By soloing I think it just means able to get xp on your own at your own pace, no content was 'designed' to be solo, but you could easily solo pull mobs in alot of places.
Like with my wizard in EQ I could root/nuke things down then afk for a couple min to regen mana, which is nice when you are not able to commit to 100% focus with a group.
Some classes like druid,necro, mage, and later the shaman of course where far superior but most melee classes could not solo anything after a certain level which just meant that getting xp was way easier as a caster.
Greenkrak2 said:By soloing I think it just means able to get xp on your own at your own pace, no content was 'designed' to be solo, but you could easily solo pull mobs in alot of places.
Like with my wizard in EQ I could root/nuke things down then afk for a couple min to regen mana, which is nice when you are not able to commit to 100% focus with a group.
Some classes like druid,necro, mage, and later the shaman of course where far superior but most melee classes could not solo anything after a certain level which just meant that getting xp was way easier as a caster.
Yes you are correct in that casters had it easier to get exp, which lead to a huge problem, eventually due to playing time and getting any kind of advancement in their game they wanted to play they had to switch to those classes or endure being another class. It what lead to my saying of the 10% tank, 15% healer, 75% dps, becuase it basically was, the necros, wizards, druids, mages, and such were badically all over the place and the people that weren't these classes struggled to get grps and therefore literally couldn't do anything, and you can say druids were healers in eq but really they really sucked at it, so they were more dps even though they weren't really good at that either.
P.S.making a 100% group orientated game but having some classes that can solo it, it more damaging than a game that has solo content, EQ proved it.
Riahuf22 said:Greenkrak2 said:By soloing I think it just means able to get xp on your own at your own pace, no content was 'designed' to be solo, but you could easily solo pull mobs in alot of places.
Like with my wizard in EQ I could root/nuke things down then afk for a couple min to regen mana, which is nice when you are not able to commit to 100% focus with a group.
Some classes like druid,necro, mage, and later the shaman of course where far superior but most melee classes could not solo anything after a certain level which just meant that getting xp was way easier as a caster.
Yes you are correct in that casters had it easier to get exp, which lead to a huge problem, eventually due to playing time and getting any kind of advancement in their game they wanted to play they had to switch to those classes or endure being another class. It what lead to my saying of the 10% tank, 15% healer, 75% dps, becuase it basically was, the necros, wizards, druids, mages, and such were badically all over the place and the people that weren't these classes struggled to get grps and therefore literally couldn't do anything, and you can say druids were healers in eq but really they really sucked at it, so they were more dps even though they weren't really good at that either.
P.S.making a 100% group orientated game but having some classes that can solo it, it more damaging than a game that has solo content, EQ proved it.
First off there were 3 classes that really couldn't solo after a certain level....the rogue, warrior, and monk. Technically a cleric could solo to 50 like the Paladin in Lguk with the undead nuking.
So out of the 3 classes that couldn't solo...2 of them were instant invited to groups, warrior and monk. The rogue was the only outcasted roll for groups, and couldn't solo, which isn't the content fault, but bad class design.
So no EQ didn't prove group content to be more dmging lol.
Watemper said:Riahuf22 said:Greenkrak2 said:By soloing I think it just means able to get xp on your own at your own pace, no content was 'designed' to be solo, but you could easily solo pull mobs in alot of places.
Like with my wizard in EQ I could root/nuke things down then afk for a couple min to regen mana, which is nice when you are not able to commit to 100% focus with a group.
Some classes like druid,necro, mage, and later the shaman of course where far superior but most melee classes could not solo anything after a certain level which just meant that getting xp was way easier as a caster.
Yes you are correct in that casters had it easier to get exp, which lead to a huge problem, eventually due to playing time and getting any kind of advancement in their game they wanted to play they had to switch to those classes or endure being another class. It what lead to my saying of the 10% tank, 15% healer, 75% dps, becuase it basically was, the necros, wizards, druids, mages, and such were badically all over the place and the people that weren't these classes struggled to get grps and therefore literally couldn't do anything, and you can say druids were healers in eq but really they really sucked at it, so they were more dps even though they weren't really good at that either.
P.S.making a 100% group orientated game but having some classes that can solo it, it more damaging than a game that has solo content, EQ proved it.
First off there were 3 classes that really couldn't solo after a certain level....the rogue, warrior, and monk. Technically a cleric could solo to 50 like the Paladin in Lguk with the undead nuking.
So out of the 3 classes that couldn't solo...2 of them were instant invited to groups, warrior and monk. The rogue was the only outcasted roll for groups, and couldn't solo, which isn't the content fault, but bad class design.
So no EQ didn't prove group content to be more dmging lol.
You are right though, the monk and warrior were horrible soloers after a while, but with certain types of gear and hitting various caps, they could eventually take on green/light blue mobs. That was raid gear though. As a monk, I remember once I hit 1800 AC and had some of the nice weapons, I could solo a bit like I could when I was in my 30's, occasionally using ID to give me time to bind wound and finish the fight.
Rogues had it pretty rough though as they could not solo most things from the get go due to all of their ability being focused on needing the back of the mob to do any practical damage.
Not so much that rogues were poorly designed, rather that the expectations of their design was never realized. The rogue was supposed to be based off the AD&D thief class, more focused on their utility skills than damage. EQ was supposed to have numerous interactions and encounter situations where the rogue would shine (essentially be the group king), but I think what Brad talked about during the time was that the technology just wasn't up to the level of expectations they had and the rogues abilities became less useful and began to make damage more of their focus.
If you remember Najena , there were numerous locks/traps, pits, etc... which the rogue did well in (ie they could get people in and out of the jail pits and pick many of the doors, etc..) but it just wan't enough to give the rogue a useful purpose as other classes had skills for.
Riahuf22 said:Greenkrak2 said:By soloing I think it just means able to get xp on your own at your own pace, no content was 'designed' to be solo, but you could easily solo pull mobs in alot of places.
Like with my wizard in EQ I could root/nuke things down then afk for a couple min to regen mana, which is nice when you are not able to commit to 100% focus with a group.
Some classes like druid,necro, mage, and later the shaman of course where far superior but most melee classes could not solo anything after a certain level which just meant that getting xp was way easier as a caster.
Yes you are correct in that casters had it easier to get exp, which lead to a huge problem, eventually due to playing time and getting any kind of advancement in their game they wanted to play they had to switch to those classes or endure being another class. It what lead to my saying of the 10% tank, 15% healer, 75% dps, becuase it basically was, the necros, wizards, druids, mages, and such were badically all over the place and the people that weren't these classes struggled to get grps and therefore literally couldn't do anything, and you can say druids were healers in eq but really they really sucked at it, so they were more dps even though they weren't really good at that either.
P.S.making a 100% group orientated game but having some classes that can solo it, it more damaging than a game that has solo content, EQ proved it.
Yeah, umm, not the way I remember it.
There were reasons why some classes who couldn't solo well didn't get groups and it was more about how they approached getting them. Warriors were always a desired class to group with, but people couldn't just sit around and think people would come begging to them to join a group. They had to be proactive. Also, there was a problem that many warriors had no clue how taunt worked and spammed the button. So, those wariors always had issue getting agro and managing it with the group (they would throw tantrums and accuse everyone in the group of over agroing everything).
Skill in playing the class was HUGE in EQ. Just being a monk or a warrior didn't make you worth a crap. As I said, you had warriors who no clue about agro management and how it worked in EQ, and you had monks who had no clue about pulling or how to tank as a monk or heal them as a healing class (yes, monks could tank in groups).
Add in that most people don't take the iniative to form, groups and many would not accept "less than ideal" group make ups, and the claim that grouping was hard in EQ for melee is pure BS. I can't tell you how many times I listened to people whine in a zone, sitting on their arse complainign about how they are useless and can't find groups only to be turned down to join my group when they found out it was a monk, druid, wizard, rogue, necro, bard. They wanted the perfect group, or they wanted to only do a specific room, or area, etc...
Not only that, but people lacked basic organizational skills. I could get on and have a group formed in minutes, even with random people I didn't know. Once people knew me, I didn't have to search for groups, I had tells coming in with "So what do you want to do tonight?" from several people.
I am blunt, and hardline on this, but if people can't find groups in a game like EQ, they should play another game because that is one of the key aspects to which developers began to cater to that turned MMOs into solo themeparks for the bored and inept.
Like I said previously, the only class who really had issues was the rogue and that wasn't that bad if you made friends as a rogues damage was pretty good and you also had the unique aspect that they had excellent CR tools.
Tanix said:
You are right though, the monk and warrior were horrible soloers after a while, but with certain types of gear and hitting various caps, they could eventually take on green/light blue mobs. That was raid gear though. As a monk, I remember once I hit 1800 AC and had some of the nice weapons, I could solo a bit like I could when I was in my 30's, occasionally using ID to give me time to bind wound and finish the fight.
Rogues had it pretty rough though as they could not solo most things from the get go due to all of their ability being focused on needing the back of the mob to do any practical damage.
Not so much that rogues were poorly designed, rather that the expectations of their design was never realized. The rogue was supposed to be based off the AD&D thief class, more focused on their utility skills than damage. EQ was supposed to have numerous interactions and encounter situations where the rogue would shine (essentially be the group king), but I think what Brad talked about during the time was that the technology just wasn't up to the level of expectations they had and the rogues abilities became less useful and began to make damage more of their focus.
If you remember Najena , there were numerous locks/traps, pits, etc... which the rogue did well in (ie they could get people in and out of the jail pits and pick many of the doors, etc..) but it just wan't enough to give the rogue a useful purpose as other classes had skills for.
True, the rogue did help in places like Befallen and Najena...but the higher end zones didn't utilize them until Kunark, where places the like jailer camp was a god send for rogues lol.
Once Velious came out, rogues were nearing the top of the dmg meters with monk. By Luclin the top three were rangers, rogues, and monks for dps. If the fight was short wizards were usually the top. Also sometimes a shadowknight would perform really well too...don't know how, but yeah lol.
Watemper said:Riahuf22 said:Greenkrak2 said:By soloing I think it just means able to get xp on your own at your own pace, no content was 'designed' to be solo, but you could easily solo pull mobs in alot of places.
Like with my wizard in EQ I could root/nuke things down then afk for a couple min to regen mana, which is nice when you are not able to commit to 100% focus with a group.
Some classes like druid,necro, mage, and later the shaman of course where far superior but most melee classes could not solo anything after a certain level which just meant that getting xp was way easier as a caster.
Yes you are correct in that casters had it easier to get exp, which lead to a huge problem, eventually due to playing time and getting any kind of advancement in their game they wanted to play they had to switch to those classes or endure being another class. It what lead to my saying of the 10% tank, 15% healer, 75% dps, becuase it basically was, the necros, wizards, druids, mages, and such were badically all over the place and the people that weren't these classes struggled to get grps and therefore literally couldn't do anything, and you can say druids were healers in eq but really they really sucked at it, so they were more dps even though they weren't really good at that either.
P.S.making a 100% group orientated game but having some classes that can solo it, it more damaging than a game that has solo content, EQ proved it.
First off there were 3 classes that really couldn't solo after a certain level....the rogue, warrior, and monk. Technically a cleric could solo to 50 like the Paladin in Lguk with the undead nuking.
So out of the 3 classes that couldn't solo...2 of them were instant invited to groups, warrior and monk. The rogue was the only outcasted roll for groups, and couldn't solo, which isn't the content fault, but bad class design.
So no EQ didn't prove group content to be more dmging lol.
Hmm?, no clerics couldn't solo, maybe once they got to level 50 they could solo but getting their they couldn't, paladins couldn't solo either, prolly not even at level 50 tbh, rangers were in such a bad spot til AA'S came around they were almost no where to be found. So that makes warriors, paladins, clerics, rangers, rogues, monks, so as you were saying? That's like 1/2 the classes guess which ones aren't in this list, it's the casters cept for the cleric, and honestly even cleric undead nuking I lguk at 50 was dangerous, and could end every badly didn't things didn't go well. So yeah next time you try to actually prove someone wrong actually come in with facts, not a post made of half truths, so yeah when people noticed this guess which classes basically wasn't getting picked, I'll tell yeah basically all the ones above listed and when they were they were the ones that basically fit into my 10, 15% list.
Umm...I know several people in classic EQ who in their 40s as clerics soloed in lguk. Ranger could solo with dots and snare kiting griffons. I mained a paladin in classic and could solo unrest and lguk with a ghoul bane leveling up. So sorry you are just wrong on those fronts.
Is the argument about what classes could solo well in EQ at what levels and where especially relevant to the topic of this thread?
We know that in *Pantheon* some classes will be able to solo more easily than others. Class interest and enjoyability will not be crucified on a cross of class balance.
We know that there will be some room for solo play in Pantheon.
We know that group play will be designed to be more rewarding in experience and gear so that people are always incented to group. Solo will not be designed to lure people away from group by larger or even equal rewards.
We simply don't know *how* we will be allowed to solo - whether by separate content or by fighting much lower level "group" mobs or otherwise.
Riahuf22 said:Watemper said:Riahuf22 said:Greenkrak2 said:By soloing I think it just means able to get xp on your own at your own pace, no content was 'designed' to be solo, but you could easily solo pull mobs in alot of places.
Like with my wizard in EQ I could root/nuke things down then afk for a couple min to regen mana, which is nice when you are not able to commit to 100% focus with a group.
Some classes like druid,necro, mage, and later the shaman of course where far superior but most melee classes could not solo anything after a certain level which just meant that getting xp was way easier as a caster.
Yes you are correct in that casters had it easier to get exp, which lead to a huge problem, eventually due to playing time and getting any kind of advancement in their game they wanted to play they had to switch to those classes or endure being another class. It what lead to my saying of the 10% tank, 15% healer, 75% dps, becuase it basically was, the necros, wizards, druids, mages, and such were badically all over the place and the people that weren't these classes struggled to get grps and therefore literally couldn't do anything, and you can say druids were healers in eq but really they really sucked at it, so they were more dps even though they weren't really good at that either.
P.S.making a 100% group orientated game but having some classes that can solo it, it more damaging than a game that has solo content, EQ proved it.
First off there were 3 classes that really couldn't solo after a certain level....the rogue, warrior, and monk. Technically a cleric could solo to 50 like the Paladin in Lguk with the undead nuking.
So out of the 3 classes that couldn't solo...2 of them were instant invited to groups, warrior and monk. The rogue was the only outcasted roll for groups, and couldn't solo, which isn't the content fault, but bad class design.
So no EQ didn't prove group content to be more dmging lol.
Hmm?, no clerics couldn't solo, maybe once they got to level 50 they could solo but getting their they couldn't, paladins couldn't solo either, prolly not even at level 50 tbh, rangers were in such a bad spot til AA'S came around they were almost no where to be found. So that makes warriors, paladins, clerics, rangers, rogues, monks, so as you were saying? That's like 1/2 the classes guess which ones aren't in this list, it's the casters cept for the cleric, and honestly even cleric undead nuking I lguk at 50 was dangerous, and could end every badly didn't things didn't go well. So yeah next time you try to actually prove someone wrong actually come in with facts, not a post made of half truths, so yeah when people noticed this guess which classes basically wasn't getting picked, I'll tell yeah basically all the ones above listed and when they were they were the ones that basically fit into my 10, 15% list.
I soloed as a paladin when I was waiting on camp lists through lvl 30-50. I would usually solo undead in various places, and I would get people to buff me to improve my efficiency. I would solo the spectres in Oasis and certain areas of Lguk from around lvls 40-50. I even soloed in Kithicor on my paladin. So yeah...you don't know what you are talking about. Clerics could solo even better than paladins when fighting undead but very rarely ever needed to. "Things going badly" that happened to every soloer from bards missing notes to druids accidentally running into other mobs while kiting etc. Soloing in dungeons I learned where to go to avoid getting hit by the trains. Your definition of soloing is what? Completely safe and easy? That's not how soloing was in EQ unless you were farming greens.
@Ziegfried
Did you main a paladin like I did. Nothing like a new set of spells every 9 levels lol. Once you got a ghoulbane on a Paladin those procs were amazing. Also getting the Fbss along with it made you a killing machine in lguk for leveling.
Must say I do regret making a paladin as my first character because of how poor I was. But yeah the cleric could wear plate, root and stun, and its undead nukes were insanely strong. More than makes up for the lack of melee. I know groups who would have 2 or 3 clerics in their group along with a paladin tank and would chew threw unrest. Pretty fun.
Watemper said:Tanix said:
You are right though, the monk and warrior were horrible soloers after a while, but with certain types of gear and hitting various caps, they could eventually take on green/light blue mobs. That was raid gear though. As a monk, I remember once I hit 1800 AC and had some of the nice weapons, I could solo a bit like I could when I was in my 30's, occasionally using ID to give me time to bind wound and finish the fight.
Rogues had it pretty rough though as they could not solo most things from the get go due to all of their ability being focused on needing the back of the mob to do any practical damage.
Not so much that rogues were poorly designed, rather that the expectations of their design was never realized. The rogue was supposed to be based off the AD&D thief class, more focused on their utility skills than damage. EQ was supposed to have numerous interactions and encounter situations where the rogue would shine (essentially be the group king), but I think what Brad talked about during the time was that the technology just wasn't up to the level of expectations they had and the rogues abilities became less useful and began to make damage more of their focus.
If you remember Najena , there were numerous locks/traps, pits, etc... which the rogue did well in (ie they could get people in and out of the jail pits and pick many of the doors, etc..) but it just wan't enough to give the rogue a useful purpose as other classes had skills for.
True, the rogue did help in places like Befallen and Najena...but the higher end zones didn't utilize them until Kunark, where places the like jailer camp was a god send for rogues lol.
Once Velious came out, rogues were nearing the top of the dmg meters with monk. By Luclin the top three were rangers, rogues, and monks for dps. If the fight was short wizards were usually the top. Also sometimes a shadowknight would perform really well too...don't know how, but yeah lol.
Honestly, having gone back to P1999, no one class has a hard time finding a group. I loved grouping with rogues, rangers, shadowknights and all the other classes
Exactly. Any class can be desirable for a group. Even in Old EQ any class could solo. One class may just have to be more creative than another class in a certain situation and vice-a-versa. Every situation and encounter was unique to the unique classes. I do not want to see all classes being able to do things in the same way as each other. Players will have to experiment and get creative :)
Right, but the argument was for classes that can solo. 3 classes couldn't solo to 50, unless raid geared really. Two of them were instantly grouped when you ask for group, which is warrior and monk. The rogue had a harder time, but by no means was it impossible or took a long time for a rogue. Especially back in classic where no one cared for the best group comp.
Hell when GoD came out with the dreaded instance dungeons I put together a group and when we all got in there we realized we were all paladins lol. When we figured out a good system of changing the tanks around and a 6 stun rotation, we managed to clear the dungeon with no down time and consistent pulling without any cc lol. Good times.
So your talking about a game where you went to p99 and went and found of the nice little places to go to find great items and than went to solo places? Gee hmm I wonder why that worked, it's cuase the game is nearly 20 years old, try doing stuff like that in a game no one has ever played before, and explain to me how it feels, I bet you saw no one soloing in lguk, or equilavent, why for one original eq was harder than p99 let's get this straight, it was close to the same but def not as hard, no paladin soloed period which at the time was the charm until people wanted to do something that didn't require another preson, just to play the game, and building certain content to support this idea isn't a bad idea, it's a filler like I said, it only gives maybe a touch of exp, possibly some trash to sell, and stuff like this, just enough to make it somewhat viable so when people only have a certain amount of time to play, they can do something, and denying people this for one will probably not bring in the younger audience or at least not keep them around which is part of their focus as they said, I'm not even saying this so it supports me more I have disability, I can literally play 24/7 and not care, but I just realize that building solo content is just smart, simply put, you can disagree, you can list all the reasons you want about how you don't think it's the right thing to do, but in the end if you make the solo content have close to no value, in sense of currency, and world drops and such, their isn't much at risk, and they will seek out groups, for one reason only, try want the challenge, the gear that comes from the dungeon, the adventure, the things that drives gamers into doing things they love when it comes to mmos, solo content isn't the end of everything, but realizing your a lvl 10 warrior, and can't find a grp becuase of whatever reason and logs off the game dissatisfied could result in a lost costumer.
Firstly, my experience was in vanilla EQ and not P99, although I played P99, and all of what I said is true in terms of soloing content. My Paladin was lvl 30 when I got my ghoulbane done. I started it at lvl 25. I did group and soloing in undead areas until mid 35s and beyond. I forgot exactly what I did after 35 because I went to a ranger later on, but I do remember killing undead frogs in lguk on my paladin solo consistently. My father also played a paladin, and so did my stepmom. I saw my dad soloing in areas when he was in his mid 40s, and we weren't twinked btw. We were a notorious paladin family on my server to a lot of people. We even adopted a flithy Shadow Knight into our family when he was on to group with us.
Also, you are missing a few concepts here.
Firstly, people are advocating for solo content because they can't group all the time correct? I couldn't group all the time with my Paladin. But when I did I went into camps and got loot that helped me solo more efficiently.
Secondly, a level 10 warrior can easily solo mobs a few levels lower than himself at that early of a stage.
Thirdly, the natural progression of group content that becomes lower level as you level up can also have, as you said, "...close to no vlaue, in sense of currency, and world drops and such..." So I still don't see a good argument for designed solo content. You are just complaining, even though you probably won't say it, that they're lower level and not equal level to you and that's your problem.
Lastly, you are comparing EQ class design and not what Pantheon classes will be. So they can design the warrior, monk, and rogue to be able to solo better than the EQ ones. Also, depending on the gear drops in dungeons, those pieces can enhance them even further, like the ghoulbane for the Paladin.
Watemper yes my first character and my main was a human paladin. It was rough starting out that's for sure. But I absolutely loved the class so I didn't mind the hardships enough to reroll. Not to mention getting the Soulfire back in the day made it all worthwhile nobody else got a FLAMING SWORD!! To Riahuf22 I played the original EverQuest from 1999 to the end of 2001. My experiences were on the Mithaniel Marr server not the P1999 server. Back in the day I was in highschool and every single day after school I'd load up EQ and play for 8 hours straight. Not exactly a casual gamer myself. I was soloing Lguk and making pretty good XP while waiting for those camps...it happened. You can say it didn't happen, but I am sure Watemper is not the only one who can vouch for paladins soloing undead even in the 1999-2001 era. And several other classes could solo far better in general such as necros and mages.
I'm not worried about attracting the solo players like you are. I am more concerned about Pantheon going too raid heavy and alienating 80-90% of the playerbase. If you look at the stats of MMORPG players you will find the vast majority of them do group content. Sure you could say every player does solo content...but that's not the point. This isn't supposed to be a single player game. So the real concern I have is going in the opposite direction and making the game turn into raiding at max. Group focused means 2 to 6 players in my eyes. There is nothing stopping a warrior from teaming up with another class and having a good time as a duo. The mentality of needing to join a full group is crazy to me, sure you may be on a long list for primo camp #1 but maybe, just maybe you could form a team and grind some other stuff while ya wait? Or you could try to solo...and yes it will be tough in a group focused game to go it alone. How many players is Pantheon really going to lose because somebody can't solo stuff as a warrior at level 10? Let's get serious here: Pantheon warriors are going to be vastly stronger than EQ warriors with a lot more tools in their kit. Also this game isn't catering to the ultra casual who only has 30 minutes to play. So let's say the ultra casual decides for whatever reason to try Pantheon. They roll a solo unfriendly class (I am certain it will warn you in the class description) and start dying to mobs at level 10 and quit. Who's fault is that? Does every single videogame today need to be designed for facerollers? (my fav WoW slang haha!) NO! Rolling your face on the keyboard should lead to a painful demise. Every single "Solo friendly" MMO I have played is way too easy...it's boring for skilled and/or experienced gamers. I can' point to a game with the perfect wrong formula WildStar that had solo to max and endgame raiding...it died quickly, a lot more quickly than Vanguard. And what about the other solo friendly titles? Most of em seem to have gone free to play...not exactly success stories.
How about answering these questions: do you think solo players should get their own dungeons and boss mobs? Should special solo mobs exist that can only be engaged by a single player? Should solo players gain XP as fast as group players? Should solo players be able to reach max level without ever joining a group? Should solo players get gear as strong as group players?
Watemper said:Firstly, my experience was in vanilla EQ and not P99, although I played P99, and all of what I said is true in terms of soloing content. My Paladin was lvl 30 when I got my ghoulbane done. I started it at lvl 25. I did group and soloing in undead areas until mid 35s and beyond. I forgot exactly what I did after 35 because I went to a ranger later on, but I do remember killing undead frogs in lguk on my paladin solo consistently. My father also played a paladin, and so did my stepmom. I saw my dad soloing in areas when he was in his mid 40s, and we weren't twinked btw. We were a notorious paladin family on my server to a lot of people. We even adopted a flithy Shadow Knight into our family when he was on to group with us.
Also, you are missing a few concepts here.
Firstly, people are advocating for solo content because they can't group all the time correct? I couldn't group all the time with my Paladin. But when I did I went into camps and got loot that helped me solo more efficiently.
Secondly, a level 10 warrior can easily solo mobs a few levels lower than himself at that early of a stage.
Thirdly, the natural progression of group content that becomes lower level as you level up can also have, as you said, "...close to no vlaue, in sense of currency, and world drops and such..." So I still don't see a good argument for designed solo content. You are just complaining, even though you probably won't say it, that they're lower level and not equal level to you and that's your problem.
Lastly, you are comparing EQ class design and not what Pantheon classes will be. So they can design the warrior, monk, and rogue to be able to solo better than the EQ ones. Also, depending on the gear drops in dungeons, those pieces can enhance them even further, like the ghoulbane for the Paladin.
I'm not simply just complaining, I'm saying to add in a filler, is that so hard to understand? I mean that all I have basically said from the beginning, MMO's need fillers, they always do, and killing something well below your level, that gives exp and everything doesn't do anything to the overall picture, I even said no dungeon mobs, no name mobs, just the good ole run of the mill mobs that are scattered out in the open world, so they aren't even solo camping camps, and such, like I said I want to improve from EQ not make the same mistake as it, and some XX level warrior killing a pack of wolves that one even cares about shouldn't hurt anyone, especially if he's having "fun" doing it or at least enough "fun" until he finds himself a group, I mean I just don't get it, if you make dungeon mobs basically unsoloable, epically with alert mobs and other special features than where ultimately is the harm, I mean look at classic wow, a ton of it was solo content and it was the biggest mmo ever to hit the market, don't you think it did something right? And not by any means ammo saying to make a wow clone, but to make it everything wow classic wasnt, can't truly be the correct answer here.
Watemper said:Hell when GoD came out with the dreaded instance dungeons I put together a group and when we all got in there we realized we were all paladins lol. When we figured out a good system of changing the tanks around and a 6 stun rotation, we managed to clear the dungeon with no down time and consistent pulling without any cc lol. Good times.
Right there is the very essence of EQ. You take what you have and you find a way to make it work which is what emergent play is all about.
Riahuf22 said:So your talking about a game where you went to p99 and went and found of the nice little places to go to find great items and than went to solo places? Gee hmm I wonder why that worked, it's cuase the game is nearly 20 years old, try doing stuff like that in a game no one has ever played before, and explain to me how it feels, I bet you saw no one soloing in lguk, or equilavent, why for one original eq was harder than p99 let's get this straight, it was close to the same but def not as hard, no paladin soloed period which at the time was the charm until people wanted to do something that didn't require another preson, just to play the game, and building certain content to support this idea isn't a bad idea, it's a filler like I said, it only gives maybe a touch of exp, possibly some trash to sell, and stuff like this, just enough to make it somewhat viable so when people only have a certain amount of time to play, they can do something, and denying people this for one will probably not bring in the younger audience or at least not keep them around which is part of their focus as they said, I'm not even saying this so it supports me more I have disability, I can literally play 24/7 and not care, but I just realize that building solo content is just smart, simply put, you can disagree, you can list all the reasons you want about how you don't think it's the right thing to do, but in the end if you make the solo content have close to no value, in sense of currency, and world drops and such, their isn't much at risk, and they will seek out groups, for one reason only, try want the challenge, the gear that comes from the dungeon, the adventure, the things that drives gamers into doing things they love when it comes to mmos, solo content isn't the end of everything, but realizing your a lvl 10 warrior, and can't find a grp becuase of whatever reason and logs off the game dissatisfied could result in a lost costumer.
???
Umm, we did do it. We did it in EQ. It was called "exploring" and finding out what worked and what didn't. That is the entire point.
Now don't get me wrong, there were plenty of people who sat around whining about not having groups, that they coulcn't solo, etc... While they were doing that, the rest of us were exploring, testing out mobs to see if we could solo, duo, trio, etc... Working on class combinations, approaches, etc... to be able to excel. We did this because we HAD to. We had no bouncing balls, detailed solo guides (well, there were all kinds of guides to be honest, but back then we called them forums and people just read other peoples posts on strategies). You had to figure it out on your own (or with others).
As I said, I don't buy the "I can't solo and I can't find a group", it is PURE BS and I proved it wrong day in and day out playing EQ. If you can'f find a group, the first place to look is yourself.
Can't solo? Explore and see if you can find some way to do such. CAn't find a group? Make one and stop expecting to have the perfect setup and group balance.
There were times I had the most odd ball group setups and yet.. we made them work. It is like Watemper said, it was a lot of fun.
Riahuf22 said:Watemper said:Firstly, my experience was in vanilla EQ and not P99, although I played P99, and all of what I said is true in terms of soloing content. My Paladin was lvl 30 when I got my ghoulbane done. I started it at lvl 25. I did group and soloing in undead areas until mid 35s and beyond. I forgot exactly what I did after 35 because I went to a ranger later on, but I do remember killing undead frogs in lguk on my paladin solo consistently. My father also played a paladin, and so did my stepmom. I saw my dad soloing in areas when he was in his mid 40s, and we weren't twinked btw. We were a notorious paladin family on my server to a lot of people. We even adopted a flithy Shadow Knight into our family when he was on to group with us.
Also, you are missing a few concepts here.
Firstly, people are advocating for solo content because they can't group all the time correct? I couldn't group all the time with my Paladin. But when I did I went into camps and got loot that helped me solo more efficiently.
Secondly, a level 10 warrior can easily solo mobs a few levels lower than himself at that early of a stage.
Thirdly, the natural progression of group content that becomes lower level as you level up can also have, as you said, "...close to no vlaue, in sense of currency, and world drops and such..." So I still don't see a good argument for designed solo content. You are just complaining, even though you probably won't say it, that they're lower level and not equal level to you and that's your problem.
Lastly, you are comparing EQ class design and not what Pantheon classes will be. So they can design the warrior, monk, and rogue to be able to solo better than the EQ ones. Also, depending on the gear drops in dungeons, those pieces can enhance them even further, like the ghoulbane for the Paladin.
I'm not simply just complaining, I'm saying to add in a filler, is that so hard to understand? I mean that all I have basically said from the beginning, MMO's need fillers, they always do, and killing something well below your level, that gives exp and everything doesn't do anything to the overall picture, I even said no dungeon mobs, no name mobs, just the good ole run of the mill mobs that are scattered out in the open world, so they aren't even solo camping camps, and such, like I said I want to improve from EQ not make the same mistake as it, and some XX level warrior killing a pack of wolves that one even cares about shouldn't hurt anyone, especially if he's having "fun" doing it or at least enough "fun" until he finds himself a group, I mean I just don't get it, if you make dungeon mobs basically unsoloable, epically with alert mobs and other special features than where ultimately is the harm, I mean look at classic wow, a ton of it was solo content and it was the biggest mmo ever to hit the market, don't you think it did something right? And not by any means ammo saying to make a wow clone, but to make it everything wow classic wasnt, can't truly be the correct answer here.
NO they don't. That is mainstream design and it caters to people who WILL NOT play a game and simply want to be entertained.
EQ was a game, not entertainment. There is a very key difference between them. When developing a game, your goal is to challenge the player, to test them, confound them, confuse them, to frustrate them at times so they are forced to think, explore, try new things, and innovate solutions. This is why there is such elation when someone succeeds in a game, because it is earned.
In entertainment, your concern is that the person is being entertained at all times, that they are having "fun (tm)" (a meaningless subjective word as fun is not the same for everyone) at all times.
See, in all these years of playing games, I realized that I don't care for entertainment, I don't need to be pandered to constantly to have a bouncing ball helping me to stay focused and not get discouraged, etc.. I want a game, because a game is what is "fun (tm)" for me. This is why I dislike most games made today (MMO and single player). They are so busy trying to "entertain" everyone that they are afraid to have them frustrated, to challenge them and force them to think/do on their own. It is for that very reason I got bored and realized how dumbed down games are today.
So again, if you want to solo, figure it out. Making content designed for you to solo, so at all times you can go out and "feel" as if you are progressing is not healthy for a game, great for mindless entertainment, but horrible design for a game. You should have to earn your progress, not have it handed to you.
Keep in mind that when some of us talk about EQ, it isn't the surface elements of the game we are talking about, it isn't some emotional connection we can't describe, it is a culmination of numerous subtle elements in the games design which FORCED us to PLAY the GAME, not be just entertained while we pushed buttons. Pantheon should be a GAME, not simply entertainment regardless if everyone is having "Fun (tm)" all the time.
Riahuf22 said:Hmm?, no clerics couldn't solo, maybe once they got to level 50 they could solo but getting their they couldn't...
Server 1st to 50 on E'Ci was a Cleric that soloed the majority of their levels. Took another 2-3 weeks before the next character reached level 50.