Please ignore low level soloing ability. It is assumed low levels can simply solo through the training wheel stages.
How efficient should soloing be compared to grouping once you get into mid to high level content? Say from 30 and on. I mean this quite literally, as in if the average level up time for x level in groups takes say 10 hours, how long should the average time take soloing that level up from increased downtime, extra deaths, etc? 12 hours? 13 hours?
IMO:
You won't get consensus on 10 hours per level in a group. For some that will be too short, and for others it will be too long.
If Pantheon has shared/competitive loot and no anti-bottom-feeding code, soloing will always be done for money/items/resources, even if it's only done for lower level targets.
If any class can obtain XP for any kill, solo, anywhere in the game world, at any level, it will always be more efficient to solo if you have more play time, in that context.
What do I mean by that? I mean if you can only play 1 hour per day in a group, and gain 2% per kill of a level while grouped, but someone else can play 10 hours per day and gain only 1% per kill, presuming solo TTK is within 50% of group TTK, you know who is going to advance faster. :)
I've said it before, but I'll repeat it: There is no value you can assign to this question that will restrict the hardcore and not punish the casual. Similarly, there is no value you can assign that will be appropriate for the casual and not enable the hardcore. You will simply have to accept the public design goals:
If the game is being made so that a player, while grouped (in a group of any size) can make tangible progress playing 1-2 hours a day, then you must also accept the fact that players that play 5 to 8 times that much, per day, will advance at up to 5 to 8 times faster. Whether such experience is gained through solo or group is secondary to whether or not the game can be played 12-16 hours per day.
The only way to stop such a reality is to artificially and/or temporally limit XP gains per day, per character. As you can imagine, given "old school" or similar MMOs have never done such a thing, it seems unlikely, given the target demographic for the past 8 years, that distinguishing Pantheon in this fashion would result in a positive expansion of their target demographic. ;)
And for the record, I do NOT want to see artificial and/or temporally limited XP gains per day, per character. I just think most people underestimate the amount of power an abundance of free time creates in games where the only real investment required is time. And as a consequence, there will likely be max level characters extremely quickly, depending on your perspective and expectations, via every legitimate/non-cheating advancement method the game permits.
And Brell help us if Progeny or any similar 'end-game' advancement path requires the equivalent of multiple max level characters/classes.
I think that overall there isn't ever going to be a subjective number or efficiency rating. There are just too many Dynamic factors. Things are going to vary greatly from region to region. A group in a wide open plains may only have a 10-20% efficiency advantage over a solo'er just because of a lesser Enemy density. Whereas that same group vs solo'er in a Dungeon may have a 150% efficiency advantage. While the Solo'er out in the plains vs group in the dungeon the difference may only be 70%. These of course are made up numbers I'm pulling from the void and of course have no real bearing on reality.
Solo'ing will always be a thing, and some players will thrive on it. These players will find where the most efficient places are to solo, and they will lessen the Gap between Group focused players time investments. But as long as it's costly enough in extra time and effort to solo that those players are nudged/motivated towards Groups as a preference when they have the time and availability then it should all work out. Even if there are some players that will continue to solo even if it's the more difficult path.
Jobeson said: ... I am curious what people think is fair for a group focused MMO.
IMO:
You should get such a massive XP bonus to grouping, and/or such a massive penalty to XP for soloing that having a full group is the only way people want to play, and are desperate to find group members, no matter their class.
Put whatever numbers you want to around that statement, that would be my public design goal, if it were my decision to make, and I would keep making adjustments until that was true.
Personally, I am more interested in learning what Visionary Realms current public design goals are for this particular topic, things like, for full +/- 2 levels in the group, fighting at-level targets, what's the goal for TTK, what's the rewarded XP per kill as a % of a level, and do these targets change, per ~10 level tier?
But, all of this is based on the presumption that you can make, join, or find a ~full group during your playtime, 100% of the time. That seems unlikely to always be true.. :)
In reality, people that play outside prime time probably won't have a full group available at all levels, at any time during the day/night, unless they're in a large guild that crosses many time zones. So, with such an implementation, those players would be "unfairly" penalized during (potentially) the only time they can play.
This is basically a theory vs reality question.
In theory grouping should be so much faster that everyone always wants to group. In reality that would just kill the game, since the target audience (and I know they suddenly claim to not target the EQ crowd, different topic) is just too old now to always group. There are kids involved, jobs, other hobbies, friends that don't play games anymore etc. etc.
It is just not doable in reality, so soling will be a huge part. If soloing gets punished too hard, people just don't bother to play at all.
I think it should take twice as long, 20 hours.
I see folks are plain out ignoring the majority of folks here who are looking to group(becasue it's talked about more often than soloing in the community) and the guilds that have formed ready to group and the intentional efforts by VR to promote grouping. I say the majority of folks that want to play Pantheon will be more interested in grouping than not.
Rattenmann said: This is basically a theory vs reality question.
In reality this game will have people from a broad range of time zones in asia, australia, the americas and europe. And already has a significant percentage of retired people who are past the point of raising children. IMO the number of players VR decides to have on a server will be the biggest factor in how easy or difficult it will be to get a group. So I see nothing wrong with the theory of "strongly encouraging" grouping over solo play, which is how VR has been defining their approach.
Rattenmann said: In theory grouping should be so much faster that everyone always wants to group.
Many of us don't want to level fast. We will enjoy level cap & raids when we get there, but we have no interest in getting there quickly. We're interested in NOT outleveling an area until we've thoroughly explored every bit of the 'horizontal leveling' content Pantheon is offering, such as Crafting and Perception. In fact, a while ago we had a fairly active thread where many of us supported the idea of being able to turn OFF xp gain, in order to delay leveling. I believe you're underestimating how many fans of Pantheon are in this group.
In reality that would just kill the game, since the target audience... is just too old now to always group.
I DO have some concerns about this part of your theory. Can you be more specific about what age is too old to group? I'm over 65, I'd hate to get up some morning and find I'm now too old to group :)
If soloing gets punished too hard, people just don't bother to play at all.
I don't dispute that SOME people won't play Pantheon if leveling solo is too slow.
Possibly you haven't heard this short podcast from 3 months ago explaining VR's intentions toward soloing? https://youtu.be/rIdKxUO2z0Y
Jothany said:I DO have some concerns about this part of your theory. Can you be more specific about what age is too old to group? I'm over 65, I'd hate to get up some morning and find I'm now too old to group :)
i.e. the age you have a job and a family. 65 could be back into the sweet spot of having enough spare time again.
I remember playing EQ when I was 14 / 15. And I remember raiding for world first in WOW when I was 26 and had no job or kids. I also remember what happened, when people in our Guild suddenly got married and had kids. Those people stopped raiding. And even doing group content was becoming cumbersome for the OTHER players. When we could be grinding away at a dungeon for 3-8 hours before, it suddenly became uncertain if the group would still be around 30minutes in, because someone had their kid start screaming, the wife wanting to watch netflix or whatever.
Now I am married as well and am building a house in my spare time. I also am self employed and work 20 or 120 hours a week, depending on contracts. I simply can't group as much or as efficiently as before. And while WOW makes this easily doable, since a dungeon can be bumrushed in 10 minutes,... that is not what I consider fun. EQ Dungeons were fun. Setting up camp, deep into a dungeon, when just GETTING THERE took 30-60 Minutes. Nowadays I can't be sure if I even have 60 Minutes of time for that, ...
... honestly if Pantheon does dungeons like WOW does, I won't be playing Pantheon. Because I hate those rush dungeons. If it does dungeons like EQ did, I WANT to play it, but I am not sure I CAN play it like I want to.
Gaming for hours on end is basically a thing for people still in school, or out of work. Sure, you can get a few hours in if you really want to, but usually it is an annoyance with everyday life.
It may sound a bit 'unfriendly' but I don't think @vjek is wrong (not unfriendly to vjek, unfriendly to soloers hehe).
One of the biggest factors in the way the MMORPG genre has changed is the biasing toward soloing - the design goal that near everything must be soloable.
I don't think many will disagree that this can't happen without damaging the group game. I don't think any game has managed to design or 'scale' content well for both group and solo. Games that enable broad soloing make it largely trivial and boring to group up. Grouping up actually makes such games a worse experience. Or they end up having a relatively small amount of group content which quickly gets boring from repetition.
Please note, I am not saying group content is objectively 'better'. To be clear, I *do* think that group content *is* objectively better, hehe: It is inately more complex, interesting and challenging by its interdependant and synergistic nature, but the point is unneeded for this discussion.
*If* a game wants group content to be the best it can be it must focus on group content. Simple as that. It must balance for group content. It must also encourage grouping, so there is a healthy player base and so habitual solo players give grouping a good try and get to realise how much better it is. If habitual solo players find they really don't like it and can't make do with the 'lesser' solo content *shrug* that's that, then.
It's actually not much different than choosing to make a sports game when you know darned well there are lots of players utterly uninterested in sports. You don't shoe-horn some gunplay into a football game just because some players don't like sports much.
Ok, maybe that's not a great analogy... Perhaps look at a team shooter, like Battlefield, and a Battle Royale shooter, like Fortnite. Fortnite is very popular, but if you start adding Battle Royale features to Battlefield it ruins the very thing that makes it a distinct game that its fans love: Squad/Team/Co-op tactics. If you even start to make the soldier classes in game less interdependant - let all soldiers have the same abilities and regenrate their own ammo and health - the game is utterly changed/ruined as players are enabled and encouraged run off on their own and do their own thing.
The point is, if you choose tenets and a vision that include something as fundamental as group focus, you don't introduce stuff that will be to the detriment of that. Not if you want to keep the fans that signed up to those tenets and that vision in the first place.
(and, yes, I'm bitter that recent versions of Battlefield have introduced 'popular shooter' features and emphasis that goes against the Battlefield that fans have loved for 20 years).
There are, of course, many aspects to an 'old school' game that 'modern' gamers might not be used to and even might not prefer, to begin with. You don't dumb-down or remove those either unless you just want a modern MMORPG like any other.
I firmly believe that it is ok not to aim to please all potential players. I firmly believe there are enough 'old school' players to make an 'old school' game very successful. I firmly believe that a lot of 'modern' players will try it and will like it too and, thus, that 'old school' game will achieve an audience much wider than the 'old school' gamers, effectively creating 'new old school' players hehe. A good game is a good game and people will enjoy it.
To achieve excellence, one should specialise. To aim for broad appeal is to aim for mediocrity. Gods, please, let's get back to where companies make great products and achieve mass appeal because they make great products, not design products for mass appeal and we end up with every product being homogenised and bland.
As for the technical details, I think devs simply have to get good with the idea of balancing for grouping being challenging and, thus, soloing being much more difficult. This means, when soloing, you have to tackle much 'easier' (lower level, single, simple) targets and, so, you will by their nature receive much less XP and relatively 'worse' loot. If there needs to be an artificial group bonus or solo penalty on top of that *shrug* so be it - that can be worked out - but level difference and itemisation should be the fundamental decider and might be enough.
TL;DR: @vjek is right, if extreme hehe. Pantheon is to be a group-focused game. It's a fundamental tenet that lots (most?) of us are here for. To have a group-focused game, grouping must be encouraged. It *at the very least* must not be discouraged or detracted from.
Whilst I accept that some soloable content is fine - we all solo a bit while waiting for a group or just because we fancy it or just because we get attacked while exploring or travelling - that does not mean it should be anywhere *near* as lucrative or that it shouldn't be very dangerous.
If Pantheon balances for content to truly challenge an 'average' full group, then soloing will be tough and intentional soloing means aiming at much lower level (less rewarding) stuff and this is fine.
To answer the OP: Soloing should not even feel comparable, efficiency-wise. It should feel obvious, not subtle in the least. The percentage would need to be dialled in in testing, but I imagine something like half as efficient would be obvious enough. Maybe less. It should also, of course, 'top out' sooner what you can handle, not just be less 'efficient'. If a group can handle Level+5, a soloer should be at Level+0 maybe so as to limit quality of loot, not just rate of money/XP gain.
Rattenmann said:Jothany said:I DO have some concerns about this part of your theory. Can you be more specific about what age is too old to group? I'm over 65, I'd hate to get up some morning and find I'm now too old to group :)
i.e. the age you have a job and a family. 65 could be back into the sweet spot of having enough spare time again.
I remember playing EQ when I was 14 / 15. And I remember raiding for world first in WOW when I was 26 and had no job or kids. I also remember what happened, when people in our Guild suddenly got married and had kids. Those people stopped raiding. And even doing group content was becoming cumbersome for the OTHER players. When we could be grinding away at a dungeon for 3-8 hours before, it suddenly became uncertain if the group would still be around 30minutes in, because someone had their kid start screaming, the wife wanting to watch netflix or whatever.
Now I am married as well and am building a house in my spare time. I also am self employed and work 20 or 120 hours a week, depending on contracts. I simply can't group as much or as efficiently as before. And while WOW makes this easily doable, since a dungeon can be bumrushed in 10 minutes,... that is not what I consider fun. EQ Dungeons were fun. Setting up camp, deep into a dungeon, when just GETTING THERE took 30-60 Minutes. Nowadays I can't be sure if I even have 60 Minutes of time for that, ...
... honestly if Pantheon does dungeons like WOW does, I won't be playing Pantheon. Because I hate those rush dungeons. If it does dungeons like EQ did, I WANT to play it, but I am not sure I CAN play it like I want to.
Gaming for hours on end is basically a thing for people still in school, or out of work. Sure, you can get a few hours in if you really want to, but usually it is an annoyance with everyday life.
There is definitely something in between and that is what Pantheon is promising and it's a firm tenet or part of teh vision or whatever that they repeat often and have recently IIRC.
They aim for meaningful accomplishments in 2 hour sessions. That is of course open to interpretation: It could still mean that a lot of content requires 10 hour sessions, but I really don't think so, from other comments that have been made over the years.
VR appear to be designing features like an LFG tool that will ease the bringing together of players (but not a Dungeon Finder tool that turns the world into an instant dungeon speed run selection).
Features like caravans. I don't know if that is currently 'in' or just something like it will exist: A feature that helps groups (or individuals) that have previous fought deep into a dungeon to jump back in there in their next session.
Features like raid triggers that don't require 24 hour spawn camping rotas.
There are many answers to the issues of gamers not having as much time as they used to or having less regular hours.
The answer is not soloing.
We will all want to do *some* soloing while we wait for a group (though hopefully that will be minimised), while we are travelling or exploring (though we should expect to find it dangerous and exciting, or take a friend or two) or if we fancy it for a change (though we shouldn't expect it to be anywhere near as lucrative as grouping), but in a group-focused game, soloing should be a side-gig, not a primary feature.
disposalist said:We will all want to do *some* soloing while we wait for a group (though hopefully that will be minimised), while we are travelling or exploring (though we should expect to find it dangerous and exciting, or take a friend or two) or if we fancy it for a change (though we shouldn't expect it to be anywhere near as lucrative as grouping), but in a group-focused game, soloing should be a side-gig, not a primary feature.
This is pretty much why I made the post. Trying to find out what people are comfortable with to get to that result. I often feel my own views on the ideal are too impactful so I am curious what people think would be enough motivation to achieve that.
I feel the sweet spot is probably about 2.5x to make groups clearly superior even when you only have an hour to play, but any group, even small poorly optimized groups should have a clear advantage over soloing in terms of efficiency.
I would personally set soloing to be 2/5 as efficient as the sandard group which was set to 10 on the example. Smaller groups would vary greatly depending on synergy but likely would end up being about 10-20 hours. Soloing would finally be there alone at 25 hours.
I hope the dangers of the world as well as simple leveling efficiency pushes three warriors to group up while they are LFG rather than to each solo. Also yes LFG should be allowed in groups of convenience.
I essentially agree with disposalist.
Pantheon should have enough ability to solo to increase the player base (many people love other aspects of the proposed game but do not want to group all of the time or even most of the time).
Pantheon should have enough ability to solo to keep subscribers happy on days when they are not in the mood to group, do not have enough free time to make grouping worth while, or expect too many interruptions to group.
Pantheon should NOT have so much ability to solo that it competes with group play on days when people do have the uninterrupted time to group. Not because of any moral preference for grouping - but if it is too hard to get a group because half the people are soloing, the most dedicated fans of the game will leave - and the game will die - and we will all have nothing.
I decline to suggest a percentage but if we can get half the experience per hour and half the loot per hour by soloing that is too high in this game. Too many of us will take that as the "easy" route and bypass the delay and effort of forming a group and waiting for everyone to get to where the group is going to do things. I am, of course, referring to groups later in the game for difficult group content not simply people in the same landscape area deciding to group up to make things easier and faster.
As to the point of not "wasting" time programming soloable content. I recommend, as always, a compromise between having "seperate but equal" content (quests and dungeons designed for solo play and others designed for group play) and having nothing that can be done solo until you have significantly out-leveled it.
Make all dungeons for groups. Balance landscape quests so there is something for everyone but with far lower rewards for the solo version. It will be close to zero developer time to toss in "kill 10 wolves" types of quests all over the place where a wolf can be soloed. Or find a missing kid. Or explore a cave where there is rumored to be treasure. Put large clusters of landscape mobs in slightly out of the way areas in densities where they can be handled solo. Or just have them BAF (bring a friend - call for help) in "group" areas and not in "solo" areas. Again - very little developer time. With the experience point and loot rewards a lot lower in the "soloable" areas. Partly for the reasons mentioned above but partly to protect the solo experience by making it unrewarding for groups to spend time there going through the mobs like poop through a goose. Maybe even program the mobs to give no xp and no loot to groups.
Jobeson said: This is pretty much why I made the post. Trying to find out what people are comfortable with to get to that result. I often feel my own views on the ideal are too impactful so I am curious what people think would be enough motivation to achieve that.
The most recent and detailed info we have about soloing comes from Joppa last April in the link I posted in my last comment. Some of what he said addresses your question, though without giving exact numbers:
Joppa:"In pantheon, you will have the option as you get higher lvl to seek out NPCs that are lower enough level for you to be able to solo if you choose and the higher level you get, the lower level these NPCs will need to be in comparison for you to do that safely. What that means is a significant reduction in the XP that you get from those NPCs. It means longer recovery time because of how many resources you're needing to expend per fight and it means that you're going to have to do these things in areas that are on the whole just safer. 9 times out of 10 you're going to be relegated to areas that are safer. We're talking about overland type areas."
But the relative value of soloing - the efficiency you're asking about - doesn't encompass some of the more fundamental differences in result of soloing. Differences that will be small for those who will solo some and group a lot. But will be large for those who mostly solo. It's part of why I don't have an opinion on any specific number for 'efficiency'.
Joppa: "Solo to max lvl will be possible, BUT: it's going to take a good, good while... You should always be able to find something low enough to solo but still gives xp. The problem is all of the systems - climbing, swimming, climates, fractures, etc. - and the itemization that needs to go along with those things. Some of these things you can only survive or overcome with gear. So you've got climbing skill for example. But there are some things that are only climbable if you have enough skill AND the right gear, to get to the very top. There are certain climates that are so intense and extreme that they're only survivable with enough acclimation that would come through not only glyphs but through itemization, buffs, etc. to fully protect yourself.
If you want to be able to access all that the game has to offer, not only at the end but all along the way, you've really got to be able to go to those places to seek out these things [referring to the items & gear necessary for advancement]... It is a group centric game and as such, the things that are most valuable, the things that are most treasured, and in many cases a lot of the things you will need to fully open up the game to you at its highest level and in its most advanced, most exotic locales and content, you're not going to be able to acquire those things as a purely solo experience."
This seems to be to be a good way to allow a fair amount of solo opportunities for players as "a side gig" as Disposalist calls it, while keeping a lid on having the game be overwhelmed by players who expect to solo their way thru 99% of it.
any group, even small poorly optimized groups should have a clear advantage over soloing in terms of efficiency.
Tehom addressed this in the May DRT: "groups should be able to take on enemies of higher levels than themselves and the larger the group, the higher level gap you can succeed against." So while a healer, tank and DPS (for example) might do better than 3 warriors, the warriors should accomplish more in a group than they would do in total as solitary adventurers.
In theory i want forced grouping. In practice I have seen dozens and dozens of games die, if they even remotely try forced grouping (or just make grouping too rewarding compared to soloing). I just never saw it actually work out. But I also don't want another solo MMO.
At this point I still hope Pantheon can find the happy medium, but I don't think that line is very wide and will be hard to hit. Actually I don't think they can make it happen (or any team really). Yet, I am still here and hoping. Pantheon certainly is the last MMO I will follow. If it fails, the genre is simply dead for me. And maybe it already is and I just expect too much from the team. :-(
Rattenmann said:In theory i want forced grouping. In practice I have seen dozens and dozens of games die, if they even remotely try forced grouping (or just make grouping too rewarding compared to soloing). I just never saw it actually work out.
Just curious, what games have tried "forced grouping" and how was it implemented? Did the games really fail b/c of it?
Rattenmann said:In theory i want forced grouping. In practice I have seen dozens and dozens of games die, if they even remotely try forced grouping (or just make grouping too rewarding compared to soloing). I just never saw it actually work out. But I also don't want another solo MMO.
At this point I still hope Pantheon can find the happy medium, but I don't think that line is very wide and will be hard to hit. Actually I don't think they can make it happen (or any team really). Yet, I am still here and hoping. Pantheon certainly is the last MMO I will follow. If it fails, the genre is simply dead for me. And maybe it already is and I just expect too much from the team. :-(
I have similar thoughts about giving up on the genre if this fails, but much more confidence that VR will pull this off.
They will definitely at least make a good game - better than other modern MMORPGs, for me, simply because of the tenets and vision. Whether it will fabulous, stupendous or merely great, I am not sure ;^)
In general life, I am far from being an optimist. Re. Pantheon, there is simply no point being a pessimist (and no good reason to be, really).
Re. Grouping, Everquest already pretty much hit that happy medium, so it can defintely be done. Most people grouped, though there was a fair amount of soloing, even though it was very restrictive for most. Yes, some classes it could be said were too good at soloing. Some were awful.
In this aspect and all the other sticky old school related ones I have faith that VR know the issues and have good ideas and good skills to resolve them, and that faith comes from what they say and do, not just from hope or wishful thinking.
Kamlor said:Just curious, what games have tried "forced grouping" and how was it implemented? Did the games really fail b/c of it?
Pretty much every MMO from Meridian to around 10 years after EQ came out, then "the big titles" after that.
All of them had varying degrees of group content. Some where heavy on grouping and had to gradually improve soloing shortly after release, due to **** storms about grouping being too important. Others already had more solo oriented gameplay, and people still bitched about some stuff needing a group. The vocal groups always chanted "more solo, less group!" and the patches all moved that way shortly thereafter. Sometimes it took a year or two. Sometimes it took a month or even just a week.
There really was no ONE game that I can make out to be "the bad one", but in reality they all suffered from the grouping --> solo shift to some degree over time. And usually player numbers improved with it. In the past years we have seen MMOs come out with JUST DPS roles for grouping. No healing, no tanking, no buffing, no CC, no nothing. All DPS. "Grouping" in those games usually means you get auto grouped the moment you get close to a world boss and may not even notice it, before the group gets auto disbanded once the boss is dead. You also don't need to interact, since everyone just is supposed to dodge for "healing" and DPS the thing ahead.
Think about it: Current gen MMOs are all about solo gameplay with social interactions for a reason. All those multi million dollar games don't get made like that because their research shows how great grouping is working for player numbers.
That being said:
The games I DID enjoy grouping can be pretty much nailed down to two: Everquest and World of Warcraft. While Everquest remained fun grouping for most of the expansions (I do play on progression Servers up to around Planes of Power mainly tho), World of Warcraft also went semi solo content. I mean you still group up for dailys and heroics, but apart from Mythic content, you don't have to really interact. Hell: Healers Pull and DPS, Tanks try to catch up and DPS just dismount every second pull.
It feels like a form of soloing really, even tho you are indeed grouped most of the time. I, like many others, want Everquest back. But reality is, that not even I can justify old school EQ nowadays. I want it, but I think it is just because I still can't let go. ;-)
Rattenmann said:Think about it: Current gen MMOs are all about solo gameplay with social interactions for a reason. All those multi million dollar games don't get made like that because their research shows how great grouping is working for player numbers.
Not to be argumentative, but I cannot agree with this statement. Social interactions in solo-focused games, particularly since WoW, have been mostly deficient to the end that it's incredible to come across another player and have a conversation with them. But there is a caveat. There's always been ample opportunity for socialization, partucularly if you're guilded and play with guildies (or group with friends). It's called chat (text or voice). It doesn't matter if the style of gameplay is solo-focused, predetermined and "on-the-rails" as Joppa put it). I think that's always been the case. In most every game. Guilds and groups of friends always allow for socialization regardless the MMO.
But for solo players and PUG groups especially, grouping does not necessarily encourage socialization. Rather it's the design of gameplay that prevents it for these two types of play-styles spefically. The vast majority of MMOs do not encourage gameplay where people need to group together for longer periods of time to meaningfully get through content. It's designed to be quick, less interactive, quickly guided rather than explored, and solo-focused. When a person PUGs through a 15 minute dungeon the PUG degroups as everyone then goes their own way. There are just too many varied goals and quick objectives to accomplish to maintain the group function for any duration. EQ was mostly unique in that fewer and similar objectives, player dependency, and yes a neccessary and longer commitment to the group, absolutely allowed and encouraged socialization in a way that most games do not allow.
Just my 2cp
Rattenmann said:Kamlor said:Just curious, what games have tried "forced grouping" and how was it implemented? Did the games really fail b/c of it?
Pretty much every MMO from Meridian to around 10 years after EQ came out, then "the big titles" after that.
All of them had varying degrees of group content. Some where heavy on grouping and had to gradually improve soloing shortly after release, due to **** storms about grouping being too important. Others already had more solo oriented gameplay, and people still bitched about some stuff needing a group. The vocal groups always chanted "more solo, less group!" and the patches all moved that way shortly thereafter. Sometimes it took a year or two. Sometimes it took a month or even just a week....
I agree with you're observations, but that wasn't really "forced grouping" and they certainly didn't *have to* improve soloing, no matter the vocal feedback. But they sure did, and that was then beginning of the end of what MMORPGs are, arguably, supposed to be.
It's perhaps a hard-to-express aspect of this issue, but I'll have a go...
Sports games are very popular. If a vocal group of players insisted MMORPGs should have more 'sports' in them because they like it and that's popular, should devs do it?
Now, soloing and grouping are two aspects of the same game, though. Not as different as 'sports' and 'role-playing'. Or are they?
Imagine you are in a pub on a cold dark night with ravenous wolves outside howling. You think "someone should remove those dangerous creatures for the good of the village".
Do you: -
A) Strap on you armor and head out to take them on.
B) Convince other villagers there, all scared, but maybe thinking the same thing, to strap on their armor and head out with you to take them on?
The answer is, of course, by almost any stretch of the imagination, even in a fantasy tale, B. To head out into dangerous wilds alone when you don't have to is just ridiculous.
So. Why, in a role-playing game, which, fantasy or not, isn't supposed to be ridiculous, would we expect someone alone to fair well? And by extension, a group of prepared adventurers in the same world can yawn their way through 'dangerous' encounters, not really having an 'adventure' at all unless facing something world shattering, which is equally ridiculous.
I'm not really making a point am I... Hmm... I'm trying to...
Even a fantasy world has to make a choice about 'realism', and a game (or anything really, but especially a game) cannot be all things to all people if it is to be any good.
Facing danger alone and facing it in a group are, actually, fundamentally different prospects.
If a fantasy world is to be about a lone 'hero' wading through monsters to save the lands, then, great! The game about that fantasy world can happily be solo. I would enjoy that game. I have enjoyed many such games. They tend to be more far-fetched because of all the 'heroics' a lone adventurer constantly has to perform, but that's fine if you suspend disbelief and get into the whole "I'm the hero of the world" thing.
If a fantasy world is to be about a group of adventurers banding together, exploring and maybe, one day, becoming heros, or just rich, or whatever happens, but mostly just facing dangers for their own sake and wandering the land, then, great! The game about that fantasy world should, obviously, be group focused. For reasons of basic realism and immersion, but also balance and challenge and the quality of the game, to head out on an adventure alone in such a world would and should be near suicidal.
Ok... Still not making a point really... I'm getting closer though...
When devs design a game, they have to make choices. Even someone design a sandbox virtual world has parameters to work with, but someone designing a massively multi-player role-playing game should probably focus on the multi-player and role-playing aspects to please their audience.
In the olden days, devs would design a game they thought was a good and fun idea! They would then make that game, tell people about it, and those that liked the idea played it, and if it was well executed, they would become fans and keep playing.
In recent years, devs have more often been owned by corporations with marketing departments, accountants and share holders. Devs design a game that the corporation, in consultation with marketing, accounts, focus groups, etc, think will be popular and profitable. The make that game, during which they have hyped it up in the media - not necessarily telling people about the actualy gameplay at all - and those that were even vaguely interested, because they are bored with all the other homogenous average stuff they play - played the early access version. Being a large number of random people they, as a group, hated/loved all/some aspects of the game, but generally only the ones disliking certain aspects a lot gave feedback, the others just waited for the game, that they liked, to come out. The game ends up being nothing like any genre, really, since it was designed to please everyone. It ends up not being good, because you *can't* please everyone. It ends up not even being like the early access game that some were looking forward to, because it was changed due to loud complaints of a subset of players.
I'm exaggerating each aspect, perhaps, but some or all of those things do tend to happen these days and it is not to the benefit of the players, any game genre, or the industry.
Will there ever be a point...
When a developer has a clear vision with firm tenets and resolves to make a game based on them, that is fantastic. It always used to be done that way, but not formalised. It is great to have that formalised these days, though, because it tells potential players that it will not be developed the way of other 'modern games'.
VR has a clear vision and firm tenets. It may not please *all* potential players, but keeping in mind you *can't* do that - and that that has been a negative thing in the past - it's actually a good thing. It will please backers, because they only signed up to *be* backers because of (or at least knowing) the vision and tenets.
Not only is Pantheon an 'old school' game in many ways, it is an 'old school' development in many ways. Actual enthusiasts making a game they want to play. A team with artistic control and integrity, inspired by what they know is good, not driven by what might become popular. Knowing lasting, real popularity comes from a quality product, not following trends.
*cough* Erm. The point?
It's nuanced, hence all this waffle, but basically, there's a saying which is true and appropriate: -
You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time.
The industry, and the MMORPG genre, has moved to pleasing all (the mass market at least) of the people, some of the time. Companies are quite happy to garner big numbers for a short time and then do it again and again. Low quality. High volume. Profit.
Those not represented by "the mass market" are desperate for the industry, and the MMORPG genre, to make games that please some of the people (old school gamers and those that don't know they are old school gamers but would be given a chance to experience that quality) all of the time (and for a long time). Companies are less happy to work harder producing products that last longer, because they are lazy and greedy and, even though it would be profitable, they prefer to make short term, easy money and move on.
For the sake of the gods, Dispo, you still haven't really made the solo/group point!
Here it is: It doesn't matter how popular soloing is, if you want to make the best group experience you can, soloing cannot be anywhere near as viable. Soloing and grouping are almost opposites in all the ways that matter to the quality of the fundamentals of main gameplay loop of the MMORPG genre. If a game prioritises soloing, that doesn't make it a bad 'game', but it does make it bad for the group gameplay and, dare I say it, a 'bad' MMORPG, almost by definition.
There. I said it. Sorry, not sorry. Once more, with feeling: There's nothing wrong with soloable games, but if you want a group-focused game - and lots of people clearly do - then you can't have it be 'equally' soloable.
Phew! That was a long one!
That's what she said.
Rattenmann said:Think about it: Current gen MMOs are all about solo gameplay with social interactions for a reason. All those multi million dollar games don't get made like that because their research shows how great grouping is working for player numbers.
I don't disagree (with what you've said), but oh my, I also do disagree (with what you imply).
For one thing, corporate research driven products are often absolute crap. Things that are popular are also often absolute crap. Let's not encourage companies to make crap or consumers to buy it.
And for another, if soloable games get 10 or 100 times the players, that is immaterial if group games get 'enough'.
Not all products need to achieve mass market appeal to be successful. Not all companies have to be world-wide conglomerates to be successful.
Success means having a product your customers love. Success means paying employees well enough to have a good life. Success means employees are proud of their work and happy doing it.
None of that requires a multi-million dollar game or even aiming for that, in fact, often aiming for that will cause failure.
As I said, I don't disagree with what you've said and don't mean to criticise you, but the underlying implication - that group-focus is a bad idea because it's not as popular as solo-focus - I disagree with. A lot.
The breadth of our customer base not just its depth will dictate whether Pantheon succeeds or fails economically. Which is a whole lot more important than whether it succeeds artistically since a shut-down game does none of us any good.
Most important is how many players we get that are attracted by the game as a whole not just one feature.
Often we pick one area that is most important to us and assume, consciously or subconsciously, that someone that feels otherwise is not a "true" Pantheon fan. Yet I am not prepared to make any one design feature the capstone of the game. If someone loves the slow pace, death penalty, and world/race/class design are they less of a true fan if they hate, detest, abhor, abominate and despise grouping? If someone refuses to ever solo and loves the world/race/class design but greatly prefers instant travel and faster quest-based leveling are they more of a true believer than that solo player?
My answer is no - and no. The core of our support is people that love some features, dislike others, but feel on balance that Pantheon is a lot better than the competition despite the areas that they are unhappy with. People that love every single major feature are too scarce a resource to keep us going.