Goblin Squad Member
|
Stealth is probably a must for soloing, and a good hide out, and good scouting skills and survival. Sounds like a ranger :).Ranger and druid were specifically mentioned by Ryan as being "solo-y", yes. I suspect it's a combination of their wilderness-oriented skillset and the ability of both to pick up animal companions.
Hubby and I plan to do a two-ranger or ranger/druid pair for times when guildmates aren't available, so we'll see how well that works.
Bearing in mind ... no pets yet.
Though Druids are good summoners.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well I could say agreement that extremism either way is a factor. IMO A good balance would be seperate solo based activities, or an intentional added difficulty so that soloing is at minimum twice time/gain as grouping. I think the key reason for most of the problems in the solo games that I keep quitting, is 90% of the time it is due to most enemies die in 1-2 shots, making having assistance negligable. Scaling things so that enemies take 1 minute or so to kill individually, would both not eliminate soloing, and make the speed increase from more than 1 person noteworthy.
As far as the elimination of per kill XP, that factor dosn't change. Obviously almost anything in a game is to earn something, in this case most likely loot/materials, and that also has to be split, so that factor still exists in entirety.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi, You want to make things even more difficult and time consuming for solo players? Taking on every challenge alone isn't difficult enough? Being the solo source of damage and healing isn't time consuming enough?
By pure nature, one level 5 taking on a 5th level encounter is going to take 5 times longer and have like 12 times more difficulty handling it then a party of five level 5s. You don't think that's enough? You want to punish players for playing solo? What did we ever do to you?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, I don't agree that, say, a level 20 fighter should be able to solo a CR 20 dragon. Challenge Ratings are meant for a full party of 4-6 players, typically of various classes and roles. There will be challenges that solo players just wont be able to over come on their own. At least not before training up to a greater power then a full party would need to handle the encounter.
Of course, they're planning to do away with levels, as well as level caps, so in theory, with enough time and effort, there is no challenge that a solo player couldn't overcome, eventually.
Group players will also get to the point where the only challenge they will find are other players of equal or greater power. However, they'll get to that point sooner then solo players. Unless they too then start soloing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, I don't agree that, say, a level 20 fighter should be able to solo a CR 20 dragon. Challenge Ratings are meant for a full party of 4-6 players, typically of various classes and roles. There will be challenges that solo players just wont be able to over come on their own. At least not before training up to a greater power then a full party would need to handle the encounter.
Generally if you can its by exploiting failings in the AI for the NPC monsters.
Typically with Dragons in many games (NWN for example) they tend to get "stuck" behind objects and barriers that the PC can cast/shoot over.
Another example from NWN is that the Dragons turn to face the last attacker so positioning two spell casters on opposite sides of the dragon, casting appropriate ranged spells alternately, has the Dragon continually turning to face the "new" foe and never actually attacking.
Such exploits should be heavily discouraged.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi, You want to make things even more difficult and time consuming for solo players? Taking on every challenge alone isn't difficult enough? Being the solo source of damage and healing isn't time consuming enough?
By pure nature, one level 5 taking on a 5th level encounter is going to take 5 times longer and have like 12 times more difficulty handling it then a party of five level 5s. You don't think that's enough? You want to punish players for playing solo? What did we ever do to you?
I'm saying that most challenges need to actually be difficult enough that a group is ideal. Compared to 90% of MMO's in which most current MMORPG's that 95% of enemies are built to be quick and easy solo, and trivial with a group. I'm saying that scale should be swung so that they are medium with a group, fairly difficult solo.
I am not saying to punish solo players, I am saying to actually make the bulk of the game difficult enough that joining a group is beneficial. I would say 95% of MMOs right now are built to the point where 95% of enemies are extremely easy solo, and adding any more to the group is just a waste of time (IE team mate one has killed it before team mate 2 even has a reason to take a shot, then both are devoted to finding the next enemy to swat).
Now it depends on what you are talking of as the starting point with the statment "taking on every challenge alone is not difficult enough". But in terms of games like WoW, Perfect world, Ether saga, eden eternal, runes of magic etc.... yes taking on challenges alone is not difficult enough in those games, killing enemies feels more like swatting flies than actually fighting something that is an appropriate challenge.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think most solo content comes from other players. There's gonna be lot of chartered companys competing in the wilds. So if a solo player meets a party out in the wilds where there is no law, no one has to say how that's going to end. If people want to stay good aligned, that's probably the only thing stopping parties pulverizing solo players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry going to disagree with you Onishi.
The reason to group in an sandbox MMO is not about killing NPCs. The most dangerous foe is the other players. You are not grouping together primarily for additional profit you are grouping together for additional safety. This is more of an encouragement than making encounters with dumb AI harder.
Those that solo in lawless areas are taking on huge risks. Much more so than a group of players killing orcs or whatever. The fact that some, even approaching 50% or more, of the NPCs are easy to solo is pointless if you can't leave your area in relative safety.
Any games you listed a sandbox PvP game? I highly encourage you to try out a trial of Eve. Fly out to lo-sec and start to soloing stuff in your ship after about a week. You should easily be able to kill the NPCs by then if you stick to meaningful combat skills. I would venture to guess that the pirates in the area will eat you alive in minutes if anyone is prowling. You group for survival not for profit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Any games you listed a sandbox PvP game? I highly encourage you to try out a trial of Eve. Fly out to lo-sec and start to soloing stuff in your ship after about a week. You should easily be able to kill the NPCs by then if you stick to meaningful combat skills. I would venture to guess that the pirates in the area will eat you alive in minutes if anyone is prowling. You group for survival not for profit.
Fully agreed within the context of eve, and probably a few months ago I would have considered that probable for PFO. PFO the anti-grieving steps they have taken... I imagine the thief/bandit path to be very likely to be several leagues less common than in eve. In eve, the worse thing that can happen is your reputation hits too low to return to high sec. PFO by current descriptions, being CE can prevent you from training the top skills. That itself is a pretty extreme level detriment, considering most skilled PVPers, are people who want to be the strongest as well.
Now that doesn't mean there will never be banditry, but it will very likely be more of an exception than the rule. Will a 2% chance of running into bandits be enough to make you benefit from a party when going out and farming orcs, probably not. Now that 2% chance will likely be enough that when you are moving very expensive rare materials from town A to town B to be processed, then yeah it's worth getting a caravan of guardians.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Fully agreed within the context of eve, and probably a few months ago I would have considered that probable for PFO. PFO the anti-grieving steps they have taken... I imagine the thief/bandit path to be very likely to be several leagues less common than in eve. In eve, the worse thing that can happen is your reputation hits too low to return to high sec. PFO by current descriptions, being CE can prevent you from training the top skills. That itself is a pretty extreme level detriment, considering most skilled PVPers, are people who want to be the strongest as well.
Now that doesn't mean there will never be banditry, but it will very likely be more of an exception than the rule. Will a 2% chance of running into bandits be enough to make you benefit from a party when going out and farming orcs, probably not. Now that 2% chance will likely be enough that when you are moving very expensive rare materials from town A to town B to be processed, then yeah it's worth getting a caravan of guardians.
According to what I have read from the Devs, banditry will likely not be considered griefing or murder because it would take place outside of settled areas (wilderness, road crossing, mountain passes, etc.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would be a mistake for most content to be soloable because most players will usually group. Almost everyone will wish to solo at least occasionally. I happen to agree with Onishi that soloable areas should be sicrete from areas designed for groups. The soloing player should be able to figure out where they have a good chance soloing, but how that is signalled I haven't worked out in my mind.
I don't really have a good feel for what the proportions should be, because how often a player wishes to solo will vary with circumstance and personality.
But surely at a minimum 80% of the game should be group content, and as Leperkhaun suggested the more valuable things should require much greater skill and abilities than the average adventurer can must alone.
Perhaps 20% of that 80% should be small group and the rest full group.
Should there be a few areas designed for multiple groups?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm just gonna play with a scenario here...imagine a classic good settlement vs an evil settlement, or any settlement vs settlement that feel the need to extinguish the other. My point is just to show how many quest/missions there are for every type of playing style.
Both will probably have some type of army, military force, depending on their settlement regarding how easy it is to defend one of them will strategize and attack or a defend. First they might send someone to try diplomacy, maybe infiltrate the settlement and report back to their home settlement. They can sabotage to help the attackers or the other way around. The point is that some stuff you want to do with the whole army, some stuff you want a group of people and sometimes its useful to send a single person. Before the army stand head to head on the battlefield or attacking/defending a settlement they would probably want as much intelligence as they can gather.
During the attack a group might offer a distraction so someone can sneak into the settlement and sabotage, when food storage is burning, or the ammunition storage is destroyed (insert whatever u want here), the army could start a siege or an attack. The complexity and the feeling of contributing to a common goal is what I enjoy at least. If you can make a scenario which opens up "unlimited" possibilities its up to the players to decide how they want to strategize.
I believe there is room for every player style, and maybe the contract system will handle it. One goal could have a lot of contracts/tasks involved.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there are instanced dungeons then there could be a choice to enter as solo or as group. Wilderness areas will likely be populated by a mix of leveled mobs, but some regions will be more dangerous overall than others.
In the wilderness a solo player will have to be more aware of his surroundings and the biggest threat will likely be other PCs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While looking up how GW wants to handle instancing i came across two things.
What we'd like to do with Pathfinder Online is combine an open world approach to design with this kind of theme park content. As you explore, you may discover a dungeon entrance. So long as you don't go inside, that entrance can be found by other explorers. Once a character enters the dungeon, though, that entrance becomes "locked" to that explorer; other characters won't be able to find that entrance. A character with access to an entrance can form a party and the party can enter the dungeon as a group.
Which IMO a strange but interesting way to make dungeons work.
We have a vision of one more kind of PvE content; for historical reasons, we'll call it a "module." This is a scripted, fully designed adventure suitable for some number of characters of some specified power level. Some of these modules will likely be available to everyone for free. Others may be obtained via the use of in-game microtransaction currency. Modules you unlock would likely be instanced content available to just those characters you wish to adventure with, meaning each group that unlocks a given module will experience it as though it exists exclsuvely for them.
While it mentions groups If i recall correctly it is not uncommon for pen and paper modules to have suggested scaling to player numbers. And there being a number of solo modules available.
So that may be an indicator for a kind of viable solo content being present.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope they add in kiting and split pulling. Those made soloing a lot of fun.
From Ryan's blog post on Avoiding Exploits, it appears the Devs aren't interested in "kiting" in all its forms, just selective ways, which do seem to be part of the plan:
There will be a strong focus given to the AI mechanics of monstrous creatures to avoid the problem of letting one character "train" or "kite" them into conflict with unaffiliated characters, getting the monsters to do their dirty work. We'd rather see a train of monsters run right past a party of vulnerable characters while they continue to chase the characters who triggered their ire, rather than stop and attack the easier new targets, even though that's a bit of an immersion breaker.
Emphasis mine. So it looks like you could kite mobs, but the aggro stays on the kiting PC.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There will be a strong focus given to the AI mechanics of monstrous creatures to avoid the problem of letting one character "train" or "kite" them into conflict with unaffiliated characters, getting the monsters to do their dirty work. We'd rather see a train of monsters run right past a party of vulnerable characters while they continue to chase the characters who triggered their ire, rather than stop and attack the easier new targets, even though that's a bit of an immersion breaker.Emphasis mine. So it looks like you could kite mobs, but the aggro stays on the kiting PC.
Cool. One of my biggest complatins about ranged combat in other games is that it becomes very hard to keep critters at range solo. if you have kiting and or some crowd control to keep them from closing fast while keeping aggro, you are able to solo much more effectivly. You can do the same thing with melee if you have a faster run speed than your enemites to use hit an run tactics to whittly them down.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to see a system where a solo character would have a smaller aggro radius, than that of a group.I think this is a really good idea, and I encourage you to post it in its own thread.
Unless the entire party is snuggled up against each other, how does a single player not have a smaller aggro radius than a party spread over fifteen or twenty feet by default?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless the entire party is snuggled up against each other, how does a single player not have a smaller aggro radius than a party spread over fifteen or twenty feet by default?I would like to see a system where a solo character would have a smaller aggro radius, than that of a group.I think this is a really good idea, and I encourage you to post it in its own thread.
Many MMOs did not have an aggro radius based on group size. A larger group should make more noise, be spread out more and then attract more attention.
If we then consider formation fighting, then a lager group could minimize their aggro signature, but never below that of a solo character.
The thread is talking about solo character content. What I am suggesting is that having an aggro signature radius system will open the door for additional content for a solo character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My point is, if you have one person walking, they will aggro everything with X feet to either side of their path, generating a line 2X feet wide. If you have two people walking side by side, ten feet apart, that line is now 2X + 10 feet wide. X feet to the right of the person on the right, and X feet to the left of the person on the left, plus the distance between them. More people inherently means a larger aggro radius for the "group".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I often play on Hard Mode, by tackling content meant for groups, all by myself. In most MMORPG's, they have "group quests", or something like that. I don't care if they weren't meant for a soloist. I always try them, and do creative pulls, kiting, and any other nefarious tactic. Sure, I often die or fail, but that is my choice.
My point is this: It doesn't matter if there is content *designed* for soloists or groups. My Ranger will be doing content solo, one way or the other. I'll play the game how I want to play it; hence sandbox being my preference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My point is, if you have one person walking, they will aggro everything with X feet to either side of their path, generating a line 2X feet wide. If you have two people walking side by side, ten feet apart, that line is now 2X + 10 feet wide. X feet to the right of the person on the right, and X feet to the left of the person on the left, plus the distance between them. More people inherently means a larger aggro radius for the "group".
Yes I agree, I think we are saying the same thing. Larger group = more aggro signature radius. This could be mitigated by a large group traveling light and by using a special combat formation. This is where the distance between each individual creates the signature of a solo person, but the distance is short enough to reach your group mates in one turn. Horizontally this is called a skirmish line. Vertically I'm not sure?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dario and Bluddwulf, just curious, but how would you suggest factoring in stealth? It is potentially possible for a large group to all be using the stealth skill (in fact I see bandits almost always doing this in groups, just to "get the drop" on someone). I'm interested, in a purely academic way, what you may have thought of already.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Dario is saying that a group of characters already has a larger aggro radius, therefore nothing needs to be done.
I actually think my aggro radius should be increased if I have a group member (maybe even any other character) nearby, because we're now making twice as much noise, and shaking the ground twice as hard, stinking twice as much, etc. There are all sorts of cues that predators use in the real world to locate prey that aren't already modeled in an MMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dario and Bluddwulf, just curious, but how would you suggest factoring in stealth? It is potentially possible for a large group to all be using the stealth skill (in fact I see bandits almost always doing this in groups, just to "get the drop" on someone). I'm interested, in a purely academic way, what you may have thought of already.
Stealth should (in addition to anything else it does vs players) reduce your aggro radius, and thereby your contribution to the group's collective aggro radius (X + 10 + 1/2X in my above example). Possibly to the point of you actually being able to contain yours inside that of another PC (if 10 + 1/2X is less than X, then the radius is only 2X centered on the non-stealthed character)
I think Dario is saying that a group of characters already has a larger aggro radius, therefore nothing needs to be done.
Correct.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would then suggest making solo players aggro radius artificially smaller than groups, especially if using stealth.
Solo - 15' radius
Solo stealthed - 5' radius
Group of 2 or more 50' radius
Group of 2 or more stealthed - 20' radius
Tack on maybe a 5 to 10 foot multiplier for increased player numbers by 10s (10,20,30)
I actually think my aggro radius should be increased if I have a group member (maybe even any other character) nearby, ....
I agree, and I'd add that the choice to attack should depend on the monster. Dumb ones may very well attack, but smarter ones may OODO you,(yeah, I've been readin') decide you're too powerful and run away. Or maybe get a bunch of their buddies and set up an ambush. Or better yet, go to town, wave a white flag and hire the gankers to kill you for them, and make a pact with them for trade, training and protection purposes. Now that's intelligent AI.
A solo player might look like easy pickin's so all he'd pull is one or 2 from the area, but a group might encourage the creep to get some help.This mechanic helps the solo player have some fun, while the groups may spend a bit of time trying find some creeps who want to come out and play and make zerging thru the woodlands more difficult for a group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There will be a strong focus given to the AI mechanics of monstrous creatures to avoid the problem of letting one character "train" or "kite" them into conflict with unaffiliated characters, getting the monsters to do their dirty work. We'd rather see a train of monsters run right past a party of vulnerable characters while they continue to chase the characters who triggered their ire, rather than stop and attack the easier new targets, even though that's a bit of an immersion breaker.Emphasis mine. So it looks like you could kite mobs, but the aggro stays on the kiting PC.
Well hopefully they won't follow you infinitely, and if they do they don't immediately turn around and aggro whatever poor PC was unfortunate enough to be around when the original aggro-er manages to break aggro (zoning, etc). *has flashbacks to Temple of the Three Winds trains from Anarchy Online....*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I actually think my aggro radius should be increased if I have a group member (maybe even any other character) nearby, ....I agree, and I'd add that the choice to attack should depend on the monster. Dumb ones may very well attack, but smarter ones may OODO you,(yeah, I've been readin') decide you're too powerful and run away. Or maybe get a bunch of their buddies and set up an ambush. Or better yet, go to town, wave a white flag and hire the gankers to kill you for them, and make a pact with them for trade, training and protection purposes. Now that's intelligent AI.
A solo player might look like easy pickin's so all he'd pull is one or 2 from the area, but a group might encourage the creep to get some help.This mechanic helps the solo player have some fun, while the groups may spend a bit of time trying find some creeps who want to come out and play and make zerging thru the woodlands more difficult for a group.
If you base this on members actually grouped with you,then you encourage folks to run ungrouped and have a macro to quick group if something does attack (so as not to cause mobs to run away, or to spawn a bunch more). If it's based on the total people in the area (grouped or ungrouped), then holy carp does that open up griefing potential.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well hopefully they won't follow you infinitely, and if they do they don't immediately turn around and aggro whatever poor PC was unfortunate enough to be around when the original aggro-er manages to break aggro (zoning, etc). *has flashbacks to Temple of the Three Winds trains from Anarchy Online....*There will be a strong focus given to the AI mechanics of monstrous creatures to avoid the problem of letting one character "train" or "kite" them into conflict with unaffiliated characters, getting the monsters to do their dirty work. We'd rather see a train of monsters run right past a party of vulnerable characters while they continue to chase the characters who triggered their ire, rather than stop and attack the easier new targets, even though that's a bit of an immersion breaker.Emphasis mine. So it looks like you could kite mobs, but the aggro stays on the kiting PC.
Most likely if you drag them to the limit of their tether, they won't aggro anything until they've reset, to keep from catching people on the way back.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm going to create a new thread to discuss aggro signature radius, since this issue has hijacked the original issue of solo player pathways to game play.
I originally felt that signature radius would be a major advantage to open doors for a solo player, but it also has group applications as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I say, leave this "aggro signature radius" stuff in WoW. This is Pathfinder, Pathfinder is all about the Perception checks.
An individual perception check would be rolled against each member of a group. So the more people in a group the higher chance of detection and the more likely they'll be detected from further away.
This will also let more stealthy characters like rogues remain concealed and maneuver while the less stealthy characters distract the enemy and meet them head-on. Stealthy characters will generally want to scout ahead though so that they can take advantage of the "surprise round" (how those will be implemented, I have no idea).
I'll repost this in Bluddwolf's new thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While looking up how GW wants to handle instancing i came across two things.
What we'd like to do with Pathfinder Online is combine an open world approach to design with this kind of theme park content. As you explore, you may discover a dungeon entrance. So long as you don't go inside, that entrance can be found by other explorers. Once a character enters the dungeon, though, that entrance becomes "locked" to that explorer; other characters won't be able to find that entrance. A character with access to an entrance can form a party and the party can enter the dungeon as a group.Which IMO a strange but interesting way to make dungeons work.
We have a vision of one more kind of PvE content; for historical reasons, we'll call it a "module." This is a scripted, fully designed adventure suitable for some number of characters of some specified power level. Some of these modules will likely be available to everyone for free. Others may be obtained via the use of in-game microtransaction currency. Modules you unlock would likely be instanced content available to just those characters you wish to adventure with, meaning each group that unlocks a given module will experience it as though it exists exclsuvely for them.While it mentions groups If i recall correctly it is not uncommon for pen and paper modules to have suggested scaling to player numbers. And there being a number of solo modules available.
So that may be an indicator for a kind of viable solo content being present.
I totally missed some of this thanks for posting.
I love the idea of explorers finding and locking down instances. This gives me a reason to be out in the woods taking risks. I can either get a party together or hopefully sell the information and keep searching for more entrances. It would be a way for a full stealth woodsman to make some coin.
I think they will make the entrances to the instances in neutral territory and some of it in "lo-sec". Kind of like wormholes for any of you Eve players. This way they will force some of the hi-sec people out to lo-sec and maybe make it so the dread bandit Roberts needs to clean up some of his criminal flags to get in "hi-sec" to do them.
I could be wrong but I try to think how would they do "x" in Eve and then apply that to Pathfinder.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to see a few of those modules, the ones that require microtransactions, to have an actual GM run the adventure. With cool prizes and titles you can earn on a successful mission.
That would be great, but if it happened at all it might be quite rare.
Nevertheless GW is to have a stable of actors in the Alpha group who are committed to filling monstrous roles.
Personally I would be happy to have a viable soloing option even as a purchasable module. If some evening I could not get a viable group, and did not feel like doing whatever crafting turns out to be like, then a good old fashioned solo tour of a catacombs or sewer might be just the ticket.
Hm. If I were criminal that might be a handy hiding tool. Recommend, were such options made real, then maybe criminals should be disallowed them, just as they are to be disallowed fast travel.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For micro-trans instances:
Turn off the flag count downs while in the instances and make their entrance in a settlement your company owns (possible upgrade to the settlement) or and NPC settlement.
That way criminals can still enter if they are part of a player settlement. I am not going to play a criminal but I don't think they should be excluded just because they want to play that way. At the same time it protects against possible abuse.
For the open world entrances:
Turn off the flag count downs once they enter. If not it will diminish the importance of the flags. Same as for the micro-trans one.
I still hope I can sell/trade these waypoints. Sure possible abuse is there, but people make it a profession to find the entrances. You could also trade it to your guild mates if you don't like grouping. Introverts can fill an important role within there settlement. The settlement benefits because it has more treasure or better arms/weapons to defend itself.
While looking up how GW wants to handle instancing i came across two things.
What we'd like to do with Pathfinder Online is combine an open world approach to design with this kind of theme park content. As you explore, you may discover a dungeon entrance. So long as you don't go inside, that entrance can be found by other explorers. Once a character enters the dungeon, though, that entrance becomes "locked" to that explorer; other characters won't be able to find that entrance. A character with access to an entrance can form a party and the party can enter the dungeon as a group.Which IMO a strange but interesting way to make dungeons work.
We have a vision of one more kind of PvE content; for historical reasons, we'll call it a "module." This is a scripted, fully designed adventure suitable for some number of characters of some specified power level. Some of these modules will likely be available to everyone for free. Others may be obtained via the use of in-game microtransaction currency. Modules you unlock would likely be instanced content available to just those characters you wish to adventure with, meaning each group that unlocks a given module will experience it as though it exists exclsuvely for them.While it mentions groups If i recall correctly it is not uncommon for pen and paper modules to have suggested scaling to player numbers. And there being a number of solo modules available.
So that may be an indicator for a kind of viable solo content being present.
I totally missed some of this thanks for posting.
I love the idea of explorers finding and locking down instances. This gives me a reason to be out in the woods taking risks. I can either get a party together or hopefully sell the information and keep searching for more entrances. It would be a way for a full stealth woodsman...
This. Instancing can easily be used to bring the theme park elements and PVE "safe" zone into the massive sand box that is PFO. And based on Ryan's posts, my assessment is that Eve is a better model for the mechanics of PFO, while Pathfinder the RPG is the content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless the entire party is snuggled up against each other, how does a single player not have a smaller aggro radius than a party spread over fifteen or twenty feet by default?I would like to see a system where a solo character would have a smaller aggro radius, than that of a group.I think this is a really good idea, and I encourage you to post it in its own thread.
Agree, and there should ofcourse also be different between riding through the area on grass or rocks, or silently walking from shadow to shadow and be as silent as u can.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I've read through this thread (more or less) and there's a lot of good discussion about transitory soloing e.g. soloing a critter or some other relatively short duration solo activity. But I'd like to explore a longer-term vision practical for a solo player which includes building something, as opposed to just bouncing from one solo encounter to the next. I mean...our efforts are supposed to be persistent, right? OK, what sort of persistence element is there for someone who prefers (for whatever reason) to play solo?
I'd like to see single players have the capability to build their own base of operations (village or whatever) and have a reasonable chance of being able to nurture it and protect it.
Here's a few bullet points of what I have in mind:
- Firstly, of course a solo player shouldn't be able to build a major city, but a small community should be achievable.
- NPC occupants should be obtainable for various roles e.g a blacksmith for a solo player who isn't interested in training weapon making skills, etc...
- Guard NPCs should be available for hire so that the community can be protected from other players who get a rise out of ganking others just for the fun of it.
- There should be a balance between protection forces available for hire and capabilities of other players, so that it is possible for a village to be sacked or even occupied...just not easy (assuming the village has been well-protected).
- Maintaining such a village should be possible without requiring a huge time investment. Five or 8 hours per week should be sufficient to keep things humming while still allowing time for other fun stuff like dungeoning/hunting/whatever
- If a "solo" village is sacked (with the intent of taking what isn't nailed down and leaving), it shouldn't be more than a moderate setback in the development of that village.
- If a "solo" village is occupied with the intent of taking it over, then there should be some way to limit the loss (in financial as well as time investment terms) for the solo player who built it.
- Capability to develop such a village to an extent where many of the needs of a solo player can be supported, but not all of them.
- In general I'm talking about giving a solo player the same opportunity that groups have to build something permanent and sustainable...and enjoyable.
Maybe this capability is already there, and I'm just not aware of it. Admittedly, I haven't been following the development blogs or these boards particularly closely. If I'm just rehashing a point that's been covered elsewhere, I'd appreciate a pointer to that discussion. Otherwise, I'd love to hear other peoples' thoughts.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Eaghen: Where should those tens of thousands of villages be?
Thanks for the response. You make a good point. Couple thoughts in response
a) not everyone one would want one because not everyone would want to go the solo pathb) pursuant to this thought, not everyone would want one because of limitations congruent with the idea of being small communities
c) left unattended, they would revert to the wilderness (or be occupied by baddies)
d) they'd take a lot of work (and/or money, maybe even real life money)to get off the ground
e) with these thoughts in mind it seems fair to think there wouldn't be an inordinately large number of players willing to even try to build their own village
Still I have to recognize your concern. Certainly, the world would need to be big enough, and the effort/expense of building your own village high enough, so that overcrowding would be avoided.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that the games that have supported solo play have generally resulted in most players playing solo.
I'm happy with Goblinworks' decision to create a game world where solo play is risky.
Lee Hammock: Hi, I'm Lee Hammock. I'm the Lead Game Designer at Goblinworks.
Stephen Cheney: And I'm Stephen Cheney. I'm also a Game Designer at Goblinworks.
Can I play the game Solo
LH: [laughing] That is a fantastic - I love that question.
SC: [laughing] You shouldn't do that, you're going to die.
Too much honest for the Holidays, gentlemen. Let's try it again!
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Eaghen
Hi! :)
If you had to guess at a percentage, of the player pop, that would want to build solitary structures or single handedly develop villages, what would that number be?
I googled current number of subscribers to Eve Online and what I found indicates around 300k accounts. Decius is a little more optimistic and guesses in the millions (and nothing would please me more!)
However many subscribers PfO winds up with, I think the percentage of people who might try to build their own little fiefdom would have to be a function of how hard the developers made it to start, grow and sustain. I imagine a large percentage would consider it. I'd also imagine the developers would have to make it hard enough to discourage a large number of those people...after all, Decius has a good point about overcrowding. It should take time, work, resources and perhaps most importantly dedication to achieve.
I bring all this up because I'm not keen on joining groups led by people who have more time than sense. I've experienced too many times the disappointment of putting lots of effort into helping a group grow, and ultimately seeing it disintegrate (and my efforts go to waste) because of factors completely out of my control. And frankly, I don't have the time to lead such a group myself...it is a tremendous commitment and my priorities lay elsewhere. I want a game I can play 5 or 10 hours a week that lets me build something tangible without being dependent on anyone else to sustain. I'm ok with some risk, even the possibility of catastrophe, but it should be something that can be recovered from without having to completely start over again.
A persistent world ought to make some accommodation for people who want to go it alone, and offer some of the same sorts of persistent achievable goals to individuals that are available to groups.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A persistent world ought to make some accommodation for people who want to go it alone, and offer some of the same sorts of persistent achievable goals to individuals that are available to groups.
I could not agree more with this statement. For a game that GW has an expectation that we will be playing it for years, solo play MUST be accommodated.