Riahuf22 said:Plus it's been said more than likely will have solo content.. and also to encourage grping is never a bad thing and having solo players darting around and camping targets by themselves simply because r they put level it by 20 levels shouldn't be a norm like it was on eq, there nothing emergent about killing something you completely out level it just simply killing a low level target. Plus if a target is a target that can drop decent loot I believe he should have strong CC midigation so simply locking him down and always have a safe distance is bad by design so to basically make him unsoloable.
Nonsense. They have not said there would be "solo content" vs "group content". That's not a distinction that has been made. Also, where did I say that encouraging group was a bad thing? If you're going to argue, at least come correct. If you don't understand my example of emergent gameplay above then I don't know what to say. You completely twisted it into one of multiple logical fallacies in your reply. Also, spell check is a thing.
Additionally, if a target 20 levels lower than you has value to you then you should absolutely be able to do that content. Bringing higher level people to lower level areas is a good, healthy thing that promotes many positive gameplay elements. Rude, selfish people are the problem, not the game.
It would be better to make rewards that a high level character has little use for going back to farm than to limit the ways in which you can engage the content entirely. Or just generally making it so even if a high level character wants to go back and farm low level content, it won't prevent low level players from engaging content. Putting in mechanics to prevent soloing entirely just for this reason seems to be either poorly thought out or a thinly veiled attempt to just prevent soloing entirely for its own sake.
Chanus said:It would be better to make rewards that a high level character has little use for going back to farm than to limit the ways in which you can engage the content entirely. Or just generally making it so even if a high level character wants to go back and farm low level content, it won't prevent low level players from engaging content. Putting in mechanics to prevent soloing entirely just for this reason seems to be either poorly thought out or a thinly veiled attempt to just prevent soloing entirely for its own sake.
That's a tough statement to address. I highly dislike the idea of limiting the value of lower level areas/items to higher level characters. That damages the game in many ways. I agree with the rest of your sentiments.
Imagine being level 20 and finding the ultra rare earring that allows a player to breathe under water, and then being able to sell that item to a level 50 character. You could then be able to outfit yourself in a ton of new great gear. Giving higher level players reasons to be in lower level areas promotes a number of very positive aspects. It creates additional social dynamics(positive and negative), it promotes trade and supports the economy as in my example above, and it increases the effective size of the world. In a large world there's no way a player will be able to consume all the content leveling up on one character. Giving players reasons to go back to areas they didn't level up in can be very healthy for the game and playerbase. In a game where people will be racing to the endgame, this is a type of horizontal scaling that will increase the size of the world and the length of time before players feel like they've done everything they can do.
Keno Monster said:That's a tough statement to address. I highly dislike the idea of limiting the value of lower level areas/items to higher level characters. That damages the game in many ways. I agree with the rest of your sentiments.
Imagine being level 20 and finding the ultra rare earring that allows a player to breathe under water, and then being able to sell that item to a level 50 character. You could then be able to outfit yourself in a ton of new great gear. Giving higher level players reasons to be in lower level areas promotes a number of very positive aspects. It creates additional social dynamics(positive and negative), it promotes trade and supports the economy as in my example above, and it increases the effective size of the world. In a large world there's no way a player will be able to consume all the content leveling up on one character. Giving players reasons to go back to areas they didn't level up in can be very healthy for the game and playerbase. In a game where people will be racing to the endgame, this is a type of horizontal scaling that will increase the size of the world and the length of time before players feel like they've done everything they can do.
I don't disagree with giving people reasons to re-engage content, and I don't disagree with low level players being able to acquire gear and sell it to higher level players. I don't know that having an item on a low level spawn that is desireable to high level players will result in high level players leaving those spawns to low level players and then buying the loot off them. Seems more idealistic than reality has shown to be the case in the past, elsewhere.
There probably isn't a good answer to that problem, though I think generally if an item is obtainable at level 20, players will tend to chase it at level 20 rather than wait until level 50 to go back and acquire it. More often the problem is high level players farming items to sell to low level players that low level players would otherwise be perfectly capable of obtaining themselves were it not for the farming.
I guess this is probably veering off the topic of the thread though.
Chanus said:Keno Monster said:That's a tough statement to address. I highly dislike the idea of limiting the value of lower level areas/items to higher level characters. That damages the game in many ways. I agree with the rest of your sentiments.
Imagine being level 20 and finding the ultra rare earring that allows a player to breathe under water, and then being able to sell that item to a level 50 character. You could then be able to outfit yourself in a ton of new great gear. Giving higher level players reasons to be in lower level areas promotes a number of very positive aspects. It creates additional social dynamics(positive and negative), it promotes trade and supports the economy as in my example above, and it increases the effective size of the world. In a large world there's no way a player will be able to consume all the content leveling up on one character. Giving players reasons to go back to areas they didn't level up in can be very healthy for the game and playerbase. In a game where people will be racing to the endgame, this is a type of horizontal scaling that will increase the size of the world and the length of time before players feel like they've done everything they can do.
I don't disagree with giving people reasons to re-engage content, and I don't disagree with low level players being able to acquire gear and sell it to higher level players. I don't know that having an item on a low level spawn that is desireable to high level players will result in high level players leaving those spawns to low level players and then buying the loot off them. Seems more idealistic than reality has shown to be the case in the past, elsewhere.
There probably isn't a good answer to that problem, though I think generally if an item is obtainable at level 20, players will tend to chase it at level 20 rather than wait until level 50 to go back and acquire it. More often the problem is high level players farming items to sell to low level players that low level players would otherwise be perfectly capable of obtaining themselves were it not for the farming.
I guess this is probably veering off the topic of the thread though.
nod
Keno Monster said:Riahuf22 said:Plus it's been said more than likely will have solo content.. and also to encourage grping is never a bad thing and having solo players darting around and camping targets by themselves simply because r they put level it by 20 levels shouldn't be a norm like it was on eq, there nothing emergent about killing something you completely out level it just simply killing a low level target. Plus if a target is a target that can drop decent loot I believe he should have strong CC midigation so simply locking him down and always have a safe distance is bad by design so to basically make him unsoloable.
Nonsense. They have not said there would be "solo content" vs "group content". That's not a distinction that has been made. Also, where did I say that encouraging group was a bad thing? If you're going to argue, at least come correct. If you don't understand my example of emergent gameplay above then I don't know what to say. You completely twisted it into one of multiple logical fallacies in your reply. Also, spell check is a thing.
Additionally, if a target 20 levels lower than you has value to you then you should absolutely be able to do that content. Bringing higher level people to lower level areas is a good, healthy thing that promotes many positive gameplay elements. Rude, selfish people are the problem, not the game.
I understand what emergent gameplay is, the thing is that EQ playstyle isn't emergent anymore, it's simply common sense in today's mmos, so the whole snaring a target and acting like your walking a dog backwards isn't impressive anymore, neither is root rotting, or quading, none of it is emergent gameplay it's not a learning curve to most players and why should it be some people have been doing it over 20 years.
Plus they have said in the forums that they will have content that will be able to be soloed which equals solo content, it's literally in the description.
Also has for skill checks they have alrdy done part of this anyway with the on you having to attune yourself with the enviroment for certain zones, so why not go a bit further and have certain classes unlock certain pathways other can't? Is it because you want to visit everywhere eventually by yourself and camp targets that should require a grp to kill that you want to solo, or it is another meaning all together, for one I don't want a bunch of solo duo grp camping targets like it is in eq, it simply not fun that way and it's shouldn't be a thing we have to worry about 20 years down the road hopefully they have a plan in kind even if it isn't this one, but anything like mechanically fight or whatever to stop it will make me happy.
Chanus said: I mean, if this is the first you're hearing that some people prefer to play solo a lot of the time, I don't know what to tell you.
I understand that you really like to solo and want to solo in your mmorpg. But if this is the first time you are hearing that this game is specifically targeted at Group players, and that they have specifically said that 'soloing' will be very difficult and not really an intended way to experience the game, then I'm surprised.
Chanus said: Influencing people to group and forcing people to group or not experience content are two different approaches. The first is perfectly fine, and something I agree with! The second is just a way to ensure a subset of people decide not to play your game at all.
Regardless of the 'approach' they use, the result will still be the same. There will be a subset of people who decide not to play the game.
Back in the early days of Pantheon Brad "Aradune" McQuaid had an interview with Boogie2988 (there were actually 2 of them: First Jan 30 2014, Second April 14 2014) and there was a part in one where he mentioned that he understood that not all players out there would enjoy Pantheon since it was being targeted towards a specific type of MMO player. If I remember correctly he was addressing how Pantheon was meant to be a very challenging game where people would need to depend on other players to progress. And he talked about his target audience, and how Pantheon couldn't be everything for everyone.
Now that said, I agree with your statement, and I know that VR has specifically said that they don't want to try and force people to do anything. So I don't think you need to worry about them using artificial lockouts to force people into groups. But the game is still being designed to appeal to the players who want to group and who want the game to require grouping for almost every part of adventuring. So if you are a solo'er at heart, you will need to get used to the fact that much of the content will be out of your reach unless you get into those groups.
Chanus said: Plenty of solo players are also active community members. I'm one! I prefer to solo a lot of the time because I am focused on specific tasks, but I am still participating in chat during those times.
This is somewhat interesting to most of us, since VR has always been very vocal about how important grouping is for this game, and how solo'ing (while not impossible) will not be a promoted way to play. So when players describe themselves as 'Solo players' and say 'I prefer to solo a lot of the time' it's very interesting that you would choose Pantheon as the game you are investing in. There are many other MMO's out there that are very solo friendly, and in fact pride themselves in that. But here at Pantheon VR says Solo'ing will not be promoted and not the intended way to play. Yet here you (and others) are trying to ply the 'We solo'ers should not be blocked out of content'.
Now I'm not trying to chase you away or anything as I hope you will have lots of fun in Pantheon. I'm just pondering why someone who prefers to solo got involved in Pantheon in the first place.
Chanus said: I don't see why I should be prohibited from content because sometimes my primary goal is not playing directly with other people.
One of the problems with making things available to soloers, is that this promotes soloing. If a Solo'er can do it, then why would people go out and group. Despite VR's efforts to try not to prevent people from solo'ing if they want, they still will to do things that push people into grouping as much as possible. And if that means it prevents solo'ers from doing that content, this is a side effect and not the main goal.
Chanus said: What I am against is arbitrary gatekeeping that requires you to group for no other purpose than, "I think people should want to group, so I will force them to." ... If the content itself is too challenging for me to solo it, that is totally fine. The challenge shouldn't be my Strength stat is too low to get through a wall. That's not actually a challenge.
In this specific discussion, you are correct. It is not a good strategy for this to be a 'lockout' mechanic so to speak.
The OP's origional idea is only valid if this were a bonus way to access content and not the 'only' way to access the content. For example... If there is a Door where you need to go find a key to open it... but a rogue could pick the lock (with high enough skill in lockpick)... this would be a bonus way to get through the door and access the content. Or the Warrior or Dire Lord might have high enough strength to force the door open with his sword, thus a bonus way to get through the door bypassing the key requirement. If the skill or strength is not high enough, the group might need to just go find the key. Or if a higher level player wants to come solo the area, he could go find the key. Lockpicking or Strength busting through the door is not required... just an option if it's available.
Vjek said: (paraphrased) Cleric could give Warrior a str buff that gets him just tough enough to break through the door.
Or a Magician could summon enhanced lockpicks that give bonus skill to the rogue helping him succeed in his lockpick. Or an enchanter could give the rogue a Dex buff that assists in his lockpick skill.
Perhaps they could even go so far as to allow wizards to freeze the lock thus making it brittle and lowering the strength required to force the lock.
But again... don't forget, there is always the key.