So question is
Should you be able to solo group quests once you out level the range ?
In VG a lot of the group quests could not be soloed even when you were 20-30 levels above them, granted a certain class could ( looking at you Disciples )
I'm a believer in no some of them should require a group even if the group can be smaller as you out level it but still require a group.
If you think you should how far above do you think you need to be before it becomes a lone wolf quest ?
I think one of the fun things about leveling up is that things that were once hard or impossible become easy. Going back to the place where you suffered a humiliating defeat even with a group, only to win this time, solo, is a great thing for me :) So yeah, I want to be able to do group stuff solo when I far outlevel it.
That said, I hope that quests won't be labeled "solo" or "group". A quest is a quest, and it should be clear from the quest description if you need help or not.
I tend to agree with Sarim here and I follow a similar mindset, if we are able to level up and gear ourselves to become quite powerful and a formidable opponent to our enemies then looking back from max level to a quest that is designed with a 4-6 person group in mind at level 15 then it should come down to the abilities available to the class, the skill of the player and a good mix of content balance from the team to ensure that only well geared and skilled players can solo content designed for lower level groups, "lower level" being the key word though.
I wouldn't want our power to get too out of hand though, like it did in VG, I want to still encounter challenges at max level even with epic gear and weapons. :)
Let's look at the ultimate extreme example:
1) There is a group quest you get right at level one - first thing you see when you log in (which forever drives every single person wanting and old school MMO crazy because they see that quest and think... Oh crap, here we go again with getting led everywhere by quests!)
2) You militantly decide you are NOT going to do that quest - just because...
3) You hit max level, and realize that the devs did something very cool... that very first level 1 quest is a pre-cursor to a max level key you need for some ultra-hard, old school dungeon replete with EQ style camps, bosses, etc...
I don't think (in principle) there is any way you - now ultra powerful you - should not be able to go back and wipe the floor with whatever mobs stood in your way for that first quest you encountered...
HOWEVER - what if the reason it was a group quest is that it required multiple people doing different things at different places at the same time? For example - what if the quest was to "kill the monster in the well, so the town could have water" - but the only way to get it out of the well was for someone to be doing something outside of town while someone was at the well waiting for the monster to leave the well?
Now the group content is not a matter of power - but a matter of coordination. I think, eventually, you will be able to out-power some stuff... and that's fine. But it would be cool for the devs to also add some coordination aspects to group events as well.
I think, with the exception of maybe pure support classes, at +15-20 levels it should be soloable. Though that speaks more to how much stronger you get each level rather than to the difficulty of the dungeons themselves.
EDIT:
Also I would like to agree with what Sarim said: " Going back to the place where you suffered a humiliating defeat even with a group, only to win this time, solo, is a great thing for me :)" I love teaching NPCs a lesson. One they won't learn do to being dead but you get my point.
Zandil said:
So question is
Should you be able to solo group quests once you out level the range ?
In VG a lot of the group quests could not be soloed even when you were 20-30 levels above them, granted a certain class could ( looking at you Disciples )
I'm a believer in no some of them should require a group even if the group can be smaller as you out level it but still require a group.
If you think you should how far above do you think you need to be before it becomes a lone wolf quest ?
I have two issues with allowing a soloer the ability to take down group quest mobs/dungeons.
1) Brad has confirmed there will be solo content *designed* into Pantheon, not just through emergent game play. Okay, so the group content needs to stay group content, period. The only time one character should be able to solo group content is when that character is so far above the encounter it is a ridiculous waste of time for them to do it. They should get no money, no items, no loot of any kind, nor any kind of 'Kill Achievements' from the encounter. My reasoning for all this leads into #2.
2) If group content is soloable then there will be higher level characters soloing content which a proper level group could be fighting for loot, exp, etc... resulting in less content for groups, which are supposed to be the focus of Pantheon.
This is an example of what I mean when I mention the 'slippery slope'.
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:
Zandil said:
So question is
Should you be able to solo group quests once you out level the range ?
In VG a lot of the group quests could not be soloed even when you were 20-30 levels above them, granted a certain class could ( looking at you Disciples )
I'm a believer in no some of them should require a group even if the group can be smaller as you out level it but still require a group.
If you think you should how far above do you think you need to be before it becomes a lone wolf quest ?
I have two issues with allowing a soloer the ability to take down group quest mobs/dungeons.
1) Brad has confirmed there will be solo content *designed* into Pantheon, not just through emergent game play. Okay, so the group content needs to stay group content, period. The only time one character should be able to solo group content is when that character is so far above the encounter it is a ridiculous waste of time for them to do it. They should get no money, no items, no loot of any kind, nor any kind of 'Kill Achievements' from the encounter. My reasoning for all this leads into #2.
2) If group content is soloable then there will be higher level characters soloing content which a proper level group could be fighting for loot, exp, etc... resulting in less content for groups, which are supposed to be the focus of Pantheon.
This is an example of what I mean when I mention the 'slippery slope'.
Couldnt agree more Bloodbeard!
I have seen this type of questioned asked in several different ways, from loot attainability, to grouping versus solo mobs and now questing.....in my opinion there should be no such defining rules or design work done to enforce artificial constraints. What made EQ1 so magical was that there was no quote group or solo content. Content was not defined this way, it was defined by difficulty, thus if you could manage that difficulty by yourself, it was now solo able to you, not because it was built as solo content. Same goes for quests, if your class/level or even skill at manipulating the environment allowed to solo something, then so be it. One of the worst features of EQ2 was that content was created based on what was solo and what was not, artificial constraints make for a world that feels artificial. Build the world and the creatures within it and let the players define the encounters between such things via there's class skills or loopholes the find within them....i.e. Fear kitting, root rot and AoE kiting, all examples of things created by players, not developers. The last thing we want is a developer determining for us how encounters should go, be it a quest line or mob encounter. Even the best developer knows not what is the best experience for you, they are here to give you the tools to create your own.
Little ranty, and possibly off topic lol, but I think you get the point.
Riply - yeah, I agree.
Crappy example: I solo'd the giant fort in Frontier Mountains at the same level where people were grouping the giant fort in Frontier Mountains - and often with greater success.
I was a ranger. I took time and learned the spawns (like I did everywhere) - got a feel for when respawns would happen, where mobs pathed, where the exact spawn spots were, etc... And I would sit there (inside or outside the fort) using my skills - harmony, snare, etc...) and single pulling giants. Killing one at a time the entire time I was there.
While I was doing that, I'd see groups pull and wipe multiple times - because they didn't have a puller who wanted to bother learning the spawn times and locations - and invariably, they would pull just as a nearby respawn happened - and they would get chain adds, and they would die.
That fort was solo content for me - group content for them. That wasn't a decision made by the game, or by the developers of the game, it was determined by me playing the game differently (and apparently - surprising as this may seem - more intelligently) than a bunch of other people.
Riply said:
I have seen this type of questioned asked in several different ways, from loot attainability, to grouping versus solo mobs and now questing.....in my opinion there should be no such defining rules or design work done to enforce artificial constraints. What made EQ1 so magical was that there was no quote group or solo content. Content was not defined this way, it was defined by difficulty, thus if you could manage that difficulty by yourself, it was now solo able to you, not because it was built as solo content. Same goes for quests, if your class/level or even skill at manipulating the environment allowed to solo something, then so be it. One of the worst features of EQ2 was that content was created based on what was solo and what was not, artificial constraints make for a world that feels artificial. Build the world and the creatures within it and let the players define the encounters between such things via there's class skills or loopholes the find within them....i.e. Fear kitting, root rot and AoE kiting, all examples of things created by players, not developers. The last thing we want is a developer determining for us how encounters should go, be it a quest line or mob encounter. Even the best developer knows not what is the best experience for you, they are here to give you the tools to create your own.
Little ranty, and possibly off topic lol, but I think you get the point.
That is actually a really good view and explanation Riply! You said it better than I did previously and I agree, that would be a very good way to deal with it.
Riply said:
I have seen this type of questioned asked in several different ways, from loot attainability, to grouping versus solo mobs and now questing.....in my opinion there should be no such defining rules or design work done to enforce artificial constraints. What made EQ1 so magical was that there was no quote group or solo content. Content was not defined this way, it was defined by difficulty, thus if you could manage that difficulty by yourself, it was now solo able to you, not because it was built as solo content. Same goes for quests, if your class/level or even skill at manipulating the environment allowed to solo something, then so be it. One of the worst features of EQ2 was that content was created based on what was solo and what was not, artificial constraints make for a world that feels artificial. Build the world and the creatures within it and let the players define the encounters between such things via there's class skills or loopholes the find within them....i.e. Fear kitting, root rot and AoE kiting, all examples of things created by players, not developers. The last thing we want is a developer determining for us how encounters should go, be it a quest line or mob encounter. Even the best developer knows not what is the best experience for you, they are here to give you the tools to create your own.
Little ranty, and possibly off topic lol, but I think you get the point.
EQ was designed for grouping, and emergent game play led to soloing. But, Pantheon, as in EQ2, is going to be designed specifically with solo content, which I believe means a separation from group content. Because of that declaration, we must define the difference between solo and group content in order to discuss how each will be designed and/or affect one another. That's the big difference between early EQ and Pantheon.
Here's another example: Zone sweepers.
Who remembers Grimfeather, Dorn B'Dynn, Sand Giants, Lockjaw, etc...
Those were mobs that absolutely terrorized people who were on level in a given area. I remember Grimfeather seemingly appearning out of nowhere (after me checking - I thought - everywhere) to kill me in 0.00632 seconds. I remember the first time I saw a Sand Giant - standing there thinking "OOOH HOW COOL!" as everyone around me was screaming "SAND GIANT!" and running away - not realizing how much trouble I was in until said Sand Giant obliterated me.
Then I remember spending entire evenings in an area just obliterating that mob - a mob NOBODY on level in the zone was hunting - a mob EVERYONE on level in the zone was happy to have dead. I'd kill Dorn and do this /YELL DORN B'DEAD!!!! - and I'd get a virtual flood of /ooc THANKS WANDIDAR!! responses.
Those weren't group quest mobs - no - they were typically mobs that an on-level group (for the zone) - likely was going to get destroyed by... being able to go back and kill those (I called it "vengeance killing") - oooooh how sweet that feeling is.
Wandidar said:
Here's another example: Zone sweepers.
Who remembers Grimfeather, Dorn B'Dynn, Sand Giants, Lockjaw, etc...
Those were mobs that absolutely terrorized people who were on level in a given area. I remember Grimfeather seemingly appearning out of nowhere (after me checking - I thought - everywhere) to kill me in 0.00632 seconds. I remember the first time I saw a Sand Giant - standing there thinking "OOOH HOW COOL!" as everyone around me was screaming "SAND GIANT!" and running away - not realizing how much trouble I was in until said Sand Giant obliterated me.
Then I remember spending entire evenings in an area just obliterating that mob - a mob NOBODY on level in the zone was hunting - a mob EVERYONE on level in the zone was happy to have dead. I'd kill Dorn and do this /YELL DORN B'DEAD!!!! - and I'd get a virtual flood of /ooc THANKS WANDIDAR!! responses.
Those weren't group quest mobs - no - they were typically mobs that an on-level group (for the zone) - likely was going to get destroyed by... being able to go back and kill those (I called it "vengeance killing") - oooooh how sweet that feeling is.
Holly Windstalker!!!
Yes getting revenge on NPCs like this is sweet...
I dont know, getting a bit worried to be honest...seems like last few weeks / posts have been about Solo'ing, Instanced zones (or harvesting nodes)...Required task to advance (lots worried of the "Rail" effect slippery slope here), In general just things that I really thought Pantheon was going to be moving away from,
Bloodbeard - I get what your saying, but with all due respect I couldn't disagree more. For one, just because Brad has stated that the game will be designed with soloing in mind, leaves alot up for interpretation and does not have to mean separation of content. You can achieve solo/groups easily as mob/level versus experience obtained via those levels. I obviously have no idea what they have in mind when it comes to designed solo content.
What I can for sure is it sucked royally having areas designated by mob population as being solo only or grouping only EQ2, essentially making entire areas pointless to one crowd or the other. Another thing to consider is the life span of an area or zone. If you start making artificial confines that prevent a person from killing/loot or even getting exp to soon, just for the sake of preventing a soloer from grinding your "Group" mobs for experience or whatever, you have just made that area or zone dead all that much faster. Nothing like having beautiful areas becoming obsolete way before need be. You can manage this in other ways, such as better exp and loot in other areas more suited to the players level. But if you put handrails on everything and fences around everyone's yard to keep the older kids out, you will end up with a very very boring game.
Riply said:
Bloodbeard - I get what your saying, but with all due respect I couldn't disagree more. For one, just because Brad has stated that the game will be designed with soloing in mind, leaves alot up for interpretation and does not have to mean separation of content. You can achieve solo/groups easily as mob/level versus experience obtained via those levels. I obviously have no idea what they have in mind when it comes to designed solo content.
What I can for sure is it sucked royally having areas designated by mob population as being solo only or grouping only EQ2, essentially making entire areas pointless to one crowd or the other. Another thing to consider is the life span of an area or zone. If you start making artificial confines that prevent a person from killing/loot or even getting exp to soon, just for the sake of preventing a soloer from grinding your "Group" mobs for experience or whatever, you have just made that area or zone dead all that much faster. Nothing like having beautiful areas becoming obsolete way before need be. You can manage this in other ways, such as better exp and loot in other areas more suited to the players level. But if you put handrails on everything and fences around everyone's yard to keep the older kids out, you will end up with a very very boring game.
Sorry, but it seems like making the distinction between solo and group content is putting up fences around your yard
Make the game, make the mobs with a group in mind...if a player can "solo" it with the tools the game provides, great!
As soon as you start stuffing in mobs designed as "solo" then people will solo...path of least resistance and all that jazz.
I would honestly be THRILLED if "solo baked in" meant the experience I had with my ranger in EQ spread across all classes.
- I could solo some places (outdoors) but not all places (indoors) - because I couldn't split mobs indoors
- I could solo some stuff far better than other stuff... with some stuff making me nearly drool, while other stuff I ran from like a little kid who thinks a monster is in his closet.
None of that was "solo" as it were - it was just stuff that my avatar's skills LET me solo - IF I learned how to use the skills appropriately. And that let me spend the odd night deciding I didn't want to group / didn't know if I had time to group - still playing, still chatting with friends and guild members, still in Norrath.
Let me also point out that none of it was really "Easy" and all of it likely involved emergent activities - some of which might have been considered exploits. For example, in Frontier mountains there was a named Sarnak on the cycles (the cycles were huge fun) in the Northwest corner - He was tougher than I was... so if he was up, I would pull him - pop invis, and run through the goblin camp near him. Being invis, they didn't see me. He hated goblins, they hated him. He was strong enough to kill the entire camp of goblins - but - when he was done, was too weak to kill me (and that's how I killed him when he was up)
That is how I would personally like to see "solo" implemented. Not really solo content - as Riply points out - but some stuff you CAN solo because you have abilities that let you do so if you use them well / creatively... knowing that you won't really get much exp, but that it will be exciting (soloing was HUGE fun on my ranger) - knowing that you can't solo most things - but can solo some things - and that you will still be playing on that odd, I don't have time to group night.
Riply said:
Sevens - That's exactly what I am saying, do NOT design for solo, but also don't put up artificial barriers to prevent someone who has figured out a means to do so.
So sorry, misread what you were saying
Wandidar said:
I would honestly be THRILLED if "solo baked in" meant the experience I had with my ranger in EQ spread across all classes.
- I could solo some places (outdoors) but not all places (indoors) - because I couldn't split mobs indoors
- I could solo some stuff far better than other stuff... with some stuff making me nearly drool, while other stuff I ran from like a little kid who thinks a monster is in his closet.
None of that was "solo" as it were - it was just stuff that my avatar's skills LET me solo - IF I learned how to use the skills appropriately. And that let me spend the odd night deciding I didn't want to group / didn't know if I had time to group - still playing, still chatting with friends and guild members, still in Norrath.
Let me also point out that none of it was really "Easy" and all of it likely involved emergent activities - some of which might have been considered exploits. For example, in Frontier mountains there was a named Sarnak on the cycles (the cycles were huge fun) in the Northwest corner - He was tougher than I was... so if he was up, I would pull him - pop invis, and run through the goblin camp near him. Being invis, they didn't see me. He hated goblins, they hated him. He was strong enough to kill the entire camp of goblins - but - when he was done, was too weak to kill me (and that's how I killed him when he was up)
That is how I would personally like to see "solo" implemented. Not really solo content - as Riply points out - but some stuff you CAN solo because you have abilities that let you do so if you use them well / creatively... knowing that you won't really get much exp, but that it will be exciting (soloing was HUGE fun on my ranger) - knowing that you can't solo most things - but can solo some things - and that you will still be playing on that odd, I don't have time to group night.
I agree 100% with this sentiment. Having something that can be soloable does not mean it has to be soloable by everyone. My opinion is that the quality of player you are should determine you capability to solo. If you take the time to learn your character and the game then theres no issue soloing. If you haven't then you need a group. I think it makes it more immersive that way. People who are legendary because they are good and can do things themselves when others need groups and thats something that exists in RL and in fantasy worlds.
Riply said:
Bloodbeard - I get what your saying, but with all due respect I couldn't disagree more. For one, just because Brad has stated that the game will be designed with soloing in mind, leaves alot up for interpretation and does not have to mean separation of content. You can achieve solo/groups easily as mob/level versus experience obtained via those levels. I obviously have no idea what they have in mind when it comes to designed solo content.
What I can for sure is it sucked royally having areas designated by mob population as being solo only or grouping only EQ2, essentially making entire areas pointless to one crowd or the other. Another thing to consider is the life span of an area or zone. If you start making artificial confines that prevent a person from killing/loot or even getting exp to soon, just for the sake of preventing a soloer from grinding your "Group" mobs for experience or whatever, you have just made that area or zone dead all that much faster. Nothing like having beautiful areas becoming obsolete way before need be. You can manage this in other ways, such as better exp and loot in other areas more suited to the players level. But if you put handrails on everything and fences around everyone's yard to keep the older kids out, you will end up with a very very boring game.
Let me clarify that I do not wish to have separate content for solo and group play. I, by saying "I believe means a separation of content" am stating I do not know, but I perceive it to be so until Brad confirms one way or another.
Also, by content, I generally mean mobs, not zones/areas.
"If you start making artificial confines that prevent a person from killing/loot or even getting exp to soon, just for the sake of preventing a soloer from grinding your "Group" mobs for experience or whatever, you have just made that area or zone dead all that much faster."
Here, I am a little confused. I did mention mobs not giving exp, or any kind of meaningful loot, to high level players coming back to relatively low level encounters just to kill the mob because they can. Even that statement is still based on my perception of what Brad means by 'There will be solo content in Pantheon'. If you are able to solo group content, go for it, I dont want to stop you, as that is what EQ was about early on.
Major point/misunderstanding here - I do not want to prevent a soloer from killing anything. The questions/points I brought up are in regards to my belief that Brad meant specific design for solo content (mobs). That is the only reason I brought group only content (mobs).
I don't know if that really clears up anything for you, Riply. :) It was kind of a rambling post.
Basically, you and I want the same game.
I agree with what most of you are saying, if a "group" quest is for level 10 people and you are much higher than level 10, then of course you should be able to solo it. Also, some "group"quests are for 2-3 people and others are much more difficult and require a well geared and well skilled group. For those that require only 2 or 3 people by intent, if you are crafty and skilled enough and are well geared and are one of the better classes at solo, than I think well geared/skilled people in those circumstances should be able to solo the more easy group content.
Also, not all mobs pose as difficult a threat to all people. Some mobs may be immune to movement control and even summon you and therefore may be difficult to those who are used to kiting for xp but may be more easily killed by certain melee classes. On the other hand, some mobs may be easily kited but kit like a ten ton hammer when they are in melee range so would be hard for some or all melee classes to kill unless high enough.
Edit: Also, some mobs may be very circumstanced based. For example, In EQ enchanters were probably the worst soloers for casters and yet there were some mobs that only they could kill due to a certain mob close by that could be charmed and the charmed mob was powerful enough to kill the target.
I say stick with the EQ/VG model except for the VG model that had lvl 30 mobs whippin a lvl 50 in good gear not top but good orange with some blue and they hit you everytime with no misses. Especially when they stunned the crap out of you and you couldn't even get a spell or heal off.
Blood I'm guessing Brad is not saying a certain area will just be for soloers outside a dungeon in this chunk, I'm guessing it will look a lot like VG where you had 2 dot mobs mixed with a few less 3 dots and a rare four dot mixed in. Though I could be wrong and it might be a good question for the round table.
Make it so quest drops only happen if the player can get exp off the mob, and make all quest drops NO DROP, NO TRADE, LORE. Done. If you are capable of soloing group content when it is level appropriate, then more power to you, and boo hiss to devs for making soloing that easy.
If soloing level appropriate group content is not possible, then you don't have high level soloers griefing level appropriate groups trying to do quests. Right now in EQ1, Plane of Fear might be the safest zone in the game because some high level player is always there camping the zone to hold all the nostalgia questing hostage with multi-quest drop farming.