Jason said:
I would hate to be essentially paralyzed from doing anything without the help of a group. At the same time I would hate to have content so trivial that a group or a raid is never needed. I am confident Brad and team with come up with the perfect balance ;)
I hope you are right. I have always been a pessimist but in this I really want to hope he will. I want to find a great mmo again, because if this isn't it I doubt I will find one for a long, long time.
Sevens said:
I strongly believe this game should be based 100% on the group dynamic...if players are able to figure out ways to solo (emergent gameplay) I am fine with that, but the last thing I want is another solofest race to the end game without ever having to interact with anyone at all in the game. Now before you get the pitch forks and torches I understand this is NOT what you are asking for, I have just seen it to many time a game gets started on a slippery slope and you wind up with....Well with EQ in its present form.
I think we all are fed up with the power levelling to max (have grouped with people who bought fully capped characters ...and didn't know the first thing about how to run their danged chosen character.) People like that are liabilities to ANY group wanting to achieve goals.
BUT...let's not be so rigid you make the game dull, tedious....unfun. Can't we temper this so that yes, solo is possible but ...you are MUCH better off adventuring in a group.
I am the type that hates being joined at the hip at level one with a bunch of newbies that don't know what they are doing.
If its a new class or race I am learning, for a few levels I prefer to gain my coppers for my spells and some decent newbie armor without having to share those few coppers with everyone else. Till about level 5 or 6 anyway.
That's just an example...as for rigidity, being unbending about how the game should be ...be careful what you wish for. :) hehe
Yokoshima said:
Sevens said:
I strongly believe this game should be based 100% on the group dynamic...if players are able to figure out ways to solo (emergent gameplay) I am fine with that, but the last thing I want is another solofest race to the end game without ever having to interact with anyone at all in the game. Now before you get the pitch forks and torches I understand this is NOT what you are asking for, I have just seen it to many time a game gets started on a slippery slope and you wind up with....Well with EQ in its present form.
Save the use of the slippery slope fallacy I agree with you. A social mmo/super casual game would be a travesty. But good MMOs don't come along often. Imo, we get one every 3-5 years. That is why to me it is worth the effort. This is too important. If they can't pull this off (meaningful solo play) well this game will be a fraction of what it could be. If some classes can solo to endgame with ease while the other say 10 get half xp on average I can live with that. No skin off my back so to speak if a few classes can abuse it. This game is far from finished, I am sure that the devs have enough time to alpha and beta test to make sure that does not happen. In other words, I feel the risk is worth the reward.
Still pre-alpha we have lots of time to hash things out and project ideas, far as I know :)
CanadinaXegony said:
Sevens said:
I strongly believe this game should be based 100% on the group dynamic...if players are able to figure out ways to solo (emergent gameplay) I am fine with that, but the last thing I want is another solofest race to the end game without ever having to interact with anyone at all in the game. Now before you get the pitch forks and torches I understand this is NOT what you are asking for, I have just seen it to many time a game gets started on a slippery slope and you wind up with....Well with EQ in its present form.
I think we all are fed up with the power levelling to max (have grouped with people who bought fully capped characters ...and didn't know the first thing about how to run their danged chosen character.) People like that are liabilities to ANY group wanting to achieve goals.
BUT...let's not be so rigid you make the game dull, tedious....unfun. Can't we temper this so that yes, solo is possible but ...you are MUCH better off adventuring in a group.
I am the type that hates being joined at the hip at level one with a bunch of newbies that don't know what they are doing.
If its a new class or race I am learning, for a few levels I prefer to gain my coppers for my spells and some decent newbie armor without having to share those few coppers with everyone else. Till about level 5 or 6 anyway.
That's just an example...as for rigidity, being unbending about how the game should be ...be careful what you wish for. :) hehe
I agree Cana that above all the game should be fun, if its not, why play?
My whole stance is every single modern MMO i have played is nothing but a solo fest to max level (EQ2, Rift, GW2) That is not what I am looking for...I do understand the need for downtime to just chill and nosh on a few mobs because you dont have much time to go out hunting...My hopes are that there will be other things to do solo besides just hunting....Tradeskills, diplomacy (have heard so much about it from VG players) selling wares in the bazaar (as im being lead to believe it wont be an automated system but more and EC tunnel type deal. I would love to see the learning of languages be a huge undertaking that will require vast amounts of study time, that is what I am hoping for in "solo content"...hunting (especially in a dungeon) should be designed around a group. Take EQ for example...it was designed around a group and yet Mages, Necros, Druids and others could solo very well. It was never designed that way but that is what the players did with the tools they were given, that is my hopes for Pantheon...I dont want a rigid "no group no play" but I will not ever play another solo to 90 snorefest. OH yeah also your beloved wizzys were masters of quad kiting! lol
This is going to sound odd (maybe).
I'm not against solo play - BUT - I think solo play and group play should have completely different motivational factors.
Picture a game world where grouping may be the most efficient (if you do it well) way to level... but also the path to the greatest setbacks. A true representation of the "high risk / high reward" model. Note that there is also a difference between "efficient" and "fast." I don't want to level fast in Pantheon, PERIOD. In fact, I want to level at a glacially slow pace that makes me enjoy chunks of the world for extended periods of time.... but still, more efficient.
NOW - say some of the most epic quest lines in the entire game require you to do a lot of challenging, complex, SOLO things. Quests that will yield rare things you want, and also (perhaps) some things players might consider things they need (again, note there is a difference between WANT and NEED) - but that as far as leveling goes... you can hang it up solo. Leveling would NOT be a motivation for solo.
I think you could mix some ideas that were never fully fleshed out from Vanguard for example in this regard... a Cleric who has an epic quest line that involves slaying some undead king that, when you do, relinquishes the knowledge you need to cast some new spell... Working on getting the people of some town to trust you (diplomacy) that gives you access to some area of the world (even a group area).
The idea is not fleshed out in my mind right now - but the high level concept is what you see above... allow for solo (with perhaps everyone able to solo, but not solo everything equally - clerics good against undead, rangers good against animals, etc...) - but don't make the motivation to solo the same as the motivation to group.
Just my 2 coppers.
This might sound a bit odd but *sometimes* I solo just because I want *more* of a challenge. There have been times I was bored of how easy stuff in group was that we were fighting and while certainly we could have gone to areas that were more challenging for our group but still sometimes I like to try and push the limits of what I can do solo. Getting a nasty pull and keeping multiple targets mezzed or otherwise occupied while u move around trying to stay out of harms way while burning things down the best you can be a fun challenge. On my cleric or disc I sometimes would have multiple mobs beating me up while I killed them one at a time while I barely held on for dear life. I remember soloing old sebilis on my beastlord when I was low enough level for it to be a real challenge and having multiple froggies gang up on you can be an adrenaline rush. Yes I really *do* prefer grouping, and love to have group challenges that test the limits of my abilities, but sometimes it really is fun to test the limits of what you can do alone.
Wandidar said:
This is going to sound odd (maybe).
I'm not against solo play - BUT - I think solo play and group play should have completely different motivational factors.
Picture a game world where grouping may be the most efficient (if you do it well) way to level... but also the path to the greatest setbacks. A true representation of the "high risk / high reward" model. Note that there is also a difference between "efficient" and "fast." I don't want to level fast in Pantheon, PERIOD. In fact, I want to level at a glacially slow pace that makes me enjoy chunks of the world for extended periods of time.... but still, more efficient.
I couldn't agree more. Its the journey not the destination as it were.
NOW - say some of the most epic quest lines in the entire game require you to do a lot of challenging, complex, SOLO things. Quests that will yield rare things you want, and also (perhaps) some things players might consider things they need (again, note there is a difference between WANT and NEED) - but that as far as leveling goes... you can hang it up solo. Leveling would NOT be a motivation for solo.
I actually kind of like that idea. Then again I love embarking on epic quests that take me days to finish. I do not like the idea of days truing to weeks just because I have to wait for a party so much. Though imo certain steps should require a group.
I think you could mix some ideas that were never fully fleshed out from Vanguard for example in this regard... a Cleric who has an epic quest line that involves slaying some undead king that, when you do, relinquishes the knowledge you need to cast some new spell... Working on getting the people of some town to trust you (diplomacy) that gives you access to some area of the world (even a group area).
The idea is not fleshed out in my mind right now - but the high level concept is what you see above... allow for solo (with perhaps everyone able to solo, but not solo everything equally - clerics good against undead, rangers good against animals, etc...) - but don't make the motivation to solo the same as the motivation to group.
Just my 2 coppers.
Originally I submitted that there would be no reason to solo, at least from a character's point of view (since it would yield less xp AND loot) but this idea could be interesting if done well.
Regarding the difficulty on soloing a mob and attempting to solo one just out of boredom/to see if I could - I would agree with that and I did enjoy it. I would also argue that mindset leans more toward Bloodbeards, Sevens, and I's opinions.
For example... I often attempted to solo a mob in EQ for the sheer thrill that I soloed something that was deemed to be un-soloable or very difficult to solo. I often learned different tactics/used all my spell set/had to be extremely smart with a spell set in order to solo the mob. Basically, maximizing the classes's skillset that would often translate over into group content. In EQ, you could easily see the skilled versus the unskilled players, even without DPS Meters or any other parsing data just by the spells cast, root parking, crowd control, healing, rebuffing before fading, etc. many of those skills which could be honed by soloing "un-soloable content"
With that said, I still stick to my original thoughts though that I only achieved that thrill in EQ because I soloed something designed for group content. I realize that other MMOs had soloable group content as well, but since there were soloable mobs/quests etc. already - the thrill of soloing more difficult mobs lost its appeal to me as it was easier to just grind 5 little mobs than 1 big one.
As far as incentivizing group content, but still allowing for adequate soloing exp - I would argue that it won't work. People will always choose the path of least resistance even if it's slower. It is easier to solo - being able to log off at will, keep the loot, afk when you want to, go where you need/want to go, be anonymous/unknown. It is much harder to join the community, have a sever reputation, and be reliant on others schedules, needs, loot desires, skillsets / abilities etc.
Would classes still group - sure, but it will be mainly to meet their own selfish desires - completing quests, obtaining gear from a named mob, etc. Would there be guilds, groups, etc. - sure, but I would argue they would be the minority.
For Devil's Advocate sake on my part... let's say you're right and basically creating exp potions/bonuses to incentivize grouping. If you gave a 25% bonus to exp for grouped content (rather than splitting the exp 6 ways - original EQ I believe you received 20% of the total mob exp for a full group) you would level at lightning speed. So, in original EQ terms, you would be receiving 105% more exp per kill than you would have for a full group. Not only would you kill mobs much quicker, but you would be given 25% more exp per mob. Most players would have been 50 in a month and even if not max level - you would be outleveling current content/dungeons.
I realize I don't budge on my belief system on designing solo content and I haven't since the Kickstarter. I also realize it appears stubborn/selfish. However, I firmly believe that if Pantheon is designed with solo content then the majority will solo the majority of the time - myself included.
Also, again, neither opinion is right/wrong and I would do much better with my current responsibilities with a designed soloable game - but it's not the game I want to play (there's plenty currently to choose from).
*Again refer to my original response in this thread - that is much different than saying there should be no soloing.
Raidan said:
As far as incentivizing group content, but still allowing for adequate soloing exp - I would argue that it won't work. People will always choose the path of least resistance even if it's slower.
I agree that people will choose the easy route, but saying "LFG" or ticking a box is hardly difficult. And again, the rewards are immense, and people are often too impatient and lazy to solo.
It is easier to solo - being able to log off at will, keep the loot, afk when you want to, go where you need/want to go, be a part of a community, gain a server reputation etc. It is much harder to join the community and be reliant on others schedules, needs, loot desires, skillsets / abilities etc.
As far as keep the loot, when you solo you do keep all of it. But 100% of trash loot is often worse than 20% of good/great loot. It is mostly easier to solo (not necessarily safer) but most people I have talked to said it is mind numbingly boring. Its one of the chief reasons WoW lets to level a toon to 90 for free. People don't have the patience to wait even the week or whatever it takes in WoW before they can group.
Would classes still group - sure, but it will be mainly to meet their own selfish desires - completing quests, obtaining gear from a named mob, etc. Would there be guilds, groups, etc. - sure, but I would argue they would be the minority.
Everything is a selfish desire. From wanting loot/xp/etc. to wanting to have some sort sense comradery. Being selfish is not inherently bad, nor is it good. It simply is. I doubt groups or guild would be scarce. Assuming you can't hit max level in the blink of on eye that is. I have yet to play any MMO where by the time it was needed/even remotely beneficial almost everyone wasn't in a guild of some sort. Take FF14:ARR. You could solo to max level in a few weeks. But if you were a tank (my preferred class) and queued up for any dungeon you would be surprised if you had to wait even one minute to get a group. It was overflowing with people wanting to do this or that. Why? Better xp and loot. Same with "event" parties. Each zone would have an event that would require a group to get good xp. They filled up so fast there would often have to be two raid groups. Over 80% of the players were in one group or another. I understand your worries, but in my experience they are groundless. If you have the time you can see for yourself. FF14:ARR is still pretty healthy and is a good example of this.
For Devil's Advocate sake on my part... let's say you're right and basically creating exp potions/bonuses to incentivize grouping. If you gave a 25% bonus to exp for grouped content (rather than splitting the exp 6 ways - original EQ I believe you received 20% of the total mob exp for a full group) you would level at lightning speed. So, in original EQ terms, you would be receiving 105% more exp per kill than you would have for a full group. Not only would you kill mobs much quicker, but you would be given 25% more exp per mob. Most players would have been 50 in a month and even if not max level - you would be outleveling current content/dungeons.
When I said up to twice as much xp that was factoring more xp/mob, kill speed, deaths/safety, etc. Also I was saying that full group XP was the baseline, or just above, that all other content would be judged. So say in a full group it takes 80 days to hit max level. Solo it would take up to 160 days, rather than solo taking 80 days and grouping taking 30-40 days. Now I realize that is a bit harsh for solo players but that is only a suggestion.
I'm with Bloodbeard here, I realize I don't budge on my belief system on designing solo content and I haven't since the Kickstarter. I also realize it appears stubborn/selfish. However, I firmly believe that if Pantheon is designed with solo content then the majority will solo the majority of the time - myself included.
If that is your belief I can respect that. I can understand that some people can not be swayed by words/statistics/etc. They have to experience it themselves, first hand. Its a hard concept for me to grasp but I can abide by it from time to time at least.
Also, again, neither opinion is right/wrong and I would do much better with my current responsibilities with a designed soloable game - but it's not the game I want to play (there's plenty currently to choose from).
"there's plenty currently to choose from" None that I enjoy. The "RP" aspect is all but removed. Most are just metagame grindfests. No games out there, at least none recent, offer any real degree of immersion and meaningful, sustained gameplay. At least in my humble opinion.
*Again refer to my original response in this thread - that is much different than saying there should be no soloing.
Duly noted and understood.
Yokoshima said:
People who would group say 20% of the time and solo 80% of the time now group 0% of the time because they simpley left.
This. Let soloing be hard, but let it be there. Then people who normally solo would play this game and see all the rewarding things grouping gives and would start to group. That would then open up more people to group with and this would mean less time sitting around waiting to actually play the game. Plus, if you had solo play, in those times where I could not find a group I'd have something to do. I don't want to waste my day looking at the main town when I could be out and about exploring the awesomeness that this game brings. Plus, sometimes I want to wander the wilds and see the beauty of another realm. You simply can't do this in a group. I have tried before. The group members then say to hurry up and that I'm wasting their day all b/c there was a tree on a mountain that had a cool color that appealed to me. You know what happened then? I was kicked from the group stuck on a mountain staring at the world around me when an enemy that I can't take on comes up and kills me. If you cut solo play, you reduce that vast open world to a few paths that everyone follows to get to the wizard. Sure, you meet some interesting people on that one road, but imagine all the people you could meet if you made your own path. Well, with solo play, you won't have to imagine it. You'll be able to see it with your own eyes. Then, after you are done gawking at the wonders around you, you can join a group and venture on, gathering better loot and opening up more great lands.
So, yeah. The ability to solo play and decently big incentives to group brings in more people to play with and makes that big world explorable. Overall, that makes the game last longer and makes the whole experience more enjoyable. And isn't that what this game is striving for?
I don't know..ability to solo and succeed should make a good player out of you, you're able to think on the fly and figure out how to fight mobs, and how to stay alive. Which in the long run, would make you an asset in the group.
I have always thought it takes a little of both...solo and group to make a good team player.
Grouping, chatting, helping each other out, makes for community. I think I am more concerned about the creation of a good community, which will make the gaming experience last for years instead of a month or two. :)
Zoeii said:
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.
Aradune said:
Zoeii said:
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.
That is comforting to know. This was how EQ and VG both handled it and with a similar type of balance like you described in the Kickstarter, would suit Pantheon very well in my opinion.
Plus we always have beta to iron out the bugs and balance issues which is something everyone posting here can help with and provide feedback on ;)
Aradune said:
Zoeii said:
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.
Thanks for replying! Happy to know the devs (and even the dev. First for me.) here actually pay attention to the forums. The FAQ answer seems a bit subjective. I understand it has to, but I would like to have something clarified if possible:
Will it be like EQ1 where if you wanted to solo even semi-efficiently you would be forced to be some type of mage (necro, enchanter, etc.)?
And if you could define a rough example of "significantly" when you say significantly more efficient? I.E. 12 times xp over time on average, not needing to heal to full after every fight as say a warrior, etc.
Aradune said:
Zoeii said:
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.
Well, there is the answer, sort of. :) I will assume by this statement (and other dev/brad posts) there will be specifically designed solo content in Pantheon. It will not be like early EQ, where much of the soloing was emergent game play. I'm guessing it will be somewhere along the lines of VG. Now, I will wait and see how far down the slope the game slides.
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:
Aradune said:
Zoeii said:
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.
Well, there is the answer, sort of. :) I will assume by this statement (and other dev/brad posts) there will be specifically designed solo content in Pantheon. It will not be like early EQ, where much of the soloing was emergent game play. I'm guessing it will be somewhere along the lines of VG. Now, I will wait and see how far down the slope the game slides.
I hope so. I really enjoyed VG (well at first. Now it's a bet meh. I miss the starting cities for example.) I spent the majority of my time grouping, but it was fun to just explore, talk to NPCs, read lore, etc. all the while killing this or that on my way. A nice murderous stroll in the park really.
Once again, let's look at the "tale of two EQ1s" for some insight.
In old EQ1:
1) necros, mages, druids and wizards could reasonably solo, but were almost totally limited to doing so outdoors with kite space and lack of adds/social aggro.
2) rogues, warriors and clerics were essentially group only, now and forever classes.
3) Everyone else was could solo maybe, if you found the right mobs/camp/circumstances/etc.
But everyone, yes even my beloved necromancers, got exp faster in groups, and indoor exp/loot was only possible in groups with all the roles covered.
In new EQ1:
1) Everyone can solo, and the difference is now that you use mercs. If you pay your $15 per month, you get journeyman mercs (JMercs) and if you stay F2P, you get apprentice mercs (like a 1/3rd of a jmerc in power). You pay them every 15 minutes, and they take half the XP, same as if you duo'd with a player. But you can solo. Once again, warriors, rogues and clerics "molo" the slowest, while the old solo classes molo the fastest.
And once again, you get experience faster in groups of real people, and indoor exp/loot pretty much requires all the roles covered, and there are no slow/haste/CC/DS mercs. You get heals, you get tank, or you get DPS. Indoor EQ has not changed. YOu don't hadle adds, they will smoke you.
That emerged over 15 years, but you still benefit MASSIVELY from grouping with real people, even in the more solo (molo) friendly world of EQ1 in 2015. And every xpac puts grouping at an even higher premium because unlike WoW, the folks at EQ still prefer to punish you for buying new content, because it's really hard without maxing out. Current grind group is working level 95-98 mobs, and with a 100 Warrior decked out with sick armor and like 12k AA, you have to have all the roles covered or the current level 95 mob will chew down a max gear/AA 100 warrior in a matter of seconds. And I am not talking raid mob...but random, outdoor wanderer mob. You could molo it with a J5 tank merc...and 6 months from now, after you get 20% of a level that way...you'll be motivated to /lfg. That's in "kinder, gentler" EQ1.
Yes, you can solo (molo), but if you want to actually move the bar, get gear, see the game, etc...bring 5 friends, make sure they are really good at EQ, have a rezzer on standby, hope for the best.
No reason Pantheon cannot have the same kind of limited solo ability for everyone, just make it slower and less capable of pulling off big kills and good gear than an actual group. And when I say make it slower than grouping, I mean like maybe 20% as fast, if that. Exponential curve, exponential difficulty, and grouping will end up taking care of itself. Just make it so a full group of six gives the fastest possible xp per kill rate. People will group, or they'll make an alt every time they get to that break point where grouping is now pretty much mandatory. Either way, they'll play.
But make a game where everyone can solo efficiently vs even con mobs from 1 to max in under 90 days...and you just made a WoW clone in a marketplace where Blizzard's behemoth chews up clones and spits them out.
Venjenz said:
...
But make a game where everyone can solo efficiently vs even con mobs from 1 to max in under 90 days...and you just made a WoW clone in a marketplace where Blizzard's behemoth chews up clones and spits them out.
Meaty post, thanks.
I do personally think soloing should be a bit better than EQ1. One thing I forgot to say was I hated feeling like a weak PoS because every freaking MOB was better then me. Hell even I would "wipe the floor with me" when I conned myself. If every MoB is a god then things can get boring, though for the most part it was handled well.
Not really a big deal (as in largely irreverent to the core of Venhenz's post), but in WoW it takes about a month solo to max, or a few days being PLed. No where near 90 days. Most modern MMOs take at the very most a month with semi-regular play if you solo. And only a week or two if you group.
I would like to see it take 120-150 days to hit max level solo (luck and class being factored in here, from worst to best averages) with regular play (say 10 hours each day on the weekend/day(s) off, 3-5 hours on weekdays) and about half that with constant full party grouping for the same amount of time played each week. That would mean each class, just leveling and playing pretty regularly would take at best (and pretty unrealistically) two months and at worst 5 months. If you don't devote pretty much to all your free time to it and have a job you could be looking at a year easy just to get one character up to max level. Even if you had no job, played all day with perfect readily available groups it, would still be slower than most modern MMOs. I wouldn't call that a WoW clone, which is good because I hate WoW so much I can't even begin to describe it.
EDIT:
When I say "max" I mean initial max level, not a constant thing. Say the initial max level is 50. If it took 150 days worst case (I.E. class/luck/etc.) to hit 50, then it would take something like 400 to reach 90. Which is kinda insane...
CanadinaXegony said:
I don't know..ability to solo and succeed should make a good player out of you, you're able to think on the fly and figure out how to fight mobs, and how to stay alive.
Missed this post somehow. Anyway I agree. Its the main reason I solo. I can try out different tactics and play styles in an attempt to better myself. I can't do that in a group. I have to go with what works, because screwing things up because I wanted to experiment is not an option imo.
Yokoshima said:
CanadinaXegony said:
I don't know..ability to solo and succeed should make a good player out of you, you're able to think on the fly and figure out how to fight mobs, and how to stay alive.
Missed this post somehow. Anyway I agree. Its the main reason I solo. I can try out different tactics and play styles in an attempt to better myself. I can't do that in a group. I have to go with what works, because screwing things up because I wanted to experiment is not an option imo.
I agree with what Cana said too :)
Definitely should be some intended, rewarding solo play. Not every session do we have the luck or time to wait for groups, or to be able to get what we want done when it relies on others in our allotted play time.
This game was meant to fulfill the old group niche EQ and games of its time had (at least if direction is same from a year ago). Unfortunately things have changed, with more resources and tools at our disposal than before. The environment some of us grew up in playing EQ late 90's can never be reproduced sadly.
We cannot dismiss and ignore soloing outright, despite the strong desires for 'all grouping/raiding/partying'. Solo play will happen. If not literally solo, a mutliboxed group.
Before I start, who is in charge of P:Rof's website/forums? (I am finding it difficult to follow discussion because of the fractured nature of POLLS/THINK TANK/FORUMS.) Anyone else?
On-Topic: (here is what I put in the comments section of the Poll)
I don't think you have encompassed everything in Poll.
Understand, anything in EQ was solo'able, if you were single-handedly, powerful enough to do it. In early EQ you could see a group of five lvl-26s fighting Spectres, while a single lvl 42 Wizard (with just enough mana) able to solo one. Soloing was an artform and could be done by anyone. You just had to chose the right canvas for your skills.
The mere fact that no mob was a sure thing, made the game challenging and fresh. Two resist in a row at lvl 50..? ... could can have you running from a bloodgill 11 levels lower than you... you just didn't run threw territory in EQ unimpeded, like you do in today's game. ie: Don't stop, you have 30 mobs on you (& you should)... you just ran threw a den of lvl 30 Goblins... goblin train. There just shouldn't be/have have a zone wall so close, that you can exploit your own carelessness/stupidity/cunning... because of a design flaw, otherwise you'd have to solo 30 goblins..
Again, this perception that there was "solo content" in EverQuest is a misnomer, certain things were only solo'able by certain classes, who had the right gear, &/or skillset. Each encounter was specific to the player/mob & potential difference of both.
Nothing was solo'able, until you tried.