Arthilios said:
Hieromonk said:
Arthilios, I don't think you have anything to fear. All I can do is re-quote my own post from earlier:
" Why shouldn't there be solo content AND group content...? "
-Arthilios
Nobody said there shouldn't be both^. Or will not.
Pantheon just won't be designed for solo play.... . but don't let that trouble you. That doesn't mean there won't be soling, only that the game is NOT designed around fields and fields of mobs for solo'ers. But as these players learn their skills and the environment, they will learn what they can handle on their own. Not nec what yields best exp.. (that was never the reason for solo'ing), but what your class (or You personally) can handle.
But you are not going to see fields... & fields of mobs set up & placed ever so, for single people to come by and gobble them up for exp. Not going to happen.
All I want is...
1.) Good, rewarding group content.
2.) Challenging solo play that I can solo (in different ways) with every class.
The only thing I fear is that they will take away the challenging solo content.
EDIT: I left something out.
When you say "for single people to come by and gobble them up for exp." I think that this means easy to kill enemies and this is why I replied to your other post saying that I don't want super easy to kill enemies. Sorry for any confusion.
Again, nothing anyone has suggested this far in this thread, should give you anything to worry about, or alarm..!.
Understand, you have a duality in your argument, that causes you to parley often. In that you want solo'ing in game.. and that you want it in game for everyone... People are trying to tell you solo'ing is for everyone. If you can't do it, you suck, or don't know the class. Period!
There just won't be game resources spent, on making vast fields of mobs, so that solo'er can have a "field day" on mobs... as you suggest here:
I don't think anyone wants separate areas/zones for two styles of play.
Why would you NOT want that? You would appeal to a broader audience, give areas for "group training"(which is the person being able to work on their class/getting to know how their class works), give people more things to do when they can't find a group, really everything that I posted in my other post.
But there will be fields of mobs designed for small groups, that crafty people will figure out how to solo... and do so effectively, through emergent game play, etc.
You'll see..
Arthilios said:
Sevens said:
Arthilios said:
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?
If you had read all my posts.....
I am 100% against solo content being designed into the game
I am 100% in favor of solo play coming about as emergent gameplay
there is no contridiction in my post
No, not in this post but in the post Venjenz placed...
Solo play.
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.
.there's nothing wrong with allowing soloing, but it should be slower and less capable than full grouping...
To which you said
you have hit the nail on the head...so much truth in this post its makes me /swoon lol
So, Venjens says, I'd like solo play to be designed into the game and you agree with him. See the contradiction?
No, what he is saying is not to put up artificial barriers to soloing...Like sow not working in combat, things like that.
He is not saying to design solo into the game but to not hinder it if and when the players figure out how to take the skills given to them and then solo mobs designed for a group. If I misunderstood that Venjens then please correct me.
Arthilios said:
All I want is...
1.) Good, rewarding group content.
2.) Challenging solo play that I can solo (in different ways) with every class.
The only thing I fear is that they will take away the challenging solo content.
EDIT: I left something out.
When you say "for single people to come by and gobble them up for exp." I think that this means easy to kill enemies and this is why I replied to your other post saying that I don't want super easy to kill enemies. Sorry for any confusion.
Arthilios - I'll address your questions here. As I have said earlier in this thread.. I raised this as a Roundtable question, so hopefully it can be put to bed by the developers; however, I can't resist so here goes....
1. We are in agreement.
2. We are in partial agreement. However, as others and I have said ad nasuem, it Soloing shouldn't be designed into the game, but that is entirely different than saying there should be no soloing. Yes, your warrior should solo worse - does that make soloing impossible - no. Even in Everquest - probably the least solo friendly game for a warrior, I could Bind wound to 50%, and solo nearly trivial mobs and hope for the best. Terrible exp yes, but it was possible. Warriors were also very gear dependent as well. A rogue - nearly impossible, yes, but use intimidate (fear skill in EQ) and backstab and hope for the best - then bind would to 50%. Again, very gear dependent, but it was possible with nearly trivial mobs.
In other threads.... You ask why there is a fear of designing soloing into games - look at every MMO since EQ launch that has designed soloing:
WoW, VG (near the doom and SoE changes), EQ1 live (currently), EQ2 (Currently), Lord of the Rings Online, Elder Scrolls Online, Wildstar and Archage (to a lesser degree), Guild Wars/2, Star Wars - Old Republic, Rift, Age of Conan, etc. I'm sure I could list a ton more with a little effort and a Google search, but I just thought of those off the top of my head. The common denominator between all those games - no nostalgic memories and no desire to go back to any of them sans EQlaunch and a released successful VG launch due to the terrible communities found in solo friendly games.
Other negatives found in games designed specifically around soloing and grouping:
1. Much more hand holding - Quest markers, find paths, mini-maps which basically are GPS's (which yes, means less challenge)
2.. Quest hubs would most likely have to be present to have effecient soloing with soloable gear upgrades. If not, there would be unavoidable complaints about not enough diversified solo content, so yes, developers would be pulled away to cater to soloers. Can't kill 10000 brown bears without it getting boring.
3. Your last point on solo kills being easier - they would have to be by the nature of being designed solo kills. And, as you said, since you want ALL classes to be able to solo efficiently - then again, yes, it would take away from group play because class skills would then have to be designed around allowing for solo play. And, once you do that, there is more blurred lines between the distinction in the classes and all the classes play to more of the same style to allow for every class to have the skillset to solo. So yes, clerics/warriors/rogues should suck at solo, but should be extremely desired in groups - and if they're not, at that point, we have an issue to discuss.
So, as I and others have stated again, classes should be able to solo due to "emergent gameplay" - basically learning how to maximize their own classes unique skillset and other game mechanics - bind wound, etc. And yes, this means that some classes will solo slower than others, but if solo is your goal and you must play a warrior - start a necro type class as an alt while you are waiting for friends to group.
Again, there's nothing wrong with wanting to play a solo-friendly, casual game that is designed for soloing - I just hope that's not the game that Pantheon strives to be and not the game I would want to play. Also, I believe the people clammoring for group content here would be content with less group content at launch (or during the first expansion) if it meant it was a game that they (I) wanted to play, and not MMO clone 10000.
And.. hopefully the soloing mechanics will be addressed in the Roundtable also.
Sevens said:
Arthilios said:
To Sevens. I pointed out a couple of things you replied to. You may have thought that this was me being a dick (the way you replied certainly suggests that you took it that way). This is not the case. I was merely asking why you repeated yourself while not giving any extra info/advice. I apologize if you took it that way.
Because the people wanting solo play designed into the game keep on repeating the same argument over and over and over and over again...I am against solo designed play, I will always be against solo designed play and I will constantly post my feeling against solo designed play in any thread where people are clamoring for solo designed play. There are dozens of other games that have solo content designed into them but Pantheon promised to be different, to be old school and I am going to be here to remind Brad and Team of these promises. I dont care if I sound like a broken record but I am going to fight for the game I was promised
Okay, firstly, it truly was just an apology and an explanation as to why it may have come off sounding dickish. In that post, I wasn't asking why you said what you said, that was just the explanation portion. And I'm all for sounding like a broken record, so long as with every repeat, you add an extra ounce of argument to continue the debate. For instance, if I were to say "I think that marriage licenses should be renewed yearly so that people wanting a divorce can save money." and someone else said "That is absurd, they shouldn't have gotten into the marriage if they didn't plan on sticking it out. They deserve whatever comes to them." and a third someone says "Well sure, to a point, they deserve what they get, but sometimes love (well I suppose closer to lust) can cloud their vision. They don't deserve to be punished because of something that is hardwired into them." and I chime in "Yeah, the third guy gets it!", that last comment shouldn't be added. Now, if instead I were to say "Yeah, the third guy gets it! Plus, sometimes the other person is lying to you from the beginning. Should you be expected to know 100% of someone before taking that extra step?", I'd be fine with that. You add something extra to the conversation to keep it from becoming "Marriage is concrete and breaking that should have punishments.", "No, there shouldn't be (financial) punishments.", "Yes there should.", "No there shouldn't." and so on.
And I don't want a game specifically designed for solo. I want a mainly group designed game with SOME solo content to pick up the slack that group content can't handle. Saying that one system will fix everything (be it saying that only solo is best or only group is best) is a bad way to look at this.
Let me ask you something Sevens. Do you think that mages should be able to kite indefinitely?
Please answer with yes on no.
Raidan said:
Arthilios said:All I want is...
1.) Good, rewarding group content.
2.) Challenging solo play that I can solo (in different ways) with every class.
The only thing I fear is that they will take away the challenging solo content.
EDIT: I left something out.
When you say "for single people to come by and gobble them up for exp." I think that this means easy to kill enemies and this is why I replied to your other post saying that I don't want super easy to kill enemies. Sorry for any confusion.
Arthilios - I'll address your questions here. As I have said earlier in this thread.. I raised this as a Roundtable question, so hopefully it can be put to bed by the developers; however, I can't resist so here goes....
1. We are in agreement.
2. We are in partial agreement. However, as others and I have said ad nasuem, it Soloing shouldn't be designed into the game, but that is entirely different than saying there should be no soloing. Yes, your warrior should solo worse - does that make soloing impossible - no. Even in Everquest - probably the least solo friendly game for a warrior, I could Bind wound to 50%, and solo nearly trivial mobs and hope for the best. Terrible exp yes, but it was possible. Warriors were also very gear dependent as well. A rogue - nearly impossible, yes, but use intimidate (fear skill in EQ) and backstab and hope for the best - then bind would to 50%. Again, very gear dependent, but it was possible with nearly trivial mobs.
In other threads.... You ask why there is a fear of designing soloing into games - look at every MMO since EQ launch that has designed soloing:
WoW, VG (near the doom and SoE changes), EQ1 live (currently), EQ2 (Currently), Lord of the Rings Online, Elder Scrolls Online, Wildstar and Archage (to a lesser degree), Guild Wars/2, Star Wars - Old Republic, Rift, Age of Conan, etc. I'm sure I could list a ton more with a little effort and a Google search, but I just thought of those off the top of my head. The common denominator between all those games - no nostalgic memories and no desire to go back to any of them sans EQlaunch and a released successful VG launch due to the terrible communities found in solo friendly games.
Other negatives found in games designed specifically around soloing and grouping:
1. Much more hand holding - Quest markers, find paths, mini-maps which basically are GPS's (which yes, means less challenge)
2.. Quest hubs would most likely have to be present to have effecient soloing with soloable gear upgrades. If not, there would be unavoidable complaints about not enough diversified solo content, so yes, developers would be pulled away to cater to soloers. Can't kill 10000 brown bears without it getting boring.
3. Your last point on solo kills being easier - they would have to be by the nature of being designed solo kills. And, as you said, since you want ALL classes to be able to solo efficiently - then again, yes, it would take away from group play because class skills would then have to be designed around allowing for solo play. And, once you do that, there is more blurred lines between the distinction in the classes and all the classes play to more of the same style to allow for every class to have the skillset to solo. So yes, clerics/warriors/rogues should suck at solo, but should be extremely desired in groups - and if they're not, at that point, we have an issue to discuss.
So, as I and others have stated again, classes should be able to solo due to "emergent gameplay" - basically learning how to maximize their own classes unique skillset and other game mechanics - bind wound, etc. And yes, this means that some classes will solo slower than others, but if solo is your goal and you must play a warrior - start a necro type class as an alt while you are waiting for friends to group.
Again, there's nothing wrong with wanting to play a solo-friendly, casual game that is designed for soloing - I just hope that's not the game that Pantheon strives to be and not the game I would want to play. Also, I believe the people clammoring for group content here would be content with less group content at launch (or during the first expansion) if it meant it was a game that they (I) wanted to play, and not MMO clone 10000.
And.. hopefully the soloing mechanics will be addressed in the Roundtable also.
Why is it that you assume that solo = easy?
Yes, your warrior should solo worse - does that make soloing impossible - no. Even in Everquest - probably the least solo friendly game for a warrior, I could Bind wound to 50%, and solo nearly trivial mobs and hope for the best.
First, why should one class solo worse than another?
Secondly, I don't want to solo nearly trivial mobs. I want to solo mobs my level and have it be a pain. Should I have to figure out what works to kill certain enemies? Yes. Is this what you call "emergent game play"? Yes, but the difference is that I want it to be intended to be possible.
In other threads.... You ask why there is a fear of designing soloing into games - look at every MMO since EQ launch that has designed soloing:
The games you listed were bad not b/c the games were designed with soloing in mind, but b/c the games were designed around soloing with the obligatory group play just tacked on. So, logically, this game should have it the other way around. Design this game around group and add solo content. That way, if anything suffers, it will be the solo content that you would avoid.
Other negatives found in games designed specifically around soloing and grouping:
1. Much more hand holding - Quest markers, find paths, mini-maps which basically are GPS's (which yes, means less challenge)
Then remove the things that the easy-mode players rely upon. If they complain and leave, your game keeps their money and loses the lesser players. It is a win-win solution for you in the long run.
2.. Quest hubs would most likely have to be present to have effecient soloing with soloable gear upgrades. If not, there would be unavoidable complaints about not enough diversified solo content, so yes, developers would be pulled away to cater to soloers. Can't kill 10000 brown bears without it getting boring.
First, they wouldn't be there to just kill brown bears. They would eventually move on to the brown wolves, then the brown spiders and so on.
Second, I never said that soloing should be efficient for gear. But, you kill enough named solo content enemies and your gear would drop. I wouldn't want a quest to kill 50 (blank) to receive armor piece (blank). But I would expect to get "shining plate mail" off of "Ulzkog the Intimidating" if I kill him enough times.
3. Your last point on solo kills being easier - they would have to be by the nature of being designed solo kills. And, as you said, since you want ALL classes to be able to solo efficiently...
I said that I want classes to be able to solo as well as one another, but through the use of different tactics, I also said that efficient killing would come through group play, not solo play.
...then again, yes, it would take away from group play because class skills would then have to be designed around allowing for solo play.
No, the character would be designed with base survivability in mind.
Examples:
The tanks would be designed with enough health, armor, willpower, whatever you want to call it, to survive a moderate amount of blows. Sure, in the group play, the number of hits from full health would be less b/c the enemy would hit harder, but that would be countered by your team having a healer to keep your health up so that the numbers of hits total until you die would be more and your team having DPS'ers to kill the enemy faster so you would take less hits per battle.
The mages would be designed with enough mana to take down the enemies in a reasonable time frame. It would be more efficient to group, however b/c they would have less of a cool down between battles.
The healers would be designed with enough mana/ mana regen to keep themselves healed until that one enemy died. Does this mean that in a group, they will be able to keep everyone topped off? No, that would be boring, having everyone be basically invincible, but, they would be able to keep a couple up in health enough to survive the battle and, like the mage, their mana regen time between battles would be less.
The rangers would have pets hearty enough to take blows in solo, or stamina enough to avoid an enemy or two. It would be more efficient to group though b/c you could use the stamina or pets for more defensive abilities.
class skills would then have to be designed around allowing for solo play.
Most of the classes skills would be designed to last long enough for a few group mobs, if your moves are planned accordingly. That would really fall on the player rather than the character. For example, if a player burns all his AoEs/ mana killing the first two enemiey when he knows that there is a whole group of enemies right around the corner, that is the poor setup of the player. Sure, he could do this as a solo tactic b/c , in the solo area, there wasn't so many back to back enemies to warrant such control, but if he does this in a group, they are toast (and I don't mean that just b/c he blazed the tank along with the enemy). And before anyone says it, that AoEing when solo would not be faster/ more efficient b/c 1.) sparser enemies, and 2.) that would mean more time used in waiting for mana to regen.
And, once you do that, there is more blurred lines between the distinction in the classes and all the classes play to more of the same style to allow for every class to have the skillset to solo.
read the examples above/ read an older post of mine (fourth page, eighth post from the bottom) to see just how different the classes can be while still achieving the same outcome.
Say your goal is to feed the starving people in Africa. You could take multiple approaches to this problem. You could air drop food to them, you could take the starving people out of Africa or you could start a huge Agricultural movement to make Africa a place to grow the food/ raise the livestock there. All are (about) equal in the energy you spend but the result is the same, Africans are fed.
So yes, clerics/warriors/rogues should suck at solo, but should be extremely desired in groups - and if they're not, at that point, we have an issue to discuss.
So where should mages fall? If they are the only one that you didn't put under the suck category, then they are either in the "worse than suck" category or they are in the "better than suck" category. And if they are in the "better than suck" category, then that means that, to an extent, they were partly made to solo right from the get go, which I hear some of you frown upon.
Again, there's nothing wrong with wanting to play a solo-friendly, casual game that is designed for soloing - I just hope that's not the game that Pantheon strives to be...
I too hope that this game is not designed for soloing but with soloing as a side thought and that this game be anything but a casual game. I'd walk away if I heard that they were targeting WoW's crowd. BUT, soloing does NOT automatically mean that. EASY SOLOING is what would be the indicator for the WoW crowd.
When I hear "emergent gameplay" I think of people using exploits to do things that they shouldn't be able to do. Example: A person takes two items that give -2.5 sec. cooldown to a 5 sec. cooldown skill. I would call that Is this what you are talking about when you say "emergent gameplay"? I have heard people say that emergent gameplay is someone taking skills, items, etc. and using them in a way not meant to normally be used. If this is not what you mean by "emergent gameplay", please give examples as to what you mean.
I apologize to all for the novel in advance, didn't plan on responding with this length again - but its obviously a passionate topic of mine....
Arthilios,
It seems we will agree to disagree, but I want to clarify some of my points you seem to continually misinterpret.
First, designed soloing is easy because mobs are meant for solo play. This comes with several factors. Solo mobs will have less hps, less ac, less everything - so there's no way else to say that soloing isn't easier. Think Vanguard 1 dot, 2 dot, 3 dot, 4 dot, 5 dot etc. - it's as simple as that. Yes, you may not receive as good of loot, but that doesn't change the mob difficulty. On top of that, you left out other portions of my argument in previous responses to you in that "easier" takes on other formas as well such as that you aren't bound to any other playstyles, commitments, timetables, etc. other than your own. So, not only is it easier by simple game mechanics, but it is easier given real life obligations as well. So yes, humans will typically always take the easy route - including me, which would be soloing.
And, you say you don't want easy soloing, but I don't think you truly understood soloing in EQ versus current MMOs. Soloing in EQ launch was not always easy and came with the harsh reality that I didn't have someone to bail me out (a group). If I tried soloing content that was equal level (or lower), there was a real chance at death, with a harsh penalty for that death. That is the soloing that you seem to want, but are asking for something entirely different. A real consequence for the decision to solo that mob. Designed soloing doesn't get you that fear of death because there typically isn't one - unless you attempt to solo the named mob at the end of the solo content (which typically tells you to bring a group), or the group mobs intermingled in solo content. We are in agreement that all hand holding should be taken out.
Second, yes, the other MMOs were bad because they were designed around soloing (amongst countless other reasons), which I don't want Pantheon to be. But designing around grouping and just tacking on "soloing" to cater to casuals is equally as bad. Both aspects of the content will suffer. It is much better to focus on one and perfect it. Again, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be soloing - see above. Just get a hold of P1999 - soloing is still possible even at the launch of Everquest, in which grouping was meant to be forced - might shed some light on what all of us are trying to explain here.
Third, you missed my point on the brown bears. What I'm saying is only allowing overland mobs to be soloable will become boring, and then the casuals/soloers will want more solo content which will lead to solo quest hubs with solo gear rewards etc. Soloers won't be content with only progressing from brown bears, to large brown bears, to giant brown bears. You may disagree with this point, but when casuals come over to support the game - their money would speak, and soloers would receive more than a long list of brown bears (insert poor man's WoW Clone fear).
Fourth, we obviously agree to disagree here, but I believe you're entirely wrong on the class distinction and it not being affected if all classes can solo equally. I understand what you're trying to say; however, I disagree that it can happen without a detriment to the group game or classes in general. If you allow all classes to solo, you blur the lines. You either have to have ridiculous out of combat regeneration to allow for warriors/rogues hps to regenerate to compensate for a caster's skillset/spells (which minimizing group content as it is a game changing mechanic - see EQlive now versus launch) or you have to give them similar skills that allow for rooting, crowd control, etc (which blurs class lines). And the comment on efficient soloing wasn't meant to mean exp per hour. It was meaning all classes soloing as efficiently as one another, which you said you would want by offering different but equal tactics to allow for equal soloing for all classes. I disagree this would work. A game built around grouping needs interdependent classes that yes, the taboo word, are forced to rely on one another, or there's no reason to group.
Fifth, you just seem to be trolling (apologize if you're not) or have never played EQ or VG, which sheds a lot of light on why it appears we're having this discussion with your focus on needing to have designed soloing. Casters have always been better soloers in EQ/VG due to their spells: Root/snare/fear/crowd control/charm/kiting. etc. and usually survivability - FD/root/Damage shields/Gate etc. I didn't address casters could solo better as I felt it was unnecessary - it is pretty common knowledge to those who have played EQ/VG.
Adressing your last point "which some of you frown upon" - I am ok with casters soloing better in EQ/VG because their soloing emerged out of the classes skillsets, not because EQ or VG were originally designed to be a game that was soloable by casters. Casters found a way despite the game designed to be meant for forced grouping. This is why I said, knowing that, and that this is another Brad McQuaid game, if you MUST solo, then choose a class that will give you a better chance. And if you still must have that warrior - have it as an alternate character. If you can't find a group on the warrior, play that solo character.
And to summarize - we are in more of agreement than we are disagreement. Easy soloing is designed soloing with every class getting a participation ribbon and no challenge. Harder soloing is emergent (finding skilled ways) to solo content designed for groups, which yes doesn't allow every class to get a solo participation ribbon and there may be some rogues/warriors complaining because they can't solo as well (hence why I said they need to have a skillset desired by groups so they theoretically shouldn't have to wait for a group upon login).
None of us are arguing that there should be no soloing, but, instead, that its ok that all classes won't be able solo as well. Fun/meaningful group play is a game that has characters that are meant to be interdependent on each other.
Arthilios said:
When I hear "emergent gameplay" I think of people using exploits to do things that they shouldn't be able to do. Example: A person takes two items that give -2.5 sec. cooldown to a 5 sec. cooldown skill. I would call that Is this what you are talking about when you say "emergent gameplay"? I have heard people say that emergent gameplay is someone taking skills, items, etc. and using them in a way not meant to normally be used. If this is not what you mean by "emergent gameplay", please give examples as to what you mean.
Some examples of emergent gameplay (not an all inclusive list): Root Rotting (Root + Dots), Snare/Quad Kiting (Snare + Dots), Fear Kiting (Fear Spell + Dots), Bow Kiting (Bow + Snare), Charm Killing (Charming a mob with the chance of failure/breaking to kill a mob), Root Parking (handling adds by rooting adds to handle one at a time), Root Blasting (Root + DDs - chance of root break which is why most mages in EQ used Earth pet to solo as it had a chance to proc root).
Some examples of exploiting (which I'm 100% aganist): Killing through walls, killing mobs from standing on rooftops which allow for no agro, AFK merc killing (in EQlive currently) etc.
Some ideas that emerged gave an unfair advantage and could be considered an exploit and were promptly nerfed after being realized - which I'm 100% agreement with - no one should be allowed to exploit.
And Arthiilios - it took me longer to write my novel than it did for you to ask about emergent gameplay. I would highly recommend checking out Project 1999 (EQ). It would shed a lot of light on what a lot of us are discussing here.
I really think this topic has run it's course guys, there was great discussion in both camps but it is starting to go around in circles now and without any further info on the subject, there is limited content for debate as it is mostly personal opinion now and you all seem to agree for the most part just with slightly different visions of how to get there.
This question/topic will be addressed in the upcoming Round Table Discussion, so hopefully we can get the team to talk a bit more about it to put everyones fear to rest and clear up any misconceptions.
Thank you for remaining civil though, there were a few posts in this thread that I thought would start a fire and you guys instead remained cool, calm, collected and respectful and that is a credit to you all and this community.
I am looking forward to finding out more about this subject myself :)
Hieromonk said:
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.
VG was much different than EQ1 was. My worry is it will be like EQ1 where unless you could kite or had a pet you couldn't do anything. I won't re-go into detail as to why since I have time and again.
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:
...
I don't think anyone wants separate areas/zones for two styles of play.
I agree with this. I would rather it be each zone has MoBs and dungeons that increase in difficulty (as in solo MoBs, then duo, etc.) from some sort of centralized point. That way if you were /lfg you would not have to travel to whole new zones, exploring areas of the zones would at times require a group so nowhere is totally "safe", and you could progressively challenge yourself by simply moving deeper into the zone with an exponential increase in the risks and rewards.
I know this thread is supposed to be dead, so I will keep it short.
Raidan said:
I apologize to all for the novel in advance, didn't plan on responding with this length again - but its obviously a passionate topic of mine....
Arthilios,
It seems we will agree to disagree, but I want to clarify some of my points you seem to continually misinterpret.
First, designed soloing is easy because mobs are meant for solo play. This comes with several factors. Solo mobs will have less hps, less ac, less everything - so there's no way else to say that soloing isn't easier.
Yes it is easier. For a group. The idea is 1v1 soloing a "solo" MoB is supposed to be almost as challenging - if not harder- than killing "group" MoBs in a group.
Think Vanguard 1 dot, 2 dot, 3 dot, 4 dot, 5 dot etc. - it's as simple as that. Yes, you may not receive as good of loot, but that doesn't change the mob difficulty. On top of that, you left out other portions of my argument in previous responses to you in that "easier" takes on other formas as well such as that you aren't bound to any other playstyles, commitments, timetables, etc. other than your own. So, not only is it easier by simple game mechanics, but it is easier given real life obligations as well. So yes, humans will typically always take the easy route - including me, which would be soloing.
The "easy" route is a relative term based on your goal. If your goals are good rewards from combat OR enjoying making friends, OR showing off what you can do etc. than solo play is the much harder route. What you said is basically that solo play has some pros that group play does not have, then implied that made it better by disregarding/underplaying the benefits of group play.
And, you say you don't want easy soloing, but I don't think you truly understood soloing in EQ versus current MMOs. Soloing in EQ launch was not always easy and came with the harsh reality that I didn't have someone to bail me out (a group). If I tried soloing content that was equal level (or lower), there was a real chance at death, with a harsh penalty for that death. That is the soloing that you seem to want, but are asking for something entirely different. A real consequence for the decision to solo that mob. Designed soloing doesn't get you that fear of death because there typically isn't one - unless you attempt to solo the named mob at the end of the solo content (which typically tells you to bring a group), or the group mobs intermingled in solo content. We are in agreement that all hand holding should be taken out.
Then keep solo play harder than other MMOs but easier than EQ1. Group MoBs will still be around if you want challenge.
Second, yes, the other MMOs were bad because they were designed around soloing (amongst countless other reasons), which I don't want Pantheon to be. But designing around grouping and just tacking on "soloing" to cater to casuals is equally as bad. Both aspects of the content will suffer. It is much better to focus on one and perfect it. Again, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be soloing - see above. Just get a hold of P1999 - soloing is still possible even at the launch of Everquest, in which grouping was meant to be forced - might shed some light on what all of us are trying to explain here.
In the practical sense there is not a finite amount of time and resources when it comes to being able to do both well at once. When EQ1 launched, meaningful solo play across all classes vs. at level MoBs was not possible. And that's what this whole thread is about. Also, solo play is not just for "casuals". Anyone can play a game 2-4 hours a week whether they do it in a group or solo. A casual player is someone who doesn't play often, or only plays easy content (like raids after you have done them a few times for instance.)
Third, you missed my point on the brown bears. What I'm saying is only allowing overland mobs to be soloable will become boring, and then the casuals/soloers will want more solo content which will lead to solo quest hubs with solo gear rewards etc. Soloers won't be content with only progressing from brown bears, to large brown bears, to giant brown bears. You may disagree with this point, but when casuals come over to support the game - their money would speak, and soloers would receive more than a long list of brown bears (insert poor man's WoW Clone fear).
I agree that all overland MoBs should not be soloable. I would rather it be that each zone has areas of progressing difficulty within it. Also, solo quest rewards is kind of the point of solo content. They won't be nearly as good as group rewards. Yeah if there are solo players and they want more content and they give so much money that the devs choose not to ignore it they will make more solo content. Made possible by hiring more people to work on the game thanks to their money. Doesn't hurt group play one bit.
Fourth, we obviously agree to disagree here, but I believe you're entirely wrong on the class distinction and it not being affected if all classes can solo equally. I understand what you're trying to say; however, I disagree that it can happen without a detriment to the group game or classes in general. If you allow all classes to solo, you blur the lines. You either have to have ridiculous out of combat regeneration to allow for warriors/rogues hps to regenerate to compensate for a caster's skillset/spells (which minimizing group content as it is a game changing mechanic - see EQlive now versus launch) or you have to give them similar skills that allow for rooting, crowd control, etc (which blurs class lines).
Or you could just give them more overall survivability though various means (armor, stuns, etc.) and make group MoBs hit harder. Problem solved. Each class can solo as well one another (+/- 15% on either end) but in vastly different ways. V1, V group, via kiting, managing regens (as in some classes kill faster but rest more) etc. Each of these areas in which they suffer is made up in a group so that the group is far stronger than just the sum of the combined classes.
And the comment on efficient soloing wasn't meant to mean exp per hour. It was meaning all classes soloing as efficiently as one another, which you said you would want by offering different but equal tactics to allow for equal soloing for all classes. I disagree this would work. A game built around grouping needs interdependent classes that yes, the taboo word, are forced to rely on one another, or there's no reason to group.
You said there would be no reason to group unless people are forced to. I say, again, incentives. I'm not forced to take a free ten thousand dollar cash prize, but I will.
Fifth, you just seem to be trolling (apologize if you're not) or have never played EQ or VG, which sheds a lot of light on why it appears we're having this discussion with your focus on needing to have designed soloing. Casters have always been better soloers in EQ/VG due to their spells: Root/snare/fear/crowd control/charm/kiting. etc. and usually survivability - FD/root/Damage shields/Gate etc.
*cough* disciples *cough*
I didn't address casters could solo better as I felt it was unnecessary - it is pretty common knowledge to those who have played EQ/VG.
Adressing your last point "which some of you frown upon" - I am ok with casters soloing better in EQ/VG because their soloing emerged out of the classes skillsets, not because EQ or VG were originally designed to be a game that was soloable by casters. Casters found a way despite the game designed to be meant for forced grouping. This is why I said, knowing that, and that this is another Brad McQuaid game, if you MUST solo, then choose a class that will give you a better chance. And if you still must have that warrior - have it as an alternate character. If you can't find a group on the warrior, play that solo character.
That's the main problem. It's an mmoRPG right? Say someone doesn't WANT to play a caster. Say they don't like the gameplay or the mentality behind the class. Why should they be, yes the taboo word, forced to play a class they don't want to if they want to solo? It makes no sense to needlessly disregard other classes just so you could feel special because you chose a wizard. The game could be awesome for almost everyone with no loss in integrity, or only cater to one much smaller group of people.
And to summarize - we are in more of agreement than we are disagreement. Easy soloing is designed soloing with every class getting a participation ribbon and no challenge. Harder soloing is emergent (finding skilled ways) to solo content designed for groups, which yes doesn't allow every class to get a solo participation ribbon and there may be some rogues/warriors complaining because they can't solo as well (hence why I said they need to have a skillset desired by groups so they theoretically shouldn't have to wait for a group upon login).
Easy soloing is easy because the MoBs are designed to be easy, and for no other reason. I have played many single player games (and fewer MMOs) with different classes and it was just as challenging (with usually one exception, one that was vastly OP) with each class. Also saying they can't solo as well downplays it. Most of the time it was the difference between can and can not.
None of us are arguing that there should be no soloing, but, instead, that its ok that all classes won't be able solo as well. Fun/meaningful group play is a game that has characters that are meant to be interdependent on each other.
¿por qué no los dos?
I do agree, for fun(as in challenging)/meaningful(as in rewarding) group play is a game that has characters that are meant to be interdependent on each other. But that does not need to come at the cost of any meaningful solo content. As long as each class has their own major strengths and weaknesses and group content MoBs are harder/more plentiful, then the problem will resolve itself.
Yokoshima said:
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:
...
I don't think anyone wants separate areas/zones for two styles of play.
I agree with this. I would rather it be each zone has MoBs and dungeons that increase in difficulty (as in solo MoBs, then duo, etc.) from some sort of centralized point. That way if you were /lfg you would not have to travel to whole new zones, exploring areas of the zones would at times require a group so nowhere is totally "safe", and you could progressively challenge yourself by simply moving deeper into the zone with an exponential increase in the risks and rewards.
Brad typically design his games like that. He has a vision & if you look at EQ & VG, you will see that mobs where actually part of the world, & had meaning and purpose. It was YOU, that interacted with them. Without you there, this all would still be going on without you. Living and breathing.
An Orc camp wasn't just a prop... to lure in haptards, but an actual Orc camp... with a possible outpost nearby and most definitely a roaming guard who will call on support if you in area too long, alerting others. But, if you are good enough and aware enough (cognoscente), you can figure all these things out & even use them to your advantage, etc.
Additionally, in Role-Playing 101 rule book, it states: As One moves closer to a throne, tribal king, artifact, chieftain, demon, etc.. mobs get tougher.
Visionary Realm is using lore to make the world. They will not use the "solo", "duo" mentality when placing their encampments, etc. Or the guard patrols near. Solo will come from understanding the game and knowing your opportunity(s). Not with mobs standing alone with a abandoned look on their face, with 20 other friends standing by unwilling to help as you kill them... <-- because "solo game play" somehow has importance to that mob?
Most "mobs" have a story and watching them tells alot. Even grazing animals. Most humanoids are not "mobs", but parts of mini-kingdoms and their society & hierarchy are all taken into consideration. These are the things that make roleplaying games. Even snakes in a pit, had dominance over one another.. there was always a named that would come along and claimed ownership of the pit. A snake..
Lastly, Each zone..? Isn't this an Open World ..? You mean region?
Hieromonk said:
Yokoshima said:
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:
...
I don't think anyone wants separate areas/zones for two styles of play.
I agree with this. I would rather it be each zone has MoBs and dungeons that increase in difficulty (as in solo MoBs, then duo, etc.) from some sort of centralized point. That way if you were /lfg you would not have to travel to whole new zones, exploring areas of the zones would at times require a group so nowhere is totally "safe", and you could progressively challenge yourself by simply moving deeper into the zone with an exponential increase in the risks and rewards.
Brad typically design his games like that. He has a vision & if you look at EQ & VG, you will see that mobs where actually part of the world, & had meaning and purpose. It was YOU, that interacted with them. Without you there, this all would still be going on without you. Living and breathing.
An Orc camp wasn't just a prop... to lure in haptards, but an actual Orc camp... with a possible outpost nearby and most definitely a roaming guard who will call on support if you in area too long, alerting others. But, if you are good enough and aware enough (cognoscente), you can figure all these things out & even use them to your advantage, etc.
Additionally, in Role-Playing 101 rule book, it states: As One moves closer to a throne, tribal king, artifact, chieftain, demon, etc.. mobs get tougher.
Visionary Realm is using lore to make the world. They will not use the "solo", "duo" mentality when placing their encampments, etc. Or the guard patrols near. Solo will come from understanding the game and knowing your opportunity(s). Not with mobs standing alone with a abandoned look on their face, with 20 other friends standing by unwilling to help as you kill them... <-- because "solo game play" somehow has importance to that mob?
Most "mobs" have a story and watching them tells alot. Even grazing animals. Most humanoids are not "mobs", but parts of mini-kingdoms and their society & hierarchy are all taken into consideration. These are the things that make roleplaying games. Even snakes in a pit, had dominance over one another.. there was always a named that would come along and claimed ownership of the pit. A snake..
Lastly, Each zone..? Isn't this an Open World ..? You mean region?
Actually I do think this will be a zone based game as EQ was.
Yokoshima said:
I know this thread is supposed to be dead, so I will keep it short.
Yokoshima,
To respect Kilsin's wishes, I'm not going to continue to get into a circular argument on why I think all classes being able to solo is bad. We both obviously have dug our feet into the sand and think our opinion's are correct. We shall see what diretion Pantheon's chooses to take, and if all classes are able to solo, I hope you are right and it's not a detriment to the game.
@Sevens - you're exactly right in your interpretation of what I wrote. I 100% totally agree with you on soloing being emergent rather than purposely designed, and when I originally wrote my timescale of "perfect soloing" taking longer than full group grinding, I meant it in the spirit of emergent soloing.
The random quest that says talk to NPC_01, run from Point_A to Point_B, etc...fine, let people solo nonsense like that, but make it like EQ1, where even stuff like that is more fluff, preliminary, or added fluff to group based goals and dynamics, and is more for getting people into the mechanics of the game at very early levels.
But do not design design solo specific zones, camps, instances, or whatever. If people take their class and figure out how to solo (which even clerics, rogues and warriors figured out in EQ1 albeit painfully) then great. If certain spawns/camps become known as good solo spots for certain classes (hello Dreadlands skellies and smart clerics busting their bony arses), as part of emergent gameplay and community knowledge, then so be it. But no content in EQ is designed to be solo'd, some of it simply works out that way for different classes.
Example of the emergent thing Sevens is speaking of and I agree on - enchanter reverse charming and necro aggro kiting. Both are examples of emergent gameplay, and both are still used today even when SOE tries to make soloing LESS rewarding and MORE difficult. So people find ways to solo, but EQ1 has it right even now, because grouping is just faster, safer and more rewarding.
Solo play can and will emerge from even the most ardently group-centric game. I see it every day in the game most assoicated with hardcore group-only brutal PVE content. And the best thing SOE did (which I am sure the PRotF folks know about) is the single group quests meant for three players, and mercs don't count. You have to be in a group of three actual players, and only then can you get the daily missions, heroics, etc. YOu will group, even if temporarily if you want to progress. Have people figured out emergent soloing? Sure, they box three accounts and SOE wins because 1 person is paying 3x the monthly rate to get around the forced grouping thing.
Design PRotF the same freaking way. In the wide open meadow, should all the mobs be tightly packed and chained aggro? No, and if you see some AE snare/AE nuke caapable player out in that meadow rounding up the snakes and rats and blowing them up, so be it. In a dungeon, 6 mobs are tightly packed and do have chain aggro. With mezz, charm, feign death, snare, etc...could you split them and end up making them six solo mobs? Maybe, give it a try, but if you screw it up, you're a grease spot, because that content is meant for a full group, not a soloer. But hey, it's your corpse and exp bar...so have at it.
The point being, soloing should emerge from a group oriented game, not be designed into it. Sevens has the call. It should arise from skilled players testing the limits of their class and being unafraid to challenge things, but it should be slower/harder/more restrictive than grouping. That's all that I am arguing. Do not design specific content for soloing. Design the content for groups, and crafty players will find ways to solo stuff the devs never imagined (hello, EQ1 enchanters being the first to solo Yeldema in the Western Wastes; hello, mages putting blocks of giant ore in their pockets to become unable to move, and parking themselves and a pet on /guard right next to Cyndreela at the Fear portal). That's a huge part of the meta...figuring out how to get around the devs making a group-centric game.
No designed soloing should be in the game. Diplomacy, lore, history, housing, etc? Sure, fine, maybe. But even with tradeskills...there should be recipes that require mats you simply cannot get solo. Make them tradeable if you want to create a market, but do not make them soloable. Perfect example is the Velious tailoring stuff. Some parts soloable, and some required at least one full group. Perfect. Want to make that ice silk robe, well trudge on out to the Western Wastes and kill mobs higher than max level for the game, that hit like trucks, and drop what you need about 10% of the time. No sweat, have fun soloing that.
Venjenz said:
The random quest that says talk to NPC_01, run from Point_A to Point_B, etc...fine, let people solo nonsense like that, but make it like EQ1, where even stuff like that is more fluff, preliminary, or added fluff to group based goals and dynamics, and is more for getting people into the mechanics of the game at very early levels.
I'll get into asking more questions and finding a middle ground where we can all be happy on my day off (Sunday) but for right now...
What would group quests be like and how would are they different than solo quests?
There is no such thing as group quest, or solo quests...
Just difficult quests & easy... compared to how YOU yourself perceive them. Or whether or not you will bring a single friend, or 3~4 others to complete. If you think you can solo a quest mob, then it is a solo quest stage. If not, then group. Determined by you... not Brad, or Visionary Realms.
Point being YOU... the player always determine the outcome.
Understand, sometimes a Warrior can solo a mob, he just has no way to peal it away from the other mobs standing around... The way another class with root could... leaving the second mob for the Solo Warrior = emergent solo gameplay... ! And quest stage complete for 2 different people, that didn't even know each other, or even knew one was on a quest.
Again, I don't think you'll have any problems solo'ing or finding your way in Pantheon.
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:
Gawd said:
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. 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.
if the game was designed for the solo player to achieve all the same things as the group/raid player i would agree with this. but the fact is that there are reasons for soloing to be allowed, such as gathering crafting mats. if you were in a group, and not a crafter or gatherer and the healer kept stopping the group after each kill so he could skin the mob most groups would eventually get mad and boot him. yes we know crafting will not be in at launch, but that isnt to say we cant start planning for it by leaving space in other systems for it.
another thing. players look for the fastest say to max level most times, mainly because its possible to do inside of a few days. Pantheon is talking about a return to the days of taking a year to hit max level. now on weekdays someone like myself can play for an hour or two at most, back in eq that is just enough time to find a group and get to it. if grouping was the only way to level, not just the most efficient, i would quit since the only time i could do anything is on the weekends when i have 6+ hours to play in a sitting. this isnt saying that if there is a way to solo that is all i would do, i expect soloing to be less efficient than grouping. but being able to get some progress is better than not getting any progress.
also there is the loot dynamic. if you put all decent /wearable loot in group content, you are still forcing people to group. At least to the point of grouping enough to get gear capable of allowing you to kill stuff in the next zone.
If you read on, you will see I am not opposed to emergent solo play. I'm opposed designed solo play.
and if you reread my post you will see i am on the other side of the fence, i feel that having solo play designed into the game is beneficial. i just dont think that it should be installed in such a way as to replace grouping. that is designed solo play. emergent is where the community figures out a way to do something that was never designed. such as Kiting mobs in eq1. the problem with emergent solo play is that it limits soloing to the one or 2 classes that have the required skill or skill combination to solo.
Also to the people who keep bringing up VG in this forum as a bastion of group play, you need to remember what VG was like, TONS of soloable mobs they were at the entrance to every region starting with the 2 dot mobs and getting more difficult as you progress twards the queen or king of the area. but you couldnt get anything from these mobs besides crafting mats, or a few parts to your armor quests which you still needed to group to finish. this is what most of us who want solo play in the game are asking for. not a stand alone solo game that leaves no reason to group.
Gawd said:
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:
Gawd said:
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. 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.
if the game was designed for the solo player to achieve all the same things as the group/raid player i would agree with this. but the fact is that there are reasons for soloing to be allowed, such as gathering crafting mats. if you were in a group, and not a crafter or gatherer and the healer kept stopping the group after each kill so he could skin the mob most groups would eventually get mad and boot him. yes we know crafting will not be in at launch, but that isnt to say we cant start planning for it by leaving space in other systems for it.
another thing. players look for the fastest say to max level most times, mainly because its possible to do inside of a few days. Pantheon is talking about a return to the days of taking a year to hit max level. now on weekdays someone like myself can play for an hour or two at most, back in eq that is just enough time to find a group and get to it. if grouping was the only way to level, not just the most efficient, i would quit since the only time i could do anything is on the weekends when i have 6+ hours to play in a sitting. this isnt saying that if there is a way to solo that is all i would do, i expect soloing to be less efficient than grouping. but being able to get some progress is better than not getting any progress.
also there is the loot dynamic. if you put all decent /wearable loot in group content, you are still forcing people to group. At least to the point of grouping enough to get gear capable of allowing you to kill stuff in the next zone.
If you read on, you will see I am not opposed to emergent solo play. I'm opposed designed solo play.
and if you reread my post you will see i am on the other side of the fence, i feel that having solo play designed into the game is beneficial. i just dont think that it should be installed in such a way as to replace grouping. that is designed solo play. emergent is where the community figures out a way to do something that was never designed. such as Kiting mobs in eq1. the problem with emergent solo play is that it limits soloing to the one or 2 classes that have the required skill or skill combination to solo.
Also to the people who keep bringing up VG in this forum as a bastion of group play, you need to remember what VG was like, TONS of soloable mobs they were at the entrance to every region starting with the 2 dot mobs and getting more difficult as you progress twards the queen or king of the area. but you couldnt get anything from these mobs besides crafting mats, or a few parts to your armor quests which you still needed to group to finish. this is what most of us who want solo play in the game are asking for. not a stand alone solo game that leaves no reason to group.
I don't see a problem with emergent gameplay.
Any class in EQ could solo. They just had to be on the right mob, or have the right supplies, etc. The outright opinion that solo'ing only means one or two classes, is a misnomer. Any and all classes in Everquest solo'ed. Nuff said.
Not all quest that you stumble upon, will require only you.
It is improper to think of yourself as a God, and able to conquer any & all quests alone. (Brad's games do give you many years of trying though.)
Hieromonk said:
I don't see a problem with emergent gameplay.
Any class in EQ could solo. They just had to be on the right mob, or have the right supplies, etc. The outright opinion that solo'ing only means one or two classes, is a misnomer. Any and all classes in Everquest solo'ed. Nuff said.
Not all quest that you stumble upon, will require only you.
It is improper to think of yourself as a God, and able to conquer any & all quests alone. (Brad's games do give you many years of trying though.)
as for part 1, go grab a warrior on p99 and solo anything anything at all after you hit lvl 20
for part 2, noone is asking to be able to conquer all quests alone. we just want a few mobs we can kill time soloing while waiting on groups or to collect crafting mats when crafting comes in.