Arthilios said:
Sevens said:
Wandidar said:
Something else to point out that you alluded to Hieromonk... It wasn't just "this class can solo, that class cannot" - or perhaps it wasn't even that at all. I knew a cleric that solo'd for example - and most folks would not have considered a cleric a "solo" class.
No - it was quite often the person playing the class that mattered more than the class itself.
I don't think I was a "great" ranger - but I do think I was an "above average" ranger. I can't tell you, for instance, how many times a different ranger would send me a tell and ask "how did you do that?" in a group. Speaking to the value of soloing in EQ, some times, many times, the things I did in a group were things I figured out all on my own - out in the wilds of EQ.
Not the least of which was remaining calm when situations looked like they were about to become extremely crappy.
I think the greatest compliment I ever got from EQ - I had been invited to play with a group of folks who I respected greatly as players - and I was pulling (it was a dungeon flagged as "outdoors") - well, things were going excellently - and - despite my internal respawn timer tickling the back of my mind, I decided to go get just one more before waiting for a repop.
Sure enough - I'm off on the pull, and I see in group "we're going to get adds - we have respawns" - Around the corner I come with a mob, snare it, harmony it, run forward enough to be out of range of everything - harmony everything in sight, thread the mob through everything avoiding other respawns and staying just inside the path I needed to through the mobs - to my group. SINGLE pull...
Just as I'm getting the mob to the group - I see in group chat - from, again, a very good player: "Wow, I never knew rangers could do that"
The ability to do that sort of stuff was learned solo - but let me shine in groups... and again, it's not that EQ had "solo content" - it's that, in being bold enough to venture forth and learn - you COULD solo.
This is what Im meaning when I talk about solo not being designed into the game but coming about as emergent game play.
You said "This is what Im meaning when I talk about solo not being designed into the game but coming about as emergent game play." We got what you meant by emergent game play before you even posted this post, so why even make this post at all? Again, you add a post with no beneficial info. Why?
If you had read all my posts.....
I am 100% against solo content being designed into the game
I am 100% in favor of solo play coming about as emergent gameplay
there is no contridiction in my post
You said "This is what Im meaning when I talk about solo not being designed into the game but coming about as emergent game play." We got what you meant by emergent game play before you even posted this post, so why even make this post at all? Again, you add a post with no beneficial info. Why?
Because I can, I now have to explain to you why I make post?
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:
Soloing in EQ was emergent game play as Sevens posted I think, and that is the way it should be in Pantheon. Designing solo game play into an MMO IS detrimental to group-play. It's just the way it is and I really don't believe that fact can be debated (unless you have a million or more folks playing after release). If you want a group centric MMO, you must force people to group, not make it a choice. Will some players figure out how to solo some content? Yes. Those folks are the true soloers and they will find a way. But, it will be a difficult path and so the majority will still look for groups.
If the game is designed for some soloing, more people will solo (especially if it is easy to converse with others in open chats) thus lowering the number of people looking for a group, thus pushing more folks to soloing, thus lowering the number of people looking for a group etc... This is just one part of the slippery slope.
There are excellent posts/thoughts above and this post is only my opinion.
if the game was designed for the solo player to achieve all the same things as the group/raid player i would agree with this. but the fact is that there are reasons for soloing to be allowed, such as gathering crafting mats. if you were in a group, and not a crafter or gatherer and the healer kept stopping the group after each kill so he could skin the mob most groups would eventually get mad and boot him. yes we know crafting will not be in at launch, but that isnt to say we cant start planning for it by leaving space in other systems for it.
another thing. players look for the fastest say to max level most times, mainly because its possible to do inside of a few days. Pantheon is talking about a return to the days of taking a year to hit max level. now on weekdays someone like myself can play for an hour or two at most, back in eq that is just enough time to find a group and get to it. if grouping was the only way to level, not just the most efficient, i would quit since the only time i could do anything is on the weekends when i have 6+ hours to play in a sitting. this isnt saying that if there is a way to solo that is all i would do, i expect soloing to be less efficient than grouping. but being able to get some progress is better than not getting any progress.
also there is the loot dynamic. if you put all decent /wearable loot in group content, you are still forcing people to group. At least to the point of grouping enough to get gear capable of allowing you to kill stuff in the next zone.
Why shouldn't there be solo content AND group content. You want to go and advance your skills by killing group focused enemies? Then do it . They would still be there for you to kill. You would still be able to show all other players that you did the improbable. There are only a few things that would happen (from what I can see)if you made this game with solo content, 2-3 man content AND group content.
1.) You open the door to players that want to mostly solo.
This gives the game a bigger revenue, which in turn leads to more content. That some of that content would be for group players. So now YOU have more game to play b/c the company has more money to play with. Then, these solo-ers see the great benefits to grouping and most of them then group to reap the great rewards. This affects YOU b/c there are more people to play with, more friends to gain and more people to show what a good game is.
I've talked to my co-workers, random people on the bus and people at the mall. Those who play games and like to solo have said that, if given the proper incentive, they would group in most video games.
2.) You give players something else to do when there isn't anyone free to play with.
Sure, I could craft or talk while waiting for a group, which I would still do from time to time. I like to be active in the community. I don't mind waiting for a party to open up by waiting and enjoying the conversation. But there are times at night where the server was dead and I was waiting for someone when there was (pretty much) no one around. Then there is the fact that there is only so much waiting around that I can take. I've had those times where I would be waiting for hours just to group only to find that my time was up and I had to go to work or bed. So the next day, I'd come back and repeat. Then on the times I'd find a group, some of the time I'd only get to play for an hour or so and I'd have to log off. Now those people that I was playing with would have to head back and wait some more for a crucial member to join up. Having solo content, 2-3 man content AND full group content ensures that you would always be able to do something.
3.) You give different stages of challenge for people to hone their skills with.
Have you ever grouped with a person that did not know their role? Your team SUFFERED immeasurably b/c Dingus Khan didn't know how to tank. So you kick out Dingus and wait for a new tank. Now you have to spend more of your time waiting b/c Dingus wasn't properly skilled. Well, where will Dingus gain the skills needed if there isn't an area to practice? Sure, he could go to a lower leveled area and work there, but what if the enemies have different tactics/skills/overall power than the ones his level. It would be like playing Checkers to master Chess.
4.) I've said it before, but I'll mention it again. Soloing for exploration's sake.
to quote me...
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...
So, yeah, pretty much that.
So why take away the option to have solo content, 2-3 man content AND group content? This is what this whole debate looks like to me.
Solo content people: "ADD solo content to the game and keep the group content."
Group content people: "But if you add solo content you remove the group content."
Solo content people: "But I said to ADD it not replace it. There would still be group content."
Group content people: "Well yeah but if you add it, that MEANS replacing it."
So what can't you have both? It would be like if you went to a buffet. You've gone there for years and every time you go there, you get mac and cheese and ham. Well, the owners want to make the restaurant better, and to do that, they decide that having more than mac and cheese and ham is the way to go. You walk into the place that you have been to time and again and you see that next to the mac and cheese and ham, there is chicken. Do you leave the place and never come back b/c people now have the option to choose chicken? Of course not! That would be childish. You go into the place, that now has more people to talk to and more people to befriend, and enjoy yourself. Well, a couple of weeks down the road, you go back and the owners have improved upon the place. Now, b/c of the new chicken likers, the owners are giving FREE drinks to you and everyone else. And all b/c of the increased foot traffic.
Gawd said:
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:
Soloing in EQ was emergent game play as Sevens posted I think, and that is the way it should be in Pantheon. Designing solo game play into an MMO IS detrimental to group-play. It's just the way it is and I really don't believe that fact can be debated (unless you have a million or more folks playing after release). If you want a group centric MMO, you must force people to group, not make it a choice. Will some players figure out how to solo some content? Yes. Those folks are the true soloers and they will find a way. But, it will be a difficult path and so the majority will still look for groups.
If the game is designed for some soloing, more people will solo (especially if it is easy to converse with others in open chats) thus lowering the number of people looking for a group, thus pushing more folks to soloing, thus lowering the number of people looking for a group etc... This is just one part of the slippery slope.
There are excellent posts/thoughts above and this post is only my opinion.
if the game was designed for the solo player to achieve all the same things as the group/raid player i would agree with this. but the fact is that there are reasons for soloing to be allowed, such as gathering crafting mats. if you were in a group, and not a crafter or gatherer and the healer kept stopping the group after each kill so he could skin the mob most groups would eventually get mad and boot him. yes we know crafting will not be in at launch, but that isnt to say we cant start planning for it by leaving space in other systems for it.
another thing. players look for the fastest say to max level most times, mainly because its possible to do inside of a few days. Pantheon is talking about a return to the days of taking a year to hit max level. now on weekdays someone like myself can play for an hour or two at most, back in eq that is just enough time to find a group and get to it. if grouping was the only way to level, not just the most efficient, i would quit since the only time i could do anything is on the weekends when i have 6+ hours to play in a sitting. this isnt saying that if there is a way to solo that is all i would do, i expect soloing to be less efficient than grouping. but being able to get some progress is better than not getting any progress.
also there is the loot dynamic. if you put all decent /wearable loot in group content, you are still forcing people to group. At least to the point of grouping enough to get gear capable of allowing you to kill stuff in the next zone.
If you read on, you will see I am not opposed to emergent solo play. I'm opposed designed solo play.
Sevens said:
You said "This is what Im meaning when I talk about solo not being designed into the game but coming about as emergent game play." We got what you meant by emergent game play before you even posted this post, so why even make this post at all? Again, you add a post with no beneficial info. Why?
Because I can, I now have to explain to you why I make post?
Yes. I would like people to have reasons as to why they post what they post. It would be like if someone found the cure to prostate cancer, say onions. Then someone else found the cure to breast cancer, say potatoes, and the first person said "Yeah but guys, I know you already have this knowledge but the cure for prostate cancer is onions." Then person number three says, "yeah, you told us three days ago. Did you find anything new?" And first person says "No, but I figured I'd tell you again."
Or better yet, if Wikipedia had a page for elephants and the page said "Elephants are gray. They are also big. Also, elephants are gray." Wouldn't you find that annoying?
Sevens said:
Arthilios said:
Sevens said:
Wandidar said:
Something else to point out that you alluded to Hieromonk... It wasn't just "this class can solo, that class cannot" - or perhaps it wasn't even that at all. I knew a cleric that solo'd for example - and most folks would not have considered a cleric a "solo" class.
No - it was quite often the person playing the class that mattered more than the class itself.
I don't think I was a "great" ranger - but I do think I was an "above average" ranger. I can't tell you, for instance, how many times a different ranger would send me a tell and ask "how did you do that?" in a group. Speaking to the value of soloing in EQ, some times, many times, the things I did in a group were things I figured out all on my own - out in the wilds of EQ.
Not the least of which was remaining calm when situations looked like they were about to become extremely crappy.
I think the greatest compliment I ever got from EQ - I had been invited to play with a group of folks who I respected greatly as players - and I was pulling (it was a dungeon flagged as "outdoors") - well, things were going excellently - and - despite my internal respawn timer tickling the back of my mind, I decided to go get just one more before waiting for a repop.
Sure enough - I'm off on the pull, and I see in group "we're going to get adds - we have respawns" - Around the corner I come with a mob, snare it, harmony it, run forward enough to be out of range of everything - harmony everything in sight, thread the mob through everything avoiding other respawns and staying just inside the path I needed to through the mobs - to my group. SINGLE pull...
Just as I'm getting the mob to the group - I see in group chat - from, again, a very good player: "Wow, I never knew rangers could do that"
The ability to do that sort of stuff was learned solo - but let me shine in groups... and again, it's not that EQ had "solo content" - it's that, in being bold enough to venture forth and learn - you COULD solo.
This is what Im meaning when I talk about solo not being designed into the game but coming about as emergent game play.
You said "This is what Im meaning when I talk about solo not being designed into the game but coming about as emergent game play." We got what you meant by emergent game play before you even posted this post, so why even make this post at all? Again, you add a post with no beneficial info. Why?
If you had read all my posts.....
I am 100% against solo content being designed into the game
I am 100% in favor of solo play coming about as emergent gameplay
there is no contridiction in my post
No, not in this post but in the post Venjenz placed...
As already stated...there's nothing wrong with allowing soloing, but it should be slower and less capable than full grouping, just from a "yeah, of course" perspective. And if the leveling curve is such that even grouping will require 6-9 months to hit max level, and ideal, perfect grind soloing is about half as fast as full grouping for exp, then the problem solves itself. In WoW, the penalty for perma soloing is like an extra day or two to ding max. In EQ1, it's like 3 months, especially at the higher end where dark blue garden trash can lay waste to a max level group if any one person goes afk or link dead.
Again, make the "insert coin, here's max level" game, and you all but guarantee the game begins somewhere on Blizzard's pile of corpses. If you want McQuaid immersion, then leveling should be slow, and solo leveling should be slower than group leveling. Period. That's how you end up in the same zone for 2 weeks instead of 2 hours. If you can rush all the content in a huge hurry, the game will be a novelty for 1 of the 3 free months of gameplay that come with the box, because the market is not only saturated with that game, it's also home to the biggest baddest player in the market.
And waiting /lfg is how a major part of the EQ community meta even happened. Yes, it sucks to log on, not find a group and oh well, guess I'll tradeskill or log out. But that was where the "magic" of the community happened. We were all in it together, and you actually had to consider your reputation and and all that. If you grouped well, you made friends, and grouping wasn't hard. People knew who you were, and they'd find you on lfg if you were there. No game besides VG has had that kind of community, and the group thing is THE reason for that.
But whatever. Keep pushing for a solo-friendly WoW clone, and these forums will be another footnote in the history of Blizzard's market domination.
.there's nothing wrong with allowing soloing, but it should be slower and less capable than full grouping...
To which you said
you have hit the nail on the head...so much truth in this post its makes me /swoon lol
So, Venjens says, I'd like solo play to be designed into the game and you agree with him. See the contradiction?
Arthilios said:
Why shouldn't there be solo content AND group content. You want to go and advance your skills by killing group focused enemies? Then do it . They would still be there for you to kill. You would still be able to show all other players that you did the improbable. There are only a few things that would happen (from what I can see)if you made this game with solo content, 2-3 man content AND group content.
1.) You open the door to players that want to mostly solo.
This gives the game a bigger revenue, which in turn leads to more content. That some of that content would be for group players. So now YOU have more game to play b/c the company has more money to play with. Then, these solo-ers see the great benefits to grouping and most of them then group to reap the great rewards. This affects YOU b/c there are more people to play with, more friends to gain and more people to show what a good game is.
I've talked to my co-workers, random people on the bus and people at the mall. Those who play games and like to solo have said that, if given the proper incentive, they would group in most video games.
2.) You give players something else to do when there isn't anyone free to play with.
Sure, I could craft or talk while waiting for a group, which I would still do from time to time. I like to be active in the community. I don't mind waiting for a party to open up by waiting and enjoying the conversation. But there are times at night where the server was dead and I was waiting for someone when there was (pretty much) no one around. Then there is the fact that there is only so much waiting around that I can take. I've had those times where I would be waiting for hours just to group only to find that my time was up and I had to go to work or bed. So the next day, I'd come back and repeat. Then on the times I'd find a group, some of the time I'd only get to play for an hour or so and I'd have to log off. Now those people that I was playing with would have to head back and wait some more for a crucial member to join up. Having solo content, 2-3 man content AND full group content ensures that you would always be able to do something.
3.) You give different stages of challenge for people to hone their skills with.
Have you ever grouped with a person that did not know their role? Your team SUFFERED immeasurably b/c Dingus Khan didn't know how to tank. So you kick out Dingus and wait for a new tank. Now you have to spend more of your time waiting b/c Dingus wasn't properly skilled. Well, where will Dingus gain the skills needed if there isn't an area to practice? Sure, he could go to a lower leveled area and work there, but what if the enemies have different tactics/skills/overall power than the ones his level. It would be like playing Checkers to master Chess.
4.) I've said it before, but I'll mention it again. Soloing for exploration's sake.
to quote me...
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...
So, yeah, pretty much that.
So why take away the option to have solo content, 2-3 man content AND group content? This is what this whole debate looks like to me.
Solo content people: "ADD solo content to the game and keep the group content."
Group content people: "But if you add solo content you remove the group content."
Solo content people: "But I said to ADD it not replace it. There would still be group content."
Group content people: "Well yeah but if you add it, that MEANS replacing it."
So what can't you have both? It would be like if you went to a buffet. You've gone there for years and every time you go there, you get mac and cheese and ham. Well, the owners want to make the restaurant better, and to do that, they decide that having more than mac and cheese and ham is the way to go. You walk into the place that you have been to time and again and you see that next to the mac and cheese and ham, there is chicken. Do you leave the place and never come back b/c people now have the option to choose chicken? Of course not! That would be childish. You go into the place, that now has more people to talk to and more people to befriend, and enjoy yourself. Well, a couple of weeks down the road, you go back and the owners have improved upon the place. Now, b/c of the new chicken likers, the owners are giving FREE drinks to you and everyone else. And all b/c of the increased foot traffic.
As I've already posted in this thread, the games I've seen which were designed for solo content have not been the type of game Pantheon has been declared to be by Brad and other developers.
I also mentioned that those games can make more money, and if Brad chooses to take Pantheon down that road (opposite the direction he claims to be going) then I can't fault for wanting the possibility of more money. Those games are full of people whining about how easy it is... face it, when universal chat is filled with Chuck Norris jokes, the game is on easy mode.
1) Players that want to mostly solo are the reason a lot of us are hoping pantheon is different.
2) Those of us opposed to designed solo content are not asking the game to be designed to stop soloing. Emergent soloing is good enough.
3) I've grouped with tons of SOLO'ers who didn't know their role in a group.
4) Once again, we aren't against you going to explore and attempting to do it solo. If you die, then that's the game. If you get kicked out of a group then you need a new crowd, guild, or friends. To make the world soloable, traversable like WoW, is to remake WoW. If Brad and crew wish to do that fine. Let me know so I can stop looking at these forums and I won't waste my money at release.
I don't think Brad's or team's intention is to make quests and dungeons soloable at all. Just because he is putting in mobs that are soloable while you wait. I'm sorry VG was not very soloable in the beginning, maybe later after I left, But I also learned how to solo my alts after twinking a bit and learning the mobs. I still grouped to go through the dungeons and get the good gear. I also think its funny a lot don't want devs running how you play, but saying that there should be in no way soloable mobs until you out lvl is an oxymoron. You are controlling how people play by forcing them to group and play the way you like. But I have trust in Brad to make this a great game and will play it, most likely whether it has soloable content or not. I know this is big for all how ever you like it. We haven't even gotten the full story of what it will actually be yet.
I also say if somebody wants to round up 20 lvl 2 dot mods and aoe them down and the miss out on all the great gear and fun of grouping and going through the dungeon I'm going through more power to them. Imma enjoy my leet gear and the comrodery of meeting new peeps or help guildies get ready for the end game raids. People will find a way to solo and rush to the top no matter what we do, I just hope and believe the team won't just cater to them.
Great topic, but let's wait until we get the full story of what and how it will be implemented before we all get bent out of shape. My 2cents
Kazingathi said:
I don't think Brad's or team's intention is to make quests and dungeons soloable at all. Just because he is putting in mobs that are soloable while you wait. I'm sorry VG was not very soloable in the beginning, maybe later after I left, But I also learned how to solo my alts after twinking a bit and learning the mobs. I still grouped to go through the dungeons and get the good gear. I also think its funny a lot don't want devs running how you play, but saying that there should be in no way soloable mobs until you out lvl is an oxymoron. You are controlling how people play by forcing them to group and play the way you like.
Here is the misconception which solo friendly folks keep repeating over and over.... (bold and underlined).
Unless I have missed it... we aren't saying that at all. We are saying if you find a way to solo your character, GREAT! This misconception is one of the reasons this thread hasn't completed. The other reason is those folks who want a solo friendly game, like other games developed since EQ and VG, are pretending they want a game like Pantheon is supposed to be. If that is the case, then emergent solo play is enough. If emergent solo play is not enough, then what those folks want is a new game, with a new name, but at it's core is the same as wow.
" Why shouldn't there be solo content AND group content...? "
-Arthilios
Nobody said there shouldn't be both^. Or will not.
Like Bloodbeard said, Pantheon just won't be designed for solo play.... . but don't let that trouble you. That doesn't mean there won't be soling, only that the game is NOT designed around fields and fields of mobs for solo'ers. But as these players learn their skills and the environment, they will learn what they can handle on their own. Not nec what yields best exp.. (that was never the reason for solo'ing), i liked the challenge and ability to adventure out on my own for days...
But you are not going to see fields... & fields of mobs set up & placed ever so, for single people to come by and gobble them up for exp. Not going to happen. Yes, there is always starter mobs, etc. But even in early EQ, you might fail at your first 20 attacks on a single lvl 1 wasp. Until your Conjuration/Conflagration was high enough to get off 3 successful spells.
It was brutal... but those who traversed the tough wilderness, started to become stronger. It wasn't just gear, it was one less fizzle, and thus more mana to get one last spell off, etc.
The idea alone, of "solo player" is a misnomer in Role Playing games.
Like many have said, One will never need a group to advance themselves in Pantheon. But that doesn't mean grouping won't have more benefits over solo'ing. Or, that only the true specialist will be solo'ers as a playstyle. Most will like the comfort of groups.
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:
Arthilios said:
Why shouldn't there be solo content AND group content. You want to go and advance your skills by killing group focused enemies? Then do it . They would still be there for you to kill. You would still be able to show all other players that you did the improbable. There are only a few things that would happen (from what I can see)if you made this game with solo content, 2-3 man content AND group content.
1.) You open the door to players that want to mostly solo.
This gives the game a bigger revenue, which in turn leads to more content. That some of that content would be for group players. So now YOU have more game to play b/c the company has more money to play with. Then, these solo-ers see the great benefits to grouping and most of them then group to reap the great rewards. This affects YOU b/c there are more people to play with, more friends to gain and more people to show what a good game is.
I've talked to my co-workers, random people on the bus and people at the mall. Those who play games and like to solo have said that, if given the proper incentive, they would group in most video games.
2.) You give players something else to do when there isn't anyone free to play with.
Sure, I could craft or talk while waiting for a group, which I would still do from time to time. I like to be active in the community. I don't mind waiting for a party to open up by waiting and enjoying the conversation. But there are times at night where the server was dead and I was waiting for someone when there was (pretty much) no one around. Then there is the fact that there is only so much waiting around that I can take. I've had those times where I would be waiting for hours just to group only to find that my time was up and I had to go to work or bed. So the next day, I'd come back and repeat. Then on the times I'd find a group, some of the time I'd only get to play for an hour or so and I'd have to log off. Now those people that I was playing with would have to head back and wait some more for a crucial member to join up. Having solo content, 2-3 man content AND full group content ensures that you would always be able to do something.
3.) You give different stages of challenge for people to hone their skills with.
Have you ever grouped with a person that did not know their role? Your team SUFFERED immeasurably b/c Dingus Khan didn't know how to tank. So you kick out Dingus and wait for a new tank. Now you have to spend more of your time waiting b/c Dingus wasn't properly skilled. Well, where will Dingus gain the skills needed if there isn't an area to practice? Sure, he could go to a lower leveled area and work there, but what if the enemies have different tactics/skills/overall power than the ones his level. It would be like playing Checkers to master Chess.
4.) I've said it before, but I'll mention it again. Soloing for exploration's sake.
to quote me...
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...
So, yeah, pretty much that.
So why take away the option to have solo content, 2-3 man content AND group content? This is what this whole debate looks like to me.
Solo content people: "ADD solo content to the game and keep the group content."
Group content people: "But if you add solo content you remove the group content."
Solo content people: "But I said to ADD it not replace it. There would still be group content."
Group content people: "Well yeah but if you add it, that MEANS replacing it."
So what can't you have both? It would be like if you went to a buffet. You've gone there for years and every time you go there, you get mac and cheese and ham. Well, the owners want to make the restaurant better, and to do that, they decide that having more than mac and cheese and ham is the way to go. You walk into the place that you have been to time and again and you see that next to the mac and cheese and ham, there is chicken. Do you leave the place and never come back b/c people now have the option to choose chicken? Of course not! That would be childish. You go into the place, that now has more people to talk to and more people to befriend, and enjoy yourself. Well, a couple of weeks down the road, you go back and the owners have improved upon the place. Now, b/c of the new chicken likers, the owners are giving FREE drinks to you and everyone else. And all b/c of the increased foot traffic.
As I've already posted in this thread, the games I've seen which were designed for solo content have not been the type of game Pantheon has been declared to be by Brad and other developers.
I also mentioned that those games can make more money, and if Brad chooses to take Pantheon down that road (opposite the direction he claims to be going) then I can't fault for wanting the possibility of more money. Those games are full of people whining about how easy it is... face it, when universal chat is filled with Chuck Norris jokes, the game is on easy mode.
1) Players that want to mostly solo are the reason a lot of us are hoping pantheon is different.
2) Those of us opposed to designed solo content are asking the game to be designed to stop soloing. Emergent soloing is good enough.
3) I've grouped with tons of SOLO'ers who didn't know their role in a group.
4) Once again, we aren't against you going to explore and attempting to do it solo. If you die, then that's the game. If you get kicked out of a group then you need a new crowd, guild, or friends. To make the world soloable, traversable like WoW, is to remake WoW. If Brad and crew wish to do that fine. Let me know so I can stop looking at these forums and I won't waste my money at release.
1) Players that want to mostly solo are the reason a lot of us are hoping pantheon is different.
If you don't have to deal with the soloers (b/c you are off in the group zones), then how would they affect your game negatively?
2) Those of us opposed to designed solo content are asking the game to be designed to stop soloing. Emergent soloing is good enough.
Why are you asking for a system that affects you in (virtually) no negative way to not be added? Why is emergent soloing good enough? Plus the fact that emergent soloing would only show up for a few of the classes. What if I wanted to play as a tank type char.? I have seen many people say that the solo classes were things like necro's. So it would be right to assume that those types of classes would be the ones to emerge. No one really said that they could solo as a tank.
3) I've grouped with tons of SOLO'ers who didn't know their role in a group.
So taking away areas for them to learn how to efficiently play their role is a good way to make them be able to play their class?
4) Once again, we aren't against you going to explore and attempting to do it solo. If you die, then that's the game. If you get kicked out of a group then you need a new crowd, guild, or friends. To make the world soloable, traversable like WoW, is to remake WoW. If Brad and crew wish to do that fine. Let me know so I can stop looking at these forums and I won't waste my money at release.
To make the world soloable, traversable like WoW, is to remake WoW.
I didn't say to make ALL of it soloable. I said to make AREAS of the game soloable.
Hieromonk said:
" Why shouldn't there be solo content AND group content...? "
-Arthilios
Nobody said there shouldn't be both^. Or will not.
Like Bloodbeard said, Pantheon just won't be designed for solo play.... . but don't let that trouble you. That doesn't mean there won't be soling, only that the game is NOT designed around fields and fields of mobs for solo'ers. But as these players learn their skills and the environment, they will learn what they can handle on their own. Not nec what yields best exp.. (that was never the reason for solo'ing), i liked the challenge and ability to adventure out on my own for days...
But you are not going to see fields... & fields of mobs set up & placed ever so, for single people to come by and gobble them up for exp. Not going to happen. Yes, there is always starter mobs, etc. But even in early EQ, you might fail at your first 20 attacks on a single lvl 1 wasp. Until your Conjuration/Conflagration was high enough to get off 3 successful spells.
It was brutal... but those who traversed the tough wilderness, started to become stronger. It wasn't just gear, it was one less fizzle, and thus more mana to get one last spell off, etc.
The idea alone, of "solo player" is a misnomer in Role Playing games.
Like many have said, One will never need a group to advance themselves in Pantheon. But that doesn't mean grouping won't have more benefits over solo'ing. Or, that only the true specialist will be solo'ers as a playstyle. Most will like the comfort of groups.
You seem to think that by solo play, I mean that it will be easy. I don't mean that at all. It should be a challenge to kill any enemy of your level. But it should still be possible for any class to do so, not just a handful of the classes. I am sorry if I did not make that point clear. I made the assumption that it was obvious and that was my fault.
To Sevens. I pointed out a couple of things you replied to. You may have thought that this was me being a dick (the way you replied certainly suggests that you took it that way). This is not the case. I was merely asking why you repeated yourself while not giving any extra info/advice. I apologize if you took it that way.
Arthilios said:
Hieromonk said:
" Why shouldn't there be solo content AND group content...? "
-Arthilios
Nobody said there shouldn't be both^. Or will not.
Like Bloodbeard said, Pantheon just won't be designed for solo play.... . but don't let that trouble you. That doesn't mean there won't be soling, only that the game is NOT designed around fields and fields of mobs for solo'ers. But as these players learn their skills and the environment, they will learn what they can handle on their own. Not nec what yields best exp.. (that was never the reason for solo'ing), i liked the challenge and ability to adventure out on my own for days...
But you are not going to see fields... & fields of mobs set up & placed ever so, for single people to come by and gobble them up for exp. Not going to happen. Yes, there is always starter mobs, etc. But even in early EQ, you might fail at your first 20 attacks on a single lvl 1 wasp. Until your Conjuration/Conflagration was high enough to get off 3 successful spells.
It was brutal... but those who traversed the tough wilderness, started to become stronger. It wasn't just gear, it was one less fizzle, and thus more mana to get one last spell off, etc.
The idea alone, of "solo player" is a misnomer in Role Playing games.
Like many have said, One will never need a group to advance themselves in Pantheon. But that doesn't mean grouping won't have more benefits over solo'ing. Or, that only the true specialist will be solo'ers as a playstyle. Most will like the comfort of groups.
You seem to think that by solo play, I mean that it will be easy. I don't mean that at all. It should be a challenge to kill any enemy of your level. But it should still be possible for any class to do so, not just a handful of the classes. I am sorry if I did not make that point clear. I made the assumption that it was obvious and that was my fault.
People who solo, don't solo just anything, they are min/max'ers and find mobs that they can solo... efficiently. Throw in a different mob type, of the exact same level and they are running... it was about finding the right type of mob and the right level of mob.
Understand^..?
People ALWAYS saw someone solo'ing something they couldnt not, while never understanding their class was capable of feats they can't.
Warriors can't solo, but every group needs a warrior and when they log on, are already getting tells. They are also the first one to get drops in dungeons, and typically have no EXP penalty, etc. Each class is reletive to each other, not one vs one. Those who wish EVERY CLASS can solo, are the same people who keep choosing the wrong class for their playstyle.
I left my Wizard, for a Monk just after Velious, because a monk was more self sufficient, plus I could FD... and do laundry, talk on the phone, leave the house, cook dinner, etc..
Arthilios said:
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:
Arthilios said:
Why shouldn't there be solo content AND group content. You want to go and advance your skills by killing group focused enemies? Then do it . They would still be there for you to kill. You would still be able to show all other players that you did the improbable. There are only a few things that would happen (from what I can see)if you made this game with solo content, 2-3 man content AND group content.
1.) You open the door to players that want to mostly solo.
This gives the game a bigger revenue, which in turn leads to more content. That some of that content would be for group players. So now YOU have more game to play b/c the company has more money to play with. Then, these solo-ers see the great benefits to grouping and most of them then group to reap the great rewards. This affects YOU b/c there are more people to play with, more friends to gain and more people to show what a good game is.
I've talked to my co-workers, random people on the bus and people at the mall. Those who play games and like to solo have said that, if given the proper incentive, they would group in most video games.
2.) You give players something else to do when there isn't anyone free to play with.
Sure, I could craft or talk while waiting for a group, which I would still do from time to time. I like to be active in the community. I don't mind waiting for a party to open up by waiting and enjoying the conversation. But there are times at night where the server was dead and I was waiting for someone when there was (pretty much) no one around. Then there is the fact that there is only so much waiting around that I can take. I've had those times where I would be waiting for hours just to group only to find that my time was up and I had to go to work or bed. So the next day, I'd come back and repeat. Then on the times I'd find a group, some of the time I'd only get to play for an hour or so and I'd have to log off. Now those people that I was playing with would have to head back and wait some more for a crucial member to join up. Having solo content, 2-3 man content AND full group content ensures that you would always be able to do something.
3.) You give different stages of challenge for people to hone their skills with.
Have you ever grouped with a person that did not know their role? Your team SUFFERED immeasurably b/c Dingus Khan didn't know how to tank. So you kick out Dingus and wait for a new tank. Now you have to spend more of your time waiting b/c Dingus wasn't properly skilled. Well, where will Dingus gain the skills needed if there isn't an area to practice? Sure, he could go to a lower leveled area and work there, but what if the enemies have different tactics/skills/overall power than the ones his level. It would be like playing Checkers to master Chess.
4.) I've said it before, but I'll mention it again. Soloing for exploration's sake.
to quote me...
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...
So, yeah, pretty much that.
So why take away the option to have solo content, 2-3 man content AND group content? This is what this whole debate looks like to me.
Solo content people: "ADD solo content to the game and keep the group content."
Group content people: "But if you add solo content you remove the group content."
Solo content people: "But I said to ADD it not replace it. There would still be group content."
Group content people: "Well yeah but if you add it, that MEANS replacing it."
So what can't you have both? It would be like if you went to a buffet. You've gone there for years and every time you go there, you get mac and cheese and ham. Well, the owners want to make the restaurant better, and to do that, they decide that having more than mac and cheese and ham is the way to go. You walk into the place that you have been to time and again and you see that next to the mac and cheese and ham, there is chicken. Do you leave the place and never come back b/c people now have the option to choose chicken? Of course not! That would be childish. You go into the place, that now has more people to talk to and more people to befriend, and enjoy yourself. Well, a couple of weeks down the road, you go back and the owners have improved upon the place. Now, b/c of the new chicken likers, the owners are giving FREE drinks to you and everyone else. And all b/c of the increased foot traffic.
As I've already posted in this thread, the games I've seen which were designed for solo content have not been the type of game Pantheon has been declared to be by Brad and other developers.
I also mentioned that those games can make more money, and if Brad chooses to take Pantheon down that road (opposite the direction he claims to be going) then I can't fault for wanting the possibility of more money. Those games are full of people whining about how easy it is... face it, when universal chat is filled with Chuck Norris jokes, the game is on easy mode.
1) Players that want to mostly solo are the reason a lot of us are hoping pantheon is different.
2) Those of us opposed to designed solo content are asking the game to be designed to stop soloing. Emergent soloing is good enough.
3) I've grouped with tons of SOLO'ers who didn't know their role in a group.
4) Once again, we aren't against you going to explore and attempting to do it solo. If you die, then that's the game. If you get kicked out of a group then you need a new crowd, guild, or friends. To make the world soloable, traversable like WoW, is to remake WoW. If Brad and crew wish to do that fine. Let me know so I can stop looking at these forums and I won't waste my money at release.
1) Players that want to mostly solo are the reason a lot of us are hoping pantheon is different.
If you don't have to deal with the soloers (b/c you are off in the group zones), then how would they affect your game negatively?
2) Those of us opposed to designed solo content are asking the game to be designed to stop soloing. Emergent soloing is good enough.
Why are you asking for a system that affects you in (virtually) no negative way to not be added? Why is emergent soloing good enough? Plus the fact that emergent soloing would only show up for a few of the classes. What if I wanted to play as a tank type char.? I have seen many people say that the solo classes were things like necro's. So it would be right to assume that those types of classes would be the ones to emerge. No one really said that they could solo as a tank.
3) I've grouped with tons of SOLO'ers who didn't know their role in a group.
So taking away areas for them to learn how to efficiently play their role is a good way to make them be able to play their class?
4) Once again, we aren't against you going to explore and attempting to do it solo. If you die, then that's the game. If you get kicked out of a group then you need a new crowd, guild, or friends. To make the world soloable, traversable like WoW, is to remake WoW. If Brad and crew wish to do that fine. Let me know so I can stop looking at these forums and I won't waste my money at release.
To make the world soloable, traversable like WoW, is to remake WoW.
I didn't say to make ALL of it soloable. I said to make AREAS of the game soloable.
I don't think anyone wants separate areas/zones for two styles of play. I am fairly certain it's been noted there will not be solo zones and group zones. I certainly hope a group centric game does not take the time to design solo areas/zones, with a small team and small budget.
That answers all of your points I believe. BTW.. i think you knew it, but the quote in your second point should have been "are NOT asking the game be designed to stop soloing". I'll edit that in my post.
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:
I don't think anyone wants separate areas/zones for two styles of play. I am fairly certain it's been noted there will not be solo zones and group zones. I certainly hope a group centric game does not take the time to design solo areas/zones, with a small team and small budget.
That answers all of your points I believe. BTW.. i think you knew it, but the quote in your second point should have been "are NOT asking the game be designed to stop soloing". I'll edit that in my post.
I don't think anyone wants separate areas/zones for two styles of play.
Why would you NOT want that? You would appeal to a broader audience, give areas for "group training"(which is the person being able to work on their class/getting to know how their class works), give people more things to do when they can't find a group, really everything that I posted in my other post.
I certainly hope a group centric game does not take the time to design solo areas/zones...
If the extra content helps to make the group focused content more enjoyable (through bringing in more players, which brings in not only revenue, but also people to group with), why not take the time. If the extra time is taken to make a good game great, I'm all for that b/c that time would be FAR less than the 8+ years that we would have to wait for another good game.
EDIT: Left something out.
So, basically, you don't want group content to be supposed to be solo'd? Well, neither do I. I never said "make group content normally soloable." That would be absurd. That would be what SOLO CONTENT would be for. What I said was make content that is groupable and make other content that is soloable.
Hieromonk said:
People who solo, don't solo just anything, they are min/max'ers and find mobs that they can solo... efficiently. Throw in a different mob type, of the exact same level and they are running... it was about finding the right type of mob and the right level of mob.
Understand^..?
People ALWAYS saw someone solo'ing something they couldnt not, while never understanding their class was capable of feats they can't.
Warriors can't solo, but every group needs a warrior and when they log on, are already getting tells. They are also the first one to get drops in dungeons, and typically have no EXP penalty, etc. Each class is reletive to each other, not one vs one. Those who wish EVERY CLASS can solo, are the same people who keep choosing the wrong class for their playstyle.
I left my Wizard, for a Monk just after Velious, because a monk was more self sufficient, plus I could FD... and do laundry, talk on the phone, leave the house, cook dinner, etc..
Those who wish EVERY CLASS can solo, are the same people who keep choosing the wrong class for their playstyle.
I wish every class could solo... in their own way... I choose my char. based on the task/s that I'd be doing, just as everyone else(well, hopefully everyone else.)
If I'm playing as a cleric, do I expect to be able to stand in front of the enemy, taking blow after blow? Of course not! But I'd like to be able to solo with that cleric. If that is through me being able to heal just enough so that I could survive that next blow and repeating that until it is dead, fine.
If I'm a mage, do I expect to hold the line as the hordes of enemies swarm me? No, I'd maneuver my way around the terrain staying just out of their range (be it through roots or whatever) until I brought them down.
If I'm a tank, should I be expected to maneuver my way through those trees? To a point, yes, but as a tank I should be able to take those hits all the while hitting back.
If I'm a ranger, do I run up and fire arrow after arrow into the enemy as they claw away at my body? No (well, maybe for first few shots if they have some sort of multi-shot attack that spreads out in a fan type pattern. But not just stand there indefinitely), I back track my way throwing out snares or sending my pet bear, wolf, spider or whatever to take the blows for me as I dwindle their health from medium range.
If I'm a monk, do I stand strong in front of the enemy in my little to no armor as they attack me? No, I stun them and work around to their flank to get my hits in. Am I able to take the hits for when they are un-stunned? Sure, I shouldn't die from 1 hit b/c I am an up close fighter. They should be expected to take a hit or two.
As you can see, they can all solo in their own way, and they would all have to take some sort of break at the end of the battle to regain their health, mana, stamina, etc.
I don't want to be boxed into playing just one of three (or four) classes. Again, a problem with having to have a group to play is I don't want to be playing one of those 8 (or 9) classes that aren't able to solo b/c now, if one member leaves (and then another/ the other 2 leave b/c we've lost a team mate) I don't want to be stuck "without a paddle" so to speak.
EDIT: A couple of typos.
This is a topic that clearly a lot of people are very passionate about, myself included and this question has been asked in the round table discussion thread as Joppa mentioned, which I have collected and stored and it will be answered by the team in the near future.
While the responses here are for me most part mature and civil, please just be careful of that invisible line between civil and personal attack, we all have different opinions on this subject and disagreeing with those opinions are fine but please don't let someone's opinion hit you on a personal level, this is an open forum for mature discussion and for that to continue we need to maintain that maturity and civility.
Nothing is set in stone yet but Brad has always stated that the game would be like EQ with elements of VG while including some unique and modern twists to make Pantheon stand out on it's own.
Please continue this discussion but also keep in mind this quote from the FB page describing the game:
"Pantheon is a modern, high-fantasy MMORPG that strives to inject high-tension gameplay back into online games. As a spiritual successor to EverQuest, Pantheon is focused on developing an online world that is both dangerous and exciting that relies on group-focused tactics with an updated action/reaction based combat system."
The game has always been intended to be designed with group play in mind but of course players will be able to solo some of the easier mobs/content like we were able to do in EQ and VG either at the appropriate level or higher with better gear.
Arthilios, I don't think you have anything to fear. All I can do is re-quote my own post from earlier:
" Why shouldn't there be solo content AND group content...? "
-Arthilios
Nobody said there shouldn't be both^. Or will not.
Pantheon just won't be designed for solo play.... . but don't let that trouble you. That doesn't mean there won't be soling, only that the game is NOT designed around fields and fields of mobs for solo'ers. But as these players learn their skills and the environment, they will learn what they can handle on their own. Not nec what yields best exp.. (that was never the reason for solo'ing), but what your class (or You personally) can handle.
But you are not going to see fields... & fields of mobs set up & placed ever so, for single people to come by and gobble them up for exp. Not going to happen.
From what I have read through out this discussion, there are a handful of main points that keep being tossed around. Then some people reply to these points and ask WHY those points would occur and then people tend to ignore it question raised. Then other people raise the same points that were raised and a circular argument appears.
Ex. For instance, if I say "People think that ham should never be on pizza. Why shouldn't you at least have the option to add ham?" People's argument would be "b/c ham on pizza would ruin the pizza". To which I reply "But ham can be an option, it doesn't have to be on there. People like ham and it doesn't hurt to have it as an option." They would then reply "But that would hurt my pizza. I have seen many pizza's that have ham on them and they were ruined b/c of it." I say, sure, but why can't the store offer ham as a topping?" To which they say "B.c it would ruin my pizza." and give no reason as to why.
Now, it is possible that I've overlooked their counterpoint, and I'd like some of you to answer what I'm about to ask. I'd prefer you to keep your answer short, though. I know that I have given long winded answers, but then people tend to misinterpret what I mean (and vice-versa, I too have misinterpreted what you mean). So to keep misinterpretations to a minimum, please keep your answers as short and clear as possible. And please, if you are going to answer, answer each point. I see people answer 1 of the 3 things and ignore that I even mentioned the other 2. This is annoying b/c sometimes, they bring up a point I/ someone already mentioned and we get back to the circular arguments.
1.) People have said that games designed with solo content will automatically make the game easy mode. Even if there is also group content, everything becomes easy mode. Why/ what evidence is there that leads to thinking this?
2.) Games with solo content automatically means that soloers WILL NOT be able to take on higher tiered mobs/group mobs.
Why do people believe this?
3.) Solo content will replace group content.
Why would this happen? Why not both solo and group content?
4.)If you have solo content, group content will become useless.
WHY would group content become useless?
5.)Solo content hurts the community. If solo content is added, no one will want to sit and talk while in /lfg.
If you want to sit in town and go/lfg instead of soloing while in /lfg, why don't you just sit in town and wait. You don't have to go and solo.
Again, these are points that have been brought up and questions that have been asked where the main answer I've seen is either something like "It just will." or people just ignore the question entirely. So could we please avoid those two pitfalls that lead to a bad discussion? Thanks.
Hieromonk said:
Arthilios, I don't think you have anything to fear. All I can do is re-quote my own post from earlier:
" Why shouldn't there be solo content AND group content...? "
-Arthilios
Nobody said there shouldn't be both^. Or will not.
Pantheon just won't be designed for solo play.... . but don't let that trouble you. That doesn't mean there won't be soling, only that the game is NOT designed around fields and fields of mobs for solo'ers. But as these players learn their skills and the environment, they will learn what they can handle on their own. Not nec what yields best exp.. (that was never the reason for solo'ing), but what your class (or You personally) can handle.
But you are not going to see fields... & fields of mobs set up & placed ever so, for single people to come by and gobble them up for exp. Not going to happen.
All I want is...
1.) Good, rewarding group content.
2.) Challenging solo play that I can solo (in different ways) with every class.
The only thing I fear is that they will take away the challenging solo content.
EDIT: I left something out.
When you say "for single people to come by and gobble them up for exp." I think that this means easy to kill enemies and this is why I replied to your other post saying that I don't want super easy to kill enemies. Sorry for any confusion.
Hieromonk said:
Like many have said, One will never need a group to advance themselves in Pantheon. But that doesn't mean grouping won't have more benefits over solo'ing. Or, that only the true specialist will be solo'ers as a playstyle. Most will like the comfort of groups.
When you say "Or, that only the true specialist will be solo'ers as a playstyle." do you mean the the person playing is the true specialist (b/c they have honed their skills and can do so with any char, if they put in the effort) or that they chose one of the few classes that were (partially intended) for solo play?
Arthilios said:
To Sevens. I pointed out a couple of things you replied to. You may have thought that this was me being a dick (the way you replied certainly suggests that you took it that way). This is not the case. I was merely asking why you repeated yourself while not giving any extra info/advice. I apologize if you took it that way.
Because the people wanting solo play designed into the game keep on repeating the same argument over and over and over and over again...I am against solo designed play, I will always be against solo designed play and I will constantly post my feeling against solo designed play in any thread where people are clamoring for solo designed play. There are dozens of other games that have solo content designed into them but Pantheon promised to be different, to be old school and I am going to be here to remind Brad and Team of these promises. I dont care if I sound like a broken record but I am going to fight for the game I was promised
Kilsin said:
This is a topic that clearly a lot of people are very passionate about, myself included and this question has been asked in the round table discussion thread as Joppa mentioned, which I have collected and stored and it will be answered by the team in the near future.
While the responses here are for me most part mature and civil, please just be careful of that invisible line between civil and personal attack, we all have different opinions on this subject and disagreeing with those opinions are fine but please don't let someone's opinion hit you on a personal level, this is an open forum for mature discussion and for that to continue we need to maintain that maturity and civility.
Nothing is set in stone yet but Brad has always stated that the game would be like EQ with elements of VG while including some unique and modern twists to make Pantheon stand out on it's own.
Please continue this discussion but also keep in mind this quote from the FB page describing the game:
"Pantheon is a modern, high-fantasy MMORPG that strives to inject high-tension gameplay back into online games. As a spiritual successor to EverQuest, Pantheon is focused on developing an online world that is both dangerous and exciting that relies on group-focused tactics with an updated action/reaction based combat system."
The game has always been intended to be designed with group play in mind but of course players will be able to solo some of the easier mobs/content like we were able to do in EQ and VG either at the appropriate level or higher with better gear.
This is what we were promised, this is what we are wanting...this is as it should be
No one here is against people being able to solo we just dont want the game designed around solo play in any way
And the argument of "this will appeal to more people" keeps being made but Pantheon is being designed as a niche game...NOT as a game to appeal to the masses. More is not always better, McDonalds is the biggest restaurant in the world, but that doesnt mean its the best. Pantheon is more like your local diner....not for everyone but by god the ones who eat there dont want to eat anywhere else