Out of the current class list I'd like to see only a handful be able to solo and it should be hard to pull off.
Druid (outdoors)
Enchanter (charm breaks will make you cry)
Ranger (outdoors)
Summoner (slow but steady soloer)
Wizzy (blow out mana on every kill)
If you don't pick one of these classes you should not be able to solo at all imo. What do you all think about it ?
Kiz~
Angrykiz said:
Out of the current class list I'd like to see only a handful be able to solo and it should be hard to pull off.
Druid (outdoors)
Enchanter (charm breaks will make you cry)
Ranger (outdoors)
Summoner (slow but steady soloer)
Wizzy (blow out mana on every kill)
If you don't pick one of these classes you should not be able to solo at all imo. What do you all think about it ?
Kiz~
Or how about this...you make the game being group centric with no class designed to solo, then if an individual is able to figure out a way to solo through emergent game play then great
I hear you but you don't think the devs should put any thought into this at all when they are designing the classes ?
Kiz~
Come to think about it Dread Knights should have to ability to solo with fear also.
In any case soloing should be less exp than grouping always.
A very good thread on this topic from march, I believe.
https://www.pantheonrotf.com/forums/topic/1546/solo-play?page=2
Here is a quote from the Kickstarter FAQ section:
"Is soloing going to be completely impossible in Pantheon?
Soloing is possible and perhaps something the player will want to do while he is waiting for his group or guild to log in. If his gear is good enough there will some overland mobs that can be soloed. That said, grouping will be significantly more efficient."
I am not sure how much of the "original vision" from the Kickstarter is still relevant, but this was the original take on soloing.
That quote remains very accurate.
-Brad "Aradune" McQuaid
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:
A very good thread on this topic from march, I believe.
https://www.pantheonrotf.com/forums/topic/1546/solo-play?page=2
____________________________________Here is a quote from the Kickstarter FAQ section:
"Is soloing going to be completely impossible in Pantheon?
Soloing is possible and perhaps something the player will want to do while he is waiting for his group or guild to log in. If his gear is good enough there will some overland mobs that can be soloed. That said, grouping will be significantly more efficient."
I am not sure how much of the "original vision" from the Kickstarter is still relevant, but this was the original take on soloing.
That quote remains very accurate.
-Brad "Aradune" McQuaid
And it is very possible that some classes may do better than others, although to what degree and which ones I cannot reveal yet, as we'll want to test and tweak in beta. I don't have a fundamental problem with one class solo'ing better than another, but some other people do, and sometimes don't consider a class viable if they aren't optimally suited for solo'ing (even though this is a group oriented game).
Angrykiz said:
I hear you but you don't think the devs should put any thought into this at all when they are designing the classes ?
Kiz~
Come to think about it Dread Knights should have to ability to solo with fear also.
In any case soloing should be less exp than grouping always.
No, no I do not think the devs should put one sec of thought into solo'ing...this has been from the very beginning touted as a group centric game and yet every few months someone comes along spouting out how this class should solo and this class should solo yada yada yada. As I said I am in no way against solo emerging as gameplay as individuals learn their class and learn how to use it to its best advantage (think Druid and Necro in EQ1). Those werent designed as solo classes but the players learned the power of Fear, snare, root and dots to make a powerful couple of soloers. If you design a class to solo then what use is it to the greater scheme of Pantheon? Why would I give a solo class a spot in a Raid or Group and deny it to a class that cant solo?
Aradune said:
And it is very possible that some classes may do better than others, although to what degree and which ones I cannot reveal yet, as we'll want to test and tweak in beta. I don't have a fundamental problem with one class solo'ing better than another, but some other people do, and sometimes don't consider a class viable if they aren't optimally suited for solo'ing (even though this is a group oriented game).
There's a wide range between "possible" and "optimally suited for" though :)
I agree with what was said above: Don't design classes with the intention that they should be solo-able. Make them work well in groups, and then if a class turns out to have solo capabilities, fine.
Agreed with above that no class should be designed for soloing, let the players find the way ;)
It will be the utility spells that enable a class to solo though, correct? So IMO I would wait for beta and see what classes find a way to solo, and then consider balancing them for that. Those who are not able to solo in any form should be of greater value in a group, than someone able to solo well, for example.
A wizard - able to kite for exp, money, items if they come across a named, etc, (nevermind the good chance they'd weak CC or evac/teleport spells on top of it). VS a rogue who cannot do anything without a tank to taunt the mob.
In a group the rogue should be able to out dps the wizard unless they somehow have utility abilities that make them more appealing than straight dps. And if someone is looking to argue that a mana user has limited dps, well that is yet to see just how much they can use before requiring downtime - and just as critical, how long that downtime is.
I agree somewhat. In newbie zones, that is where you learn what you can do and hopefully your limits and soloing should be allowed. I think it is just human nature to be solo at first, partly because of being embarrased to mess up in front of a stranger, but also to learn what you can do. One zone out, they get a bit harder and you know enough to know for certain monsters you may need help, or realize it would go easier if you had help and in this case, yes.
if the take is "let the players find a way" i am good with that, but i dont want to see "A Way" nerfed because it allowed a class the devs just dont like to solo. i will use EQ1 for an example
Clerics found out that they could root a mob and then fear the mob and kill it while it was feared and immobile due to root, sure root may break occasionally from dmg but it was a viable way for clerics to solo. what happened to that? it got nerfed mobs that were feared started to fight back when rooted.
Warriors found out that if they had a Earthshaker and pulled a hundred mobs or so then used the riposte disc they could solo entire zones. what happened to that? first the Earthshaker was removed from the game. then it was made so that procs didnt activate on riposte.
Bards found out that they could play thier AOE damage over time songs and outrun the mobs in large swarms for decent exp, so the damage over time songs got thier radius reduced to make this inneffective.
Necros - Fearkiting and root rotting are still viable
Druids - Quad kiting and root rotting still viable
Shaman - can still root rot.
Enchanter - still able to charm solo
so if the idea is that we find a way to solo ourselves and VRI is cool with that then i am cool. but if VRI starts nerfing those ways for some classes but not others then i become uncool with it
If it were up to me nobody would be able to efficiently solo, to kill a mob solo I should have to be X amount of levels higher than it, where X is the value that determines when I barely get exp from it anymore (the equivalent of only being able to solo light blue cons or lower), as well as needing at least my level in gear in every slot to be able to take it down. This is for loot yielding mobs and dungeons only however.
Overland mobs who drop no loot should be able to be solo'ed for exp, however no class should be able to generate even 50% of the exp of a good group, to promote grouping.
Rallyd said:
If it were up to me nobody would be able to efficiently solo, to kill a mob solo I should have to be X amount of levels higher than it, where X is the value that determines when I barely get exp from it anymore (the equivalent of only being able to solo light blue cons or lower), as well as needing at least my level in gear in every slot to be able to take it down. This is for loot yielding mobs and dungeons only however.
Overland mobs who drop no loot should be able to be solo'ed for exp, however no class should be able to generate even 50% of the exp of a good group, to promote grouping.
Promoting grouping is what it really boils down to for me. Whatever the percentage is, grouping should always be the better option. As soon as solo players are able to progress through the game faster/more efficiently than those grouping, the social and community aspect of the game deteriorates.
Dungeons and raids should also not be the only reason for players to work together. If theres one thing the last 10 years of MMOs have shown us, its that that design does not promote player interaction or foster community. Cooperative play should be integral to all forms of advancement, from exp to class advancement, to gathering and crafting. Otherwise, we could all just go and play single player RPGs.
I agree but somewhat disagree. What Pantheon needs is multiple paths of advancement some of which are never ending or that have an ending years away. As an example take ffxiv even though the levels to max are soloable there are so many jobs and different advancements that take a long time. Now I dont condone ffxiv's gameplay so dont spin this around. What I condone is the fact that for a very very very long time there is almost ALWAYS something to do.
So that is my suggestion for Pantheon. They should have multiple paths of leveling / skills. Make skill caps extremely high well beyond level capping and make a reason like ffxiv did to go back and repeat older group content again with lower level / newer players. So pretty much never get to a point where the grind is removed from the game. We should always have something to strive for. As for solo content it is absolutely needed but make it as others have said not worth passing up or looking for a group. Make soloing something for exp take 20x longer than grouping etc.
But whatever you do make sure there is content in your game for when people are looking for a group. No one likes to sit around and do nothing. This content could be anything an oddball skill or w/e the sky is the limit.
And I'm not sure if your team is looking into this or not but shard the servers. There is no reason in this day and age that separate servers need to exist in games.
Prominus said:
...
But whatever you do make sure there is content in your game for when people are looking for a group. No one likes to sit around and do nothing. This content could be anything an oddball skill or w/e the sky is the limit.
And I'm not sure if your team is looking into this or not but shard the servers. There is no reason in this day and age that separate servers need to exist in games.
I was feeling your post until you went and talked about sharding the server. By this I presume you mean create a megaserver that just throws all players into instances of each zone to make sure they are populated. If that is what you are referring to, I say kindly (with great restraint), "please no."
One of the most appealing features of EQ and older MMOs in general, was the sense of community provided by the familiarity you have with others on your server. Some you've talked to, some you've heard of, some you've only passed traveling or at the bank, and a few you know and adventured with or perhaps helped or been helped by. People therefore gain a reputation, and if you don't know someone, chances are someone you know does. From this spawns accountability, as well as respect for your fellow neighbor. That feeling is a big part of creating communities in a virtual world and all of those things are utterly lost on megaservers.
When it comes to preventing low population in early areas, the solutions are complicated and imperfect. You can mix content for different level ranges, quests, events, crafting or harvest, player housing and many other ways to keep zones busy. The truth is, they may not keep every zone populated like a megaserver will, but at least they create a communal constancy that makes a game feel like a world.
Dullahan said:
Prominus said:
...
But whatever you do make sure there is content in your game for when people are looking for a group. No one likes to sit around and do nothing. This content could be anything an oddball skill or w/e the sky is the limit.
And I'm not sure if your team is looking into this or not but shard the servers. There is no reason in this day and age that separate servers need to exist in games.
I was feeling your post until you went and talked about sharding the server. By this I presume you mean create a megaserver that just throws all players into instances of each zone to make sure they are populated. If that is what you are referring to, I say kindly (with great restraint), "please no."
One of the most appealing features of EQ and older MMOs in general, was the sense of community provided by the familiarity you have with others on your server. Some you've talked to, some you've heard of, some you've only passed traveling or at the bank, and a few you know and adventured with or perhaps helped or been helped by. People therefore gain a reputation, and if you don't know someone, chances are someone you know does. From this spawns accountability, as well as respect for your fellow neighbor. That feeling is a big part of creating communities in a virtual world and all of those things are utterly lost on megaservers.
When it comes to preventing low population in early areas, the solutions are complicated and imperfect. You can mix content for different level ranges, quests, events, crafting or harvest, player housing and many other ways to keep zones busy. The truth is, they may not keep every zone populated like a megaserver will, but at least they create a communal constancy that makes a game feel like a world.
Yeah the part in yellow is a big no-no for Pantheon, it's a bit like the difference between having small ma-and-pa restaurants and grocery stores in your town or just 1 super walmart. While it may be convenient to have the walmart, it brings a lower quality product, and less community interaction. Servers are the best route, like EQ1 did, and the amount of them should be directly correlated to the amount of players playing the game, and the target population that each server can accommodate without overcrowding.
This is a whole other topic about the server size and I think the Dev's have already said it will be based on target per zone populations and not one big mega server...
I really liked my little world on RZ... the politics and just knowing who was up to what was really cool, so hopefully no sharding lol...
Kiz~
I'd like to elaborate a bit on this ... As soon as you open more than one instance of the same zone it becomes a instanced game and we all don't want that.
It means that more a boss mob could be up in multiple instances at once and people will hop back and forth to monopolize spawns.
It takes away the static feel of the server and breaks my immersion.
I'm also pretty darn sure they won't do this. /whew
Rallyd said:
Dullahan said:
Prominus said:
...
But whatever you do make sure there is content in your game for when people are looking for a group. No one likes to sit around and do nothing. This content could be anything an oddball skill or w/e the sky is the limit.
And I'm not sure if your team is looking into this or not but shard the servers. There is no reason in this day and age that separate servers need to exist in games.
I was feeling your post until you went and talked about sharding the server. By this I presume you mean create a megaserver that just throws all players into instances of each zone to make sure they are populated. If that is what you are referring to, I say kindly (with great restraint), "please no."
One of the most appealing features of EQ and older MMOs in general, was the sense of community provided by the familiarity you have with others on your server. Some you've talked to, some you've heard of, some you've only passed traveling or at the bank, and a few you know and adventured with or perhaps helped or been helped by. People therefore gain a reputation, and if you don't know someone, chances are someone you know does. From this spawns accountability, as well as respect for your fellow neighbor. That feeling is a big part of creating communities in a virtual world and all of those things are utterly lost on megaservers.
When it comes to preventing low population in early areas, the solutions are complicated and imperfect. You can mix content for different level ranges, quests, events, crafting or harvest, player housing and many other ways to keep zones busy. The truth is, they may not keep every zone populated like a megaserver will, but at least they create a communal constancy that makes a game feel like a world.
Yeah the part in yellow is a big no-no for Pantheon, it's a bit like the difference between having small ma-and-pa restaurants and grocery stores in your town or just 1 super walmart. While it may be convenient to have the walmart, it brings a lower quality product, and less community interaction. Servers are the best route, like EQ1 did, and the amount of them should be directly correlated to the amount of players playing the game, and the target population that each server can accommodate without overcrowding.
I am playing FFXIV right now and I agree with your assertion that one thing it does right is there is always something to keep you busy. Solo content is important to keep us busy when we cannot group, and it can take many forms other than combat.
I completely agree with the rest of the post but not the megaserver issue. Like the others, though I need to agree that servers are important in keeping a solid community alive. A problem with many MMOs today is that you can hide under your anonymity and no one knows if you are a good person to group with or a poor choice. Allowing for servers allows us to keep the community small enough where your name and reputation are important. Like Kiz said Pantheon will have servers - so we are good!
Angrykiz said:
Out of the current class list I'd like to see only a handful be able to solo and it should be hard to pull off.
Druid (outdoors)
Enchanter (charm breaks will make you cry)
Ranger (outdoors)
Summoner (slow but steady soloer)
Wizzy (blow out mana on every kill)
If you don't pick one of these classes you should not be able to solo at all imo. What do you all think about it ?
Kiz~
I hope that most folks will be able to find a way to solo with their class, however I don't want to see it be a very rewarding or necessarily worthwhile enterprise.
In EQ1 I would on occasion unleash Darmer Drowslayer, Dwarf Battle Cleric on the unsuspecting Drolvargs of Norrath, and while I *COULD* solo kill them, it really wasn't something to do regularly. I enjoy the idea of playing a game where community, reputation and all classes matter. I know time gets more valuable to us the older we get, and perhaps a solo friendly method of gameplay could be instituted in some fashion, but I would like to see it be considerably less fruitful than spending a couple hours grouped up with old (or even better, new) friends.
I completely agree with the rest of the post but not the megaserver issue. Like the others, though I need to agree that servers are important in keeping a solid community alive. A problem with many MMOs today is that you can hide under your anonymity and no one knows if you are a good person to group with or a poor choice. Allowing for servers allows us to keep the community small enough where your name and reputation are important. Like Kiz said Pantheon will have servers - so we are good!
And NO cross server grouping!!1!!
Sevens said:
I completely agree with the rest of the post but not the megaserver issue. Like the others, though I need to agree that servers are important in keeping a solid community alive. A problem with many MMOs today is that you can hide under your anonymity and no one knows if you are a good person to group with or a poor choice. Allowing for servers allows us to keep the community small enough where your name and reputation are important. Like Kiz said Pantheon will have servers - so we are good!
that is my quote :)
And NO cross server grouping!!1!!
Absolutely!- I was there when they introduced the dungeon finder in WoW and at the time I thought it was the greatest thing- However I saw what it has done. A group finder WITHIN SERVER is fine - it sets you up to make new friends (or enemies! lol). I could take or leave having a group finder - but if there is one in game it has has has to be with in the server. People will moan about how long it takes to get a group together but that is a fine price to pay for creating and maintaining a community.
Zarriya said:
Sevens said:
I completely agree with the rest of the post but not the megaserver issue. Like the others, though I need to agree that servers are important in keeping a solid community alive. A problem with many MMOs today is that you can hide under your anonymity and no one knows if you are a good person to group with or a poor choice. Allowing for servers allows us to keep the community small enough where your name and reputation are important. Like Kiz said Pantheon will have servers - so we are good!
that is my quote :)
And NO cross server grouping!!1!!
Absolutely!- I was there when they introduced the dungeon finder in WoW and at the time I thought it was the greatest thing- However I saw what it has done. A group finder WITHIN SERVER is fine - it sets you up to make new friends (or enemies! lol). I could take or leave having a group finder - but if there is one in game it has has has to be with in the server. People will moan about how long it takes to get a group together but that is a fine price to pay for creating and maintaining a community.
It is your post...sorry wasnt trying to plagiarize you, when I copied that I thought it would quote you
I agree that it is the price we need to pay to build a community and I will gladly pay it, if this game doesnt have community it has nothing
Sevens said:
Zarriya said:
Sevens said:
I completely agree with the rest of the post but not the megaserver issue. Like the others, though I need to agree that servers are important in keeping a solid community alive. A problem with many MMOs today is that you can hide under your anonymity and no one knows if you are a good person to group with or a poor choice. Allowing for servers allows us to keep the community small enough where your name and reputation are important. Like Kiz said Pantheon will have servers - so we are good!
that is my quote :)
And NO cross server grouping!!1!!
Absolutely!- I was there when they introduced the dungeon finder in WoW and at the time I thought it was the greatest thing- However I saw what it has done. A group finder WITHIN SERVER is fine - it sets you up to make new friends (or enemies! lol). I could take or leave having a group finder - but if there is one in game it has has has to be with in the server. People will moan about how long it takes to get a group together but that is a fine price to pay for creating and maintaining a community.
It is your post...sorry wasnt trying to plagiarize you, when I copied that I thought it would quote you
I agree that it is the price we need to pay to build a community and I will gladly pay it, if this game doesnt have community it has nothing
I took it as a compliment! Quoting is funny on this website - I made a short guide: https://www.pantheonrotf.com/forums/topic/1871/how-to-quote
Lokkan said:Agreed with above that no class should be designed for soloing, let the players find the way ;)
It will be the utility spells that enable a class to solo though, correct? So IMO I would wait for beta and see what classes find a way to solo, and then consider balancing them for that. Those who are not able to solo in any form should be of greater value in a group, than someone able to solo well, for example.
A wizard - able to kite for exp, money, items if they come across a named, etc, (nevermind the good chance they'd weak CC or evac/teleport spells on top of it). VS a rogue who cannot do anything without a tank to taunt the mob.
In a group the rogue should be able to out dps the wizard unless they somehow have utility abilities that make them more appealing than straight dps. And if someone is looking to argue that a mana user has limited dps, well that is yet to see just how much they can use before requiring downtime - and just as critical, how long that downtime is.