The overall intent of the developers is not to create 1 consistant story that every player walks through, nor do they have time to possibly develop 500,000 unique stories for each person to walk through.
why 500.000 stories ? it's just 20 classes / majors quests to create :
level 1 for warriors - "Enter the Gardian Path" : proove you master you can defeat the gobelin king during an escalation... (that requier to have a good weapon or staff with the apropriate elemental enchantment, good armor, etc etc -> this only one quest would requier lot of time for a newbie, lot of golds, lot of explorations to find the goblin, lot of tryies to accomplish this ... and it's fun ! no problem for devs.
level 1 for spys " A knife in the night" Go and kill without any guard alert a lieutnant into the settlement on the coords X-Y...
hard but cool !
Goblin Squad Member
|
why 500.000 stories ? it's just 20 classes / majors quests to create :level 1 for warriors - "Enter the Gardian Path" : proove you master you can defeat the gobelin king during an escalation... (that requier to have a good weapon or staff with the apropriate elemental enchantment, good armor, etc etc -> this only one quest would requier lot of time for a newbie, lot of golds, lot of explorations to find the goblin, lot of tryies to accomplish this ... and it's fun ! no problem for devs.
level 1 for spys " A knife in the night" Go and kill without any guard alert a lieutnant into the settlement on the coords X-Y...
hard but cool !
Well for starters, it either lacks in persistance, and depth.
you've got say 10,000 players, how many can kill the goblin king? If the answer is more than one... then there's no persistance in the escalation, no meaning to the players action etc... If it is just 1, then we are back to the problem of needing quests made on a per player basis, which is beyond unfeasable.
The idea of the second, semi-plausible, but it makes more sense to be done within the game's mechanics themselves. IE contracts. As the sniper in TF2 once said "as long as their's 2 people left on the plannet, someone is going to want someone dead". I don't need an NPC telling people they hate me because of some random dice roll, I'd rather actually getting to investigate and find out how what I did, or understand who has the grudge to send out an assasain, and were I to make an assasain, I'd like to believe there is a reason why someone should be killed, rather than just "the name came up in the random number generator".
Call me an idealist, but I envision settlements etc... having the ability to create huge lists of people to kill, things to get, locations to map out, dungeons to find, dungeons to clear etc... that can be dynamic, changing, and
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Call me an idealist, but I envision settlements etc... having the ability to create huge lists of people to kill, things to get, locations to map out, dungeons to find, dungeons to clear etc... that can be dynamic, changing, and
...never finished? :D
hehehe, i 'm totally agree with you Onishi just because,
|
@kenshi33, I would also ask you to consider this post from Ryan Dancey (Goblinworks Blog: I Can See for Miles). Specifically, the post talks about how the players of Ultima Online were very vocal in their desire for a non-PvP server, but once they got it, the game started losing players. What they didn't see was that the PvP made everything else they were doing meaningful.
I think the desire for solo content in PFO is similar. If there are things we can accomplish in PFO without having to team up with others, then those things will become less meaningful.
I'm not saying this to argue that everything should require a group - others have already pointed to a number of things that you'll be able to do solo. I'm just saying that solo content in PFO is likely to always be High Risk for a relatively Low Reward, and I think that's probably the way it should be.
While I agree with the idea of solo being harder, I do not think it should be required ever. What happens when I just cant find a good group, or I join a group of morons that I break away from in the middle of our mission? No, grouping shouldnt be a requirement.
Solo should be high risk, moderate reward. You should get more from grouping to encourage grouping, but the let the risk be the discouraging factor rather than rewards.
|
Shadowbane Version 2.0. Provide better graphics and a game that isn't poorly coded with memory leaks like Shadowbane did. Add some pathfinder'ish additions and make settlements, kill people, solo or group hunt mobs, have fun.
Grouping will probably be more inclined to guilds/factions like Shadowbane did. You joined a guild, guilds had cities,guards,blacksmiths and essentially "claimed" areas of interest nearby. People can obviously solo but if you're in a PvP area get used to looking over your shoulder all the time because there's always someone looking to get a free kill. Btw, in the past I've overall enjoyed PvP servers while at times it may be frustrating.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I agree with the idea of solo being harder, I do not think it should be required ever. What happens when I just cant find a good group, or I join a group of morons that I break away from in the middle of our mission? No, grouping shouldnt be a requirement.
You should invest in creating more long-term associations, rather than relying on ad-hoc parties for all your group needs. You can be sure that in a game like PFO where there's potentially a lot at stake (in-game), trust in other players is going to be at a premium.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree with the idea of solo being harder, I do not think it should be required ever. What happens when I just cant find a good group, or I join a group of morons that I break away from in the middle of our mission? No, grouping shouldnt be a requirement.Solo should be high risk, moderate reward. You should get more from grouping to encourage grouping, but the let the risk be the discouraging factor rather than rewards.
This is the philosophy that creates the groups of morons that you are complaining about. Why do people don't care to work in a group exist at such high levels in most MMORPGs, Because being a bane to every group, does not hinder their progression in any way shape or form. Failing at 99% of groups, is irrelevant to them because solo is where all the progress is made.
When not grouping is actually a huge hindrance to progression, the group bane types that make grouping horrible, either
1. Learn to group
2. Quit the game
3. Keep playing in spite of sucking, but stand out like a sore thumb due to clearly being way too poor for their level.
I'm not saying to make solo imposible, but the easier it is, the more bad groups you will find. Making grouping worse, making solo better by comparison, ad infinium.
That is why my general opinion, the benefit of solo, should be scaled against what you can expect to gain on a bad party. Thus solo you expect say 100 coin/hr value, group you expect 90-1,000/hr value depending on quality of group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Many many players are not always available for grouping. Work demands, small children at home, many legitimate reasons can require our ability to turn to them at a moment's notice. This is a hardship for any group you are adventuring with. Others of us work odd hours and may have difficulty finding a group to adventure with. Too, it is the nature of some classes to work solo or as a duo: Rogues and Rangers come to mind stalking their quarry silently doesn't fit well with the company of noisy clerics and fighters or absent minded bumbling wizards.
Yet the world will be a harrowing place for those who walk alone. We are warned 'Don't do that!' when soloing is brought up.
One would think it wouldn't be necessary to require such dependency.
So my thought is to provide some types of activity which can be profitably soloed. The careful hunter should not invariably find himself beset with hordes of goblins. Lynx should not only come in six-packs.
Have you any thoughts or preferences with regard to the availability of solo adventuring?
I think the discussion has gone far from the original post. Being was not asking for group content, such as raid dungeons, to be made soloable. He was asking for some content to be potentially soloable.
If every random monster encounter is a ravaging horde of goblins, that is not solo friendly content.
Not all crypts or dungeons need to be group only content. Even if a dungeon does have some challenges that are group content, it could still have a different path, where a solo character can bypass it through stealth or brains.
Exploration is an activity that I can see as soloable. As is hunting or some other wilderness based activity.
VERY IMPORTANT:
There has been some discussion that we will be able to multi-box and actively play more than one of our characters (on the same account) at the same time.
This will probably be based on placing one character (support role) on follow; and then there is a quick key to switch from one character to the other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm pretty sure there will be a number of things you will be able to do solo, in terms of game content - but the likelihood of the solo wanderer ending up on the business end of someone's sword at more or less random intervals is pretty high, without the protection of a few friends (or being very careful all the time).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I understand the concept of Solo-Play in Pathfinder Online, it will be very difficult, requiring excellent skills and reactions, good perception skills from the player to keep themselves from becoming swarmed, and the basic understanding that anything you can do, a group can do better/longer/harder/faster.
A Solo Player might never have to split the booty with others, but He/She will also never be able to tackle the same high-reward targets or objectives as a Group of Players could. It's not to say that a Solo Player is going to be ineffective, but nobody is going to be 'Drizzt'ing' around the land, spinning like a gary-stu through armies of Goblins, Giants, Orcs, Thayians all while moping and brooding on how they will never be accepted.
The Solo Player will likely be a stealthy sort, a form of mobile ambush-predator, in the plainest language. Able to strike from hiding for maximum force and minimum effort, to lure their targets into traps or situations where the target will be at a disadvantage of some kind.
They'll be our trail-blazers, our deep scouts, our diplomats to the savage tribes, the nearby dragon or the fey courts. Our 'Heroes' will be the 4-10 man groups of adventurers going around and fighting the good fight, while our solo players will be the ones who lurk in the background of the story and enable the Heroes to be just that.
As I understand the concept of Solo-Play in Pathfinder Online, it will be very difficult, requiring excellent skills and reactions, good perception skills from the player to keep themselves from becoming swarmed, and the basic understanding that anything you can do, a group can do better/longer/harder/faster.
A Solo Player might never have to split the booty with others, but He/She will also never be able to tackle the same high-reward targets or objectives as a Group of Players could. It's not to say that a Solo Player is going to be ineffective, but nobody is going to be 'Drizzt'ing' around the land, spinning like a gary-stu through armies of Goblins, Giants, Orcs, Thayians all while moping and brooding on how they will never be accepted.
The Solo Player will likely be a stealthy sort, a form of mobile ambush-predator, in the plainest language. Able to strike from hiding for maximum force and minimum effort, to lure their targets into traps or situations where the target will be at a disadvantage of some kind.
They'll be our trail-blazers, our deep scouts, our diplomats to the savage tribes, the nearby dragon or the fey courts. Our 'Heroes' will be the 4-10 man groups of adventurers going around and fighting the good fight, while our solo players will be the ones who lurk in the background of the story and enable the Heroes to be just that.
Responding to the BOLD...why not isn't that part of the fun of being a "heroic" fantasy character? Hell Conan Soloed as often as he grouped. Yes it should be more difficult, but it should also be FAR from impossible. No only for story value but also because there will be times for players that grouping will be very inconvenient I hope GW will understand that casual gamers often can not put the same amount of time in as dedicated gamers. Often work very unusual hours. Denying them a decent chance of playing will be money not being brought in, which is bad for business...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Realm: I think you'll be able specialize for a particular mob type. But it takes more time for more mobs to broaden "your diet"? And then you have to choose your exposure to risk. So oc it's very possible, but you need to choose when to solo, where and liase with others: Perhaps even act as "bait" while solo-ing for your team. :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh, I agree Realmwalker, but at the same point, Goblinworks has said that the game will be multi-Player orientated.
Most MMOs these days are single-player games couched in a multi-player chat-lounge, with a bit of team-play thrown in as instances of one form or another. Pathfinder Online seems to be a MMO where other players are necessary for you to be at the top of your game.
Look at most MMOs, especially the popular ones. Almost every Class/Build has a 'Spin to Win' combo or button where you just run into the middle of a group of enemies (a mob of mobs?), faceroll, loot and maybe eat something/pop a healing spell and move on to the next one.
I'm hoping that it's a little bit more like Skyrim, in that while not every battle will be a duel to the death, there will be a generous amount of 'hard' enemies that will require two or three players to deal with successfully, and a lot more like the table-top version, where enemies are varied, intelligent and willing to use their surroundings in an intelligent manner, not just standing there, stuck on that one uneven patch of flooring.
Too many players in Computer Games are used to being the g#*-d@&ned Juggernaut, just lower your head, power up your buffs and charge. A lot of those players will hit Pathfinder Online, get beaten up and scream "TOO HARD!", because we've been trained to accept that our characters are unstoppable. I've seen veteran gamers at my table have a Jeckle/Hyde relationship with gaming. Table-Top (D&D, Warhammer, Pathfinder), they're great team-players, excellent strategist, the works. The instant they log into an MMO, they devolve into screaming poo-flinging troglodytes slamming their fists on the keyboard the moment that they 'need' to interact with random strangers outside of their Guilds.
Because this is a single shard game I think people are worrying over much about playing at odd hours and there being no one else on.
Eve stats is the graph of people logged on in eve overtime...if you look at the last 24 hour graph (top left) you will see the only time players are sparse is just after the daily downtime for server maintenance.
I would expect PfO to have a similar profile.
The other thing to note is that settlements will be actively seeking to cover as much of a 24 hour period as possible in terms of having players active so they can widen the pvp window considerably
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Realmwalker
As many have said here, other places, and GW has indicated, solo play will be possible. Solo PVE will not be impossible because of the mobs, but likely the PVP oriented people will make it dangerous.
The "empty world syndrome" will not be much of an issue. For those that want solo play just because they want to be alone, it will be tough going, but humans are pretty clever when they want something. ;)
For myself, having to rethink my dislike of open PVP was hard, but the people and the "consequences" and "checks and balances" they are working on make it easier to accept.
Rethinking how we play will be a challenge. Solo will be possible, but definitely risky and hard to garner the same rewards as fast as group play. Groups like Bluddwolf's will probably honor agreements to let you hunt solo in their areas for a small fee. You will find areas without too many PVP hunter's occasionally. There will be ways.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are also activities you can engage in which are more solo by nature, and relatively safe, like crafting and buying/selling on the market, depending on your specific interest. Those still generally involve interacting with other players, even if they don't require an actual party, but they're usually nonfatal interactions within the relative safety of a settlement ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Realmwalker
As many have said here, other places, and GW has indicated, solo play will be possible. Solo PVE will not be impossible because of the mobs, but likely the PVP oriented people will make it dangerous.
The "empty world syndrome" will not be much of an issue. For those that want solo play just because they want to be alone, it will be tough going, but humans are pretty clever when they want something. ;)
For myself, having to rethink my dislike of open PVP was hard, but the people and the "consequences" and "checks and balances" they are working on make it easier to accept.
Rethinking how we play will be a challenge. Solo will be possible, but definitely risky and hard to garner the same rewards as fast as group play. Groups like Bluddwolf's will probably honor agreements to let you hunt solo in their areas for a small fee. You will find areas without too many PVP hunter's occasionally. There will be ways.
Solo characters (hunting, exploring or even gathering in small quantities) have very little to fear from UNC bandits.
I strongly recommend you NOT TRY to solo, moving a caravan of goods, passed one of our hideouts.
I am actually a huge supporter of solo play for those exploration, lone hunter, small time gatherer, adventurer types of characters.
One correction @Realmwalker...
Conan was solo a super majority (66% +) of the time. This discounts all others he grouped with, that had no names (subordinates).
Makes me wonder about GW's image of our characters, as compared to the NPC commoners.
Are we just well trained? Or are we exceptional specimens of physical and mental prowess. Or, are we in fact "Super" specimens in comparison to the NPC commoner?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are also activities you can engage in which are more solo by nature, and relatively safe, like crafting and buying/selling on the market, depending on your specific interest. Those still generally involve interacting with other players, even if they don't require an actual party, but they're usually nonfatal interactions within the relative safety of a settlement ;)
So you're saying, "If you are solo, don't go outdoors."
I don't recall reading anyone asking if going solo would not be risky. The argument is that it should not be an instant death sentence and there should be some content in the game that is solo capable.
If the Devs are thinking that leaving the safety of the settlement in anything less than a group is insanely dangerous, WOW!! You guys (generically used)are right, PFO and EVE are not that similar, PFO is a lot more dangerous!!
/hyperbole
|
|
90% of my social interactions will be out of combat. I have no desire for 90% of my gameplay to be out of combat however.
I am not, nor will I ever be good at grouping. I hate following after others with an absolute passion, even more so when Im the only one doing things my way.
Me I want social interactions, but I want them on the settlement, crafter levels rather than combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
here are also activities you can engage in which are more solo by nature, and relatively safe, like crafting and buying/selling on the market, depending on your specific interest. Those still generally involve interacting with other players, even if they don't require an actual party, but they're usually nonfatal interactions within the relative safety of a settlement
The OP of this thread is not asking about solo play for the purposes of crafting, refining or playing the market game. It is specifically asking if solo play is viable outside of the safety of the settlement.
Maybe we need another .... @ALL message..
@ALL: Don't discourage anyone from trying to play the game solo. It is as equal a legitimate play style as Group Play, PVE or PVP.
I don't think any of us should be discouraging anyone like:
Being, Kenshi33, Realmwalker or the others, that are asking for just the possibility that content in the wilderness will not reserved for Group Play Only. We have all stated an expectation that it will be difficult and require solo strategies that you might not have to consider when in a group.
That difficulty should not be laughably (on the Dev's part) nightmarish to attempt.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@DLH: I'm tempted to set up (another!) alt that specializes in solo: It will be possible to play solo oc, but the challenge will be higher. I think if my "solo alt" can skill-train specialize to solo, then it will provide the optimum support to the higher challenge. At that point it will then be a case of gaining experience at solo, making the right choices and seeing how much player skill and knowledge can be raised to match the more extreme challenge, which then could turn out to be fun or a trial.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
here are also activities you can engage in which are more solo by nature, and relatively safe, like crafting and buying/selling on the market, depending on your specific interest. Those still generally involve interacting with other players, even if they don't require an actual party, but they're usually nonfatal interactions within the relative safety of a settlementThe OP of this thread is not asking about solo play for the purposes of crafting, refining or playing the market game. It is specifically asking if solo play is viable outside of the safety of the settlement.
I don't think anyone is pushing for within settlment walls to be the only solo play. But I still hold 100% to the idea that as a game mechanic, it should be expected for solo to gain at the same rate as grouping.
As I've basically argued time and time again, outside of the settlements I believe the rewards need to be estimated in a way that the time/reward average, rewards group play at a DRASTICALLY higher rate. By enough of a ratio that if on a bad day it takes an hour to form a party, get everyone ready and agreeing on where to go, what to do etc... and the party lasts for 2 hours, it should still come out ahead of soloing straight out for those 3 hours.
That is not to say that solo should have no use, or no reward. Just that the risk/reward ratio needs to err on the side of solo being much worse. Rather than the idea that both being equal if you start at the same time, that the typical MMORPGs give.
I would never argue that solo should not be possible, or even that any particular tasks should be unsoloable. Just that solo has inherant advantages right off the bat that need to be compensated for, (IE 1. you sign on you already have 100% of the group you need to solo. 2. Only one character to make mistakes, 3. Loot distribution is always going to be favorable etc...). Those advantages need compensation for to balance things out, or else we wind up in the same scenerio of every other MMORPG. In which grouping is nonviable except in the areas where the game flat out forces you to group. Outside of those situations, finding a group is virtually impossible.
As far as players themselves. As far as them trying I have no intention of discouraging. But at a mechanical level I do think the dev's absolutely need to ensure that soloing is at a solid disadvantage in time/reward ratio as well as risk/reward ratio.
Players absolutely should be allowed and encouraged to play in ways they enjoy more, that do have worse time/reward, risk/reward ratios.
The thing with solo vs group. If you enjoy solo, and are willing to take a hit to reward/time for the sake of playing how you want, you can do that absolutely.
With group not being the ideal risk/reward ratio, you don't have that luxury. I have attempted to do so in many games that discourage grouping, perfect world, WoW etc... I make my character the way I want (generally full support with no attacks), go out to where the quest needs to be done, and ask every person who goes by working on that quest if they are willing to group. Spent 4 weeks on a quest that would take a normal person who follows the games route 30 minutes one time that way, before giving up.
Bottom line, solo can and will function even if the mechanics make it unideal. Grouping on the other hand cannot. Let's make a rough estimate here of general population. I'd assume roughly
80% whatever's optimal
10% greatly prefer to solo
10% greatly prefer to group.
now the 80% obviously function just fine no matter which way the mechanics swing. The soloers, also function just fine no matter what,as even if it isn't ideal, they can still solo. Groupers on the other hand are crippled if grouping isn't at an advantage, because even though they are willing to take the hit, they also have to find more of their puny subset to be able to actually do it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are also activities you can engage in which are more solo by nature, and relatively safe, like crafting and buying/selling on the market, depending on your specific interest. Those still generally involve interacting with other players, even if they don't require an actual party, but they're usually nonfatal interactions within the relative safety of a settlementThe OP of this thread is not asking about solo play for the purposes of crafting, refining or playing the market game. It is specifically asking if solo play is viable outside of the safety of the settlement.
Sorry, I was mostly replying to Realmwalker, whose post was more general, not Being's OP. I should have quoted the post to be more clear
|
|
@ Onishi
Do we really need to worry about it as much in a sandbox? I didnt play Eve very long but I dont recall anything to encourage grouping mechanically, but trying to go outside the high security areas was painful enough just from players, that I didnt bother. One of the reasons I stopped was the fact that I had to go through gates so was unable to sneak anywhere or take unlikely routes to avoid enemy players.
Since this is a similar style sandbox, and is influenced by Eve, I think it is entirely possible that mechanics may not be needed to encourage grouping, and if certain conditions are present may even need to mechanically support solo just to make it possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Onishi
Do we really need to worry about it as much in a sandbox? I didnt play Eve very long but I dont recall anything to encourage grouping mechanically, but trying to go outside the high security areas was painful enough just from players, that I didnt bother. One of the reasons I stopped was the fact that I had to go through gates so was unable to sneak anywhere or take unlikely routes to avoid enemy players.
Since this is a similar style sandbox, and is influenced by Eve, I think it is entirely possible that mechanics may not be needed to encourage grouping, and if certain conditions are present may even need to mechanically support solo just to make it possible.
So 1. You are off the bat citing exactly what eve did to greatly punish solo play on a pretty large basis, doing so in a form that specifically is covering something GW is specifically avoiding doing.
IE Eve made traveling solo as dangerous as humanly possible. IE eve created major choke points to ensure that traveling alone, you had no way to lower your risks of running into an ambush. GW has specifically stated they do not intend to use this choke point system.
Secondly eve specifically encouraged quite a bit in the way of killing, forms that GW would consider griefing etc...
Don't get me wrong I expect a decent amount of PVP etc... but, I imagine the dangers caused in that area, to be reduced by about 60-70% due to the removal of the gates as you mentioned, on top of the added mechanics making CE not the best alignment to shoot for.
The main thing I am asking for mechanically, is not a prevention of solo, rather an elimination of the typical enemies are weak, drop in 1-3 shots, spread themselves out thin enough that it is common and easy to pick them off 1 at a time, with a significantly higher reward for picking off 10 weaker easier enemies, vs fighting enemies that actually might be a challenge.
Instead I think the harder enemies, should drop exponentially higher rewards. IE focusing on the enemies that are stronger, harder to kill, will attempt to swarm, outnumber etc... should result in a notably higher reward for the time, vs things that can be picked off with little effort, tactics etc... as well the time/reward ratio should still be preferable when a group using good tactics to take the groups as is should be at a notable reward/time ratio, vs a soloer who should IMO have quite a bit of waiting, sneaking, and planning to try and catch the ones that stray from the group etc...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The key to this idea, is they can't be balanced evenly. ...
the purpose of this post is just to balance the two gameplays, making it as fair as possible for everyone who choose to be most of the time in groups and those who prefer to live on they're side and enter a group when they decide to.
Is 'evenness' between independence and interdependence (or codependence) really a critical factor in designing a multiplayer game environment?
Is 'evenness' between independence and interdependence (or codependence) really a critical factor in designing a multiplayer game environment?The key to this idea, is they can't be balanced evenly. ...
the purpose of this post is just to balance the two gameplays, making it as fair as possible for everyone who choose to be most of the time in groups and those who prefer to live on they're side and enter a group when they decide to.
i'm not totally agree with you Onishi, they CAN be balanced evenly... only with a good XP and loot reward rating as you wish.
Make soloers capable to hunt/travel/explore/harvest alone in the wilderness or enter a dongeon using specific solo oriented abilities (stealth, surviving, healthing etc) must be possible, and don't have to be opposed to interdependance with groups for others kinds of activities... i hope i could choose if and how i can do such things alone without thinking it's just impossible because monsters get artificial 200 000 health points. I need to prepare myself, my spells books, armor, find potions, bind the correct localisation, travel safety, explore the place, and need to use strategy reach the deep of the dongeon, even if the Boss is too powerfull to be slay by myself... and it's a long way too, as long as your group search.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
i'm not totally agree with you Onishi, they CAN be balanced evenly... only with a good XP and loot reward rating as you wish.
Make soloers capable to hunt/travel/explore/harvest alone in the wilderness or enter a dongeon using specific solo oriented abilities (stealth, surviving, healthing etc) must be possible, and don't have to be opposed to interdependance with groups for others kinds of activities... i hope i could choose if and how i can do such things alone without thinking it's just impossible because monsters get artificial 200 000 health points. I need to prepare myself, my spells books, armor, find potions, bind the correct localisation, travel safety, explore the place, and need to use strategy reach the deep of the dongeon, even if the Boss is too powerfull to be slay by myself... and it's a long way too, as long as your group search.
Even is kind of a difficult word to define. To be actually even in a form of which grouping isn't greatly at a disadvantage, means the initial setup time, plus the risk of a party of people who do not know what they are doing have to be compensated for. Then comes the imposible part of balancing. When compensating for the delay at the start, which is a finite single time delay, then that disadvantage inherant in the initial time decreases with time.
IE a 1 hour setup time, for a 50% increase to gain speed, in a 3 hour party, is about even. In a 6 hour party, is significantly better. In a 1 hour party, is significantly worse.
The greater the advantage of partying, the lower party setup time is. In older games in which partying was 8x faster than soloing, if soloing is even possible, you basically walked into town, and one time said "anyone up for a group", within a minute you had 5 people ready to go. Even as recent as DDO prior to the addition of solo mode, and dungeon scaling (In dungeon scaling they made enemies weaker or stronger based on how many people were in the party, in some cases that difference was enough that 1-2 people was often easier than 5), Now in the modern MMO (including DDO after their changes to make soloing easier). You find people looking for groups for up to several hours.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The time it takes to form a party is not only variable, but also a matter of player discretion and availability. Those things are out-of-scope for game design and a responsibility for the players. It is unreasonable that it should be given extra advantages for what is outside the game.
ok seems to be more complex than my explaination... so i accept wearing hudge lead boots !
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The time it takes to form a party is not only variable, but also a matter of player discretion and availability. Those things are out-of-scope for game design and a responsibility for the players. It is unreasonable that it should be given extra advantages for what is outside the game.
I agree it is a matter of player discretion, but the mechanics have a huge impact on it. I've mentioned the recursive loop numerous times. If forming a party is not worth the time for many, less people will be willing to wait for a party, making organization time worse, loop repeats until only those who absolutely refuse to solo are the ones forming parties, as it continues to get worse, people who actually enjoy parties quit.
Try just about any game by perfect world entertainment other than neverwinter (best examples I can think of would be perfect world, and ether saga), and try to find a party for anything other than the instances they give every 20 levels or so, and you'll see what I mean.
It is a variable controlled by the player base, but the mechanics have a huge impact on which direction the players go. I've said it before and I'll say it again, 80% of the community will chose whichever is optimal, 10% will solo regardless, 10% will attempt to party regardless of which is optimal. If they are even with the assumption of a 0 start-up time, then solo is optimal 99% of the time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Building parts of the game to facilitate the player's ability to find a group is utterly different from giving the interdependent more in-game advantages over the independent.
It should be enough to enjoy greater safety in numbers, with greater combined power. Additional buffing is unnecessary.
But really it shouldn't be on the game design to encourage or discourage either soloing or grouping. It is for the designer to design the game and leave it to the players to play it.
Finding your optimal group is part of your challenge, part of your play. You can min-max and take a week to find your optimal group or you can relax and just adventure along with other individuals and hope you have built up enough good will with them that they will lend a hand when the chips are down.
I like the mechanic of soft grouping, personally, but programmatically that seems it would be challenging to code where PvP will be always possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I'm not even convinced grouping mechanisms actually have to be coded in other than for formation combat.
Why not simply code for the single character and leave it to the individual players to decide whether to act cooperatively or at cross-purposes. That might be the best of all possible solutions, whether you are marching along in a mass of a thousand hoplites or rangering alone in the outlands.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I'm not even convinced grouping mechanisms actually have to be coded in other than for formation combat.
Why not simply code for the single character and leave it to the individual players to decide whether to act cooperatively or at cross-purposes. That might be the best of all possible solutions, whether you are marching along in a mass of a thousand hoplites or rangering alone in the outlands.
If the content, and difficulty of 90% of the game is based on what an individual character can do, then grouping is just a pain in the butt and we have another one of 10,000 single player MMORPG's out there in which 90% of what you do is solo with a nice chat room to listen to other players boasting about how many enemies they've killed, or complain about the grind. If the challanges are scaled with the expectations of groups being the standard, we have an MMORPG that actually is designed for team play, and yup clever individuals can use tactics, combinations of skills, or just focus on content intended for groups half of their current gear/skill tier. They aren't screwed in the ways players trying to find a group in games that the chalanges are scaled to soloers are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The artifice of grouping mechanics is pretty dated anyway. From what has been said the world is not at all being scaled to soloists but to cooperative groups, and I would expect that to remain the case even if all the group/LFG apparatus is left out (simplify simplify simplify). That means people will go out and try to solo alone and learn quickly that is not the best solution. They may then make social contact and solo together with others simply from choice rather than being enslaved to the group mechanic.