn't conform to knowing if a mobs was solo'able, or group bait? You traveled until you needed a friend, then you found one.
Emergent = Chemistry..
First 3 years of EQ had the ENVIRONMENT perfect. With things in proper habitats and kept the populace constantly roaming, & traveling, revisiting areas as People went about their daily run of warez to the banks & vendors. Or, running in town for rations and dump off coins because you were too heavy... and have not been back to the city in nearly 3 days. (found a good spot & some good friends).
Obviously, group play allows for less down time & more mobs per hour (ie: more exp per hour) thus faster advancement, right..? (not necessarily as you would think)
EXP was only one form of advancing yourself in EQ. People forget the importance of Character skills. The Warrior in a group down in Guk, isn't gaining any more skill ups, than the Monk solo'ing Minotaurs. There doesn't need to be a group bonus, that was always just one way to entice. Certain mobs should have dynamic output of EXP.. and that would be proper. But how youn entice is hearly an issue. Groupng will always have it benefits. Such as not dying and have others to save your ass.. there are consequences in both styles of game play.
There are many was to quantify dynamic EXP, for the amount of people who enter the group. But the game shouldn't be about EXP points. EverQuest never was... it was only for those newbies who came later and realized it took us 3 years to acquire that uber stuff they saw, and realized the grind they has ahead for themselves. (Many couldn't, and just bought character for $k.
In EverQuest, a single mob at a zone entrance can be the target of solo players, or groups and equally destroy both when things weren't exact.. You plucked away... that's EQ. I think Brad has the over-all vision of how it will be. EQ and VG prove he has mob vs player ideology/metric just right.
As already stated...there's nothing wrong with allowing soloing, but it should be slower and less capable than full grouping, just from a "yeah, of course" perspective. And if the leveling curve is such that even grouping will require 6-9 months to hit max level, and ideal, perfect grind soloing is about half as fast as full grouping for exp, then the problem solves itself. In WoW, the penalty for perma soloing is like an extra day or two to ding max. In EQ1, it's like 3 months, especially at the higher end where dark blue garden trash can lay waste to a max level group if any one person goes afk or link dead.
Again, make the "insert coin, here's max level" game, and you all but guarantee the game begins somewhere on Blizzard's pile of corpses. If you want McQuaid immersion, then leveling should be slow, and solo leveling should be slower than group leveling. Period. That's how you end up in the same zone for 2 weeks instead of 2 hours. If you can rush all the content in a huge hurry, the game will be a novelty for 1 of the 3 free months of gameplay that come with the box, because the market is not only saturated with that game, it's also home to the biggest baddest player in the market.
And waiting /lfg is how a major part of the EQ community meta even happened. Yes, it sucks to log on, not find a group and oh well, guess I'll tradeskill or log out. But that was where the "magic" of the community happened. We were all in it together, and you actually had to consider your reputation and and all that. If you grouped well, you made friends, and grouping wasn't hard. People knew who you were, and they'd find you on lfg if you were there. No game besides VG has had that kind of community, and the group thing is THE reason for that.
But whatever. Keep pushing for a solo-friendly WoW clone, and these forums will be another footnote in the history of Blizzard's market domination.
Venjenz said:
As already stated...there's nothing wrong with allowing soloing, but it should be slower and less capable than full grouping, just from a "yeah, of course" perspective. And if the leveling curve is such that even grouping will require 6-9 months to hit max level, and ideal, perfect grind soloing is about half as fast as full grouping for exp, then the problem solves itself. In WoW, the penalty for perma soloing is like an extra day or two to ding max. In EQ1, it's like 3 months, especially at the higher end where dark blue garden trash can lay waste to a max level group if any one person goes afk or link dead.
Again, make the "insert coin, here's max level" game, and you all but guarantee the game begins somewhere on Blizzard's pile of corpses. If you want McQuaid immersion, then leveling should be slow, and solo leveling should be slower than group leveling. Period. That's how you end up in the same zone for 2 weeks instead of 2 hours. If you can rush all the content in a huge hurry, the game will be a novelty for 1 of the 3 free months of gameplay that come with the box, because the market is not only saturated with that game, it's also home to the biggest baddest player in the market.
And waiting /lfg is how a major part of the EQ community meta even happened. Yes, it sucks to log on, not find a group and oh well, guess I'll tradeskill or log out. But that was where the "magic" of the community happened. We were all in it together, and you actually had to consider your reputation and and all that. If you grouped well, you made friends, and grouping wasn't hard. People knew who you were, and they'd find you on lfg if you were there. No game besides VG has had that kind of community, and the group thing is THE reason for that.
But whatever. Keep pushing for a solo-friendly WoW clone, and these forums will be another footnote in the history of Blizzard's market domination.
I wish I could like this post more than once
you have hit the nail on the head...so much truth in this post its makes me /swoon lol
Something else to point out that you alluded to Hieromonk... It wasn't just "this class can solo, that class cannot" - or perhaps it wasn't even that at all. I knew a cleric that solo'd for example - and most folks would not have considered a cleric a "solo" class.
No - it was quite often the person playing the class that mattered more than the class itself.
I don't think I was a "great" ranger - but I do think I was an "above average" ranger. I can't tell you, for instance, how many times a different ranger would send me a tell and ask "how did you do that?" in a group. Speaking to the value of soloing in EQ, some times, many times, the things I did in a group were things I figured out all on my own - out in the wilds of EQ.
Not the least of which was remaining calm when situations looked like they were about to become extremely crappy.
I think the greatest compliment I ever got from EQ - I had been invited to play with a group of folks who I respected greatly as players - and I was pulling (it was a dungeon flagged as "outdoors") - well, things were going excellently - and - despite my internal respawn timer tickling the back of my mind, I decided to go get just one more before waiting for a repop.
Sure enough - I'm off on the pull, and I see in group "we're going to get adds - we have respawns" - Around the corner I come with a mob, snare it, harmony it, run forward enough to be out of range of everything - harmony everything in sight, thread the mob through everything avoiding other respawns and staying just inside the path I needed to through the mobs - to my group. SINGLE pull...
Just as I'm getting the mob to the group - I see in group chat - from, again, a very good player: "Wow, I never knew rangers could do that"
The ability to do that sort of stuff was learned solo - but let me shine in groups... and again, it's not that EQ had "solo content" - it's that, in being bold enough to venture forth and learn - you COULD solo.
Venjenz said:
As already stated...there's nothing wrong with allowing soloing, but it should be slower and less capable than full grouping, just from a "yeah, of course" perspective. And if the leveling curve is such that even grouping will require 6-9 months to hit max level, and ideal, perfect grind soloing is about half as fast as full grouping for exp, then the problem solves itself. In WoW, the penalty for perma soloing is like an extra day or two to ding max. In EQ1, it's like 3 months, especially at the higher end where dark blue garden trash can lay waste to a max level group if any one person goes afk or link dead.
Again, make the "insert coin, here's max level" game, and you all but guarantee the game begins somewhere on Blizzard's pile of corpses. If you want McQuaid immersion, then leveling should be slow, and solo leveling should be slower than group leveling. Period. That's how you end up in the same zone for 2 weeks instead of 2 hours. If you can rush all the content in a huge hurry, the game will be a novelty for 1 of the 3 free months of gameplay that come with the box, because the market is not only saturated with that game, it's also home to the biggest baddest player in the market.
And waiting /lfg is how a major part of the EQ community meta even happened. Yes, it sucks to log on, not find a group and oh well, guess I'll tradeskill or log out. But that was where the "magic" of the community happened. We were all in it together, and you actually had to consider your reputation and and all that. If you grouped well, you made friends, and grouping wasn't hard. People knew who you were, and they'd find you on lfg if you were there. No game besides VG has had that kind of community, and the group thing is THE reason for that.
But whatever. Keep pushing for a solo-friendly WoW clone, and these forums will be another footnote in the history of Blizzard's market domination.
This will sound odd to today's MMO players - but there were more than a few nights in EQ I logged on with the intention to go hunt something - and ended up sitting right where I logged in the entire night - not realizing I did so until I looked at the clock and realized it was past my bed time... doing nothing but chatting, laughing, joking, etc... with the community I had built up by that point in game. It's absolutely true - so much of the magic of EQ had nothing to do with playing the game - it had to do with who you were playing the game with. I'd love to find myself, some night, at 1:00am, looking at the clock, realizing I need to log off of Pantheon and go to bed - after having spent an entire night doing nothing - nothing except laughing with some new community I had built up there, like I had long ago in EQ.
Wandidar said:
Something else to point out that you alluded to Hieromonk... It wasn't just "this class can solo, that class cannot" - or perhaps it wasn't even that at all. I knew a cleric that solo'd for example - and most folks would not have considered a cleric a "solo" class.
No - it was quite often the person playing the class that mattered more than the class itself.
I don't think I was a "great" ranger - but I do think I was an "above average" ranger. I can't tell you, for instance, how many times a different ranger would send me a tell and ask "how did you do that?" in a group. Speaking to the value of soloing in EQ, some times, many times, the things I did in a group were things I figured out all on my own - out in the wilds of EQ.
Not the least of which was remaining calm when situations looked like they were about to become extremely crappy.
I think the greatest compliment I ever got from EQ - I had been invited to play with a group of folks who I respected greatly as players - and I was pulling (it was a dungeon flagged as "outdoors") - well, things were going excellently - and - despite my internal respawn timer tickling the back of my mind, I decided to go get just one more before waiting for a repop.
Sure enough - I'm off on the pull, and I see in group "we're going to get adds - we have respawns" - Around the corner I come with a mob, snare it, harmony it, run forward enough to be out of range of everything - harmony everything in sight, thread the mob through everything avoiding other respawns and staying just inside the path I needed to through the mobs - to my group. SINGLE pull...
Just as I'm getting the mob to the group - I see in group chat - from, again, a very good player: "Wow, I never knew rangers could do that"
The ability to do that sort of stuff was learned solo - but let me shine in groups... and again, it's not that EQ had "solo content" - it's that, in being bold enough to venture forth and learn - you COULD solo.
This is what Im meaning when I talk about solo not being designed into the game but coming about as emergent game play.
Hieromonk said:
...Yokoshima, thank you for the post & insight. Wondering, did you play EverQuest..?
For only a couple of years. Where I got my name actually.
Not sure at times, as You're so abstract and seemingly on want to pursue RPG in terms of just EXP & levels/stats.... and maximizing efficiency & rate of return on killing a mob, etc. (understand, EXP was not achievement)
I said grouping maximizes efficiency. Not that that is the only thing I care about.
We are suggesting to you, that even with identical character builds... identical spells/armor, that many of the same classes couldn't solo certain mobs.... while they stood bye & watched really crafty people do it. Sometimes, you had many people standing around watching. BECAUSE it wasn't the norm.
I know, that is the problem. See my original post as to why.
Though, after such acclaim & notoriety, others soon followed... and studied and learned and applied his technique to those & other similar mobs, etc. It was emergent and only stumbled, or calculated upon by those who tried, or rallied another class to come along and figure out how to solo/duo a mob, etc. You heard it all the time in world chat: "Anyone available, I wanna try something SK, or necro plz..". EQ was about possibilities, it was all about wild-wild-west. It was about knowing your roll, not damaging a mob. Wizards SAT during most of the battle... his job was to sap EXP... and don't let a mob get away to run and get more mobs. Enchanter changed the group dynamic tremendously, allowing off tanks, with ranger/druid heals, instead of needing a Cleric. It was about using what you had and seeing if it worked. Some groups didn't start until certain monks, wizrds, or clerics logged on. They knew the role of Wizard, better than the last 5 who tried.. so they help clean the head of the dungeon (break the entrance), then other incompetent PUGS follow.. with chides across zone chat. + rep
And I see no reason for any of that to change. Solo content does not mean every MoB ever is soloable and there are no hard MoBs or challenges. Every area, weather it be geared to solo, small group, or full party play, should have real dangers throughout.
EverQuest on March 16th 1999 was like a Chemistry set for roleplayers... look at some of the early group photos of guilds.. all the hodgepodge armor, weapons and goofy looking people. That was because everyone thought differently... and didn't conform to knowing if a mobs was solo'able, or group bait? You traveled until you needed a friend, then you found one.
Again, I see no reason for that to change. Putting aside more loot and XP, with more people you would be able to see new areas, learn more about the lore, and actually go on an adventure with someone. Can't do any of that solo.
Emergent = Chemistry..
First 3 years of EQ had the ENVIRONMENT perfect. With things in proper habitats and kept the populace constantly roaming, & traveling, revisiting areas as People went about their daily run of warez to the banks & vendors. Or, running in town for rations and dump off coins because you were too heavy... and have not been back to the city in nearly 3 days. (found a good spot & some good friends).
Again, this has nothing to do wit having solo AND group content. Really that speaks more to not wanting fast travels.
Obviously, group play allows for less down time & more mobs per hour (ie: more exp per hour) thus faster advancement, right..? (not necessarily as you would think)
EXP was only one form of advancing yourself in EQ. People forget the importance of Character skills. The Warrior in a group down in Guk, isn't gaining any more skill ups, than the Monk solo'ing Minotaurs.
True, but irrelevant. You COULD get skill ups, or you could get skill ups plus all the awesome things group play gives, from the social or the toons perspective. Solo content does not threaten this.
There doesn't need to be a group bonus, that was always just one way to entice. Certain mobs should have dynamic output of EXP.. and that would be proper. But how youn entice is hearly an issue. Groupng will always have it benefits. Such as not dying and have others to save your ass.. there are consequences in both styles of game play.
There are many was to quantify dynamic EXP, for the amount of people who enter the group. But the game shouldn't be about EXP points. EverQuest never was... it was only for those newbies who came later and realized it took us 3 years to acquire that uber stuff they saw, and realized the grind they has ahead for themselves. (Many couldn't, and just bought character for $k.
I never said it should be just about XP. If I did, I would want it to take only a week or two to hit max level. That was just one of the many perks or grouping.
In EverQuest, a single mob at a zone entrance can be the target of solo players, or groups and equally destroy both when things weren't exact.. You plucked away... that's EQ. I think Brad has the over-all vision of how it will be. EQ and VG prove he has mob vs player ideology/metric just right.
I'll just recap what I have been saying: Solo play, provided group play remains the priority, will not threaten what you want. It will only improve upon it.
Hieromonk said:
Before I start, who is in charge of P:Rof's website/forums? (I am finding it difficult to follow discussion because of the fractured nature of POLLS/THINK TANK/FORUMS.) Anyone else?
On-Topic: (here is what I put in the comments section of the Poll)
I don't think you have encompassed everything in Poll.
Understand, anything in EQ was solo'able, if you were single-handedly, powerful enough to do it. In early EQ you could see a group of five lvl-26s fighting Spectres, while a single lvl 42 Wizard (with just enough mana) able to solo one. Soloing was an artform and could be done by anyone. You just had to chose the right canvas for your skills.
My mistake, when I said soloable I meant at level.
The mere fact that no mob was a sure thing, made the game challenging and fresh. Two resist in a row at lvl 50..? ... could have you running from a bloodgill 11 levels lower than you...
Always fun. No reason to do away with it.
you just didn't run threw territory in EQ unimpeded, like you do in today's game. ie: Don't stop, you have 30 mobs on you (& you should)... you just ran threw a den of lvl 30 Goblins... goblin train. There just shouldn't be/have have a zone wall so close, that you can exploit your own carelessness/stupidity/cunning... because of a design flaw, otherwise you'd have to solo 30 goblins..
Agreed, wholeheartedly.
That being said, the majority of what you described was the downfalls of an "easymode" game. Solo content should have nothing to do with any of that. As long as challenging and rewarding MoBs remain, everything you described will also remain. And, imo, that is what I would prefer.
Venjenz said:
In WoW, the penalty for perma soloing is like an extra day or two to ding max.
One of the many reasons I hate WoW. Now it seems most MMOs do that...
Again, make the "insert coin, here's max level" game, and you all but guarantee the game begins somewhere on Blizzard's pile of corpses. If you want McQuaid immersion, then leveling should be slow, and solo leveling should be slower than group leveling. Period.
Wait, are people saying something different? That leveling should be fast?
And waiting /lfg is how a major part of the EQ community meta even happened.
And I see no reason why waiting around do nothing or tradskilling should be mandatory when it doesn't have to be. Being /lfg most of the time should be a standard.
Yes, it sucks to log on, not find a group and oh well, guess I'll tradeskill or log out. But that was where the "magic" of the community happened. We were all in it together, and you actually had to consider your reputation andall that. If you grouped well, you made friends, and grouping wasn't hard. People knew who you were, and they'd find you on lfg if you were there. No game besides VG has had that kind of community, and the group thing is THE reason for that.
I know. I'm all for that. That is why I have said and will continue grouping should remain the priority.
But whatever. Keep pushing for a solo-friendly WoW clone, and these forums will be another footnote in the history of Blizzard's market domination.
Read my posts. Read the very first post even. That is not what I, nor almost anyone here, wants. I want a game that had all the great things that EQ1 had in terms of it's community, but without the pitfalls that mad that community much smaller then it could have been and the game less enjoyable then it could have been. Allow me to quote myself:
"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." I said that on my very first post. Though I suppose I should have said "comparably dead".
X
At some point this message seems to have been lost based on the last few posts. I put it in my original post but it seems to have gone unnoticed.
Solo play and solo content =/= easy mode.
I have not said ever, nor do I ever want, a game that is without challenges. There should always be areas, and many of them, that contain difficult MoBs for one reason or another. And in these areas people should be able to challenge themselves by fighting there and soloing where they should not be, just as was done in EQ1. The only difference is not every area would be like this, not that they would cease to exists. At least if done right. VG is a pretty good example of this.
No need to multi-quote a single post. That is why I use paragraphs, I can tell what points you are trying to make....
The reason why I asked if you played EverQuest is, because you seem really lost/troubled as to what solo vs group play actually is. Or that somehow EQ was wrong and you are trying to change the balance. Really not sure what your over-all point is/was... that is why i asked. Are you saying EQ had it all wrong, and that VG had it all wrong..? And now Pantheon must change something..? What is your over-all problem with creatures in the world?
Secondly, and I have mentioned this several times: We are suggesting to you, that even with identical character builds... identical spells/armor, that many of the same classes couldn't solo certain mobs.... while they stood bye & watched really crafty people do it. Sometimes, you had many people standing around watching. BECAUSE it wasn't the norm.
You Respond with: I know, that is the problem. See my original post as to why.
But there is nothing in your posts that explains why difference, or individuality is a problem in EverQuest, or was a problem.
All I found, was you admitting you were angry & mad, because you could not do things others classes could... without realizing yourself you were doing things Wizards could not do, etc. There is no basis for your points... that is why I am miffed.
I am much along the lines of Hieromonk.
I am not sure that this thread adresses a real, existing problem.
There is no specific "solo content design", there is just a mob's power scaling design whose corollary is a more or less greater soloability for different classes .
Soloing is just something that happens and it happens spontaneously in every game based on levels .
Even in EQ everybody was soloing anywhere between 1 and 15. All classes without exception. Some classes were soloing beyond that. And a very few classes were able to solo all way to max level.
Why is there always a "solo content" at lower levels ?
Simply because you just needed little time to do a level so that group vs solo XP was so marginal that nobody cared. For the same reason loot was not an issue either.
The mob's power (HP and DPS) was also scaled so that everybody could solo at least a single dark blue to white.
There was no "design" aiming at facilitating soloing or making it hard. It was just a trivial corollary of the mob's power scaling and XP necessary for a level.
It is also obvious that some classes were extremely good at soloing at (almost) any level while others struggled.
But this was also not a specific design decision aiming to have some kind of predetermined metrics for soloing ability.
What is the necessary and sufficient condition to solo in a game where a mob's power is scaling relatively fast (f.ex EQ or VG and with a high probability Pantheon) ?
Simple - avoiding to get hit while delivering damage.
And to avoid to get hit one needs : snare (or its symmetrical equivalent a speed buff) OR root OR fear OR a proxy who takes hits on your stead (a pet).
Having eventually also some CC abilities is a nice to have because it allows to solo a much harder content but CC is not a soloing ability by itself.
Well the necromancers got all 4 of these (and feign death as a bonus) while the rogues got none. Result : the former are solo Kings while the latter can't solo a a fire beetle. Unavoidable.
And it is because I am convinced that all of the 4 above mentionned abilities will be in Pantheon, inequally distributed among the classes, that nobody needs to worry about "soloable content" even if I am sure that there will be no EXPLICIT design decision aimed at "soloable content".
This content will just happen all by itself and be inequally available to the different classes.
I guess that some tweaking of the mob's scaling curve will happen during alpha/beta but this is surely one of the smallest and easiest problems to solve.
Basically what Brad told us here is that Pantheon will be like that.
On the opposite side we have the "modern" MMOs where everybody can solo anything. This is also just a corollary of having a very flat scaling curve of mob's power so that it is no more a problem for any class to get hit.
You add to that the ability to run faster than any mob (an equivalent of a permanent snare) what we have in almost all these games too and you get a kind of thing that we all hate.
Hieromonk said:
No need to multi-quote a single post. That is why I use paragraphs, I can tell what points you are trying to make....
I know, but as this is an open discussion not a private one, I like to do it for other's sake.
The reason why I asked if you played EverQuest is, because you seem really lost/troubled as to what solo vs group play actually is. Or that somehow EQ was wrong and you are trying to change the balance. Really not sure what your over-all point is/was... that is why i asked. Are you saying EQ had it all wrong, and that VG had it all wrong..? And now Pantheon must change something..? What is your over-all problem with creatures in the world?
VG had it right, I didn't care for how EQ1 handled it. I don't in anyway shape or form not want creatures in the world. Not sure how you came to that conclusion. What I was purposing was more solo content (in the traditional since, as in vs same level MoBs etc. but not blind boring grinding/killing as in say terra, almost any Korean MMO, or a loot grind game) than EQ1 had, along the lines of VG. BUT with out sacrificing the drive to group or the challenging world.
Secondly, and I have mentioned this several times: We are suggesting to you, that even with identical character builds... identical spells/armor, that many of the same classes couldn't solo certain mobs.... while they stood bye & watched really crafty people do it. Sometimes, you had many people standing around watching. BECAUSE it wasn't the norm.
You Respond with: I know, that is the problem. See my original post as to why.
But there is nothing in your posts that explains why difference, or individuality is a problem in EverQuest, or was a problem.
All I found, was you admitting you were angry & mad, because you could not do things others classes could... without realizing yourself you were doing things Wizards could not do, etc. There is no basis for your points... that is why I am miffed.
Side note, my main was a necro followed by a wiz, so I could solo a lot more than others.
Ok so I misread something you posted. You said, "same classes couldn't solo certain mobs". I missed the word "certain". That was my fault. I do want that to exist, but I also want MoBs every class (to widely varying degrees) can solo. Still keep the dangerous/group/etc. MoBs in the world. In both dungeons and the over world (to a lesser extent). As in I would like to see meaningful solo content along with the rest, not to replace it. I want the option to solo, the incentive to group, and the ability to do things with some classes/skill that I should not be able to do (emergent soloing). As long as party play remains a focus, there is no reason not to have all three. VG did this pretty well for example.
The problem with EQ1 was for the most part you were FORCED to group. I want each and every class to be unique with their own varying strengths and weaknesses. I want to be able to experience diverse play styles with many different classes to keep the game fresh.
X
My whole take from this post is that they are asking for mobs designed to be soloable be included in the game so if they are LFG they can just go solo mobs whilst waiting...The problem with that thinking is that if people can solo people will solo, doesnt matter if xp is faster in groups or that all the great gear drops in group settings...Farmers will simply hog the group content (usually being so far over level that the content is trivial) while the rest of the server solo's there happy little hearts out and then take all the plat they made from solo'ing and buy the gear, same story thats happened in every MMO released since WoW (not sure about VG as I didnt play it). The magic of what was the social aspect of what EQ was is pretty much lost on them...Cant find a group? Dont worry just go to the solo area and poof problem solved. The dungeon is all camped and crowded? dont worry about it, the game will just make another "instance" of the dungeon so you dont have to worry about learning how to work with your fellow players. This line of thinking is, to me, just another aspect of the gimme gimme gimme WoW mentality..its the games job to solve all these problems, not a challenge to be worked out by the community
But then again what do I know, Im dense and irrational :)
Deadshade said:
...
On the opposite side we have the "modern" MMOs where everybody can solo anything. This is also just a corollary of having a very flat scaling curve of mob's power so that it is no more a problem for any class to get hit.
You add to that the ability to run faster than any mob (an equivalent of a permanent snare) what we have in almost all these games too and you get a kind of thing that we all hate.
The issue with that is if you want to solo you are needlessly restricted to a few classes and a few play styles. In most modern MMOs people can plow through the game solo and mages can tank. That sucks. BUT there IS a middle ground. It doesn't have to be easy mode or very limited soloablinty. It is possible for tanks to take a beating so they can solo, while mages avoid damage for the most part as an example. Even if MoBs had "flat scaling" (something I am against. I think other classes, say warriors, should just have vastly improved survivability.) it would not apply to all MoBs. Just some. I do not understand this "all or nothing" mentality.
On EQOA, I was able to solo mobs that SoE probably didn't design to be soloed. The dreadnoughts that dropped the access item for the Isle of Dread were one such mob. I remember watching large raids wipe to these mobs. There was this guy on my server who told me everything he knew about these dreadnoughts. They placed a debuff on you that lowered your HPs to 100 and then it hit you with DoTs and some direct damage spells. I would memorize my lowest level healing spell. That healing spell used the least amount of mana and it was fine because I only had 100 HPs to heal because of the debuff. It would take me 30 minutes to kill one because I literally had to melee it down (as a druid) and only use my heal spell or I would run out of mana. I had to concentrate and count the ticks of my heals because even being off by 1 second, with one of my heals, was a call for certain death. Healing too early meant that I wouldn't be able to sustain my mana for the fight. This is a perfect example of emergent soloing.
There is a great sense of satisfaction knowing that you did something that not everyone can do or is brave enough to try (Max xp debt anyone?). I can assure you that I ran around with max xp debt probably 80% of the time because of all the crazy things I tried to do. Some things I succeeded in and some, I ultimately failed at. Obviously, even if soloing is designed in this game, I will likely still be able to get some satisfaction out of trying to kill group tuned mobs. Maybe it is just a feeling that I have and a deep desire to have my old EQOA rule sets back, but I just don't want casual soloing to go beyond level 10. I like the idea of soloing through emergent game play.
I agree with others who mention that there are other things to do when you cannot find a group. Heck, just go out and get lost, find something no one else has found. One time, I got a server first on EQ2 for failing a recipe. I failed it so bad, that no one else had ever done that terrible with that recipe before, yay me! I am sure I was trying to craft because I was waiting for a group or for some friends to log on and now I have this really horrifying story to tell. I have a pack pony who goes out and gathers for me on EQ2 because I had some down time and decided to do the gatherer timeline (which took forever and a day). Pack pony ftw! I wouldn't discount these other things when you have downtime.
I completely understand why some of you want casual soloing, I just really hope it is limited in its uses. Honestly speaking, if I had been able to get groups every time I logged in, I probably would have missed out on a lot of the crazy things I did. I wouldn't have nearly as many great memories and stories to tell.
When those of us who are opposed to casual soloing, design specific soloing, or whatever you wish to call it, debate the subject we are not simply debating one play style versus another. We are discussing the community which results from one play style versus another. We are discussing the game economy which results from one play style versus another. We are discussing the memories kept and friends made from one play style versus another.
I cannot think of a game which designed for solo content that has a great community, a good game economy, or was not overrun by bots and farmers within a month after release. I really don't think it's been done.
Now, I can show you a bunch of games designed for solo content which made a bunch of money. These games are filled with players who are either looking for the next big launch, or are wondering if there is anything more substantial out there. These games have universal chat so the "soloers" can still feel like part of the community without participating in it.
Yokoshima said:
As in I would like to see meaningful solo content along with the rest, not to replace it. I want the option to solo, the incentive to group, and the ability to do things with some classes/skill that I should not be able to do (emergent soloing). As long as party play remains a focus, there is no reason not to have all three. VG did this pretty well for example.
X
We understand that^.
But what proof it there, or how do you not see that coming about, under Pantheon..? Why are you openly worring(?), that you won't be able to solo play? I solo played EQ from Day 1 to nearly lvl 45. I played a Wizard and was a loner that always had the front. I kept pace with PUG players because I invested massive amounts of time into daily gameplay. I didn't get my first res until lvl 42. Probably had died 400 times before then. EXP loss alone is extraordinary. It was tough and not for everyone. After I retired my Wizard, my monk had no problems with groups, or gaining EXP. It took nearly a half the time. Almost to quickly. I hardly ever quested with my Wizard, but did so Day 1 with my Iksar Monk. EQ took a new meaning when I started to pull for groups.
In Vanguard, I was a Disciple and loved it until they changed the class. I could solo anything... I mean anything... even play around with uber mobs, I loved that Class so much. Thing was, it might take 35 minutes to solo a mob... a group could do it in 2m. I just loved being able to solo too..
Yoko, I don't think you have any fear of the direction Pantheon is going, solo play will be phun.
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:
When those of us who are opposed to casual soloing, design specific soloing, or whatever you wish to call it, debate the subject we are not simply debating one play style versus another. We are discussing the community which results from one play style versus another. We are discussing the game economy which results from one play style versus another. We are discussing the memories kept and friends made from one play style versus another.
I cannot think of a game which designed for solo content that has a great community, a good game economy, or was not overrun by bots and farmers within a month after release. I really don't think it's been done.
Now, I can show you a bunch of games designed for solo content which made a bunch of money. These games are filled with players who are either looking for the next big launch, or are wondering if there is anything more substantial out there. These games have universal chat so the "soloers" can still feel like part of the community without participating in it.
I cant stress how much I loathe the universal chat channels...not only for the reason Bloodbeard pointed out but also they usually serve as nothing more than a world stage for Trolls (the bad kind, not the Player Character kind) to start fights, hurl insults and be... well mostly Racist, homophobic and as nasty as they can be. Also they are nothing more that spam channels for bots and gold sellers. I dont see why any more that /group /guild /zone and /say are needed....maybe if there is designated trader area (and not emergent like EC tunnels) then have a /auction that works only in that zone
I am in agreement with Bloodbeard, Sevens, Hieromonk, Wandidar, Venjenz and others here. I raised soloing mechanics as a question for the rountables, so, we'll see if it can be addressed.
Good reads in here and as Bloodbeard has said, just reading some of these responses brought back memories of EQ1, where I have none of those same nostalgic memories for solo-friendly MMOs due to the lack of community.
Venjenz said:
As already stated...there's nothing wrong with allowing soloing, but it should be slower and less capable than full grouping, just from a "yeah, of course" perspective. And if the leveling curve is such that even grouping will require 6-9 months to hit max level, and ideal, perfect grind soloing is about half as fast as full grouping for exp, then the problem solves itself. In WoW, the penalty for perma soloing is like an extra day or two to ding max. In EQ1, it's like 3 months, especially at the higher end where dark blue garden trash can lay waste to a max level group if any one person goes afk or link dead.
Again, make the "insert coin, here's max level" game, and you all but guarantee the game begins somewhere on Blizzard's pile of corpses. If you want McQuaid immersion, then leveling should be slow, and solo leveling should be slower than group leveling. Period. That's how you end up in the same zone for 2 weeks instead of 2 hours. If you can rush all the content in a huge hurry, the game will be a novelty for 1 of the 3 free months of gameplay that come with the box, because the market is not only saturated with that game, it's also home to the biggest baddest player in the market.
And waiting /lfg is how a major part of the EQ community meta even happened. Yes, it sucks to log on, not find a group and oh well, guess I'll tradeskill or log out. But that was where the "magic" of the community happened. We were all in it together, and you actually had to consider your reputation and and all that. If you grouped well, you made friends, and grouping wasn't hard. People knew who you were, and they'd find you on lfg if you were there. No game besides VG has had that kind of community, and the group thing is THE reason for that.
But whatever. Keep pushing for a solo-friendly WoW clone, and these forums will be another footnote in the history of Blizzard's market domination.
You said this and I'm kind of wondering why. No one here, from what I've seen, has said that they want quick leveling. To quote Yokoshima...
I would like to see it take 120-150 days to hit max level solo (luck and class being factored in here, from worst to best averages) with regular play (say 10 hours each day on the weekend/day(s) off, 3-5 hours on weekdays) and about half that with constant full party grouping for the same amount of time played each week. That would mean each class, just leveling and playing pretty regularly would take at best (and pretty unrealistically) two months and at worst 5 months. If you don't devote pretty much to all your free time to it and have a job you could be looking at a year easy just to get one character up to max level. Even if you had no job, played all day with perfect readily available groups it, would still be slower than most modern MMOs. I wouldn't call that a WoW clone, which is good because I hate WoW so much I can't even begin to describe it.
EDIT:
When I say "max" I mean initial max level, not a constant thing. Say the initial max level is 50. If it took 150 days worst case (I.E. class/luck/etc.) to hit 50, then it would take something like 400 to reach 90. Which is kinda insane...
Yet you seem to directly go after Yokoshima and others that say that there should be solo content (not replacing group content, but alongside of it) and think that when they say "solo should be available" they mean "solo should be easy mode and this game should be quick". They don't, at least not from what I've read in this discussion.
Sevens said:
Venjenz said:
As already stated...there's nothing wrong with allowing soloing, but it should be slower and less capable than full grouping, just from a "yeah, of course" perspective. And if the leveling curve is such that even grouping will require 6-9 months to hit max level, and ideal, perfect grind soloing is about half as fast as full grouping for exp, then the problem solves itself. In WoW, the penalty for perma soloing is like an extra day or two to ding max. In EQ1, it's like 3 months, especially at the higher end where dark blue garden trash can lay waste to a max level group if any one person goes afk or link dead.
Again, make the "insert coin, here's max level" game, and you all but guarantee the game begins somewhere on Blizzard's pile of corpses. If you want McQuaid immersion, then leveling should be slow, and solo leveling should be slower than group leveling. Period. That's how you end up in the same zone for 2 weeks instead of 2 hours. If you can rush all the content in a huge hurry, the game will be a novelty for 1 of the 3 free months of gameplay that come with the box, because the market is not only saturated with that game, it's also home to the biggest baddest player in the market.
And waiting /lfg is how a major part of the EQ community meta even happened. Yes, it sucks to log on, not find a group and oh well, guess I'll tradeskill or log out. But that was where the "magic" of the community happened. We were all in it together, and you actually had to consider your reputation and and all that. If you grouped well, you made friends, and grouping wasn't hard. People knew who you were, and they'd find you on lfg if you were there. No game besides VG has had that kind of community, and the group thing is THE reason for that.
But whatever. Keep pushing for a solo-friendly WoW clone, and these forums will be another footnote in the history of Blizzard's market domination.I wish I could like this post more than once
you have hit the nail on the head...so much truth in this post its makes me /swoon lol
You have said you want no (outright) solo play, yet you agree with Venjenz by saying "you have hit the nail on the head...so much truth in this post its makes me /swoon lol" I can only assume that you meant to only highlight the last part of what he said b/c otherwise, you would be contradicting yourself. "How?"you may ask. Well, you are against outright soloing (by outright soloing, I mean you don't want all classes to be designed to solo any content) yet you agree with Venjenz who says that there should be solo content.
So,
1.) Why even make this post? It has no beneficial content.
and 2.) Are you against outright solo content or for it?
Sevens said:
Wandidar said:
Something else to point out that you alluded to Hieromonk... It wasn't just "this class can solo, that class cannot" - or perhaps it wasn't even that at all. I knew a cleric that solo'd for example - and most folks would not have considered a cleric a "solo" class.
No - it was quite often the person playing the class that mattered more than the class itself.
I don't think I was a "great" ranger - but I do think I was an "above average" ranger. I can't tell you, for instance, how many times a different ranger would send me a tell and ask "how did you do that?" in a group. Speaking to the value of soloing in EQ, some times, many times, the things I did in a group were things I figured out all on my own - out in the wilds of EQ.
Not the least of which was remaining calm when situations looked like they were about to become extremely crappy.
I think the greatest compliment I ever got from EQ - I had been invited to play with a group of folks who I respected greatly as players - and I was pulling (it was a dungeon flagged as "outdoors") - well, things were going excellently - and - despite my internal respawn timer tickling the back of my mind, I decided to go get just one more before waiting for a repop.
Sure enough - I'm off on the pull, and I see in group "we're going to get adds - we have respawns" - Around the corner I come with a mob, snare it, harmony it, run forward enough to be out of range of everything - harmony everything in sight, thread the mob through everything avoiding other respawns and staying just inside the path I needed to through the mobs - to my group. SINGLE pull...
Just as I'm getting the mob to the group - I see in group chat - from, again, a very good player: "Wow, I never knew rangers could do that"
The ability to do that sort of stuff was learned solo - but let me shine in groups... and again, it's not that EQ had "solo content" - it's that, in being bold enough to venture forth and learn - you COULD solo.
This is what Im meaning when I talk about solo not being designed into the game but coming about as emergent game play.
You said "This is what Im meaning when I talk about solo not being designed into the game but coming about as emergent game play." We got what you meant by emergent game play before you even posted this post, so why even make this post at all? Again, you add a post with no beneficial info. Why?