Ah, I thank you for your information. So, I'll quit with the football analogies. Also, just wondering, what exactly does suicide-ganked mean? Does that mean that when someone kills you inside the safe zones, other people take offense to this and will kill the offender to keep the "safe" part in safe? Also, what makes the safe space "safe?" Does it mean space near your corporation, so you're more likely to get help from your teammates? Something else altogether?
The higher security sector of space 1.0 -0.6 have greater numbers of NPC security forces which will attack you if you unjustifiably attack another player. The lower security sector the less NPC's 0.5-0.0
When you attack someone you get flagged as hostile and NPC wil come after you until the timer wears out. People who wish to avoid pvp stay in the safe zones (generally 0.8 -1.0 security space)
raystantzFinal Fantasy XI CorrespondentMemberUncommonPosts: 1,237
Originally posted by Greenie
Originally posted by raystantz
Hmm,. so its ok for ALL content to be available to you.. but not me? and thus why we have these arguments. I'm not one of these people who chose to solo just because its "better" or "faster" I don't even like to solo. I solo because sometimes thats the only option I have. All most of us want is better ways to group, and less time consuming content.. so we CAN group. We are being alienated right now by the hardcore groupers, who think it should be "16 hrs grind sessions or nothing at all". I do agree, that if all you wanted to do was solo by choice.. then why are you spending money on a multiplayer game? But most of us solo by reason not choice. I solo because I don't want to inconvenience any of the hardcore min/max power levelers by having to leave the group 3 hrs into it, because I've had enough. I also solo, when no groups are available that fit my play time. I'm a grouper through and through.. but for the right reasons.
If the game is designed to be an mmorpg where people can unite for common goals, causes, etc? Yes. Because that is how the game was designed, I knew it when I bought it and so did you. Removing group only content takes away from some of my enjoyment in a game with team based play. You feel the same way with having team based play takes away from your enjoyment and ability to see all the content, yet you feel your needs and opinion is greater than mine because you are selfish and I'll tell you why.
You have the option to group to see the content if it matters that much. You have the option of many games designed to be singleplayer that allow you to see al lthe content called SPRPGS. You have the option of PS3, Xbox, and PC games being designed completely and unquestionably with the single player's enjoyment in mind. I DON"T.
I have MMO's that cater to as many types of players as possible and I accept that the game will cater to PVE'rs , Crafters, SOloers, Market hounds, Pvp'es and such when I buy the game. Yet you want a game to change based solely on your needs because you refuse to choose a game that suits all your needs, knowing that before you buy it. Instead you'd rather ruin a PART of the game for all other people just so you can get what you want. A SINGLE PLAYER ROLE PLAYING GAME!
It's not only selfish it's utterly stupid that people whine for a genre to be created that has existed since before the MMO.
Edit: Warhammer online made a search groups in your area menu. One click you can see if any groups are around. Mouse over the name and it will show you the level, name, and class of the player possibly even what they are doing if they set it. Then you click a button called : JOIN GROUP and bam you're in the group. How much f'n simpler can they possibly make it?
And that is a very arrogant comment to make, you group for the right reasons.... The right reason for you may not be for me. Getting enjoyment from grouping or soloing is NOT A MORAL CHOICE.
Can you read?
I'm on your side.
I am a grouper. I group. I like to group. I enjoy grouping.
The difference between me and you.. is that Your ok with doing nothing at all when you can't group. And, you can give all the scenarios you want, but 5 years of FFXI under my belt gives me the credibility to refute it. You can try all you want to "setup a group" or "start your own" group.. but sometimes you just CAN'T. What are you supposed to do then?
I'm not asking anyone to change a game. I'm fine with the way it currently works. Honestly the only game that does the kind of stuff I don't like is FFXI, and I don't play it any longer for those reasons.
You guys just want everyone who doesn't mind the ability to solo sometimes to jump on the group or bust bandwagon, and its not happening. There is just no way anyone can ever guarantee you will always be able to find a group when you get on, so there has to be other options when those times arise.
www.facebook.com/themarksmovierules
Currently playing:
FFXIV on Behemoth, FFXI on Eden, and Gloria Victis on NA.
In my opinion, I think everything should be balanced and fair. I think that both soloers and groupies could exist in the same game, and have their own styles, but there has to be serious balance (and I also like the idea of solo-exclusive and group-exclusive games to sidestep the problem altogether). Both can level up at the same rate (meaning you get the same exp. from killing that enemy no matter what style of gameplay you are using), both get same endgame results. The only difference I would want is the gear. The gear should be fine-tuned to whatever style you are playing. So for instance, a soloer picks up a chestplate that gives increased defenses. Meanwhile, a groupie picks up the same exact type of chestplate, but it has weakened defenses compared to the soloer. However, the groupie's chestplate has an enhancement that gives the wearer increased healing from any healing spell, so a cleric could help you out even more than before.
Also remember this, leveling up has its pros and cons on both sides.
Soloer
Pro: Doesn't have to deal with other people if they don't want to, and levels up just as fast as a groupie does. Also, groupies by themselves need to still play until they find more people, right?
Cons: You're by yourself, so, you know, use a character build that can survive by themselves, otherwise you will miss the fact that you could have a cleric nearby right now helping you.
Group
Pro: Adventuring can be fun, and you get as much exp as the soloer does. Also, if you like playing roles inside a team, you will find this fun.
Con: If some people are uncooperative in your team (refer to my post that talked about potential troublemakers inside a team), the chemistry falls apart and leads to a nasty conflict. Also, if vital roles are missing inside a team (i.e. no cleric or support character, no tankers on a predominately nuker team, etc.), the team will have greater difficulties surviving with each other, meanwhile soloer is fine by himself because he prepared healing spells. Also, this is considering that as a team, you will automatically face stronger mobs or you planned to fight difficult enemies that pose severe difficulty to your team at this point since you're missing said vital roles.
So, all in all, this is my opinion on the whole solo vs. group argument. I am personally a group person, but I will admit I've had times when I had no choice but to solo because no one was around at the time.
Because a solo player's $15 a month = a raider's $15 a month Listen, if you go into a restaurant by yourself (SOLO) and order a $15 steak dinner and only get a 7oz fillet and no baked potato, wouldn't you be pissed if the obnoxious group of 5-10 people sitting right next to you, each ordered the same $15 steak dinner but got the 14oz fillet, baked potato, salad, cake AND a bigg a$$ sword. Because they had to work at coordinating a time to meet and all sit together means they get more for their buck? Of course not! But raiders do. Ultimately, that's what these games are all about to the companies,...money. The succesful companies will keep in mind who the majority is and who the minority is.
Well you've painted a bad analogy but I get your point. At the same time if you see on the menu the prices and dinners you will get and knowingly order something that provides you less, you are responsible for your order. As an example, people go into restaraunts knowing that if they are by themselves, they'll probably get less service than a group of 15 people. WHY? Because the server is going to give the most attention to who is going to give them the most money, the group of 15.
Does that mean the server is going to ignore you completely? Hell no. It just means that you aren't going to get ALL their attention. You can accept it or not, but it won't change the way it works. You can even complain and bitch, but you're just going to look like a whiny baby and probably get even worse service.
At the same time, if you buy a game that advertises groups, archetypes, group mechanics, epic encounters, you really have no reason to bitch about not seeing all the game solo, because it's your own stupidity to have thought otherwise.
Can you read? I'm on your side. I am a grouper. I group. I like to group. I enjoy grouping. The difference between me and you.. is that Your ok with doing nothing at all when you can't group. And, you can give all the scenarios you want, but 5 years of FFXI under my belt gives me the credibility to refute it. You can try all you want to "setup a group" or "start your own" group.. but sometimes you just CAN'T. What are you supposed to do then? I'm not asking anyone to change a game. I'm fine with the way it currently works. Honestly the only game that does the kind of stuff I don't like is FFXI, and I don't play it any longer for those reasons. You guys just want everyone who doesn't mind the ability to solo sometimes to jump on the group or bust bandwagon, and its not happening. There is just no way anyone can ever guarantee you will always be able to find a group when you get on, so there has to be other options when those times arise.
See you don't get it.. I"m not on a group or bust bandwagon. I want games to have content for BOTH camps. I do not want a game that ONLY encourages group play and I don't want a game that only encourages solo play. I think having only one sucks ass. What I'm tired of is soloer's trying to disguise their true motive. To have mmo's cater completely to them because they don't want to play SPRPGs. They will whine and whine until they get what they want because for some reason he who bitches loudest wins.
So I ask you can YOU read? I want BOTH playstyles in the game. I just want soloer's to stop bitching about not having everything.
raystantzFinal Fantasy XI CorrespondentMemberUncommonPosts: 1,237
the bottom line is.. everyone can't be happy.
but some changes can be made, to broaden the number of people who are happy.
1. I am a grouper, who enjoys solo content when its meant to be solo or there is no other option.
2. I don't group for rewards other than social interaction
here's a possible solution.
- Quest model. (menial quests can be soloed, but there should be a large variety of quests in all level brackets that "require" a group to complete. You don't lose anything for not doing the "group" quests if you chose you don't want to do them, but the grouped folks will be rewarded with either some item or title that sets them apart. Solo players may opt to do the group quests at a decreased difficulty level, but would forfeit the same rewards as the "group" version. Also, in addtion "solo only" quests could be added (maat fight anyone?) that could ONLY be done solo, that would have rewards on the same level as some of the group content for that bracket. However, the group content should always have slightly better rewards, because it takes more effort to coordinate those, regardless of difficulty. This way, everyone gets content, soloers who refuse to group can do so without major penalty, and groupers can group and get the rewards for doing it that way.
www.facebook.com/themarksmovierules
Currently playing:
FFXIV on Behemoth, FFXI on Eden, and Gloria Victis on NA.
Because a solo player's $15 a month = a raider's $15 a month Listen, if you go into a restaurant by yourself (SOLO) and order a $15 steak dinner and only get a 7oz fillet and no baked potato, wouldn't you be pissed if the obnoxious group of 5-10 people sitting right next to you, each ordered the same $15 steak dinner but got the 14oz fillet, baked potato, salad, cake AND a bigg a$$ sword. Because they had to work at coordinating a time to meet and all sit together means they get more for their buck? Of course not! But raiders do. Ultimately, that's what these games are all about to the companies,...money. The succesful companies will keep in mind who the majority is and who the minority is.
Well you've painted a bad analogy but I get your point. At the same time if you see on the menu the prices and dinners you will get and knowingly order something that provides you less, you are responsible for your order. As an example, people go into restaraunts knowing that if they are by themselves, they'll probably get less service than a group of 15 people. WHY? Because the server is going to give the most attention to who is going to give them the most money, the group of 15.
Does that mean the server is going to ignore you completely? Hell no. It just means that you aren't going to get ALL their attention. You can accept it or not, but it won't change the way it works. You can even complain and bitch, but you're just going to look like a whiny baby and probably get even worse service.
At the same time, if you buy a game that advertises groups, archetypes, group mechanics, epic encounters, you really have no reason to bitch about not seeing all the game solo, because it's your own stupidity to have thought otherwise.
Yeh I'm not the best at painting analogies, but if you got my point then that's all I can ask. I also see what your saying about going into mmos knowing that grouping is part of the deal. But that is where the problem lies. I won't rehash reasoning that has already been stated other than what I already stated earlier. Basically all money is created equal and smart business will win the day... maybe
You know what? I don't care if I'm a bad person for feeling the way I feel and liking what I like. I don't even care if it means I'm stupid, lazy, selfish, a newb, a boob, or any other insult anyone wants to throw at me. I like what I like and if I'm going to pay to play a game it has to be what I like. I like being able to log into a game knowing that it will be easy to get into a group because lots and lots of other people will be grouping all the time and needing more people for their groups or willing to join my group. I know, I'm horrible. I like it when the groups I'm in work together, it doesn't have to be over-the-top, ridiculous coordination required, just...you know, a little teamwork. Like if we don't work together we'll probably die. Yeah, yeah, I'm showing my true colors. Spawn of Satan and all that, I know. I like a little slower pace to things so that there's time for a witty comment or two. A joke here and there. Maybe even a little roleplay if someone is into that. A little communication between the group members is what I'm getting at. So I don't like constant hack and slash with no pauses. I don't even care if the people I'm grouped with are not witty or funny, I take the good with the bad. God, I know, I'm terrible. I like a game that has so much grouping going on all the time that I don't have to pre-schedule a simple experience group or cajole people to hang out with me even though they know they could do things faster solo. Pretty damn selfish of me, it's true. But I don't care, I embrace my selfishness, that's how scummy I really am. When someone tells me I can group all I want in any game if I'm willing to just go group with myself I think they are being illogical. But that's probably just because I'm a bullheaded ignoramous. This solo grouping thing has never really satisfied me but I know it's just because I'm being stubborn. So whatever. I'm a bad person and I know it. And I don't care. I like casual grouping. I want a game that gives people a reason to group so that I can just log in and hook up with people (yes, random pug people, <gasp>) any time I feel like it. Yeah, that's right, any damn time the whim strikes me I want to be able to find a group. I don't want to have to schedule it in advance. I don't want to have to drag people away from what they are doing to come group with me. I don't want to have to join some random guild just for the hope of having some people to hang out with. I want groups and grouping to be so common that I can just casually drop into the game and join or form a group at any time. So the truth is out. Now you all know what a disgusting, horrible, petty, little man I am. And I don't care.
This exactly how I feel and is why I oppose all these 'forced grouping' schemes the extreme groupers are advocationg. Grouping in MMORPGs should be organic and happen because people want to do stuff together. You start to force grouping on people and you only create more people who prefer to solo. Grouping should be about teamwork and community and not abour faster XP or 'epeen' loot.
Greenie, Raystantz, I think you both have good ideas that can go hand to hand. Here is my perspective of both of your ideas.
Greenie: You hate it when soloers want a game changed to cater towards them, when the game's mechanics would be seriously altered. That I can understand. If a soloer tries to get EVE Online to start introducing solo options, that wouldn't exactly end well. It would severely kill the game's group based concept, and it probably wouldn't end well. Some games simply shouldn't cater to soloers, because then the game's original mechanics would be severely altered to the point that it's an entirely different game that the original fanbase wouldn't recognize. And you also agree that there should be a few solo elements inside some group games whose game mechanics could stomach the idea, but if the game was group-based, then the main concept is group-based, solo elements are there only for those who really want it or are still looking for people to create a team.
Raystantz: You believe that there should be some solo elements in group games, just in case you end up in situations where you can't join a party or no one is around at the moment. There are many times in which I wish I could've played a game, but I needed more people to join because otherwise by myself that was suicide. If the game's mechanics can stomach it, group games could introduce a few solo elements, but not enough to change the whole group based concept. And that doesn't mean all group games should do this. I don't think FF XI would do this succesfully, and there's alot of people online, so you're not alone usually from what I've heard. Or a game could be created with good balance between the solo and group elements (refer to previous posts I had on this thought).
You both have excellent points, and if I nailed down both perspectives correctly, they would go hand to hand quite well into one huge thought.
Yeh I'm not the best at painting analogies, but if you got my point then that's all I can ask. I also see what your saying about going into mmos knowing that grouping is part of the deal. But that is where the problem lies. I won't rehash reasoning that has already been stated other than what I already stated earlier. Basically all money is created equal and smart business will win the day... maybe
Cool, I hope I didn't come across as saying the personal "you" instead of you as: in "any player that does this."
I think what more and more gamers are wanting is to go back to the UO model of game. I really wish I had played that game too.
PLayers are tired of being pigeonholed in once class of character. They're tired of crafting, economy not being fully utilized in games due to design. Players are tired of needing a healer or tank when looking for someone to group with instead of just finding someone they enjoy playing with whether they speak or not.
I'm really hoping that Earthrise turns out to be a good game. Skill based, RPG progression, HUGE emphasis on crafting. Solo play available and group play available, resources, territory ownership and warfare.
raystantzFinal Fantasy XI CorrespondentMemberUncommonPosts: 1,237
Originally posted by Greenie
Originally posted by raystantz
Can you read? I'm on your side. I am a grouper. I group. I like to group. I enjoy grouping. The difference between me and you.. is that Your ok with doing nothing at all when you can't group. And, you can give all the scenarios you want, but 5 years of FFXI under my belt gives me the credibility to refute it. You can try all you want to "setup a group" or "start your own" group.. but sometimes you just CAN'T. What are you supposed to do then? I'm not asking anyone to change a game. I'm fine with the way it currently works. Honestly the only game that does the kind of stuff I don't like is FFXI, and I don't play it any longer for those reasons. You guys just want everyone who doesn't mind the ability to solo sometimes to jump on the group or bust bandwagon, and its not happening. There is just no way anyone can ever guarantee you will always be able to find a group when you get on, so there has to be other options when those times arise.
See you don't get it.. I"m not on a group or bust bandwagon. I want games to have content for BOTH camps. I do not want a game that ONLY encourages group play and I don't want a game that only encourages solo play. I think having only one sucks ass. What I'm tired of is soloer's trying to disguise their true motive. To have mmo's cater completely to them because they don't want to play SPRPGs. They will whine and whine until they get what they want because for some reason he who bitches loudest wins.
So I ask you can YOU read? I want BOTH playstyles in the game. I just want soloer's to stop bitching about not having everything.
I only asked you if you could read because your post seemed to believe I only want to solo.
www.facebook.com/themarksmovierules
Currently playing:
FFXIV on Behemoth, FFXI on Eden, and Gloria Victis on NA.
Greenie, Raystantz, I think you both have good ideas that can go hand to hand. Here is my perspective of both of your ideas. Greenie: You hate it when soloers want a game changed to cater towards them, when the game's mechanics would be seriously altered. That I can understand. If a soloer tries to get EVE Online to start introducing solo options, that wouldn't exactly end well. It would severely kill the game's group based concept, and it probably wouldn't end well. Some games simply shouldn't cater to soloers, because then the game's original mechanics would be severely altered to the point that it's an entirely different game that the original fanbase wouldn't recognize. And you also agree that there should be a few solo elements inside some group games whose game mechanics could stomach the idea, but if the game was group-based, then the main concept is group-based, solo elements are there only for those who really want it or are still looking for people to create a team. Raystantz: You believe that there should be some solo elements in group games, just in case you end up in situations where you can't join a party or no one is around at the moment. There are many times in which I wish I could've played a game, but I needed more people to join because otherwise by myself that was suicide. If the game's mechanics can stomach it, group games could introduce a few solo elements, but not enough to change the whole group based concept. And that doesn't mean all group games should do this. I don't think FF XI would do this succesfully, and there's alot of people online, so you're not alone usually from what I've heard. Or a game could be created with good balance between the solo and group elements (refer to previous posts I had on this thought). You both have excellent points, and if I nailed down both perspectives correctly, they would go hand to hand quite well into one huge thought.
Yes, I am all about options and choice. PLayers should be able to chooose a game that suits what they are looking for instead of choosing a game they are unhappy with and expecting developers to change the game's initial concepts or design, thereby screwing over any other person who bought the game because the initial design was what they were looking for.
I"m also for people not being stupid and buying a product they either A) know they won't be happy with doesn't meet the needs their looking for and bitching about that product after. I find people who choose to be stupid very offensive lol.
As for EvE, I definitely say it's worth a free trial for the economy and skill system alone.
Originally posted by RamenThief7 Also, just wondering, what exactly does suicide-ganked mean? Does that mean that when someone kills you inside the safe zones, other people take offense to this and will kill the offender to keep the "safe" part in safe? Also, what makes the safe space "safe?" Does it mean space near your corporation, so you're more likely to get help from your teammates? Something else altogether?
What makes the "safe space" safe is NPC police called CONCORD. They're active in high security space (1.0 to 0.5). They show up and destroy the attacker in seconds. Still, a group of players with cheap high damage ships can destroy your ship before they show up.
See you don't get it.. I"m not on a group or bust bandwagon. I want games to have content for BOTH camps. I do not want a game that ONLY encourages group play and I don't want a game that only encourages solo play. I think having only one sucks ass. What I'm tired of is soloer's trying to disguise their true motive. To have mmo's cater completely to them because they don't want to play SPRPGs. They will whine and whine until they get what they want because for some reason he who bitches loudest wins. So I ask you can YOU read? I want BOTH playstyles in the game. I just want soloer's to stop bitching about not having everything.
I only asked you if you could read because your post seemed to believe I only want to solo.
No I had added to the post about your comments on grouping as well. Your and my game experience are the same, sometimes we can group , sometimes we cannot, I however don't expect to take down an epic mob when I am soloing. (not saying you do)
But I disagree with the hardcore groupers being a high population the way you put it. People who are hardcore groupers go to hardcore group based games like FFXI or whatever number it is on. Most players fall into the category of "what do I feel like doing today when I log on"
I thought you guys heard the news already, they are changing this site to ORPG.com. Massive and Multiplayer only gives you the option to be an NPC in everyone else's solo campaign.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
raystantzFinal Fantasy XI CorrespondentMemberUncommonPosts: 1,237
Originally posted by Greenie
Originally posted by raystantz
Originally posted by Greenie
See you don't get it.. I"m not on a group or bust bandwagon. I want games to have content for BOTH camps. I do not want a game that ONLY encourages group play and I don't want a game that only encourages solo play. I think having only one sucks ass. What I'm tired of is soloer's trying to disguise their true motive. To have mmo's cater completely to them because they don't want to play SPRPGs. They will whine and whine until they get what they want because for some reason he who bitches loudest wins. So I ask you can YOU read? I want BOTH playstyles in the game. I just want soloer's to stop bitching about not having everything.
I only asked you if you could read because your post seemed to believe I only want to solo.
No I had added to the post about your comments on grouping as well. Your and my game experience are the same, sometimes we can group , sometimes we cannot, I however don't expect to take down an epic mob when I am soloing. (not saying you do)
But I disagree with the hardcore groupers being a high population the way you put it. People who are hardcore groupers go to hardcore group based games like FFXI or whatever number it is on. Most players fall into the category of "what do I feel like doing today when I log on"
Right, if you thought I meant that.. thats not so much it. We are basically in agreement.
I just think that the two extremist sides of the coin who want "all" or nothing.. are the problem. They are the ones getting catered to.
I'm in the category of "I enjoy adventuring in an MMO setting with other players, and I decide what I am going to do when I get on"
I don't want everything Soloable, and I don't want to force everyone to have to group for everything. There is a middle ground that people who are on either of these extreme sides fail to see. We can all live happily ever in mmoville and everyone can get the type of play they desire without punishing someone else for how they play the game.
www.facebook.com/themarksmovierules
Currently playing:
FFXIV on Behemoth, FFXI on Eden, and Gloria Victis on NA.
Originally posted by heerobya See this is what really get's me about guys like you... you wax so poetically about this and that but you do NOT understand, or even try to conceive that your issue is a 100% play style choice. You could very easily, in a game such as World of Warcraft. Team up with a few friends, only play together through questing and running instanced dungeons to level your toons. You could vary your crafting professions to compliment each other and form your own little exchange economy.
If you find a group of like-minded players you could take your time and enjoy the journey while leveling 100% grouped up the entire time, helping each other in your defined group roles. Sure, lots/most of the quests would be quite simple if you approached them in a group 100% of the time, but in the end these are GAMES and they are designed for you, the player, to win.
It's like the PvP people who simply don't understand that in a truly "balanced" game you'd lose 50% of the time.
The only person who is "making" you rush to solo to the top as fast as possible is you. You are the power-gamer achiever type who can't slow down and smell the roses and make it a game about team-work and group fun. You can slow down the pulls in the dungeon and talk things over, either through a ventrillo or teamspeak or in the game. Hell use typing in the game instead of a chat client so it forces you to slow down and type a bit.
I could do EXACTLY what both you Ihmotepp and Neandrathel are describing in a game like World of Warcraft if I had a few friends that thought and felt the same way.
It's a choice. Sure you CAN solo-grind quests up to level 80 and skip all the group content. But it's a choice.
Don't you see that? There is NO such thing as FORCED SOLOing in a MMORPG. It doesn't exist.
There is no content in MMO I have ever played that doesn't let you group up with others if you want to. "But it's not as efficient, I could do it much faster playing solo" well right there THAT is a choice YOU make to try and speed through the game and min/max power level.
Don't you see?
Yes, they have made solo play viable in modern MMOs but they have done nothing to discourage group play. It is YOU that is discouraging group play through your achiever, goal oriented, min/maxer hardcore power leveler mindset.
Don't you see?
+1 Interwebz to you. Well said.
50 players are online. 49 are soloing. Where's the choice in that?
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Well, I just checked out EVE Online (not signed in, just looked at how the game functions), and I must say, that has to be the most kick ass group-based game I've seen so far. My only gripe, the 15$ per month fee. I will be going to college (or most likely a trade school) soon, and perhaps, for now, the game can wait until I get settled...
However, I've heard good things about Earthrise too, but I have a few questions:
1. Is it group based, or at least groups make a difference in the game?
2. What is the death punishment? Is it light (little to no punishment when dying, in fact, sometimes rewarded, brrrr....), middle-core (balanced death punishment, you do feel the sting of dying), or rogue-like (harsh punishment, learn to stop sucking)? Also, does someone know the actual death punishments of that game?
3. What is the fee? Annually or monthly? How much does it cost? Is it free, and you just have to buy it? In general, what does it cost to play this game.
Well, I just checked out EVE Online (not signed in, just looked at how the game functions), and I must say, that has to be the most kick ass group-based game I've seen so far. My only gripe, the 15$ per month fee. I will be going to college (or most likely a trade school) soon, and perhaps, for now, the game can wait until I get settled... However, I've heard good things about Earthrise too, but I have a few questions: 1. Is it group based, or at least groups make a difference in the game? 2. What is the death punishment? Is it light (little to no punishment when dying, in fact, sometimes rewarded, brrrr....), middle-core (balanced death punishment, you do feel the sting of dying), or rogue-like (harsh punishment, learn to stop sucking)? Also, does someone know the actual death punishments of that game? 3. What is the fee? Annually or monthly? How much does it cost? Is it free, and you just have to buy it? In general, what does it cost to play this game.
EvE is a great game that has a huge learning curve, so you don't get a lot of the easy mode players past the third day of their trial.
Earthrise from what I can see is going to allow for solo and group play. It's going to be more like EvE with characters instead of ships. Granted people or guilds that group up will have obvious advantages since it is a FFA loot PVP game when it comes to fights. But don't let the FFA loot scare you off, everything can be insured so you shouldn't lose equipment permanantly.
It'll be 13-15 bucks a month but it's still in beta I wouldn't expect it until next year so by then who knows cost might not be an issue.
There's not a ton of info out there right now, but youtube has some videos.
Soloers should be given loot that allows them to advance in solo content like group loot allows players to advance in harder dungeons and raids. Soloers should not be given same quality or just almost as good quality gear as a raider/grouper.
I don't think that's exactly the solution but close.
there should be raid specific gear. There should be lower lvl raids that don't require it but that players can earn this raid gear.
otherwise there should be gear for general pve whether group or solo. This way you don't separate players when they want to play together but those who are dedicated to raiding or even pvp content can specialize.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Soloers should be given loot that allows them to advance in solo content like group loot allows players to advance in harder dungeons and raids. Soloers should not be given same quality or just almost as good quality gear as a raider/grouper.
I don't think that's exactly the solution but close.
there should be raid specific gear. There should be lower lvl raids that don't require it but that players can earn this raid gear.
otherwise there should be gear for general pve whether group or solo. This way you don't separate players when they want to play together but those who are dedicated to raiding or even pvp content can specialize.
A post I made in another thread on these same arguments
You know I keep thinking about that concept and an intriguing idea came to me.
I'm sure it would be difficult to code, but imagine you enter a dungeon that is an old castle. In order to complete the dungeon you would need two events to happen. One could be group based and one solo based. Say,, the group must take on the armies in the courtyard, hallways providing a distraction for storyline purposes. The Solo player would sneak into the castle via other mean and has to complete some task,,( close the gates, set a bomb in the ammunition room, assassinate a few lieutenants) when the solo player accomplishes his goal it allows for an unlock of the final stage that the group can get to.
The solo player can then fight his way through his portion of the dungeon to assist in the final battle. At completion everyone gets a shot at the rewards. That way the solo player can see end game content, get the loot, and Groups have the challenge of finding competent solo players to asssist them with a large epic raid.
here's a possible solution. - Quest model. (menial quests can be soloed, but there should be a large variety of quests in all level brackets that "require" a group to complete. You don't lose anything for not doing the "group" quests if you chose you don't want to do them, but the grouped folks will be rewarded with either some item or title that sets them apart. Solo players may opt to do the group quests at a decreased difficulty level, but would forfeit the same rewards as the "group" version. Also, in addtion "solo only" quests could be added (maat fight anyone?) that could ONLY be done solo, that would have rewards on the same level as some of the group content for that bracket. However, the group content should always have slightly better rewards, because it takes more effort to coordinate those, regardless of difficulty. This way, everyone gets content, soloers who refuse to group can do so without major penalty, and groupers can group and get the rewards for doing it that way.
I think we have the same aim but my solution would be different.
I don't think group quests work well currently because of the LFG problem. For grouping I think it's better to try and entice players to the same spot and then once they're there make it so it's in their interest to group. So my (attempted) solution would be to go back to mob grind being c 70% of levelling, then give big open dungeons a 10% exp bonus to attract players there, and then make those dungeons dangerous enough to encourage grouping. It should be easy to solo near the entrance (because that helps the LFG problem of waiting if there aren't enough players when you arrive), but deeper in it should be hard to solo (but not impossible) and easier to group. That way most groupers would have plenty of people to group with and fanatic soloers would have a challenge.
I'd make group quests actually be inside the dungeons. So instead of a player being LFG in a zone for ages trying to get a group together for a group thing they'd already be grouped levelling in a dungeon zone and the group could just decide to go try a group quest in an instance inside that open dungeon.
Mob grinding on it's own gets very dull though so you'd still want plenty of solo quests but I'd make the quests less about XP and more about other things like gear and faction. Examples:
1. Each class has armour quests in their home town for their class, maybe three separate chains starting at level 1, 11, and 21. The gear would be some of the best for that tier and fill 3-4 equipment slots but the reward was the gear and not XP.
2. Respawn at nearest "friendly" healer NPC. A race's newbie zone might have a friendly village near the newbie dungeon so if you died you'd respawn close by but the dungeon in the next zone might be a 5 minute run from the newbie village. However near that higher level dungeon is a neutral centaur village with a chain of faction quests that will turn them friendly so you can use their healer and merchants. There'd be a big incentive to do the faction quest but it wouldn't be about XP.
3. Quests to unlock zones e.g get a key to a tomb or tower or something.
So, as far as levelling was concerned you'd basically divide player time into monster-bashing for XP and solo questing for gear and faction.
Soloers should be given loot that allows them to advance in solo content like group loot allows players to advance in harder dungeons and raids. Soloers should not be given same quality or just almost as good quality gear as a raider/grouper.
I don't think that's exactly the solution but close.
there should be raid specific gear. There should be lower lvl raids that don't require it but that players can earn this raid gear.
otherwise there should be gear for general pve whether group or solo. This way you don't separate players when they want to play together but those who are dedicated to raiding or even pvp content can specialize.
A post I made in another thread on these same arguments
You know I keep thinking about that concept and an intriguing idea came to me.
I'm sure it would be difficult to code, but imagine you enter a dungeon that is an old castle. In order to complete the dungeon you would need two events to happen. One could be group based and one solo based. Say,, the group must take on the armies in the courtyard, hallways providing a distraction for storyline purposes. The Solo player would sneak into the castle via other mean and has to complete some task,,( close the gates, set a bomb in the ammunition room, assassinate a few lieutenants) when the solo player accomplishes his goal it allows for an unlock of the final stage that the group can get to.
The solo player can then fight his way through his portion of the dungeon to assist in the final battle. At completion everyone gets a shot at the rewards. That way the solo player can see end game content, get the loot, and Groups have the challenge of finding competent solo players to asssist them with a large epic raid.
Ah, now that is an interesting concept. Soloist and Group-based quests that interact with each other. That idea is beautiful (difficult to accomplish, but non the less beautiful).
One thing that people sometimes get wrong is that since people play diverse roles, people forget that some groupies have roles that involve themselves being alone (or being with select people that have your similar abilities). Think of scout-like rogues. They go on ahead stealthily, and sometimes are by themselves, but they directly report back to a team the areas ahead, what enemies you will face, etc. So, a person works by themselves or with only a few other people, but they still contribute to the team. That's my favorite style of play on FPS (and I suppose it's worth a shot on an mmorpg). So, perhaps solos and groups can mingle together, whether by connected quests, or by different styles and roles of playing...
Ah, now that is an interesting concept. Soloist and Group-based quests that interact with each other. That idea is beautiful (difficult to accomplish, but non the less beautiful). One thing that people sometimes get wrong is that since people play diverse roles, people forget that some groupies have roles that involve themselves being alone (or being with select people that have your similar abilities). Think of scout-like rogues. They go on ahead stealthily, and sometimes are by themselves, but they directly report back to a team the areas ahead, what enemies you will face, etc. So, a person works by themselves or with only a few other people, but they still contribute to the team. That's my favorite style of play on FPS (and I suppose it's worth a shot on an mmorpg). So, perhaps solos and groups can mingle together, whether by connected quests, or by different styles and roles of playing...
That is one thing I absolutely loved about DaoC Pre-ToA. Stealthers were a vital source of recon for the RVR community. Whether it was relic raids, keep takes, or even milegate standoffs stealther couldlet you know an incoming force's numbers and direction of travel.
Even in keep takes stealthers were able to climb walls and help take out squishy support classes to help in the keep take.
We even used to group one ranger in particular for an ability called Truesight. He'd pop the skill and destealth all the stealthers in the area and we'd all clean up the rps.
But that was before games became a huge loot fest and when realm pride/teamwork mattered.
What game are you playing? Because every MMORPG I play you get better rewards and more experiences/money/gear from grouping then soloing.
Nope - by grouping with 3 other people for average PvE mobs, you get 25% of the XP and loot, and only have a 1 in 4 chance of winning a roll for an item you want. Grouping for a quest is practicable, though, since nobody shares quest xp and you get the full quest rewards you are entitled to when the quest is completed, but you'll still have to put up with the conditions described above for standard mobs encountered along the way. I prefer groups that last one quest and then promptly break up, personally.
The standard rationale for grouping is, of course, that you're killing mobs faster - but I'd prefer all the loot, full xp and the pleasure of not listening to the blather of people I'll never see again. XP may not be as fast, but it's fast enough for me, it's more profitable - especially given that any resources/nodes I encounter are all mine to gather - and there's a hell of a lot less arguments and whinging over drops, too.
So your style of solo play is based on an anti-social and greedy premise. Not that it's wrong, I'm just trying to clarify because of the myriad of arguments out right now about solo play, social aspects, and loot whoring.
Not anti-social as such, but I've been playing MMORPGS for almost 10 years (sometimes a couple at a time, swapping from one to the other) and after encountering the 1,000th incompetent, whiny, dimwitted player in a group I just got sort of burnt out. My fun has been spoilt too many times for me to EVER group with strangers, even if they might potentially be great people - too much chaff and not enough wheat.
Greed isn't a factor either - if I want something, I solo for it for the reasons given above.
Comments
The higher security sector of space 1.0 -0.6 have greater numbers of NPC security forces which will attack you if you unjustifiably attack another player. The lower security sector the less NPC's 0.5-0.0
When you attack someone you get flagged as hostile and NPC wil come after you until the timer wears out. People who wish to avoid pvp stay in the safe zones (generally 0.8 -1.0 security space)
If the game is designed to be an mmorpg where people can unite for common goals, causes, etc? Yes. Because that is how the game was designed, I knew it when I bought it and so did you. Removing group only content takes away from some of my enjoyment in a game with team based play. You feel the same way with having team based play takes away from your enjoyment and ability to see all the content, yet you feel your needs and opinion is greater than mine because you are selfish and I'll tell you why.
You have the option to group to see the content if it matters that much. You have the option of many games designed to be singleplayer that allow you to see al lthe content called SPRPGS. You have the option of PS3, Xbox, and PC games being designed completely and unquestionably with the single player's enjoyment in mind. I DON"T.
I have MMO's that cater to as many types of players as possible and I accept that the game will cater to PVE'rs , Crafters, SOloers, Market hounds, Pvp'es and such when I buy the game. Yet you want a game to change based solely on your needs because you refuse to choose a game that suits all your needs, knowing that before you buy it. Instead you'd rather ruin a PART of the game for all other people just so you can get what you want. A SINGLE PLAYER ROLE PLAYING GAME!
It's not only selfish it's utterly stupid that people whine for a genre to be created that has existed since before the MMO.
Edit: Warhammer online made a search groups in your area menu. One click you can see if any groups are around. Mouse over the name and it will show you the level, name, and class of the player possibly even what they are doing if they set it. Then you click a button called : JOIN GROUP and bam you're in the group. How much f'n simpler can they possibly make it?
And that is a very arrogant comment to make, you group for the right reasons.... The right reason for you may not be for me. Getting enjoyment from grouping or soloing is NOT A MORAL CHOICE.
Can you read?
I'm on your side.
I am a grouper. I group. I like to group. I enjoy grouping.
The difference between me and you.. is that Your ok with doing nothing at all when you can't group. And, you can give all the scenarios you want, but 5 years of FFXI under my belt gives me the credibility to refute it. You can try all you want to "setup a group" or "start your own" group.. but sometimes you just CAN'T. What are you supposed to do then?
I'm not asking anyone to change a game. I'm fine with the way it currently works. Honestly the only game that does the kind of stuff I don't like is FFXI, and I don't play it any longer for those reasons.
You guys just want everyone who doesn't mind the ability to solo sometimes to jump on the group or bust bandwagon, and its not happening. There is just no way anyone can ever guarantee you will always be able to find a group when you get on, so there has to be other options when those times arise.
www.facebook.com/themarksmovierules
Currently playing:
FFXIV on Behemoth, FFXI on Eden, and Gloria Victis on NA.
In my opinion, I think everything should be balanced and fair. I think that both soloers and groupies could exist in the same game, and have their own styles, but there has to be serious balance (and I also like the idea of solo-exclusive and group-exclusive games to sidestep the problem altogether). Both can level up at the same rate (meaning you get the same exp. from killing that enemy no matter what style of gameplay you are using), both get same endgame results. The only difference I would want is the gear. The gear should be fine-tuned to whatever style you are playing. So for instance, a soloer picks up a chestplate that gives increased defenses. Meanwhile, a groupie picks up the same exact type of chestplate, but it has weakened defenses compared to the soloer. However, the groupie's chestplate has an enhancement that gives the wearer increased healing from any healing spell, so a cleric could help you out even more than before.
Also remember this, leveling up has its pros and cons on both sides.
Soloer
Pro: Doesn't have to deal with other people if they don't want to, and levels up just as fast as a groupie does. Also, groupies by themselves need to still play until they find more people, right?
Cons: You're by yourself, so, you know, use a character build that can survive by themselves, otherwise you will miss the fact that you could have a cleric nearby right now helping you.
Group
Pro: Adventuring can be fun, and you get as much exp as the soloer does. Also, if you like playing roles inside a team, you will find this fun.
Con: If some people are uncooperative in your team (refer to my post that talked about potential troublemakers inside a team), the chemistry falls apart and leads to a nasty conflict. Also, if vital roles are missing inside a team (i.e. no cleric or support character, no tankers on a predominately nuker team, etc.), the team will have greater difficulties surviving with each other, meanwhile soloer is fine by himself because he prepared healing spells. Also, this is considering that as a team, you will automatically face stronger mobs or you planned to fight difficult enemies that pose severe difficulty to your team at this point since you're missing said vital roles.
So, all in all, this is my opinion on the whole solo vs. group argument. I am personally a group person, but I will admit I've had times when I had no choice but to solo because no one was around at the time.
Well you've painted a bad analogy but I get your point. At the same time if you see on the menu the prices and dinners you will get and knowingly order something that provides you less, you are responsible for your order. As an example, people go into restaraunts knowing that if they are by themselves, they'll probably get less service than a group of 15 people. WHY? Because the server is going to give the most attention to who is going to give them the most money, the group of 15.
Does that mean the server is going to ignore you completely? Hell no. It just means that you aren't going to get ALL their attention. You can accept it or not, but it won't change the way it works. You can even complain and bitch, but you're just going to look like a whiny baby and probably get even worse service.
At the same time, if you buy a game that advertises groups, archetypes, group mechanics, epic encounters, you really have no reason to bitch about not seeing all the game solo, because it's your own stupidity to have thought otherwise.
See you don't get it.. I"m not on a group or bust bandwagon. I want games to have content for BOTH camps. I do not want a game that ONLY encourages group play and I don't want a game that only encourages solo play. I think having only one sucks ass. What I'm tired of is soloer's trying to disguise their true motive. To have mmo's cater completely to them because they don't want to play SPRPGs. They will whine and whine until they get what they want because for some reason he who bitches loudest wins.
So I ask you can YOU read? I want BOTH playstyles in the game. I just want soloer's to stop bitching about not having everything.
the bottom line is.. everyone can't be happy.
but some changes can be made, to broaden the number of people who are happy.
1. I am a grouper, who enjoys solo content when its meant to be solo or there is no other option.
2. I don't group for rewards other than social interaction
here's a possible solution.
- Quest model. (menial quests can be soloed, but there should be a large variety of quests in all level brackets that "require" a group to complete. You don't lose anything for not doing the "group" quests if you chose you don't want to do them, but the grouped folks will be rewarded with either some item or title that sets them apart. Solo players may opt to do the group quests at a decreased difficulty level, but would forfeit the same rewards as the "group" version. Also, in addtion "solo only" quests could be added (maat fight anyone?) that could ONLY be done solo, that would have rewards on the same level as some of the group content for that bracket. However, the group content should always have slightly better rewards, because it takes more effort to coordinate those, regardless of difficulty. This way, everyone gets content, soloers who refuse to group can do so without major penalty, and groupers can group and get the rewards for doing it that way.
www.facebook.com/themarksmovierules
Currently playing:
FFXIV on Behemoth, FFXI on Eden, and Gloria Victis on NA.
Well you've painted a bad analogy but I get your point. At the same time if you see on the menu the prices and dinners you will get and knowingly order something that provides you less, you are responsible for your order. As an example, people go into restaraunts knowing that if they are by themselves, they'll probably get less service than a group of 15 people. WHY? Because the server is going to give the most attention to who is going to give them the most money, the group of 15.
Does that mean the server is going to ignore you completely? Hell no. It just means that you aren't going to get ALL their attention. You can accept it or not, but it won't change the way it works. You can even complain and bitch, but you're just going to look like a whiny baby and probably get even worse service.
At the same time, if you buy a game that advertises groups, archetypes, group mechanics, epic encounters, you really have no reason to bitch about not seeing all the game solo, because it's your own stupidity to have thought otherwise.
Yeh I'm not the best at painting analogies, but if you got my point then that's all I can ask. I also see what your saying about going into mmos knowing that grouping is part of the deal. But that is where the problem lies. I won't rehash reasoning that has already been stated other than what I already stated earlier. Basically all money is created equal and smart business will win the day... maybe
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
This exactly how I feel and is why I oppose all these 'forced grouping' schemes the extreme groupers are advocationg. Grouping in MMORPGs should be organic and happen because people want to do stuff together. You start to force grouping on people and you only create more people who prefer to solo. Grouping should be about teamwork and community and not abour faster XP or 'epeen' loot.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH
Greenie, Raystantz, I think you both have good ideas that can go hand to hand. Here is my perspective of both of your ideas.
Greenie: You hate it when soloers want a game changed to cater towards them, when the game's mechanics would be seriously altered. That I can understand. If a soloer tries to get EVE Online to start introducing solo options, that wouldn't exactly end well. It would severely kill the game's group based concept, and it probably wouldn't end well. Some games simply shouldn't cater to soloers, because then the game's original mechanics would be severely altered to the point that it's an entirely different game that the original fanbase wouldn't recognize. And you also agree that there should be a few solo elements inside some group games whose game mechanics could stomach the idea, but if the game was group-based, then the main concept is group-based, solo elements are there only for those who really want it or are still looking for people to create a team.
Raystantz: You believe that there should be some solo elements in group games, just in case you end up in situations where you can't join a party or no one is around at the moment. There are many times in which I wish I could've played a game, but I needed more people to join because otherwise by myself that was suicide. If the game's mechanics can stomach it, group games could introduce a few solo elements, but not enough to change the whole group based concept. And that doesn't mean all group games should do this. I don't think FF XI would do this succesfully, and there's alot of people online, so you're not alone usually from what I've heard. Or a game could be created with good balance between the solo and group elements (refer to previous posts I had on this thought).
You both have excellent points, and if I nailed down both perspectives correctly, they would go hand to hand quite well into one huge thought.
Cool, I hope I didn't come across as saying the personal "you" instead of you as: in "any player that does this."
I think what more and more gamers are wanting is to go back to the UO model of game. I really wish I had played that game too.
PLayers are tired of being pigeonholed in once class of character. They're tired of crafting, economy not being fully utilized in games due to design. Players are tired of needing a healer or tank when looking for someone to group with instead of just finding someone they enjoy playing with whether they speak or not.
I'm really hoping that Earthrise turns out to be a good game. Skill based, RPG progression, HUGE emphasis on crafting. Solo play available and group play available, resources, territory ownership and warfare.
See you don't get it.. I"m not on a group or bust bandwagon. I want games to have content for BOTH camps. I do not want a game that ONLY encourages group play and I don't want a game that only encourages solo play. I think having only one sucks ass. What I'm tired of is soloer's trying to disguise their true motive. To have mmo's cater completely to them because they don't want to play SPRPGs. They will whine and whine until they get what they want because for some reason he who bitches loudest wins.
So I ask you can YOU read? I want BOTH playstyles in the game. I just want soloer's to stop bitching about not having everything.
I only asked you if you could read because your post seemed to believe I only want to solo.
www.facebook.com/themarksmovierules
Currently playing:
FFXIV on Behemoth, FFXI on Eden, and Gloria Victis on NA.
Yes, I am all about options and choice. PLayers should be able to chooose a game that suits what they are looking for instead of choosing a game they are unhappy with and expecting developers to change the game's initial concepts or design, thereby screwing over any other person who bought the game because the initial design was what they were looking for.
I"m also for people not being stupid and buying a product they either A) know they won't be happy with
doesn't meet the needs their looking for and bitching about that product after. I find people who choose to be stupid very offensive lol.
As for EvE, I definitely say it's worth a free trial for the economy and skill system alone.
What makes the "safe space" safe is NPC police called CONCORD. They're active in high security space (1.0 to 0.5). They show up and destroy the attacker in seconds. Still, a group of players with cheap high damage ships can destroy your ship before they show up.
I only asked you if you could read because your post seemed to believe I only want to solo.
No I had added to the post about your comments on grouping as well. Your and my game experience are the same, sometimes we can group , sometimes we cannot, I however don't expect to take down an epic mob when I am soloing. (not saying you do)
But I disagree with the hardcore groupers being a high population the way you put it. People who are hardcore groupers go to hardcore group based games like FFXI or whatever number it is on. Most players fall into the category of "what do I feel like doing today when I log on"
I thought you guys heard the news already, they are changing this site to ORPG.com. Massive and Multiplayer only gives you the option to be an NPC in everyone else's solo campaign.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I only asked you if you could read because your post seemed to believe I only want to solo.
No I had added to the post about your comments on grouping as well. Your and my game experience are the same, sometimes we can group , sometimes we cannot, I however don't expect to take down an epic mob when I am soloing. (not saying you do)
But I disagree with the hardcore groupers being a high population the way you put it. People who are hardcore groupers go to hardcore group based games like FFXI or whatever number it is on. Most players fall into the category of "what do I feel like doing today when I log on"
Right, if you thought I meant that.. thats not so much it. We are basically in agreement.
I just think that the two extremist sides of the coin who want "all" or nothing.. are the problem. They are the ones getting catered to.
I'm in the category of "I enjoy adventuring in an MMO setting with other players, and I decide what I am going to do when I get on"
I don't want everything Soloable, and I don't want to force everyone to have to group for everything. There is a middle ground that people who are on either of these extreme sides fail to see. We can all live happily ever in mmoville and everyone can get the type of play they desire without punishing someone else for how they play the game.
www.facebook.com/themarksmovierules
Currently playing:
FFXIV on Behemoth, FFXI on Eden, and Gloria Victis on NA.
+1 Interwebz to you. Well said.
50 players are online. 49 are soloing. Where's the choice in that?
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Well, I just checked out EVE Online (not signed in, just looked at how the game functions), and I must say, that has to be the most kick ass group-based game I've seen so far. My only gripe, the 15$ per month fee. I will be going to college (or most likely a trade school) soon, and perhaps, for now, the game can wait until I get settled...
However, I've heard good things about Earthrise too, but I have a few questions:
1. Is it group based, or at least groups make a difference in the game?
2. What is the death punishment? Is it light (little to no punishment when dying, in fact, sometimes rewarded, brrrr....), middle-core (balanced death punishment, you do feel the sting of dying), or rogue-like (harsh punishment, learn to stop sucking)? Also, does someone know the actual death punishments of that game?
3. What is the fee? Annually or monthly? How much does it cost? Is it free, and you just have to buy it? In general, what does it cost to play this game.
EvE is a great game that has a huge learning curve, so you don't get a lot of the easy mode players past the third day of their trial.
Earthrise from what I can see is going to allow for solo and group play. It's going to be more like EvE with characters instead of ships. Granted people or guilds that group up will have obvious advantages since it is a FFA loot PVP game when it comes to fights. But don't let the FFA loot scare you off, everything can be insured so you shouldn't lose equipment permanantly.
It'll be 13-15 bucks a month but it's still in beta I wouldn't expect it until next year so by then who knows cost might not be an issue.
There's not a ton of info out there right now, but youtube has some videos.
I don't think that's exactly the solution but close.
there should be raid specific gear. There should be lower lvl raids that don't require it but that players can earn this raid gear.
otherwise there should be gear for general pve whether group or solo. This way you don't separate players when they want to play together but those who are dedicated to raiding or even pvp content can specialize.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I don't think that's exactly the solution but close.
there should be raid specific gear. There should be lower lvl raids that don't require it but that players can earn this raid gear.
otherwise there should be gear for general pve whether group or solo. This way you don't separate players when they want to play together but those who are dedicated to raiding or even pvp content can specialize.
A post I made in another thread on these same arguments
You know I keep thinking about that concept and an intriguing idea came to me.
I'm sure it would be difficult to code, but imagine you enter a dungeon that is an old castle. In order to complete the dungeon you would need two events to happen. One could be group based and one solo based. Say,, the group must take on the armies in the courtyard, hallways providing a distraction for storyline purposes. The Solo player would sneak into the castle via other mean and has to complete some task,,( close the gates, set a bomb in the ammunition room, assassinate a few lieutenants) when the solo player accomplishes his goal it allows for an unlock of the final stage that the group can get to.
The solo player can then fight his way through his portion of the dungeon to assist in the final battle. At completion everyone gets a shot at the rewards. That way the solo player can see end game content, get the loot, and Groups have the challenge of finding competent solo players to asssist them with a large epic raid.
I think we have the same aim but my solution would be different.
I don't think group quests work well currently because of the LFG problem. For grouping I think it's better to try and entice players to the same spot and then once they're there make it so it's in their interest to group. So my (attempted) solution would be to go back to mob grind being c 70% of levelling, then give big open dungeons a 10% exp bonus to attract players there, and then make those dungeons dangerous enough to encourage grouping. It should be easy to solo near the entrance (because that helps the LFG problem of waiting if there aren't enough players when you arrive), but deeper in it should be hard to solo (but not impossible) and easier to group. That way most groupers would have plenty of people to group with and fanatic soloers would have a challenge.
I'd make group quests actually be inside the dungeons. So instead of a player being LFG in a zone for ages trying to get a group together for a group thing they'd already be grouped levelling in a dungeon zone and the group could just decide to go try a group quest in an instance inside that open dungeon.
Mob grinding on it's own gets very dull though so you'd still want plenty of solo quests but I'd make the quests less about XP and more about other things like gear and faction. Examples:
1. Each class has armour quests in their home town for their class, maybe three separate chains starting at level 1, 11, and 21. The gear would be some of the best for that tier and fill 3-4 equipment slots but the reward was the gear and not XP.
2. Respawn at nearest "friendly" healer NPC. A race's newbie zone might have a friendly village near the newbie dungeon so if you died you'd respawn close by but the dungeon in the next zone might be a 5 minute run from the newbie village. However near that higher level dungeon is a neutral centaur village with a chain of faction quests that will turn them friendly so you can use their healer and merchants. There'd be a big incentive to do the faction quest but it wouldn't be about XP.
3. Quests to unlock zones e.g get a key to a tomb or tower or something.
So, as far as levelling was concerned you'd basically divide player time into monster-bashing for XP and solo questing for gear and faction.
I don't think that's exactly the solution but close.
there should be raid specific gear. There should be lower lvl raids that don't require it but that players can earn this raid gear.
otherwise there should be gear for general pve whether group or solo. This way you don't separate players when they want to play together but those who are dedicated to raiding or even pvp content can specialize.
A post I made in another thread on these same arguments
You know I keep thinking about that concept and an intriguing idea came to me.
I'm sure it would be difficult to code, but imagine you enter a dungeon that is an old castle. In order to complete the dungeon you would need two events to happen. One could be group based and one solo based. Say,, the group must take on the armies in the courtyard, hallways providing a distraction for storyline purposes. The Solo player would sneak into the castle via other mean and has to complete some task,,( close the gates, set a bomb in the ammunition room, assassinate a few lieutenants) when the solo player accomplishes his goal it allows for an unlock of the final stage that the group can get to.
The solo player can then fight his way through his portion of the dungeon to assist in the final battle. At completion everyone gets a shot at the rewards. That way the solo player can see end game content, get the loot, and Groups have the challenge of finding competent solo players to asssist them with a large epic raid.
Ah, now that is an interesting concept. Soloist and Group-based quests that interact with each other. That idea is beautiful (difficult to accomplish, but non the less beautiful).
One thing that people sometimes get wrong is that since people play diverse roles, people forget that some groupies have roles that involve themselves being alone (or being with select people that have your similar abilities). Think of scout-like rogues. They go on ahead stealthily, and sometimes are by themselves, but they directly report back to a team the areas ahead, what enemies you will face, etc. So, a person works by themselves or with only a few other people, but they still contribute to the team. That's my favorite style of play on FPS (and I suppose it's worth a shot on an mmorpg). So, perhaps solos and groups can mingle together, whether by connected quests, or by different styles and roles of playing...
That is one thing I absolutely loved about DaoC Pre-ToA. Stealthers were a vital source of recon for the RVR community. Whether it was relic raids, keep takes, or even milegate standoffs stealther couldlet you know an incoming force's numbers and direction of travel.
Even in keep takes stealthers were able to climb walls and help take out squishy support classes to help in the keep take.
We even used to group one ranger in particular for an ability called Truesight. He'd pop the skill and destealth all the stealthers in the area and we'd all clean up the rps.
But that was before games became a huge loot fest and when realm pride/teamwork mattered.
Nope - by grouping with 3 other people for average PvE mobs, you get 25% of the XP and loot, and only have a 1 in 4 chance of winning a roll for an item you want. Grouping for a quest is practicable, though, since nobody shares quest xp and you get the full quest rewards you are entitled to when the quest is completed, but you'll still have to put up with the conditions described above for standard mobs encountered along the way. I prefer groups that last one quest and then promptly break up, personally.
The standard rationale for grouping is, of course, that you're killing mobs faster - but I'd prefer all the loot, full xp and the pleasure of not listening to the blather of people I'll never see again. XP may not be as fast, but it's fast enough for me, it's more profitable - especially given that any resources/nodes I encounter are all mine to gather - and there's a hell of a lot less arguments and whinging over drops, too.
So your style of solo play is based on an anti-social and greedy premise. Not that it's wrong, I'm just trying to clarify because of the myriad of arguments out right now about solo play, social aspects, and loot whoring.
Not anti-social as such, but I've been playing MMORPGS for almost 10 years (sometimes a couple at a time, swapping from one to the other) and after encountering the 1,000th incompetent, whiny, dimwitted player in a group I just got sort of burnt out. My fun has been spoilt too many times for me to EVER group with strangers, even if they might potentially be great people - too much chaff and not enough wheat.
Greed isn't a factor either - if I want something, I solo for it for the reasons given above.