The feasibility of playing on your own part 1 - general thoughts


Pathfinder Online

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread is the result of a chat with one of my members who isn't playing currently. He tends to play WoW and other games mainly on his own and felt that PFO just doesn't allow him to enjoy it because it doesn't allow solo play.

This got me thinking. The game will lose a lot if we have no solo players. I'm playing 95% of the time 'solo' - so why is there a problem for other people?

Maybe the issue is that there is a difference between playing on your own and solo play.

Playing on your own is possible in PFO and can be rewarding. But playing on your own might need adaption to games designed for solo play.

So first lets start what I mean by 'solo play' - I already started using the phrase playing on your own instead. I mean that you log in on your own without mumble or teamchat and enjoy the game.

A lot of potential players seem to struggle with how to play on your own in PFO - and that lets them reject the game. I mentioned already a member of the Emerald Lodge telling me that he tried the game, couldn't play meaningful on his own - and therefore wouldn't start until much later as EE. So I thought to enable a functional Emerald Lodge I needed to do something for these players - before I lose them. And I'm sharing my thoughts here as the overall community will be better off if we don't chase away these players.

There are several hurdles to overcome if you play on your own. The main reason in my view to reject playing on your own result from a few generic topics

1) The game is deliberately complex to allow years of gaming
2) The game is designed for settlements and not for solo play
3) The game is still in development

So lets look into ways how to play different roles solo in a rewarding way - and which hurdles you need to overcome to do so.

General hurdle for all roles - knowing how to play the game

This is a new game. It is a complex game. I often compare the crafting and other advancement trees to Civilization. In a way this is good - as it offers a large interdependent game play - but right now it is confusing for a beginner as you start without a map of the tree - in alpha the tree sometimes changed, some information isn't available inside the game itself yet (common vs uncommon) so you have to reply on external spreadsheets - and these sometimes can be out of date.
And you have to add to this some non-intuitive ways how everything is named / works. Like learning feats to go up levels in fighter/wizard/rogue or cleric or having to equip a staff/wand to be able to cast spells, needing the right equipment so that a feat actually is doing anything - or the other way round - having +3 equipment but lacking the feats so it isn't doing anything better as a +1.

So learning the game is an investment. Just logging on and learning by playing is a sure recipe to be frustrated with the game. GW has been adding tutorials, there is more and more information available online - like Cheatles guide or the PFO Wiki. And it helps to follow the links in the startup screen. And ASK - there are many helpful players out there and there is a plan to have a help channel in the game. I died uncounted times while running from a to b and giving advice to players in the chat - and running into large groups of monsters doing so.

But as a player who wants to play mainly on your own you have to accept that this game is not yet in a place where you pick it up, log in and enjoy playing. There is a huge learning curve - even if you played many other games before. Or maybe especially if you played many other games before.

The game is designed for settlements - not for solo play

This is the most important part to understand in playing on your own. The game is deliberately designed so you will never be self sufficient - even with a destiny twin or multiple accounts.
But there are still a lot of ways how to play in a meaningful way on your own - with on your own I mean 95% on your own. Occasionally you will have to interact. Ideally by aligning yourself with a settlement. How much you will be able to do on your own and how much you depend on others will depend on the role you chose. This will be investigated in later posts.

The game is still in development

This can be good or bad for someone playing on his own. You can see this as giving added meaning as you can influence where it is going. But it also might mean that you are caught flat footed by some changes if you don't spend hours at forums and always read the blod.
People caught out overloaded when encumbrance was switched on is one such example.

[b}Roles:[/b]
The amount you are able to play on your own also depends a lot on your role. Do you want to play gatherer, crafter, PvE fighter, PvP fighter, trader or another role.
I have started to write about the gatherer but realized I didn't finish the write up. So I felt I start with this post and then dedicate further threads to individual roles.
Explaining what is possible, what to look out for and how best adapt in PFO to have a meaningful game.
I plan to post these whenever I manage to finish them.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A lot of playing on your own also has to do with having a goal in mind and how accessible that goal is by yourself.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Ravenlute wrote:
A lot of playing on your own also has to do with having a goal in mind and how accessible that goal is by yourself.

I wanted to go into these with the different goals. Some work better - some have serious issues. Some might need some help from GW to become feasible.

But I started this a week ago and realized I don't get all roles and issues done quickly - so wanted to start posting.

Goblin Squad Member

Ravenlute wrote:
A lot of playing on your own also has to do with having a goal in mind and how accessible that goal is by yourself.

I think this is an important one, not just for PFO but for most MMO's when playing solo. It shouldn't be something like "get to level 5", it should be something more meta, like "visit every settlement" or "make my own armor". You might get to level 5 while doing it, but you're not grinding for the sake of grinding.

Goblin Squad Member

Being in the Australian timezone with a relatively inactive settlement (though they do seem more active recently) I have spent a lot of time solo. Also due to WoT issues i never did manage to get my chartered company attached to a settlement.

Solo play is fine for the first 6 or 8 weeks.

Once you have skills and ok gear you can:
- train up to NPC max level
- solo and one-shot kill low level mobs
- solo and clear larger mobs with multiple yellows (like bandit Captains and Alpha Wolves up to one or two Ogre Warriors)
- solo single reds or small mobs with just a single red
- craft pretty much any T1 gear you need

What you cannot do is:
- train to use +3 gear
- take on escalations spawning mobs of all red and purple
- have any hope of making much in the way of T2 gear

Goblin Squad Member

For me, Solo play is still viable. I regularly go on 'scouting' missions, learning if things are working like they are suppose to (Towers and such), checking out escalations, and a few other things.

I have also had no problem with taking on large groups of enemies. The last two weeks I even equipped only starter equipment and I have gone around lowering a few escalations by 1% or 2%. There are even situations where I have "stolen" magic scrolls and banners from the enemy.

This is enjoyable for me, but that is probably just me. I have proven to myself that certain things are possible going alone, though obviously more dangerous.

Goblin Squad Member

I'd enjoy it if Frontier Hexes ie the edge of the map hexes were so dangerous from a PvE pov, only solo explorers stand a chance of surviving out back; groups making a ruckus that leads to being preyed upon.

Then you'd have your solo-explorer's niche. :-)


I reckon you can play solo if it means by yourself while in a settlement. The issue becomes un-settled people. I believe that is a design flaw that you basically are forced to join a settlement. I know it's 'working as intended.'

I see, as I said before, how that would limit a lot of things. It would make the rich get richer, per se. Doesn't seem like it'd make a fun game for the underdog and, of course, there needs to be people other than the most giant settlements. I don't know if GW thinks everyone is just going to group up forever, but what may happen is... people who group will stay and the ones who don't will leave.

I'm even for making it harder to train while being un-settled, but not impossible. That is probably my largest problem with the game.

People love to group up, sure, but a lot of MMO people don't. Some of the really heavy players, too. I've met them in games... Independent people are interesting in a game of war.

The way things are, too much control is given to the founders. Which is OK, I guess... but again, it's going to end up being mostly them.

Goblin Squad Member

Grouping, combined with reputation and DI is a core part of the overall mechanic for interfering with griefing behaviour. By having our behaviour impact the other members of our settlement, they put additional pressure on us to avoid reputation-negative activities, or get pushed out of our group, which interferes with our ability to progress. Most of those who want to be primarily solo will be perfectly welcome in most settlements as long as they keep their reputation up in general and do stuff. I don't think they'll be forced to have an active role int he settlement if they don't want it.

Smaller groups will be able to administer a POI, I'm guessing with very little interference from the settlement leader as long as the bulk goods flow.

By OE, it will only take ten people to go off to a new spot and build their own settlement.

You are correct that is working as intended, and we won't know for months, or longer, if working as intended will work. If the core mechanic doesn't function when working as intended, they'll re-work it, or give up.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
By having our behaviour impact the other members of our settlement...

This is the part that worries me (I just posted about it in another thread). Last time it was discussed, your behavior doesn't really have an impact on your Settlement or its other Members.

If your Settlement has a High Reputation requirement and highly upgraded structures, you can be Low Reputation and still get all that benefit, you just can't enter the Settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:

Grouping, combined with reputation and DI is a core part of the overall mechanic for interfering with griefing behaviour. By having our behaviour impact the other members of our settlement, they put additional pressure on us to avoid reputation-negative activities, or get pushed out of our group, which interferes with our ability to progress. Most of those who want to be primarily solo will be perfectly welcome in most settlements as long as they keep their reputation up in general and do stuff. I don't think they'll be forced to have an active role int he settlement if they don't want it.

Smaller groups will be able to administer a POI, I'm guessing with very little interference from the settlement leader as long as the bulk goods flow.

By OE, it will only take ten people to go off to a new spot and build their own settlement.

You are correct that is working as intended, and we won't know for months, or longer, if working as intended will work. If the core mechanic doesn't function when working as intended, they'll re-work it, or give up.

The intention seems to be to create EVE with just NPC null and SOV null though the Thornguard add a non-null element.

I suspect the evolution of BoB/CFC/Test/PL style coalition level politics is something that is intended.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
By having our behaviour impact the other members of our settlement...

This is the part that worries me (I just posted about it in another thread). Last time it was discussed, your behavior doesn't really have an impact on your Settlement or its other Members.

If your Settlement has a High Reputation requirement and highly upgraded structures, you can be Low Reputation and still get all that benefit, you just can't enter the Settlement.

I presume that will be different in the real game, when DI is what we need, rather than towers. I (again) presume that settlement reputation will be a function of all the members' reputation.

Goblin Squad Member

Neadenil Edam wrote:

The intention seems to be to create EVE with just NPC null and SOV null though the Thornguard add a non-null element.

I suspect the evolution of BoB/CFC/Test/PL style coalition level politics is something that is intended.

I don't know, sorry. I tried Eve for two hours and was not tempted to go back.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
I (again) presume that settlement reputation will be a function of all the members' reputation.

We were explicitly told this was not to be the case.

Goblin Squad Member

Found it.

Nihimon wrote:

@Lee Hammock, did you intend to give this impression?

Tyncale wrote:

Yes, so no direct mechanical influence of a character that is becoming low-rep to the Settlement he belongs to: he just will not be able to enter his own city anymore as long as the Leaders of that city keep the reputation treshold(and thus the quality of the buildings) on the same level.

Good thing to know that members going Low rep will not be able to disadvantage their fellow Settlement members in a direct way.

That is currently the plan. We don't want to let one shmuck with a bad attitude go on a PvP murder spree and ruin your town for you. As with everything we may change our minds once we see how things are playing out.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
I don't know, sorry. I tried Eve for two hours and was not tempted to go back.

Sounds like a story I'd like to hear sometime. Probably would be a thread derailer. Maybe next time I catch you in game :)


Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:

Grouping, combined with reputation and DI is a core part of the overall mechanic for interfering with griefing behaviour. By having our behaviour impact the other members of our settlement, they put additional pressure on us to avoid reputation-negative activities, or get pushed out of our group, which interferes with our ability to progress. Most of those who want to be primarily solo will be perfectly welcome in most settlements as long as they keep their reputation up in general and do stuff. I don't think they'll be forced to have an active role int he settlement if they don't want it.

Smaller groups will be able to administer a POI, I'm guessing with very little interference from the settlement leader as long as the bulk goods flow.

By OE, it will only take ten people to go off to a new spot and build their own settlement.

You are correct that is working as intended, and we won't know for months, or longer, if working as intended will work. If the core mechanic doesn't function when working as intended, they'll re-work it, or give up.

Thing about this though, is it assumes the people at the top are great people. Not that they can be jerks. If they are jerks, the griefing that they do, basically blocking people from training or forcing them to work, is going to be a huge obstacle.

It's possible the world could be conquered by jerky people who just limit the training of new players in order to keep their hold on the world. If this happens before OE the game is over.

I have a different definition of griefing... I don't think that PKing is. As I said a million times, I am not a PKer, but as long as people aren't PK'd in town, it's all good to me. IF people CAN be PKed in town, then all of this nonsense means nothing. Cuz people will find a way to kill people in town and get away with it. Thus invalidating any sort of anti-grief mechanic and it's "git gud nub" all over again.

It would be nice, again, to have something more dynamic... even a mechanic where towns or certain PoIs (if they are as I assume they are) are near impossible to get kills. Then there is neutral territory and owned territory and the owned territory can have its own rules. Can choose who is protected by law and who isn't. Who is allowed, who is not.

But, that limiting training is an anti-griefing mechanic... that blows my mind. People can likely still grief with NPC lvl characters. And they probably will.

I think there needs to be an equal amount of "I need you" and "You need me." Seems like too much control is in the settlements, namely the big ones that will inevitably suck up all of the small ones, due to this mechanic.

Goblin Squad Member

A few things.

Settlement advantages are one aspect of managing griefing. It isn't just about training, it's training and access equipment via access to auction houses and access to refining and crafting facilities and access to banks so that you don't have to carry everything you own.

Yes, they can still grief, but they will be locked out of significant parts of the game, and after a while will have difficulty acquiring replacement gear.

Jerks at the top are only as powerful as the 24 hours it takes you to switch to a new settlement. Unless an entire gigantic group is jerky and able to control the map, others will set up other settlements and go their own way. If such a giant group does exist, GW will have to wield their power. A company that manages a POI can walk away from it at any time and cause problems for the settlement that depends on its flow of goods.

Pk'ing isn't griefing. A LOT of Pk'ing in a small time without a "reason" within the world's definitions is. That's the PFO definition. We can accept it or go elsewhere.

Exactly as you ask, the Thornguards exist to make it difficult to PK within the boundaries of a settlement or on a patrolled road, and impossible to do on an ongoing basis.

You are entitled to an opinion that the giant settlements will suck everyone up. I disagree. And I am confident that if they get close, it will be rebalanced.

CEO, Goblinworks

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There needs to be a mechanic that encourages a Settlement to boot a character that isn't conforming to the Settlement's standards of behavior (or to acknowledge those standards have changed). There is a fine line between making such a system a series of interesting choices (which is good) and a mechanic which is really a mandate (which is bad).

In the short term we just need to get the functionality built to make being in a Settlement meaningful, and making denial of access to that Settlement meaningful. Then we can start Crowdforging more elaborate systems on top.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
There needs to be a mechanic that encourages a Settlement to boot a character that isn't conforming to the Settlement's standards of behavior (or to acknowledge those standards have changed).

Really glad to see this. The last time it came up, it seemed like y'all were thinking something different.

Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / The feasibility of playing on your own part 1 - general thoughts All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online