| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Counter Strike is a twitch-based shooter. You shoot in a shooter. It's a = a. An MMORPG allows you to assume a role. You "should" be able to do things associated to that role. If you're playing a crafter, quilting is fair game. Similarly, if you're playing the lone wolf type character, you should be able to go it alone unless absolutely necessary. Given the IP of Pathfinder, both the crafter and lone wolf are perfectly valid options within the ethos given.
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think players are expecting a "single player experience" just because they don't always group.
No, but they expect soloing be viable whenever and wherever they choose to do so, and that will not happen. Given the very open environment and player interactions you likely can get by by yourselves sometimes but often simply not.
Given the IP of Pathfinder, both the crafter and lone wolf are perfectly valid options within the ethos given.
Yes, of course, but this is what will happen:
The "lone wolf" will be repeatedly killed off by the 8 "bandits" that discovered that in a group you do things faster and better.
So either the "lone wolf" is very patient or the "lone wolf" will either group with at least 7 more "lone wolves" or bitterly complain that PFO is not soloable and maybe quit...
So I agree that the lone wolf is an "option" but I doubt it will (and should be) a valid option most of the time.
Same for crafter. The materials needed to craft the interesting things will likely be so hard to come by that the crafter has to group with (or buy from) other players to get them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not trying to denegrate anyones play prefences. I AM however saying that a single game design is ONLY capable of accomodating SO many conflicting preferences WELL before it breaks and ends up accomodating no ones preferences well. It's like trying to play football and baseball on the same field at the same time.... the players get in each others way, and no one is able to have a good time.
A game who's design/mechanisms are FOCUSED on supporting Solo based play for the core of the game is a game/design that NECCESARLY isn't conduscive to GROUP/COOPERATIVE based play.
That's NOT to say that a game can't support SOME Solo based activities and still support GROUP/COOPERATIVE play well.....but the more a game makes accessable to SOLO based play, the less it is supportive of people who enjoy group based play. It's (IMO) a ZERO sum game. Eventualy your baseball game crowds out my football game, to the point where there is no room for me to play football, and I have to give up and go elsewhere.
The thing that frustrates me to no end....is that I see this in virtualy EVERY MMO I've played.... it starts out with a certain amount of support/focus for group based play.... and then the soloers come in and complain that "such and such a portion of the game isn't accessable to solo players" and "Why do I have to rely on OTHER people for X, it's very inconveniant for me"..... and if they complain loud enough, eventualy the Dev's listen and they modify the game systems/content to support SOLO based play more... at the EXPENSE of group based play...to the point that group based play dries up and DISAPPEARS or is relegated to some sort of ghetto.
This seems to happen in VIRTUALY EVERY SINGLE MMO. I always try to point out to the "Solo" focused players that they have about 1,000 other titles available to them that are actualy DESIGNED to be focused on SOLO based play (including MOST MMO'S these days) and that we groupers have almost NONE.....but no, it's always the case that they have to have THIS game designed toward thier preferences too....and they seem incapable of understanding that designing mechanisms to support thier style of play actively reduces support for ours. I just don't want to see that pattern repeated here again. Everything I've read about PFO's design from the Dev blogs so far screams Group/Cooperative focus...and yet we have folks here already clamoring to make the game "solo focused" and advocating that they shouldn't have to be dependant on other players for anything..... I'm sorry, but don't you guys have a choice of about 50 thousand OTHER titles (including MMO's) that are DESIGNED to provide just that? Why can't those of us who actualy ENJOY grouping/interdependance be allowed one or two titles that are actualy geared toward our preferences?
Again, I've got nothing against Solo focused games, I actualy play those myself some times..... I do get agrivated when I see people arguing that EVERY SINGLE TITLE MUST be solo focused...despite how many others are already out there flooding the market. Are those of us who are interested in Group/Interdependance to be allowed NO Titles that are geared toward our interests?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A game who's design/mechanisms are FOCUSED on supporting Solo based play for the core of the game is a game/design that NECCESARLY isn't conduscive to GROUP/COOPERATIVE based play.
Agreed. But there's a world of difference between focusing on "supporting Solo based play for the core of the game", and taking steps to actively remove opportunities for solo play.
I think that PFO already has this well in hand. Solo play will be kind of like High Security play - possible, but not terribly rewarding. There will still be opportunities for players to venture out into the wilds on their own, and the occasional lucky soloist will get a "wildcat strike" and maybe even make a fortune getting it safely back to civilization. But I expect there to be almost insurmountable risks associated with trying to get rich solo harvesting.
The thing that frustrates me to no end...[PARAPHRASE: soloers whine, devs change game, groupers suffer]
I'm very sympathetic to this concern, and understanding how concerned you are about this gives me a better and more compassionate understanding of your position in many of the topics we've debated.
I just don't want to see that pattern repeated here again.
I don't either.
Yes, of course, but this is what will happen:
The "lone wolf" will be repeatedly killed off by the 8 "bandits" that discovered that in a group you do things faster and better.
So either the "lone wolf" is very patient or the "lone wolf" will either group with at least 7 more "lone wolves" or bitterly complain that PFO is not soloable and maybe quit...
So I agree that the lone wolf is an "option" but I doubt it will (and should be) a valid option most of the time.
Same for crafter. The materials needed to craft the interesting things will likely be so hard to come by that the crafter has to group with (or buy from) other players to get them.
I can promise you that's not how I'd play a lone wolf type character. Given the options available within Pathfinder, I would probably learn to sneak a bit better or just use the terrain to my advantage (same approximate route but using bush, ridges, etc to mask my approach from any road), beef up any quick-to-execute exit strategy, might hire some guards to distract or to follow a bit behind for a counter-ambush if I were seeking revenge, etc. Or, I could just take a different route entirely. :D
The thing with taking a robust, pre-existing system and trying to box people into a certain play style is that it doesn't work, which is what you tried to do. There are tons of options. If you've ever solo'd a rogue for any amount of time in a table-top session then you would learn very quickly how to handle these kinds of situations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can promise you that's not how I'd play a lone wolf type character. Given the options available within Pathfinder, I would probably learn to sneak a bit better or just use the terrain to my advantage (same approximate route but using bush, ridges, etc to mask my approach from any road), beef up any quick-to-execute exit strategy, might hire some guards to distract or to follow a bit behind for a counter-ambush if I were seeking revenge, etc. Or, I could just take a different route entirely. :D
The thing with taking a robust, pre-existing system and trying to box people into a certain play style is that it doesn't work, which is what you tried to do. There are tons of options. If you've ever solo'd a rogue for any amount of time in a table-top session then you would learn very quickly how to handle these kinds of situations.
Agreed that solo play will likely be an entirely different style, and require large amounts more subtlety, but I think I will also point out the obvious drawbacks solo will have in that case. Transport of goods. IE a large team will likely be bringing along several good sized waggons, which most likely will be forced onto roads of some sort, even if they aren't, wagons and stealth don't mix, thus leading to a solo player having a huge limit on what he can collect at a time.
And I do have to point out one statement... while risking re-re-re-re-raising a dead topic that has supplied no new ideas or concepts yet still pops up every 2 weeks. Stealth in the game is uncertain, and if present may not work the way people hope/want it to. (Please don't shift this to that same topic, it isn't confirmed that it isn't in the game, and it isn't like the devs haven't been putting thought into it, all we know is it is not an absolute thing to say with any certainty that it will be in the game).
Agreed that solo play will likely be an entirely different style, and require large amounts more subtlety, but I think I will also point out the obvious drawbacks solo will have in that case. Transport of goods. IE a large team will likely be bringing along several good sized waggons, which most likely will be forced onto roads of some sort, even if they aren't, wagons and stealth don't mix, thus leading to a solo player having a huge limit on what he can collect at a time.
As it should be. Though, to me, and of course it's using those subtleties to their full potential, but I can very well see a single guy ganking caravans if he uses stealth (see below), misdirection, some well placed traps, etc to essentially cause everyone to either flee or be crippled such that one guy can either finish them off or have enough time to grab what he wants and then leaves.
In Eve, single pilots actually do this by deploying webbers and scramblers and bombing people from afar.
And I do have to point out one statement... while risking re-re-re-re-raising a dead topic that has supplied no new ideas or concepts yet still pops up every 2 weeks. Stealth in the game is uncertain, and if present may not work the way people hope/want it to. (Please don't shift this to that same topic, it isn't confirmed that it isn't in the game, and it isn't like the devs haven't been putting thought into it, all we know is it is not an absolute thing to say with any certainty that it will be in the game).
Not my intent. However, stealth is in Pathfinder itself so it should be fair game to speak of conceptually until we have a clear press release, beta or release stating it's not going to be in PF:O. Also, there is a lot more involved in stealth than being undetectable to a game client. Simply ducking behind trees is being stealthy. Crouching to reduce your sound output is being stealthy as is whispering. Lifting an item such that it doesn't contact other items so as to make no noise is being stealthy. Stealth is much more involved than a game mechanic which makes you magically disappear from someone's screen even if you're standing directly in front of them (which, actually, by definition, IS NOT stealth).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, of course, but this is what will happen:
The "lone wolf" will be repeatedly killed off by the 8 "bandits" that discovered that in a group you do things faster and better.
So either the "lone wolf" is very patient or the "lone wolf" will either group with at least 7 more "lone wolves" or bitterly complain that PFO is not soloable and maybe quit...
So I agree that the lone wolf is an "option" but I doubt it will (and should be) a valid option most of the time.
Same for crafter. The materials needed to craft the interesting things will likely be so hard to come by that the crafter has to group with (or buy from) other players to get them.
I can promise you that's not how I'd play a lone wolf type character. Given the options available within Pathfinder, I would probably learn to sneak a bit better or just use the terrain to my advantage (same approximate route but using bush, ridges, etc to mask my approach from any road), beef up any quick-to-execute exit strategy, might hire some guards to distract or to follow a bit behind for a counter-ambush if I were seeking revenge, etc. Or, I could just take a different route entirely. :D
The thing with taking a robust, pre-existing system and trying to box people into a certain play style is that it doesn't work, which is what you tried to do. There are tons of options. If you've ever solo'd a rogue for any amount of time in a table-top session then you would learn very quickly how to handle these kinds of situations.
I don't think anyone really has a problem with that. There ARE/SHOULD be things you can do by yourself...but it WILL/SHOULD limit what you can achieve. Can you sneak past a bandit ambush... sure.... can you craft yourself a usable bow...sure. Can you take out a band of 50 bandits all by yourself...probably not... can you construct a Castle all by yourself...nope. There are aspects of the game you DEFINATELY should be able to do by yourself....but for other things, you really should need to rely on others to get done.
I will agree on that, Mel.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A game who's design/mechanisms are FOCUSED on supporting Solo based play for the core of the game is a game/design that NECCESARLY isn't conduscive to GROUP/COOPERATIVE based play.
Sorry, but I have to be contrary. This might be the case in theme parks with scripted content, but in a sandbox there is no content but what the players make for themselves...including interactions with each other.
I hope Goblinworks does not cater to either design...they should build us a cool frame, fill it with sand...and release us inside. Granted they should occasionally do things such as refill the box when sand spills (nudge the economy when we break it). Other than that...if someone can develop a skill set that allows them to play solo, then go for it. I think though, that like in RL, players will find there is safety in numbers. Like in RL where people gravitated toward living in towns for mutual protection, in game people will gravitate toward grouping whenever possible. I do not see how this conflicts with my previously mentioned preference for playing with tight friends because I am already making some here. We have begun our own charter for the explicit purpose of fulfilling the needs I just described.
And, for the record, the point of multiboxing is the ability to enjoy content as if you were not solo, even when you cannot find other players you want to team with. So, arguing for multiboxing, is an argument for group play content.
But I do agree on many other points. While hypothetically a solo player could build a castle with unlimited time and uncontested territory, but I hope the dynamics of the game are such that this is essentially a nil probability (but not a nil possibility).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think GrumpyMel is referring to the design choices the devs will make with respect to Archetype Skills and monster difficulty.
If it's easy for a solo character to wander into an Orc camp and kill 100 Orcs in a row, then that's a pretty clear indication that the devs have designed the game with a focus on supporting solo play.
Personally, I would hope that an Orc camp with 100 Orcs in it would rouse itself at the first sign of trouble, and create a significant challenge for a small army of players.
I also very much hope to avoid the standard MMO treatment of having to cut through a wall of mobs to get from one side of a hex to the other without using the road.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Again in DAoC some classes had the ability to stealth, being undetectable as long as they didn't attack.
These classes were also not filling any role well that was needed in a group.
Voila - solo ability.
But sooner than later these stealthers grouped together to wage their little stealth wars amongs each other.
It was great fun to observe a lone straggler, idly running through a valley and then suddenly 5 enemies pop out of stealth and try to make an easy kill just to be attacked by 7 enemy stealthers and then everyone was killed by an elite group that "heard" the sounds of battle and came zooming through the woods.
Hilarious.
So, I think that GoWo will of course not "take pains" to make solo play impossible, that would be stupid. But even if you play a Rogue, Ranger or Assassin, you will likely have it much much easier in a (specialised) group and this is how it should be because forming a group takes time (unless you enjoy the luxury of a fixed group) and this time MUST be worth it.