dorotea said:Having some solo content that is inferior in almost all respects to group content isn't exactly a mainstream view out there.
Actually, it is. You see, designing content specifically so people can solo is a mainstream concept of design. It is a response to the people who say "I work hard all day, I don't have time to deal with forming a group, or wasting time to do x/y/z, play games for MY fun, so make it so I can play the game the way I want by giving me content designed so I can solo it as I see fit in the small time I might choose to play!"
dorotea said:As to other positions I have taken recently. Prevent zerging boss encounters at almost any cost even if it means a handful of instances or encounter locking - make sure leveling is very slow so it takes a year or two to get to level-cap at anywhere near normal speed - have a stiff death penalty so dying "hurts* - have boss drops mostly no-trade so that crafters have a more significant role - keep traveling slow and cumbersome so the world feels larger - yes obviously the views of a dedicated WoW player here to torment the faithful with apostasy. Maybe we will wind up on different servers with different rulesets and we will both be happy in Pantheon.
Preventing zerging is a mainstream idea. It is busy body content design. I could care less about those who zerged in EQ, I was more concerned about the content being designed in a way where they could block others, bottle neck content.
No trade items are a mainstream idea as is most of the attempts to try and curb a behavior (BoP, BoE, Encounter locking, Level limit drops/mobs, etc....) all are designed as meters to try and force a particular play style. They are not natural mechanics, they are aritifical ones obvious in design to force a particular behavior.
Crafters having a more significant roles is what? Not sure how this falls into the spectrum to mainstream or not?
I very clearly explained to you why solo "designed" content is a danger in games, how it is a cancer to play and causes serious shifts in the ability of a game to hold a consistency. You however want it, why? Because people should be able to solo, you know... because what will they do if they don't have time? That is mainstream at its absoulte core.
Here is where the issue with solo "designed" content becomes a problem.
Ok, you design your game around grouping and that grouping is the basis for progression speed.
Now, how fast should soloing be? Remember, that group content takes time even when you have the perfect group. It takes time to organize, pick a location that provides enough exp for the group that is balanced to the time spent. So lets say that that group if they played each day on an average play schedule, they were able to reach max level in 8+ months of play.
What about the solo content? Remember, you now have solo content "designed" for solo. This means it has to be balanced so all classes can kill the mob, making some classes completely overpowered (not all classes will be equal in ability concerning this).
So now you have easy solo content, what should the exp be? Certainly it can't be enough to compete with groups and what I mean by that, it has to be absoultely worthless in effort because if it is even remotely worth the effort to solo, it will allow progression speed solo to be viable, which then allows people to speed through content.
Well... you might say, lets make the exp really small? Sure, how about so small it is completely not worth the effort? That good? Didn't think so, as people will want to to be worth some effort. This brings in a couple of considerations. Risk vs Reward. A game that provides no reward (or worthless reward) is one that get pointless. So should soloing be pointless, no reward, just some way for a person to do something when they can't group? Ok... if that is the goal, how about zero exp for solo mobs and no drops? Remember, there is no risk due to the design concept I mentioned earlier (ie designing solo content to the lowest common denominator), so if we follow Risk vs Reward design, with little to no risk, there should be little to no reward right?
Do you think people who want solo content are asking for that? Nope.. you know how I know this? Because I have seen this very argument over and over again. What they want is "meaningful" solo content, that which falls into the Risk vs Reward spectrum, but then that causes issues with the LCD design, so what do we do? Oh I got it, balance all classes to be equal!!! That is the perfect solution! We will tit for tat all classes in design so they all can be challenged in the content to have proper Risk vs Reward! So, exp will be increased to where the soloer gets a "worthy" amount of exp for their effort and items that drop which also meet that level! Problem solved right? Wrong.
What happens? Well, we have a problem. How do you keep group players from blowing through the levels too fast so that soloers can have meaingful progression? Answer? You can't. What you end up with is groupers hitting cap faster so soloers can play by themselves and have meaningful progression (which means soloers will hit cap fast as they will easily grind without as many hangups as group players). Then you have the nasty side effect of plat farmers and bots now very easily able to farm solo content 24/7 making that Risk vs Reward for soloers a very profitable market indeed.
So where did we end up? Mainstream design decisions producing all the problems of mainstream games. Why? Because we had to cater to soloers, you know.., because apparently people can't be responsible and choose a game where it fits their play style, rather they want the game to change to fit them. This is the cancer of modern MMOs and why all of them that attempt to cater to such end up killing the game for everyone.
So what is the solution? Well... EQ did it pretty well I think, so you start there and work from that core. Groups are the focus, it is the content that is designed. Solo content may be possible, but limited to certain classes and/or clever players. Risk vs Reward is not a concern other than the balance for group play. That is why some solo players spent enormous amounts of time trying to figure out ways to solo or defeat the group content with less people because the risk was very high, but the reward was as well.
Also, because of this, soloing was not fast and easy. The soloer could get good exp at times with lots of risk (due to exp loss, corpse runs, and excessive down time... notice how all these concepts are subtly linked here?), but the game was designed for group, focused for gruops and so the basic core of progression for most was a fair median range with only few extreme players pushing to cap too fast.
Solo content either has to be worthless or it will be a problem. People aren't asking for worthless content, they want proper Risk vs Reward so the fact is, solo "designed" content will only create problems with the goals of the game. /shrug
BeaverBiscuit said: Multiple races to choose from, for example, is pretty mainstream in my opinion.
Really? How on earth did you get to that? EQ had numerous races and classes. AD&D had many as well and they were far from mainstream games. I think your argument is invalidated by the very basis of actual facts and history.
BeaverBiscuit said:
So I do think there's a significant difference between making a niche game, and removing everything too many people like so your game can be as niche as possible. Sure, Pantheon being a niche game supports other arguments! But "the game is going to be a niche game so leave out popular stuff like soloing" feels kind of counterproductive when made alone. But even beyond that, noone is arguing for mainstream here. Mainstream would, at the least, allow equality between soloers and and groupers. Wow started out already giving better XP to soloers, so it had already passed that point. The reason soloing in Wow was like a cancer, was due to actual action on blizzards' part to make soloing more and more efficient with each expansion. Same with what daybreak has done to EQ. They took action, and then soloing became the norm. So at risk of being repetitive; 1. We start the designed soloing at a point of efficiency far lower than grouping. This soloing needs to be designed because it would otherwise not be a convenient activity for all classes. This is not mainstream because mainstream soloers want to solo and ALSO keep up with everyone who doesn't. 2. We never take take action to make soloing even as efficient as grouping. All cancers must grow, and this one only grows if we actively make it do so. 3. We have very little soloable content, and only put it where it is realistic. This way the solo content makes the world more robust, but does not expand the distance between group areas noticably far. For example, orcs who are not experienced in battle, such as slaves, are soloable by all classes. Most orcs remain experienced in battle. While letting all players feel like they are accomplishing something is important, I think it is also good to avoid annoyance wherever possible to "core" players when adding something that is not "core" to Pantheon. 3. VR then decides if the cost and time of this endeavor is worth the added playability for people who are not in groups. Based on numbers that probably, only VR can have. Then they implement it or not implement it. "Core" Pantheon won't be effected significantly either way. P.S. Current mainstream at it's absolute core is probably just equality. Often overapplied to the point that things get boring or frustratingly complicated. However... Inability to prove that some piece of equality, reasonably applied, will directly hurt anyone in any significant, reasonable manner, means that there is no good reason to refuse that equality. So far, I find it unreasonable to compare the very extreme forms of mainstream soloing found in MMOs today to ALL forms of soloing and claim that all are equally cancerous/harmful to Pantheon.
Listen to your arguments. "leave out popular things like..."
Mainstream IS attending to "popular". It is about trying to appeal to "everyone" rather than holding to a specific ideal. Mainstream caters to "convenience" because the "majority" (ie mainstream) like such features by basis of numbers. Mainstream likes entertainment, not games specifically and they argue against many game elements for the sake of achieving their personal subjective definition of “entertainment”.
You are all over the place and just spouting off random comments without using any form of logic to establish a coherent position.
I mean... I don't even know what to say.. you really make no sense and I think you have no idea what you are talking about.
BeaverBiscuit said: I also find it unreasonable to claim that solo content, that is worth doing, absolutely has to be worth the same as group content. Group content in classic wow was worthwhile and yet didn't ever hold a candle to soloing for exp speed. Finally, I find it unreasonable to claim that we will definitely have to cater the soloing and equality of classes any further than we want to. Simply refute or ignore those who ask for anything harmful.
WoW is part of the problem, not the solution.
BeaverBiscuit said: Multiple races is the popular thing to do and caters to individual convenience. So even by your definition, it is mainstream Also, as for my post, I started by refuting points made after my previous posts, which basically say that Pantheon is niche, therefore we should not include anything "mainstream". I disagree with it. Next I resupplied my position on what should be done, these are the 4 points. Finally, the P.S. referred to a post by tranix in which he said that designed soloing is mainstream and therefore cancerous. Basically, mainstream does not have to be cancerous. It only is when we make it that way. ------- In classic wow soloing almost never gave better gear than grouping. I don't see why we can't get examples from Wow just because you consider it a problem.
You don't refute anything. All you do is keep restating your premise without support as if by doing so it validates it.
As I said, multiple races in games is something that existed before MMO gaming became popular. In fact, less races and classes is a mainstream design approach, not an older design one. You make no sense.
Ghool said: Solo content is not needed. Designing it all for groups is fine, because savvy players WILL find a way. What I want for solo 'content', is simply things to do when time is short. Crafting, harvesting, trading, etc. Honestly, that's all the solo content that needs to be designed. I have never found the need for content to be specifically designed for solo play, because if the system is designed to be an MMO, there will be plenty to do when you can't find a group, or don't have much time. You just can't do much, if any, adventuring progression. I think it's safe to say most of us want a grouping game, and VR has made it clear it's a group based progression game. If one is short on time, or not 'hardcore' enough to accept the circumstances and time it takes for group play, there are games specifically designed for solo play and progression. Please don't make the only MMO that is being designed for grouping into another progression solo fest where friends and communities don't matter. Group progression all the way.
You will find things to do Ghool and ways to do it, even if the game has zero solo content. In fact, I think for crafting to have more meaning (other than a quick grind spam fest), it too should be directly linked to grouping. That is, content where you need groups to collect various things. Personally, I always found the heavy collect massive piles of crafting components to be the modern mundane approach to crafting because it tries to lull the player into some idea that because they are doing a ton of it, it is something worth doing. You can have crafting take a long time, take components that take much time to gather and then tie that to a progression rather than turning crafting into a grind chore of mundane componets where you click fest your way through progression.
Point is, everything should be group based, but allow content to be solod if players find clever ways with classes and approaches. This way it is a group game, but those who figure out how to solo aren't penalized. Emergent play and a better risk vs reward concept I think.
BeaverBiscuit said: It's an example of mainstream which isn't bad. Which is what I used it for. To refute the idea that mainstream always equals bad.
No it is not, I just pointed out the reason why. Again, multiple classes existed in MMOs before MMOs became mainstream. Mainstream MMOs removed multiple classes to simplyfy it. That is, mainstream wanted more simplified decisions (not having all the classes and races to choose from) which is where hemogenized design came from.
You don't seem to even understand the discussion here.
Riahuf22 said: @tanix for one there will always be solo able content in a game, it's unavoidable, and I'll tell you how, it's called out leveling it to where you still gain experience from it but high enough to kill the mobs by yourself, this is always be a thing and you can't really stop it becuase if you scale the mobs to prevent it than the grps that would see the mobs at even con would probably easily get destroyed by them, and as for the no drop items, they are needed, it makes it to where you actually have to do something yourself other than play the auction house to you get it your way. There problem solved, stop trying to counter things that simply can't be done, instead try to fix or complain about something that can be
That is not what I said.
I said "designed" solo content, not content people figure out how to solo. There is a difference.
I don't want to stop soloing, I just don't want content to be "designed" for soloing due to the exact reasons I explained.
Please stop and read the discussion first, ask questions if you need before you summarize me.
BeaverBiscuit said: main·stream /ˈmānˌstrēm/Submit noun 1. the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional; the dominant trend in opinion, fashion, or the arts. Dominant trend in opinion for MMOs is still multiple races. Wow has multiple races. Other things having the same "mainstream" has nothing to do with it. As for showing invalidation, as of yet you have only refuted two parts of my post: you feel that wow is a problem and nothing from it should be used as a solution for pantheon, and you feel that racial choices are not mainstream. My post was bigger than that, and I heartily disagree with you on both of your arguments against my post. They don't even address the most important parts of my post anyways.
/facepalm
You are far too bright for me BeaverBiscuit, you win!
I love a great group experience like most here and want this to be a group centered game that we are expecting. But we have to realize some classes will be highly desired and others will not. In EQ 1, clerics, shamans, enchanters, and warriors were in a great place for getting groups. Wizards, rangers, necrosis, druids were the undesirables. They ended up soloing after shouting looking for group over and over. I soloed more on my wizard than I grouped due to the bias with the class regarding group role. If it wasn't for their solo ability I would of quit. I know many people that quit after not being about to find regular groups. This will be an issue. I don't want solo designed content per say. I want to study an orc camp and notice patterns in mob pathing and look for weakness. Example, the weaker orc paths away from his higher level friends for just 5 seconds. This is when I get him...knowing that if I time it wrong I get them all and die. I would take my wizard into sebilis and pick off mobs. I died many times but had many triumphant victories. I rather group, but want to devs to give us crazy soloers a shot to study and grab mobs where timing is everything and a mistake equals death.
bryanleo9 said:
I love a great group experience like most here and want this to be a group centered game that we are expecting. But we have to realize some classes will be highly desired and others will not. In EQ 1, clerics, shamans, enchanters, and warriors were in a great place for getting groups. Wizards, rangers, necrosis, druids were the undesirables. They ended up soloing after shouting looking for group over and over. I soloed more on my wizard than I grouped due to the bias with the class regarding group role. If it wasn't for their solo ability I would of quit. I know many people that quit after not being about to find regular groups. This will be an issue. I don't want solo designed content per say. I want to study an orc camp and notice patterns in mob pathing and look for weakness. Example, the weaker orc paths away from his higher level friends for just 5 seconds. This is when I get him...knowing that if I time it wrong I get them all and die. I would take my wizard into sebilis and pick off mobs. I died many times but had many triumphant victories. I rather group, but want to devs to give us crazy soloers a shot to study and grab mobs where timing is everything and a mistake equals death.
That is what designing group content is all about. People will figure out with certain classes how to solo some content and that is great, but... content should not be designed to solo, that is the point.