The reason they might be able to charge a little more is because, essentially, they will be the only show in town. That is - people who don't want (and I'm going to start changing from saying old school MMO to "Brad McQuaid MMO" because let's face it - we are all here after the type of content he specifically brings to an MMO as opposed to lineage, asherons call, etc...) - anyway - people who don't want a Brad McQuaid MMO will simply say "$20 is nuts! I can go play X for free or WoW for $15!"
But people who want - SPECIFICALLY want - a Brad McQuaid MMO might not be happy about a few extra dollars, but might pay it... because it's the only place they will get it.
Food example - there's a place one of my co-workers and I go for lunch once a week. We both always get the same thing. Aglio Olio with chicken. When we first started going there years ago, that cost us $8.99. Now it costs us $12.99. Every week we go, every week we walk out and one of us mutters something about the price... but... EVERY WEEK WE GO. Why? Because nobody else, anywhere else, makes that dish the way they make it - even though you can get Aglio Olio at many places in town - and for less.
But NOBODY makes it like they do. We wouldn't even consider going somewhere else to save a few dollars - for us - it's the only show in town... so we (albeit a little grudgingly) pay a little more for it.
Zarriya said:
Sevens said:
...snip......to be honest I personally am against a free to play trial. Its just to open to abuse by gold seller spammers.
For this game they may need it. What I am seeing with gamers (and this is just my personal experience with many gamers that I talk with) Is that they are really darn tired of shelling out money for a game that they wind up not playing. Let's face it - Pantheon has some controversy so people are going to be shy to buy it. If they try it, they may like it and then sub. It is an honest approach as opposed to another game that just recently grabbed my cash and I do not play :( .
Some people are also sick of F2P - those are the type of gamers we want :) - gamers with commitment and money. The F2pers can go play their F2p games.
Sevens, I too am worried that the free trial will be easy access to gold spammers and trolls. What I suggest is that trial members do not have access to general/trade chat groups and they do not have access to mail or any broker like feature. These malignants have been very tenacious and may pay the sub to gain access, so a report system is mandatory.
That is somewhat the point. Those people don't have to buy Pantheon right away and can sit on the fence all they want. But sitting on the outside looking in... Pantheon, having a closed forum and an elite sense, eventually intrigues them enough, they will want to buy-in. Because coming into EVE, 2 year late isn't fun, but two years into EVE, it becomes a lifestyle. (Games the grow slow, live longer).
Not only that, if Pantheon offers no free trials, then gold spammers and sellers have to buy an account $49 (example). Which will make Visionary Realm wealthy closing all these cheaters, dupers, hackers & farmers down. They literally could make a living off Gold Sellers Sites trying to get a foot hold within Pantheon.
Lastly, my argument isn't $40/month, only that Pantheon does not need to follow a traditional cookie-cutter sub rate. If it ends up being $216/year ($18/month), who is really going to complain..? Let alone $2 bucks more a month.
How about offering sort of "beyond the game" stuff for a little extra.
Example:
Standard Monthly Fee: $15 a month
Expansion beta slot guarantee: $2 a month
7 day early admission into expansions: $1 a month
All of it A la carte - maybe some other creative stuff thrown in. Now if you just want the game, $15. If you want to always beta test, $17 but don't care about early admission, $17. If you don't care about beta test but want early admission, $16. If you want it all, $18.
That sort of thing.
Xonth said:
Anything more then $15 a month is suicide. People are already getting use to free games so making it more expensive then past MMO subs is just going to limit the number of people that are willing to risk a sub. Its better to have 100,000 at $15 then 60,000 at $20.
I don't see how you could charge for a digital download if the first few levels are free. Pay $30 for a trial?
I think most community members are out of their league when it comes to mmo businesses even if their real job is somewhat similar.
I believe its been done in other games. You are capped on your free trial, level ten and so many characters allowed (like one other free level ten for example) If you want to play further ...you sign up and pay to get your characters uncapped, so you can continue to the next levels. Think you had to log out and back in after payment, in order for the change to kick in.
CanadinaXegony said:
Xonth said:
Anything more then $15 a month is suicide. People are already getting use to free games so making it more expensive then past MMO subs is just going to limit the number of people that are willing to risk a sub. Its better to have 100,000 at $15 then 60,000 at $20.
I don't see how you could charge for a digital download if the first few levels are free. Pay $30 for a trial?
I think most community members are out of their league when it comes to mmo businesses even if their real job is somewhat similar.
I believe its been done in other games. You are capped on your free trial, level ten and so many characters allowed (like one other free level ten for example) If you want to play further ...you sign up and pay to get your characters uncapped, so you can continue to the next levels. Think you had to log out and back in after payment, in order for the change to kick in.
There are other things that can be done to limit gold farmers/spammers etc. They can't contact you unless both parties are on a mutual friend list. That means no in game mails, no whispers/tells. And limits on how much money they can have on their "free" character. So no thousands of plat collected..etc to further the gold farming business. Also I would keep an eye out for guilds who promote this, sometimes they are the center of activity for the gold seller business, I've seen them in action in games such as Rift.
Game CSRs need to be able to recognize bots...I have reported so many over the years, and it still amazes me that they would be allowed to continue for as long as they do.
If Team Pantheon doesn't want this type of activity to flourish within their game, they need to be sharp, and on top of it.
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:
The EQ price jump was softened by being allowed to pay the same price 9.99 if you ordered 3 months at a time.
Once again, hieromonk, I think you are going to cut out enough possible subscribers to actually lose money you would have made by keeping the sub 20 and below. Only time will tell us the outcome, but if i were VRI I certainly would not want to take the chance, in a market where MMO's are failing, at alienating folks because of greed. It's being touted as 'small company working with a small budget'. People are going to wonder why they should pay more per month when the game cost less to develop, and thus less to maintain and expand.
I hear your fear, but yeah you are 100% correct
Releasing Pantheon with say $25/month ($300/year) will probably cut out 10 million players from your game... 10 million unwanted players. This game will be successful with 100,000k players, for 6 years. I think it will go way beyond that, with a premium model. Don't worry about "people"... will you pay $300 a year to play VG2 ?
People are throwing bucks at kickstarters, including this. I am talking about after release, as Joe Public. IN your minds-eye think of what Pantheon can be, (with crafting, housing, boats, etc), with all those milestones in place, all under a epic world..?
And it cost less than a car payment, to play a year..?
Sevens said:
Zarriya said:
Sevens said:..snip..
...snip......to be honest I personally am against a free to play trial. Its just to open to abuse by gold seller spammers.
Sevens, I too am worried that the free trial will be easy access to gold spammers and trolls. What I suggest is that trial members do not have access to general/trade chat groups and they do not have access to mail or any broker like feature. These malignants have been very tenacious and may pay the sub to gain access, so a report system is mandatory.
I agree 100%, I am against it but I see the need for it...as far as restricting the use of general chat I am just really really really hoping there is no general chat.
Ahhh I paused and then thought about that. No general chat may be a good idea (I am just so used to it nowadays). I asked a couple of people on vent what they thought and they liked your idea too. Go back to like EQ just had zone wide channels like OOC and Auction? Spammers can still post there but it limits them a bit.
Zarriya said:
Sevens said:
Zarriya said:
Sevens said:..snip..
...snip......to be honest I personally am against a free to play trial. Its just to open to abuse by gold seller spammers.
Sevens, I too am worried that the free trial will be easy access to gold spammers and trolls. What I suggest is that trial members do not have access to general/trade chat groups and they do not have access to mail or any broker like feature. These malignants have been very tenacious and may pay the sub to gain access, so a report system is mandatory.
I agree 100%, I am against it but I see the need for it...as far as restricting the use of general chat I am just really really really hoping there is no general chat.
Ahhh I paused and then thought about that. No general chat may be a good idea (I am just so used to it nowadays). I asked a couple of people on vent what they thought and they liked your idea too. Go back to like EQ just had zone wide channels like OOC and Auction? Spammers can still post there but it limits them a bit.
Yeah.../shout /say /group /guild /auction (only works in cities)...I really see no need to have anything else at least no "world wide" chat channels. Its nothing more than a play ground for Trolls or a spamfest for Gold sellers.
Hieromonk said:
Point is: Serve your market.
I'll open another thread about this soon, as I've already said, I don't want to go in-depth on this and derail Chaams thread. But to rebuttal some concerns here, I will defend my position. (not Visionary Realms, or Brad's)
I promise the line will be long, if VR follows an elite brand.(ie EVE). I hope their new website will reflect the upscale nature and adult-minded, meta-game within.
In fact EQ prices did go up and had no impact on amount of subs. Only prob was, that increase did nothing to better serve those who wanted more.
A good faithful MMORPG is one of the most inexpensive hobbies you can have.
The problem is, there is no proof available to show that Pantheon's market is willing to pay $40 dollars a month, the only data anyone has to go on is what's available and what has been seen in the past.
An EQ Premium Server (Legends server if I remember right) were released at $40 dollars a month in 2002 and they lasted what, maybe 3 years with a very small EQ subset population (most stayed with regular servers) with promises of everything that you are asking for. Yes, it wasn't released at launch, but I still would argue that it is more "proof" that they won't work than they will. A simple Google search revealed an old IGN thread about the release of this server - see link below:
http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/everquest-40-premium-servers-regular-players-get-screwed.18331490/
I don't disagree with your last point on the inexpensive hobby, but many don't view it that way - they view it as a game.
Raidan said:
Hieromonk said:Point is: Serve your market.
I'll open another thread about this soon, as I've already said, I don't want to go in-depth on this and derail Chaams thread. But to rebuttal some concerns here, I will defend my position. (not Visionary Realms, or Brad's)
I promise the line will be long, if VR follows an elite brand.(ie EVE). I hope their new website will reflect the upscale nature and adult-minded, meta-game within.
In fact EQ prices did go up and had no impact on amount of subs. Only prob was, that increase did nothing to better serve those who wanted more.
A good faithful MMORPG is one of the most inexpensive hobbies you can have.
The problem is, there is no proof available to show that Pantheon's market is willing to pay $40 dollars a month, the only data anyone has to go on is what's available and what has been seen in the past.
An EQ Premium Server (Legends server if I remember right) were released at $40 dollars a month in 2002 and they lasted what, maybe 3 years with a very small EQ subset population (most stayed with regular servers) with promises of everything that you are asking for. Yes, it wasn't released at launch, but I still would argue that it is more "proof" that they won't work than they will. A simple Google search revealed an old IGN thread about the release of this server - see link below:
http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/everquest-40-premium-servers-regular-players-get-screwed.18331490/
I don't disagree with your last point on the inexpensive hobby, but many don't view it that way - they view it as a game.
The Legends server was a failure not because of lack of subs...the cap of 8k was hit fairly quickly
It was a failure because of lack of follow through on promises made by SOE
The server was to have dynamic GM run events, Exclusive release of zones months before live servers, a website just to show off your toon and other things...after a few months it pretty much became just another server.
Zarriya said:
Sevens said:
Zarriya said:
Sevens said:..snip..
...snip......to be honest I personally am against a free to play trial. Its just to open to abuse by gold seller spammers.
Sevens, I too am worried that the free trial will be easy access to gold spammers and trolls. What I suggest is that trial members do not have access to general/trade chat groups and they do not have access to mail or any broker like feature. These malignants have been very tenacious and may pay the sub to gain access, so a report system is mandatory.
I agree 100%, I am against it but I see the need for it...as far as restricting the use of general chat I am just really really really hoping there is no general chat.
Ahhh I paused and then thought about that. No general chat may be a good idea (I am just so used to it nowadays). I asked a couple of people on vent what they thought and they liked your idea too. Go back to like EQ just had zone wide channels like OOC and Auction? Spammers can still post there but it limits them a bit.
Being that most games have auction houses or something similar, I would automatically turn Auction off, to eliminate the spam from there. (I don't like commercials on tv either, I mute them. :P) People would spam in general chat to sell things that are already advertised in the auction houses.
So they would land on my ignore. If I don't want to see auction spam in the trade or auction channel, I certainly don't want it in General chat. But you can't tell them that, so rather than try to reason with them (I've attempted that too) the ignore feature serves a good purpose, and is hassle and argument free. :P
CanadinaXegony said:
Zarriya said:
Sevens said:
Zarriya said:
Sevens said:..snip..
...snip......to be honest I personally am against a free to play trial. Its just to open to abuse by gold seller spammers.
Sevens, I too am worried that the free trial will be easy access to gold spammers and trolls. What I suggest is that trial members do not have access to general/trade chat groups and they do not have access to mail or any broker like feature. These malignants have been very tenacious and may pay the sub to gain access, so a report system is mandatory.
I agree 100%, I am against it but I see the need for it...as far as restricting the use of general chat I am just really really really hoping there is no general chat.
Ahhh I paused and then thought about that. No general chat may be a good idea (I am just so used to it nowadays). I asked a couple of people on vent what they thought and they liked your idea too. Go back to like EQ just had zone wide channels like OOC and Auction? Spammers can still post there but it limits them a bit.
Being that most games have auction houses or something similar, I would automatically turn Auction off, to eliminate the spam from there. (I don't like commercials on tv either, I mute them. :P) People would spam in general chat to sell things that are already advertised in the auction houses.
So they would land on my ignore. If I don't want to see auction spam in the trade or auction channel, I certainly don't want it in General chat. But you can't tell them that, so rather than try to reason with them (I've attempted that too) the ignore feature serves a good purpose, and is hassle and argument free. :P
Being that PROTF has said no auction houses or Bazaars I hope to see an /auction channel that only works in an area where the community has decided to set up trade (EC tunnels). That way they can spam /auction those looking to buy can read auction and the people hunting or hanging in zone arent spammed with it being broadcast in /shout or /ooc
Sevens said:
Raidan said:
Hieromonk said:Point is: Serve your market.
I'll open another thread about this soon, as I've already said, I don't want to go in-depth on this and derail Chaams thread. But to rebuttal some concerns here, I will defend my position. (not Visionary Realms, or Brad's)
I promise the line will be long, if VR follows an elite brand.(ie EVE). I hope their new website will reflect the upscale nature and adult-minded, meta-game within.
In fact EQ prices did go up and had no impact on amount of subs. Only prob was, that increase did nothing to better serve those who wanted more.
A good faithful MMORPG is one of the most inexpensive hobbies you can have.
The problem is, there is no proof available to show that Pantheon's market is willing to pay $40 dollars a month, the only data anyone has to go on is what's available and what has been seen in the past.
An EQ Premium Server (Legends server if I remember right) were released at $40 dollars a month in 2002 and they lasted what, maybe 3 years with a very small EQ subset population (most stayed with regular servers) with promises of everything that you are asking for. Yes, it wasn't released at launch, but I still would argue that it is more "proof" that they won't work than they will. A simple Google search revealed an old IGN thread about the release of this server - see link below:
http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/everquest-40-premium-servers-regular-players-get-screwed.18331490/
I don't disagree with your last point on the inexpensive hobby, but many don't view it that way - they view it as a game.
The Legends server was a failure not because of lack of subs...the cap of 8k was hit fairly quickly
It was a failure because of lack of follow through on promises made by SOE
The server was to have dynamic GM run events, Exclusive release of zones months before live servers, a website just to show off your toon and other things...after a few months it pretty much became just another server.
That's something that never attracted me back then, but it "could" work, I remember the "best of the best" competitions on the EQ servers, people liked those, and also any GM events that I attended were always fun and full of people.
If there was a consistent commitment to a server like this by the GMs, then I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work. Something for the future perhaps.
Sevens said:
CanadinaXegony said:
Zarriya said:
Sevens said:
Zarriya said:
Sevens said:..snip..
...snip......to be honest I personally am against a free to play trial. Its just to open to abuse by gold seller spammers.
Sevens, I too am worried that the free trial will be easy access to gold spammers and trolls. What I suggest is that trial members do not have access to general/trade chat groups and they do not have access to mail or any broker like feature. These malignants have been very tenacious and may pay the sub to gain access, so a report system is mandatory.
I agree 100%, I am against it but I see the need for it...as far as restricting the use of general chat I am just really really really hoping there is no general chat.
Ahhh I paused and then thought about that. No general chat may be a good idea (I am just so used to it nowadays). I asked a couple of people on vent what they thought and they liked your idea too. Go back to like EQ just had zone wide channels like OOC and Auction? Spammers can still post there but it limits them a bit.
Being that most games have auction houses or something similar, I would automatically turn Auction off, to eliminate the spam from there. (I don't like commercials on tv either, I mute them. :P) People would spam in general chat to sell things that are already advertised in the auction houses.
So they would land on my ignore. If I don't want to see auction spam in the trade or auction channel, I certainly don't want it in General chat. But you can't tell them that, so rather than try to reason with them (I've attempted that too) the ignore feature serves a good purpose, and is hassle and argument free. :P
Being that PROTF has said no auction houses or Bazaars I hope to see an /auction channel that only works in an area where the community has decided to set up trade (EC tunnels). That way they can spam /auction those looking to buy can read auction and the people hunting or hanging in zone arent spammed with it being broadcast in /shout or /ooc
Right, that is why auction (trade chat) is still important, unless they have a more innovative way of waring goods. And because that channel is important to the people there - they will police those channels.
Please keep in mind that Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen will be (not set in stone) a free download, free to try for X levels (few starting levels) then cut off unless you pay a $15 sub.
We have not decided if we will charge a box sale yet and other details are still being worked on as we speak but as it stands, Brad wants to keep it at $15 and a free try for a few levels which I think is a great way to go for this game and the niche audience we are trying to reach plus with the market being saturated with F2Ps, B2Ps and subscriptions models being phased out left right and centre we want to remain competitive.
This is however subject to change but that is the model we would like to go with and when we are closer to releasing the game, we will release an official announcement and the payment model that we will be using.
Kilsin said:
Please keep in mind that Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen will be (not set in stone) a free download, free to try for X levels (few starting levels) then cut off unless you pay a $15 sub.
We have not decided if we will charge a box sale yet and other details are still being worked on as we speak but as it stands, Brad wants to keep it at $15 and a free try for a few levels which I think is a great way to go for this game and the niche audience we are trying to reach plus with the market being saturated with F2Ps, B2Ps and subscriptions models being phased out left right and centre we want to remain competitive.
This is however subject to change but that is the model we would like to go with and when we are closer to releasing the game, we will release an official announcement and the payment model that we will be using.
Yeah, sorry Kilsin...
I don't mean to be such a protagonist, in my defense I tried to preface my posts as My thoughts. So as not to conflict with VR's mission statements.
ie: "I don't want to go in-depth on this and derail Chaams thread. But to rebuttal some concerns here, I will defend my position. (not Visionary Realms, or Brad's)"
I think I'll open a more encompassing idea this weekend, discussing the market readiness, for a truly premium MMO experience. There seems to be a lot of "thinking" on this subject.
And/or possibly how Pantheon could play along within that business model, , but not necessarily follow as exact, etc. The discussion is what is most important.
I don't think it will take long to prove to Visionary Realms, that free accounts not only causes VR to loose money, but disrupts the the player experience & causes lost revenues, over time.
"Too many births at once... no one Nation can handle..."
-Arch Wizard, Sylvain Feldwythe
You guys are too quick. Not use to the quick responses. So sorry... ;]
Hieromonk said:
Kilsin said:
Please keep in mind that Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen will be (not set in stone) a free download, free to try for X levels (few starting levels) then cut off unless you pay a $15 sub.
We have not decided if we will charge a box sale yet and other details are still being worked on as we speak but as it stands, Brad wants to keep it at $15 and a free try for a few levels which I think is a great way to go for this game and the niche audience we are trying to reach plus with the market being saturated with F2Ps, B2Ps and subscriptions models being phased out left right and centre we want to remain competitive.
This is however subject to change but that is the model we would like to go with and when we are closer to releasing the game, we will release an official announcement and the payment model that we will be using.
Yeah, sorry Kilsin...
I don't mean to be such a protagonist, in my defense I tried to preface my posts as My thoughts. So as not to conflict with VR's mission statements.
ie: "I don't want to go in-depth on this and derail Chaams thread. But to rebuttal some concerns here, I will defend my position. (not Visionary Realms, or Brad's)"
I think I'll open a more encompassing idea this weekend, discussing the market readiness, for a truly premium MMO experience. There seems to be a lot of "thinking" on this subject.
And/or possibly how Pantheon could play along within that business model, , but not necessarily follow as exact, etc. The discussion is what is most important.
I don't think it will take long to prove to Visionary Realms, that free accounts not only causes VR to loose money, but disrupts the the player experience & causes lost revenues, over time.
"Too many births at once... no one Nation can handle..."
-Arch Wizard, Sylvain Feldwythe
You guys are too quick. Not use to the quick responses. So sorry... ;]
No worries at all mate and you are free to create your own thread to discuss this topic in "general" but in relation to VRI and Pantheon, we will not be open to discussing our business model, sub plans or business motives until we have fully exhausted all research, avenues and possibilities that will best suit our company and our game, when that information has been agreed upon, we will publicly announce it at the appropriate time.
This is a controversial topic too and one that people have large differing personal opinions on, it is also a topic that we will not be taking feedback on as it will be an in house business decision but in saying that, we have announced to you all that we will be free to try and have $15 sub on going after that, we will have to wait and see about any other business decisions we do make but as I said, we will publicly announce them at the appropriate times.
I would actually expect that plans today could change by the time the game launches as well depending on funding gained for development, how much VRI needs to recoup to cover development costs, etc...
Really it's a good "forum fodder" type of a thread right now that folks can have fun discussing - but I would guess it won't be until sometime late in 2016 when beta is hopefully beyond the half way point and headed toward completion that a final assessment can be made by VRI.
Kilsin said:
Please keep in mind that Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen will be (not set in stone) a free download, free to try for X levels (few starting levels) then cut off unless you pay a $15 sub.
We have not decided if we will charge a box sale yet and other details are still being worked on as we speak but as it stands, Brad wants to keep it at $15 and a free try for a few levels which I think is a great way to go for this game and the niche audience we are trying to reach plus with the market being saturated with F2Ps, B2Ps and subscriptions models being phased out left right and centre we want to remain competitive.
This is however subject to change but that is the model we would like to go with and when we are closer to releasing the game, we will release an official announcement and the payment model that we will be using.
I plan on a digital download for sure, but I think I'd like a retail box too (unopened ..collector box) :) If VRI is going that way of course. It's early yet, guess we'll see how it all unfolds. :)
CanadinaXegony said:
Kilsin said:
Please keep in mind that Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen will be (not set in stone) a free download, free to try for X levels (few starting levels) then cut off unless you pay a $15 sub.
We have not decided if we will charge a box sale yet and other details are still being worked on as we speak but as it stands, Brad wants to keep it at $15 and a free try for a few levels which I think is a great way to go for this game and the niche audience we are trying to reach plus with the market being saturated with F2Ps, B2Ps and subscriptions models being phased out left right and centre we want to remain competitive.
This is however subject to change but that is the model we would like to go with and when we are closer to releasing the game, we will release an official announcement and the payment model that we will be using.
I plan on a digital download for sure, but I think I'd like a retail box too (unopened ..collector box) :) If VRI is going that way of course. It's early yet, guess we'll see how it all unfolds. :)
Yeah a know a few people would like that option too, we will have to see, it is very expensive to get a publisher and produce box products on shelves, where digital is much cheaper and easier for us to work with but it will all depend on investors and our business plan going forward.
Just an odd question here then.. If there are not going to be any product boxes that have the standard disc(s), authorization code, manual, and cloth map included in it, then am I to assume that the cloth maps that are supposed to be mailed/awarded to those that donate enough money will just be created using some printing service and then mailed to those that are supposed to get them?
Sogotp said:
Just an odd question here then.. If there are not going to be any product boxes that have the standard disc(s), authorization code, manual, and cloth map included in it, then am I to assume that the cloth maps that are supposed to be mailed/awarded to those that donate enough money will just be created using some printing service and then mailed to those that are supposed to get them?
We have not said that their will not be boxes with discs Sogotp, just that nothing has been fully decided on and we are not focussing on that right now, it is a long way off from getting to that point but I am sure that if we choose to go with just digital downloads that we will have a system in place to deliver those items like the cloth map for Cartographer pledge and higher plus the limited edition print for Aesthetician pledge or higher safely to you.
Right now though we are focussing on other areas of the game so we can get it to that point and have an awesome game to deliver. ;)
Sad comment/view on solo'ing at 53 minutes. Although before I say anything, I understand we are a long long way from playing/releasing - but this absolutely drives me insane as a Rogue whos played McQuaid games.
At the 52 - 53 minute mark he says 'straight up', that some classes will just be better at solo'ing then others. His focus will be whether or not they are good for a group. He doesn't want people not getting picked up for a group, because they don't have anything to offer. Which of course, makes perfect sense! Who can't remember the Magician of EQ1? Mana Rod or GTFO.
However - this means the possibility of the EQ1 Wizard / Druid of course is likely. While I am not sure how to solve this problem, I would feel a bit more comfortable if that was a priority. Just like Joppa read from a forum user (sorry I forget the name), if given the choice, people will always solo. So that means if word gets out that a random_class_01's abilities allow you to solo mob17_02, and you as random_class_02 die in 8 seconds after engaging, you can guess what everyone's first alt will be.
What I am getting at is while we hope everyone has Utopian attitude, when your game grows (and growth is wanted here), people are simply not gonna get a long, and would rather do stuff on their own for benefit, or in MOST cases, convenience. Getting in a group is fun, but its stressful if you have like - kids, wife, etc...
In closing I would say if you want to focus on group play, I think thats great, but please at least say outloud that if a certain class can solo group content that NO ONE ELSE in the game regardless of gear can solo, you will at least patch it to make it so others can, or that 1 class cant.
Vanguard was a HORRIBLE example of this with their Sorceror being able to fight 30 - 50 mobs at once that are group level.
Thank you, and yes I know this was a bit of a rant.