Tanix said: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.
Challenge? Nagafen, tank n spank, lady vox tank n spank, cazic Thule tank n tank, inno, tank n spank, all of kunark raid content and named mobs, tank n spank, all of velious named mobs and raid content, tank n soank, do I go on? So where you say there is a challenge where is it hitting a few spells and the tank making sure he kicks off cooldown? You act like eq actually had a challenge other than the fact of actually trying to find a grp, and you can keep saying how challenging eq actually was but the only things actually challenging about eq and being fortunate enough to find a grp with common sense. EQ like I said had flaws, it isn't the holy grail and this is coming from someone who has basically played it 10 years straight, and than pick it up off and on afterwards and honestly the mobs are still basically tank n spank cept for certain name mobs and the newer raids but most are still pretty easy, so please stop acting like eq was this game of full hardcore mode game, it wasn't it was only challenging at its time becuase no one knew had to play a mmorpg, if it would of been boring to most players, which is why pantheon now has hotbars, as where eq didn't at least not in the why they are used now, or certain abilities setting up other abilities to preform better like the one monk ability. And you can call it main stream if you want I could call what you basically want is a eq clone but you would deny it even though I'm sure I'm right. And just cuase Brad Mcquaid made VG and EQ doesn't mean it's going to resemble them, yes he will make it hard, but hard doesn't mean it will look like anything we imagine, for one classic wow raiding was hard, and to date I believe wow classic raiding is harder than every single raid I've ever seen in EQ, and it's dungeons were harder to, EQs trash mobs were harder than wows at times but it's named mobs were on anothe level, and I can prove it, there isn't a single eq mob in vanilla that you couldn't beat with a grp that actually required you to move.
@Riahuff
Name me one RPG around 1999 that was hard for nowadays standard ?
Gaming drifted from a casual immersive experience to mind consuming twitch and reactive gameplay designed for hardcore-ish players, nothing released 18 years ago is really hard today except from platform hardcore games.
So : Keep games in their context : Back in 1999 Everquest was hard not because of it's reactive gameplay, but overall complexity (patience, social requirements, unintended situations and difficulty to maintain a tank alive with 500 to 1000 ping and frequent packet losses including many players in a rotation).
MauvaisOeil said:@Riahuff
Name me one RPG around 1999 that was hard for nowadays standard ?
Gaming drifted from a casual immersive experience to mind consuming twitch and reactive gameplay designed for hardcore-ish players, nothing released 18 years ago is really hard today except from platform hardcore games.
So : Keep games in their context : Back in 1999 Everquest was hard not because of it's reactive gameplay, but overall complexity (patience, social requirements, unintended situations and difficulty to maintain a tank alive with 500 to 1000 ping and frequent packet losses including many players in a rotation).
I could also say current wow is hard cuase I have a computer that doesn't have a compatible video card to run it so when I run into dungeons I run at 2fps pre pull, though it really doesn't just means things needed to be improved before it actually became playable, there's a differnce.
Riahuf22 said:MauvaisOeil said:@Riahuff
Name me one RPG around 1999 that was hard for nowadays standard ?
Gaming drifted from a casual immersive experience to mind consuming twitch and reactive gameplay designed for hardcore-ish players, nothing released 18 years ago is really hard today except from platform hardcore games.
So : Keep games in their context : Back in 1999 Everquest was hard not because of it's reactive gameplay, but overall complexity (patience, social requirements, unintended situations and difficulty to maintain a tank alive with 500 to 1000 ping and frequent packet losses including many players in a rotation).
I could also say current wow is hard cuase I have a computer that doesn't have a compatible video card to run it so when I run into dungeons I run at 2fps pre pull, though it really doesn't just means things needed to be improved before it actually became playable, there's a differnce.
I envy you if you had optical fibre in 1999 then.
MauvaisOeil said:Riahuf22 said:MauvaisOeil said:@Riahuff
Name me one RPG around 1999 that was hard for nowadays standard ?
Gaming drifted from a casual immersive experience to mind consuming twitch and reactive gameplay designed for hardcore-ish players, nothing released 18 years ago is really hard today except from platform hardcore games.
So : Keep games in their context : Back in 1999 Everquest was hard not because of it's reactive gameplay, but overall complexity (patience, social requirements, unintended situations and difficulty to maintain a tank alive with 500 to 1000 ping and frequent packet losses including many players in a rotation).
I could also say current wow is hard cuase I have a computer that doesn't have a compatible video card to run it so when I run into dungeons I run at 2fps pre pull, though it really doesn't just means things needed to be improved before it actually became playable, there's a differnce.
I envy you if you had optical fibre in 1999 then.
Not what I was getting at, what I'm saying if what made part of the game hard wasn't even a mechanic in the game, than the game shouldnt claim credit on why it was hard. Running a bad ping means the game especially eq came out well before it's time, which is why it is loved as much as it is, I love eq, I really do, but I'm not going to stand around and say looking back that eq was actually hard, beside the finding a group part, I mean seriosuly if you had you and 5 other friends with appropriate classes the game was a simple breeze, for as long as a third party problem didn't happen like the internet.
You simply went to my point : Requiring a RTX gen Graphic device for a game released in 2019 is not the same as having overall bad bandwith for a game 20 years ago, it's not like anyone had the choice (and especially thoses who were in europe like me. I remember sometimes looking at my ingame bandwith and going slowly from 0% to 100% or the inverse, can't remember for sure, because my interned jammed for some reasons, that's something we are no longer used to nowadays because the quality of service is much better and much more represented everywhere).
There were a lot of things back then that were hard, but it's not comparable to today's game expectation as gaming went from a casual hobby to a focused second job in twenty years at most.
Riahuf22 said:Tanix said: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.
Challenge? Nagafen, tank n spank, lady vox tank n spank, cazic Thule tank n tank, inno, tank n spank, all of kunark raid content and named mobs, tank n spank, all of velious named mobs and raid content, tank n soank, do I go on? So where you say there is a challenge where is it hitting a few spells and the tank making sure he kicks off cooldown? You act like eq actually had a challenge other than the fact of actually trying to find a grp, and you can keep saying how challenging eq actually was but the only things actually challenging about eq and being fortunate enough to find a grp with common sense. EQ like I said had flaws, it isn't the holy grail and this is coming from someone who has basically played it 10 years straight, and than pick it up off and on afterwards and honestly the mobs are still basically tank n spank cept for certain name mobs and the newer raids but most are still pretty easy, so please stop acting like eq was this game of full hardcore mode game, it wasn't it was only challenging at its time becuase no one knew had to play a mmorpg, if it would of been boring to most players, which is why pantheon now has hotbars, as where eq didn't at least not in the why they are used now, or certain abilities setting up other abilities to preform better like the one monk ability. And you can call it main stream if you want I could call what you basically want is a eq clone but you would deny it even though I'm sure I'm right. And just cuase Brad Mcquaid made VG and EQ doesn't mean it's going to resemble them, yes he will make it hard, but hard doesn't mean it will look like anything we imagine, for one classic wow raiding was hard, and to date I believe wow classic raiding is harder than every single raid I've ever seen in EQ, and it's dungeons were harder to, EQs trash mobs were harder than wows at times but it's named mobs were on anothe level, and I can prove it, there isn't a single eq mob in vanilla that you couldn't beat with a grp that actually required you to move.
Challenge in modern MMOs? You mean where you solo from levels 1 to max whilst facerolling vigorously? Come now. The only challenge in modern MMORPGs have been cordoned off to the far corners in the most extreme encounters. You know it and I know it. There is literally zero reason for us to play modern MMORPGs before max level when it comes to challenge and that is part and parcel of why Pantheon is being developed...to reintroduce something interesting before raiding. And really let's look at the modern MMOs again real quick: last I checked WoW has something called "LFR" and it is laughably easy. Maybe you'd like to reconsider your statements? Or are you going to just point to Mythic level raids and dungeons? The most difficult content in modern MMOs can be ignored entirely. Nobody needs to do Mythics for gearing. Think of it this way...imagine in EQ if you intentionally attempted all your groups/raids without clerics, enchanters, and warriors. Would the encounters be a lot more difficult? YES! That's all the modern MMOs are doing here giving you these completely optional hardmodes. So what do you have left? Vanilla WoW? Largely tank and spank encounters actually...but with much tougher trash, larger raid sizes, resist gearing, etc. Vanilla WoW was pretty close to EQ minus the instancing.
Making the content mechanically difficult in an RPG misses the boat so badly I can't help but laugh. RPGs are not twitch action games. Dance dance revolution with the raid boss and synronized swimming with the glowing circles on the ground while DBM is blaring is NOT what I am looking for. If I want that I know where to go...to one of the many other MMOs that offers exactly that. Why even mention hotbars btw? I mean really...EQ had hotbuttons and hotkeys. Hotbars are a mere UI convenience nothing more. Much like raid frames. Why say the abilities in EQ did not play off each other? Lowering a mobs resistances meant more spells connected for example. Knowing how to stack different haste effects was very important. EQ had a large emphasis on buffs/debuffs/CC/pulling and yes it's true the boss fights were largely tank and spank in the 1999-2001 era. But there was other stuff going on during the fights that you for whatever reason chose to ignore. AoE damage, breath, tail swipe, death touch, adds spawning, players getting charmed, summoned, etc. WoW was a clone of EQ btw not the other way around. All the "WoW clones" are EQ clones in a sense...just extremely watered down.
((What is the point of a MMORPG when I am the one soloing groups of mobs at the same time? ))
Crafting, joining guilds and working with guildmates, doing dungeons that do require groups, talking in chat, and many other things we cannot do in a single player game. In EQ2 as in many games there was more to do in groups at higher levels and 17 was extremely low by EQ2 standards.
That said I agree that EQ2 was far too easy. I agree it was mostly focused on solo play. I agree one could get to high level with ridiculous speed and no challenge whatsoever. I left EQ2 myself long ago.
For starters when I was mentioning WoW you can clearly see I was targeting classic wow specifically not current, so therefore mentioning LFR, and everything else it came up with afterwards says nothing about my post, and if you thought EQ was actually challenging than hopefully pantheon feels like a nightmare, that's all I got to say.
? Oh well badically the kind of soloing I want is going to basically hard to prevent and so that's fine by me, you guys can keep complaining about it but honestly how are you going to stop it, you cant, so how about instead of complaining about something you can stop, which hy the way isn't killing someone far lower than you that still gives you exp, just saying, you can find ways to make it harder sure but it will still happen, and yes eq was easy like I said the only reason it was even considered hardcore was becuase of corpse runs, not the actual content itself, and the ping. So yeah, like I said eq wasn't hard it was just brought out way before it's time which made it special, there a difference.
Riahuf22 said:
For starters when I was mentioning WoW you can clearly see I was targeting classic wow specifically not current, so therefore mentioning LFR, and everything else it came up with afterwards says nothing about my post, and if you thought EQ was actually challenging than hopefully pantheon feels like a nightmare, that's all I got to say.
My problem with your arguments Riahuf22 is that you are narrowly defining difficulty to that of arcade play (response based action play). Don't get me wrong, I respect Arcade play, I grew up with its evolution (ie 70's pong, Cleico Vision/Intellivision, Atari, Nintendo, etc...). I think arcade play is great. For instance, Dark Souls is a great Arcade game as it brought back the concept of play to today gaming generation. It is however not cRPG play.
EQ wasn't about action, it wasn't about "movement", it wasn't about how fast you hit buttons (although timing was important in some aspects with healing chains and tank switches), but overall EQ was about endurance based fights. Yes, many fights in EQ were "tank and spank", but what most people didn't understand is the mechanics behind the sub elements of the roles involved. Now if you want to slight EQ, then do it correctly. In most cases, EQ was fought by a small percentage of the raid. The rest were simply damage, nothing more (ie line a bunch of people up, tell them to attack and do nothing more other than, don't over agro).
So yes, EQ was in RAIDS, a lot of tank an spank in over all surface view. For instance, the Avatar of War(AoW), was... tank and spank. He didn't have any "dance moves", he didn't rush off and do a bunch of algorithms requring the party to move two steps right, move three steps back, do the watoosy and shake it all around.
It was about endurance, the healers and keeping their chain going (not too hard with a simple timing through chat calls), but also making sure you properly manage your mana feeding (ie mages dropping rods, necros feeding mana. etc..) and any drop offs in heals between tank switches (which is where your druids may need to shore up faults in the chain with over healing).
Then you had your tank swaps. Agro management was key, which meant your raid had to back off and keep from pulling agro (rogues/wizards with spike damage were a huge problem along with necros dotting too much) between the switches. Warriors at the time didn't have any massive agro weapons (they had good ones, but nothing like the Blade of Carnage at the time, which by the way, dropped from the AoW), most were using various things like Yaks, or similar.
Now my guild didn't take down the AoW during Velious (in fact, I think nobody did, maybe one guild and they used some pretty unsavory tricks) duer to the fact that AoW was one of those "Content challenges" of the expansion. So, my guild was able to use the AA ability a warrior had to instantly grab agro and hold it for a period of time (it was a temp hold, but it bought time to generate agro) as well as a defensive AA that allowed them to reduce damage for a period of time.
So, we had a healing chain, and a warrior chain of tank swaps. The AoW would quad hit for 1400 (the Idol, which was before the AoW could be slowed, making it easier, which is why most did the idol and let the AoW sit and despawn).
The AoW had I think as much, if not more than the Idols HP (1 million+). Regardless, we had 4 tanks which would slowly build agro (each one used different weapons of varying power to compensate and then would by basic individual estimate time their attacks to stagger that agro chain between them) with MT to QT each one would slowly build agro in that staggering and when they were ready to transition, the entire raid would stop attacking for a period of time, I interm healers would pump into the transitioning warrior, he would hit his defensive ablity, then his AoE agro ability and the healing chain would seamlessly, swap to healing him.
We did this over and over again (each warrior had a 20-30 min cyle on the AA abilties) as we needed to defeat the AoW which If I remember right was several cycles ( I think it took us 2-3 hours of straight fighting to down him).
So, tank... yes... spank? Well... if you were skiled enough.
I have heard far too many people talk about EQ being simple tank and spank, but none of them I spoke with either played EQ at early content, or they never lead the raids.
I designed my guilds raid encounters and to claim EQ was simple, is pretty ignorant of the game.
Riahuf22 said:? Oh well badically the kind of soloing I want is going to basically hard to prevent and so that's fine by me, you guys can keep complaining about it but honestly how are you going to stop it, you cant, so how about instead of complaining about something you can stop, which hy the way isn't killing someone far lower than you that still gives you exp, just saying, you can find ways to make it harder sure but it will still happen, and yes eq was easy like I said the only reason it was even considered hardcore was becuase of corpse runs, not the actual content itself, and the ping. So yeah, like I said eq wasn't hard it was just brought out way before it's time which made it special, there a difference.
Never said we should "stop" soloing. I said we should not DESIGN content to be solo'd.
I stated this OVER and OVER again. You do realize this right?
Clearly, I said killed things a dozen levels below you, which means the game isn't intended to have solo content and you keep saying we don't want solo content. I mean how much do you have go argue with me to realize that killing g someone that far below you means solo content, when it says the exact opposite, I mean really if 1 lvl 38 mob can challenge a lvl 50 in solo combat how challenging could he be to a grp of 38, in a since pretty damn challenging, or at least definately not going to be soloed by someone who is 38 for sure, I mean seriously you keep saying I don't want solo content, but in eq necros were killing yellows in velious at level 60 and I was saying that I want all classes to have a challenge at least killing monsters 8 levels below them, so who wants a harder game I wonder I mean seriously think about what it is what I'm saying and not what you think I am saying.
And you can achieve this and have all classesable to solo as well, I mean according to Watemper all the classes but Rogue, Warriors, and monks could solo so what's the big difference
Riahuf22 said:Clearly, I said killed things a dozen levels below you, which means the game isn't intended to have solo content and you keep saying we don't want solo content. I mean how much do you have go argue with me to realize that killing g someone that far below you means solo content, when it says the exact opposite, I mean really if 1 lvl 38 mob can challenge a lvl 50 in solo combat how challenging could he be to a grp of 38, in a since pretty damn challenging, or at least definately not going to be soloed by someone who is 38 for sure, I mean seriously you keep saying I don't want solo content, but in eq necros were killing yellows in velious at level 60 and I was saying that I want all classes to have a challenge at least killing monsters 8 levels below them, so who wants a harder game I wonder I mean seriously think about what it is what I'm saying and not what you think I am saying.
And you can achieve this and have all classesable to solo as well, I mean according to Watemper all the classes but Rogue, Warriors, and monks could solo so what's the big difference
Moving the goal post.
Nobody said you couldn't solo a mob of no value (ie.. a mob of no value is so low it provides no exp worth, or so little it is pointless).
Even if that was your point, designing content for such? Seriously, is that your argument? I mean, lets design worthless content so players can run along and solo things without value?
See, the problem is, you are chaging your postion. YOU specifically were asking for content of VALUE that could be solo'd and DESIGNED for such (if you weren't then you need to work on your literary skills, because this was the contingency of my responses).
Now you are back tracking and trying to change things up.
Let me end this here.
You have NO clue about EQ which is why you avoided dealing with my detailed comments about Raids in EQ.
You have NO clue about your argument, which is why you are all over the place.
You have no clue about what you want, other than... you want things easy, but you really think it should be hard (beacuse you are hardcore and EQ was easy), but not hard in that it would make it hard, only that it would be hard in you saying it is hard, but rather it should be easy so you can have fun, but claim it is hard.
You and me? We are done, I have no respect for your discussion, you have been relegated to the "ummm ok, sure... gotcha..." section.
Run along.
Tanix said:Riahuf22 said:Clearly, I said killed things a dozen levels below you, which means the game isn't intended to have solo content and you keep saying we don't want solo content. I mean how much do you have go argue with me to realize that killing g someone that far below you means solo content, when it says the exact opposite, I mean really if 1 lvl 38 mob can challenge a lvl 50 in solo combat how challenging could he be to a grp of 38, in a since pretty damn challenging, or at least definately not going to be soloed by someone who is 38 for sure, I mean seriously you keep saying I don't want solo content, but in eq necros were killing yellows in velious at level 60 and I was saying that I want all classes to have a challenge at least killing monsters 8 levels below them, so who wants a harder game I wonder I mean seriously think about what it is what I'm saying and not what you think I am saying.
And you can achieve this and have all classesable to solo as well, I mean according to Watemper all the classes but Rogue, Warriors, and monks could solo so what's the big difference
Moving the goal post.
Nobody said you couldn't solo a mob of no value (ie.. a mob of no value is so low it provides no exp worth, or so little it is pointless).
Even if that was your point, designing content for such? Seriously, is that your argument? I mean, lets design worthless content so players can run along and solo things without value?
See, the problem is, you are chaging your postion. YOU specifically were asking for content of VALUE that could be solo'd and DESIGNED for such (if you weren't then you need to work on your literary skills, because this was the contingency of my responses).
Now you are back tracking and trying to change things up.
Let me end this here.
You have NO clue about EQ which is why you avoided dealing with my detailed comments about Raids in EQ.
You have NO clue about your argument, which is why you are all over the place.
You have no clue about what you want, other than... you want things easy, but you really think it should be hard (beacuse you are hardcore and EQ was easy), but not hard in that it would make it hard, only that it would be hard in you saying it is hard, but rather it should be easy so you can have fun, but claim it is hard.
You and me? We are done, I have no respect for your discussion, you have been relegated to the "ummm ok, sure... gotcha..." section.
Run along.
The first thing I ever said was solo. Mobs the could give exp badically at its lowest form, 2hich I actually said like I dunno 4 times at least, I guess you don't really read my post, and also I must know so much more about eq than you becuase eq raiding was simply this and nothing harder, tank and spank. Even with avatar of war, the o ly thing that made him hard so the simply fact he quad attacked the tank. Switch required a ton of clerics in the chain heal to contend with but if you had enoughthan he fell like the rest. So stop acting like me not responding to your detailed post was me trying not to avoid the conversation wass me realising it had no value. You can keep saying that I'm bouncing back in forth but I really wasnt, you were just reading something and thought one thing when it meant something else. So maybe next time read all my post before you keep repeating yourself like 15 times over and over and over again.
Tanix said:Riahuf22 said:Well I understand old eq I played it almost from day 1 so I know, but we alrdy know it's not going to be that harsh, at least I dont, and I'm not saying that for any other reason than they alrdy said you can solo, so at max level soloing something g 10-12 levels lower level than you that still gives you exp is still considered soloing, and it doesn't require a special class to solo but those classes to maybe solo harder targets like I stead of 10-12, maybe 8 or so. So yes I believe all classes should be able to solo, they shouldn't be punished for picking a class for as long as their skill with the class is good enough to do it.
Soloing should not be a focus. PERIOD.
EQ didn't focus on it, nor should Pantheon.
I can only be clear and direct to my position. If VR sells out, I won't play their game. Period.
Now you might think... well...they don't need you, they have... xyz modern gamers etc....
Modern gamers are not faithful, this is an verified fact. You build a game to modern design and what that means is you end up with locusts to rush throgh content and move off to the next game.
It is the core EQ/VG release crowd that would keep this game afloat. The same gamers who made P1999 popular and various other private servers. Those are the people who VR intially claimed would sustain them. If VR fails them, the game will be massively succesful to the mainstream locusts, but then will die out because nobody will be here to keep the lights on (I know I wont).
So what is their goal now? Cater to mainstream? Cater to the players who actually funded them through the failed KS to now?
There is a MAJOR issue with this game many people don't understand. Either VR serves its core base, or it hopes the mainstream hype will make it rich so it doesn't have to care.
Other companies have done this though, so it is possible VR could leave thier core base hanging.
Larian for instance was a little cRPG company known for certain titles and they sold a bill of goods to the old school gamer base, promised them the world, told them they were making games for them, but as soon as the money got too good, Larian sold out and pushed mainstream garbage. I am too old to think VR is a saint and would never do such a thing, so I am very critical of their decisions.
VR can save me the time though. All they ahve to do is just say "We are making games for everyone!" and I will stop supporting or following the game. It is as easy as that.
See right here I clearly stated, where you reaponded, I never veered from this idea, I just didn't reinstate it every time I made a post so how about instead of saying I was back paddling, I just wasn't constantly repeating myself like you were
Riahuf22 said:Tanix said:Riahuf22 said:Well I understand old eq I played it almost from day 1 so I know, but we alrdy know it's not going to be that harsh, at least I dont, and I'm not saying that for any other reason than they alrdy said you can solo, so at max level soloing something g 10-12 levels lower level than you that still gives you exp is still considered soloing, and it doesn't require a special class to solo but those classes to maybe solo harder targets like I stead of 10-12, maybe 8 or so. So yes I believe all classes should be able to solo, they shouldn't be punished for picking a class for as long as their skill with the class is good enough to do it.
Soloing should not be a focus. PERIOD.
EQ didn't focus on it, nor should Pantheon.
I can only be clear and direct to my position. If VR sells out, I won't play their game. Period.
Now you might think... well...they don't need you, they have... xyz modern gamers etc....
Modern gamers are not faithful, this is an verified fact. You build a game to modern design and what that means is you end up with locusts to rush throgh content and move off to the next game.
It is the core EQ/VG release crowd that would keep this game afloat. The same gamers who made P1999 popular and various other private servers. Those are the people who VR intially claimed would sustain them. If VR fails them, the game will be massively succesful to the mainstream locusts, but then will die out because nobody will be here to keep the lights on (I know I wont).
So what is their goal now? Cater to mainstream? Cater to the players who actually funded them through the failed KS to now?
There is a MAJOR issue with this game many people don't understand. Either VR serves its core base, or it hopes the mainstream hype will make it rich so it doesn't have to care.
Other companies have done this though, so it is possible VR could leave thier core base hanging.
Larian for instance was a little cRPG company known for certain titles and they sold a bill of goods to the old school gamer base, promised them the world, told them they were making games for them, but as soon as the money got too good, Larian sold out and pushed mainstream garbage. I am too old to think VR is a saint and would never do such a thing, so I am very critical of their decisions.
VR can save me the time though. All they ahve to do is just say "We are making games for everyone!" and I will stop supporting or following the game. It is as easy as that.
See right here I clearly stated, where you reaponded, I never veered from this idea, I just didn't reinstate it every time I made a post so how about instead of saying I was back paddling, I just wasn't constantly repeating myself like you were
None of that content was designed for people to solo, which is the point. You keep stating over and over that all classes SHOULD be able to solo and I said that this should not be "designed" into the game. Do you not understand what that means? It means classes MAY be able to solo, but there is no guarantee. Also EQ classes being able to solo at different times is not the same as saying all classes could solo. There were levels where there really was no practical means for a class to solo. As a monk, I stopped being able to take on mobs at around level 36 on release. The mobs gave so little of exp and took so long to kill, it was not worth the time at all. Also, there were times where there really was NOTHING I could solo, no matter how hard I looked, I just lacked the right gear/(aa's when SoL came out I had times where I was 60 nothing I could solo existed, even the green dwarfs in Ice clad were too hard for me) to be able to even solo the easiest greens.
Again, this was content that was NOT designed around soloing, which is what you SPECIFICALLY state above there that all, classes SHOULD be able to solo. In order for your comment to be correct, they would have to DESIGN content SPECIFICALLY in mind to cater to that expectation. I am saying NO, they should not cater to that idea, that content should be designed for groups and classes MAY or MAY NOT be able to solo content depending on numerous factors.
You can twist and redefine your argument all you want, but you SPECIFICALLY stated... "So yes I believe all classes should be able to solo, they shouldn't be punished for picking a class for as long as their skill with the class is good enough to do it. "
Again, your own words invalidate your claim.
No it really doesn't you just can just make the levels more meaningful than just a level, or any other factor, but it's okay you hear "A warrior can solo something 12 levels lower than them so and if they can do that in Pantheon it's doomsday and it's going to ruin pantheon completely." Which by the way it wouldn't but honestly I'm done with this conversation with you, your clearly just not seeing any part of anything other than the word solo in everything I say, but that's okay, Kilsin alrdy said theirs soloing in the game so I guess this convo shouldn't of ended before it started.
Riahuf22 said:No it really doesn't you just can just make the levels more meaningful than just a level, or any other factor, but it's okay you hear "A warrior can solo something 12 levels lower than them so and if they can do that in Pantheon it's doomsday and it's going to ruin pantheon completely." Which by the way it wouldn't but honestly I'm done with this conversation with you, your clearly just not seeing any part of anything other than the word solo in everything I say, but that's okay, Kilsin alrdy said theirs soloing in the game so I guess this convo shouldn't of ended before it started.
Hmm...
Good day!
Ernest Scribner: Is solo viable to level max? Is there any solo content?
CP: Currently, there are no plans to design content specifically for solo players. It will be up to the players to find ways to solo within Pantheon and it will certainly be possible to do so, with some Classes being more adept at it than others. As we’ve said in the past, we are not discouraging solo play, we simply aren’t designing for it.
I'll just put this here as the final nail in this debate....for now lol.
So no designed solo content...just finding ways to solo through emergent gameplay.
Which, given what they'e shown so far, will be, at least: root-n-shoot, root-rot, snare kiting. They haven't conformed that root will have a chance to break on damage, I don't think, so far, but that change would likely be required to prevent any root class from soloing to max level, unless common mobs will end up summoning or similar cheesy response tactics.
Watemper said:Ernest Scribner: Is solo viable to level max? Is there any solo content?
CP: Currently, there are no plans to design content specifically for solo players. It will be up to the players to find ways to solo within Pantheon and it will certainly be possible to do so, with some Classes being more adept at it than others. As we’ve said in the past, we are not discouraging solo play, we simply aren’t designing for it.
I'll just put this here as the final nail in this debate....for now lol.
So no designed solo content...just finding ways to solo through emergent gameplay.
Exactly! NO to designing the game for solo content, and YES to players having to experiment in finding their own unique and creative ways to solo and duo.
#communitymatters #makenightmatteragain #riskvsreward
I am actually a mix of both... If I find a good group to explore, wander around with, accomplish stuff for everyone... One that likes to be spontaneous and try things, I prefer to stick with them and have fun, keep it social, build that friendship and experience... But... That can sometimes be hard to find as we all know, at times it is not clicking, things are not working out etc... I am fine to go solo and keep on the move, keep doing something fun or progressive.
So that about sums it up for me...