Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
This Forum is Read Only

Viable incentive to party?Follow

#1 Jun 13 2009 at 8:54 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
Ok some want Solo, some want Party... Personally I want and NEED both. I don't want to solo nessecarily, but I want to be able to when I can't party.

So to the point, people have been throwing EXP bonus percentages around for one style or another... how about same EXP, but in parties you get more drops. Not different drops, but more. I realise in XI you kind of already do, but I'm talking on an expanded level and not just crystals.

*EDIT* To clarify, by XP I'm just using a loose term since we don't know the system that will be used.

Solo you fight a sheep and get up to 2x sheep skins and 100xp

Party of 6 you fight a sheep and get up to 12x sheep skins and 100xp

If done properly it would create more a more party based environment without effecting the ability of people to solo and keep up with their friends. Hermit crafters and such would be less likely to solo and more likely to party.

I don't like the idea of xp hits when in a non balanced group either, but I don't know the best way around that.

It's early and I haven't had my coffee yet, however I can't blame this post on alchohol as I've been cut off for a few months ~,~

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 7:57am by PerrinofSylph
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#2ffximanaburn, Posted: Jun 13 2009 at 9:32 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Square Enix has already stated there will be no levels in FFXIV thus no exp.
#3 Jun 13 2009 at 9:34 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,576 posts
The best way I've seen it implemented is to segregate group and solo options to a certain extent. Other MMOs have "normal" mobs and "elite" mobs. Normal mobs are tuned to be manageable by a solo player. Elite mobs can be killed solo by a skilled player of the right class, but they quickly become unmanageable if you find yourself fighting more than one. Elite mobs tend to grant far more xp/kill than non-elites because they're mostly intended to be killed by groups. The extra xp is to offset the xp sharing that you see in groups.

Segregating the content makes sense for at least a couple of reasons: one, it's hard to claim you've got solo content when most areas have significant numbers of elite mobs roaming around. The second reason is to reduce the difficulties associated with areas becoming overcamped. FFXI players already know about the conflicts between BST and groups. Imagine that on a much wider scale.

When you get down to numbers, elite mobs fought in a group will yield slightly more xp/mob than normal mobs fought by a solo player. The main thing is that the difference is not huge. It's a minor boost that serves as an incentive rather than a control. In order for a group to earn more xp per member over a certain period of time, it requires that group be functioning well. Lots of needless delays, breaks, deaths, and generally sloppy play will quickly shift the xp/hour balance in favor of the solo player who is clipping along at a good pace. Maintaining a good pace in a group and working well together affords players enough xp to edge out the solo player, even with a couple of short breaks here and there.

That's the first layer of the incentive. A second layer can come from mob drops. For the sake of entertainment value and diversity, group content would ideally include a reasonable supply of boss mobs, and those boss mobs would drop decent gear when killed. The gear doesn't have to be uber, just a slight step above what a solo player would expect to get. Earning that gear means you have to down the boss, and boss mobs tend to require slightly more strategy and coordination to kill.

That leaves you with two tiers of incentive, but neither of them are an incentive if your group isn't performing. If you can't keep up a reasonable pace, solo can easily become a better option for xp. If your group can't down the boss(es), you don't get the gear. It's about rewarding success and good performance and recognizing that it's typically a bit more challenging to function well in a group than it is to function solo. The main thing is that it's success that's being rewarded, and not playstyle.
#4 Jun 13 2009 at 9:43 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
I don't like the idea...not to mention it doesn't make sense that a sheep should drop 2 skins when 1 person kills and 72 when 6 people kill it.

If anything it rather have it more like this:

Solo you fight a sheep and get up to 6 sheep skins and 50xp

Party of 6 you fight a sheep and get up to 2 sheep skins and 100xp


This way it may take longer to xp solo but you'll be more prepared when you level. I don't even like this way though. I'm sure there are better ways to blend solo and party play without one taking away from the other.


ffximanaburn wrote:
Square Enix has already stated there will be no levels in FFXIV thus no exp.


I'm sure the OP is simply expressing his idea in the terms he knows...there's no harm in that.

Edited, Jun 13th 2009 10:46pm by Yogtheterrible
#5 Jun 13 2009 at 9:56 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
158 posts
problem is... you give same exp to both soloists and groups then everyone is just going to solo so they dont have to hassle with the group.

Give more items per person in groups... who cares... they are sheep skins or other relatively meaningless items (well coming from an ffxi standpoint)

Give lower exp solo and higher in group while increasing drop rate in solo... everyone is going to group when they try to lvl because its faster and they are trying to level up not get sheep skins...

of coarse... these items are relatively meaningless but instead of a sheep item you were to give a better item... problem is... its an economy even if the item starts off worth more as soon as it gets common which it will in this system the price/need will go down to that of a sheep skin...

now... perhaps mobs could drop quest items where you would actually neeeed to get these items, it wouldnt effect economy. there is an idea there... but... if you are on a certain quest is it really viable to force someone to look for others of not only same level but same quest as well? then you would just end up solo'ing it and we're back to square one....

Honestly I don't think any of us are really going to come up w/ a good answer... The Dev team has most likely been thinking up something for months... and they are pros... I think they have found an answer... they just won't tell us >.>
____________________________
Asurean Taru

75 WHM
75 BRD
51 SMN
43 DRK
38 SAM
37 BLM
29 WAR
#6 Jun 13 2009 at 10:01 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,372 posts
The individual would get about the same(sometimes more, sometimes less) either way so how is it an incentive?
#7 Jun 13 2009 at 10:13 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
valid wrote:
The individual would get about the same(sometimes more, sometimes less) either way so how is it an incentive?


Because it's possible to get more. It eliminates the argument that there's no point to grouping because a person will get the same of everything whether they group or play solo. It means that the people who want to group feel like it's worthwhile, and the people who don't feel like grouping that day also feel like it's worthwhile to log in and play the game they're paying to play. It's win-win.
#8 Jun 13 2009 at 10:16 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
valid wrote:
The individual would get about the same(sometimes more, sometimes less) either way so how is it an incentive?


It was a loose example. And as I said I'm still running without caffine.

Any way, the individual and the group both have the same "leveling" capacity, but the group has a higher chance at filling their pockets faster. In XI any way it was slower to get XO and the only reasons to solo with a lot of classes were for meager xp while waiting for a PT, for drops to craft with, or out of sheer boredom.

If everyone gets similar xp, there's no long term separation between soloists and groupers. However if there were more drops (assuming a similar rolling for items system as XI) your chances in a group to yield more craftable items would increase.

I know it's not the answer, it's just something to debate. I really don't like the idea of xp per mob being dependant on the size of your group. The ammount of time per mob yes, not the xp yield.

*EDIT*
Thanks AureliusSir, I'm glad you at least see where I'm coming from even if this isn't the ideal meathod.



Edited, Jun 14th 2009 6:20am by PerrinofSylph
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#9 Jun 13 2009 at 11:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
1,372 posts
AureliusSir wrote:
valid wrote:
The individual would get about the same(sometimes more, sometimes less) either way so how is it an incentive?


Because it's possible to get more. It eliminates the argument that there's no point to grouping because a person will get the same of everything whether they group or play solo. It means that the people who want to group feel like it's worthwhile, and the people who don't feel like grouping that day also feel like it's worthwhile to log in and play the game they're paying to play. It's win-win.


Exactly. You get the same either way. The problem is it takes more effort to get a PT going. Why spend an extra 30+ minutes getting a group together, finding camp, etc. when you can get the same results soloing?

#10 Jun 13 2009 at 11:28 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
valid wrote:
AureliusSir wrote:
valid wrote:
The individual would get about the same(sometimes more, sometimes less) either way so how is it an incentive?


Because it's possible to get more. It eliminates the argument that there's no point to grouping because a person will get the same of everything whether they group or play solo. It means that the people who want to group feel like it's worthwhile, and the people who don't feel like grouping that day also feel like it's worthwhile to log in and play the game they're paying to play. It's win-win.


Exactly. You get the same either way. The problem is it takes more effort to get a PT going. Why spend an extra 30+ minutes getting a group together, finding camp, etc. when you can get the same results soloing?



You didn't read what was written.

The argument is that it should be possible to achieve more in a group but that in order to do so, that group has to perform. It has to be tuned so that there's not such a wide margin between group progression and solo progression that a crappy group will always progress faster than a solo player.

You can't reward mediocrity just because it took someone longer to demonstrate how mediocre they really are. You reward performance.
#11 Jun 13 2009 at 11:30 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,649 posts
valid wrote:
AureliusSir wrote:
valid wrote:
The individual would get about the same(sometimes more, sometimes less) either way so how is it an incentive?


Because it's possible to get more. It eliminates the argument that there's no point to grouping because a person will get the same of everything whether they group or play solo. It means that the people who want to group feel like it's worthwhile, and the people who don't feel like grouping that day also feel like it's worthwhile to log in and play the game they're paying to play. It's win-win.


Exactly. You get the same either way. The problem is it takes more effort to get a PT going. Why spend an extra 30+ minutes getting a group together, finding camp, etc. when you can get the same results soloing?



Less downtime. Faster kills. Socializing. Etc. Your basic fundamentals for a MMO.
____________________________

#12Maldavian, Posted: Jun 13 2009 at 11:38 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nicely put vali. I don’t know why this thread is ongoing since it has been bought forth 1000 times that if you don’t have xx % better xp then group people will always choose the solo part, and that has been proven in all other MMO's.
#13 Jun 13 2009 at 11:39 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
valid wrote:
Exactly. You get the same either way. The problem is it takes more effort to get a PT going. Why spend an extra 30+ minutes getting a group together, finding camp, etc. when you can get the same results soloing?


Actually in FFXI the way it currently works is that solo play for many classes consists of fighting a fairly easy mob for mediocre xp. A group fights T+ mobs at a faster rate and more xp. Also you are suggesting it will take similar time to form a PT in XIV, I'm optimistic that it will not.

Any way the incentive, assuming same mob nets same xp no matter PT size... is that in a group you kill more of that same mob faster AND get more drops. Solo you can kill it in a decent time (not 5-10 minutes per mob, but not in 1 minute like a full PT would either) and get the same (ex:) 100xp and the base roll for drops.
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#14 Jun 13 2009 at 11:41 PM Rating: Good
11 posts
^^^^^ in response to carthrdm ^^^^^

Seems like a good enough incentive.. But I'm also imagining that certain areas or missions can only be accessed by a party, perhaps because of monster difficulty or mission objectives.

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 3:41am by Momotaru

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 3:43am by Momotaru
#15 Jun 13 2009 at 11:44 PM Rating: Default
**
572 posts
CarthRDM wrote:
valid wrote:
AureliusSir wrote:
valid wrote:
The individual would get about the same(sometimes more, sometimes less) either way so how is it an incentive?


Because it's possible to get more. It eliminates the argument that there's no point to grouping because a person will get the same of everything whether they group or play solo. It means that the people who want to group feel like it's worthwhile, and the people who don't feel like grouping that day also feel like it's worthwhile to log in and play the game they're paying to play. It's win-win.


Exactly. You get the same either way. The problem is it takes more effort to get a PT going. Why spend an extra 30+ minutes getting a group together, finding camp, etc. when you can get the same results soloing?



Less downtime. Faster kills. Socializing. Etc. Your basic fundamentals for a MMO.


Less downtime? Your assuming it’s a perfect party here where the players are playing as elites. Faster kill won’t happen if one or more people don’t perform well. Socializing, I do agree to some extent, although that doesn’t happen unless you know the party members, most of the time you don’t know them.

"Your basic fundamentals for a MMO". Well said, meaning the game should focus on that basic fundamental feature that is what makes an MMO, right? Aka, less focus on solo ;D
#16 Jun 13 2009 at 11:50 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,576 posts
Maldavian wrote:

For those of you that still want to argue let me make an example why humans always adapt the easier path.

Since we know that there IS a lot more work in getting a party going one would assume that you should have some kind of benefit.


A lot more work for whom? I can tell you without hesitation that regardless of the MMO, it's usually the party leader who does the vast majority of the "work" to put the group together. Why should the rest of the party be rewarded for the "work" of one person? Occasionally you get other people in the group doing searches and tapping their individual networks, but in general if the process takes longer than ten minutes, all but one or two of the people in the party are usually off doing something else waiting for the group to fill out while someone else does the "work" to make it happen.

So to expand on your example,

Quote:
It’s the same as real life. If your boss told you "Joe" you need to work overtime but you won’t get any pay for your overtime, would anyone do it?


People who are on salary don't get overtime in my part of the world. Not sure about where you are, but some people actually do the extra work because it needs to be done with the idea in mind that if they're skilled and successful they'll eventually be rewarded for their efforts in other ways.

Quote:
Or, if you could get the same amount of salary but have to work less hours would you do it?


Ya, but if I cut back the hours and can't get done what needs to be done as a result, how long am I going to have a job?

Quote:
If solo have the same reward as group, why would I even bother trying to get a group?


If you don't want to group, why would you group? Ever think that maybe people should be grouping because they want to? And if they're doing what they want, shouldn't that be enough? Reward people in groups based on what they accomplish, not simply because they're in a group. If at any point in time people stay in a horrible group because they're still progressing faster than they could on their own, something is broken.
#17 Jun 13 2009 at 11:57 PM Rating: Default
**
572 posts
AureliusSir wrote:


If you don't want to group, why would you group? Ever think that maybe people should be grouping because they want to? And if they're doing what they want, shouldn't that be enough? Reward people in groups based on what they accomplish, not simply because they're in a group. If at any point in time people stay in a horrible group because they're still progressing faster than they could on their own, something is broken.


Let me make another example then, as you seem to emphasize heavily on wanting or not. If I want to solo end game content, should I get the same reward as the ones that are in a group or raid?

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 4:01am by Maldavian
#18 Jun 14 2009 at 12:08 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,576 posts
Maldavian wrote:
AureliusSir wrote:


If you don't want to group, why would you group? Ever think that maybe people should be grouping because they want to? And if they're doing what they want, shouldn't that be enough? Reward people in groups based on what they accomplish, not simply because they're in a group. If at any point in time people stay in a horrible group because they're still progressing faster than they could on their own, something is broken.


Let me make another example then, as you seem to emphasize heavily on wanting or not. If I want to solo end game content, should I get the same reward as the ones that are in the group or raid?


Kind of a lame example, since wanting to do something doesn't mean you're going to be successful. Rewards come from success.
#19 Jun 14 2009 at 12:34 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
25 posts
I think they are just going to use WoW's method for lvling, solo most of the missions and occasionally have to team up with a few others to defeat a Elite boss, Higher exp obviously for taking down the elite 59 rather than the normal mob thats lvl 59. WoW's successful strategy is hard to ignore...
#20 Jun 14 2009 at 12:43 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
maybe I worded things wrong, but the intent of the thread is an incentive to grouping without "nerfing" solo options all while ignoring exp.

If xp isn't an issue, what sort of benefits could be offered (other than bosses, instances, quests) to get people to PT together.

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 9:57am by PerrinofSylph
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#21 Jun 14 2009 at 12:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,813 posts
Maldavian wrote:
Let me make another example then, as you seem to emphasize heavily on wanting or not. If I want to solo end game content, should I get the same reward as the ones that are in a group or raid?

Well, to a certain degree yes? There have been several instances in WoW where they have tried to give players a means to obtain rewards at least somewhat close to raid content without having to group with 25-40 people.

More accurately though there are reasonable requests an unreasonable ones. Wanting to be the most powerful character on a server and lord over all the other players is an unreasonable want. It's not going to work, because every player would resent you and hate the game. However, wanting to be able to make progress on my own is not an unreasonable request. Many other MMORPGs have done it quite successfully.
#22 Jun 14 2009 at 2:01 AM Rating: Default
**
572 posts
AureliusSir wrote:
Maldavian wrote:
AureliusSir wrote:


If you don't want to group, why would you group? Ever think that maybe people should be grouping because they want to? And if they're doing what they want, shouldn't that be enough? Reward people in groups based on what they accomplish, not simply because they're in a group. If at any point in time people stay in a horrible group because they're still progressing faster than they could on their own, something is broken.


Let me make another example then, as you seem to emphasize heavily on wanting or not. If I want to solo end game content, should I get the same reward as the ones that are in the group or raid?


Kind of a lame example, since wanting to do something doesn't mean you're going to be successful. Rewards come from success.


So, if you succeed in a group should the award be higher or the same as if you succeed in solo?
#23 Jun 14 2009 at 2:06 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,813 posts
Maldavian wrote:
So, if you succeed in a group should the award be higher or the same as if you succeed in solo?

You may have been wanting a response form only Aurelius, but I thought I'd chime in as well.

Optimally the award should be the same for the same amount of effort. High end equipment that is difficult to achieve in raids as a group should have a similar alternative available in solo that requires a similar level of effort. If it takes you 3 months to earn it raiding then it should take you three months to earn it soloing.
#24 Jun 14 2009 at 2:09 AM Rating: Default
**
572 posts
Allegory wrote:
Maldavian wrote:
Let me make another example then, as you seem to emphasize heavily on wanting or not. If I want to solo end game content, should I get the same reward as the ones that are in a group or raid?

Well, to a certain degree yes? There have been several instances in WoW where they have tried to give players a means to obtain rewards at least somewhat close to raid content without having to group with 25-40 people.

More accurately though there are reasonable requests an unreasonable ones. Wanting to be the most powerful character on a server and lord over all the other players is an unreasonable want. It's not going to work, because every player would resent you and hate the game. However, wanting to be able to make progress on my own is not an unreasonable request. Many other MMORPGs have done it quite successfully.


Again this isn’t WoW, we don’t know how FF14 will be, if it _will_ have some elements of end game from FFXI, then it might fully be possible that they might implement something for hardcore gamers that will resemble relics.

And who gives the fu*k whether or not people will resent me or not, I don’t play for people, or put myself for display, I play for myself to reach a long-term goal and try to reach that goal together with my friends and companions.
#25 Jun 14 2009 at 2:13 AM Rating: Default
**
572 posts
Allegory wrote:
Maldavian wrote:
So, if you succeed in a group should the award be higher or the same as if you succeed in solo?

You may have been wanting a response form only Aurelius, but I thought I'd chime in as well.

Optimally the award should be the same for the same amount of effort. High end equipment that is difficult to achieve in raids as a group should have a similar alternative available in solo that requires a similar level of effort. If it takes you 3 months to earn it raiding then it should take you three months to earn it soloing.


Seem like you have totally lost it when comparing what difficult is. Let me make an example, an item such as a relic in FFXI, how would you make it possible to obtain soloable?

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 6:14am by Maldavian
#26 Jun 14 2009 at 2:16 AM Rating: Decent
*
192 posts
Quote:

Less downtime. Faster kills. Socializing. Etc. Your basic fundamentals for a MMO.


This makes sense to me. Even in systems wherein there's absolutely no outside reward for partying, including XP boosts, groups are still usually simply much more efficient and smooth. My only issue is that the progress-gap between the two should stay reasonable or small.

If you're an efficiency/speed freak, yes, you'll always party. If you're a regular person, you'll have hermit days and social days. My simple concern is that the gap shouldn't be so large that I feel it absolutely necessary to force myself into a party just to make basic progress (not for 'teh best gear' or other end-game specialties, just basic progress).

Quote:

So, if you succeed in a group should the award be higher or the same as if you succeed in solo?


Slightly higher. It should be more efficient. But people shouldn't feel pressured to engage in parties if they don't wish to.

I should note that if it's more efficient time-wise to party and yet most players don't want to overcome the initial trouble of forming that party, that would definitely be more a problem with the player base and the party forming/LFG system than how parties themselves work.
____________________________
The Other Castle
#27 Jun 14 2009 at 2:24 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,813 posts
Maldavian wrote:
Seem like you have totally lost it when comparing what difficult is. Let me make an example, an item such as a relic in FFXI, how would you make it possible to obtain soloable?

A way to make it obtainable solo--but necessarily the best way--would be to, as I said, require the same amount of effort from the player. I'm not sure how long a typical relic takes to earn, but can we use 9 months as a placeholder? So it takes nine months of raiding to get enough item together to make your relic weapon. It should take nine months of soloing to do the same. The laziest way to do that is to simply mirror the method of obtaining it. As a solo you would have to repeatedly go into a special instance that was only available after a certain time interval, just like dynamis, and trudge through several difficult encounters and quests. You would also probably have to farm/quest up buff items similarly to how people prepare for dynamis runs. The encounter could be adjusted in difficult to mimic however hard you felt it was to get the necessary number of people together for dynamis.

If this still seems too easy, and you think everyone would want to solo their relic weapon this way, then you can keep adding extra difficult/weights/annoyances to the solo part until you feel it balances out.

It's possible to design solo content that is harder than group content. It's possible to design solo content that is easier than group content. Therefore it's obviously possible to design solo content equally hard to group content.
#28 Jun 14 2009 at 2:37 AM Rating: Default
***
3,416 posts
I think that partying should be made so good or soloing so bad that players would want to group up at all times- I don't think that player should get "good enough" exp as solo, so that he may think that partying would be meaningless. I thought like this when playing WoW, and I didn't really like how easy soloing really was in the end. Of course partying could have been better exp, but the levels went by so fast that I didn't see a reason to bother.

One thing we need to note is that if the party is bad, that means wasted time for everyone, not just the leader. Time that could have been used solo instead of grouping up, and I think that risk would make players detest grouping if soloing is viable as well. That's why I think that even a bad party should get at least the same amount of exp as you can when soloing.

Maybe something like rested exp would be an alternative- boosted exp for some amount of time (30-45mins) which gives around the same exp as partying would or little less, but after that partying would be much much better, however not the only option still. If the player has only less than an hour to play he can solo and get quite good exp, but if you want to solo for longer period of time you better put up flag and lfp. Also if you don't get invite right away there's still good 45mins with good exp even as solo, so you can progress. And SE really should create a system so good that it shouldn't take more than 15~30mins to get an invite in the first place. If they can't 'fix' the long lfp times XI has, then this wouldn't work. I'm quite confident that it could be possible though.

But to make lfp times shorter some other things need to be addressed (specifically when it comes to job roles) but that doesn't belong in this thread I guess.
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#29 Jun 14 2009 at 2:47 AM Rating: Default
**
572 posts
Allegory wrote:
Maldavian wrote:
Seem like you have totally lost it when comparing what difficult is. Let me make an example, an item such as a relic in FFXI, how would you make it possible to obtain soloable?

A way to make it obtainable solo--but necessarily the best way--would be to, as I said, require the same amount of effort from the player. I'm not sure how long a typical relic takes to earn, but can we use 9 months as a placeholder? So it takes nine months of raiding to get enough item together to make your relic weapon. It should take nine months of soloing to do the same. The laziest way to do that is to simply mirror the method of obtaining it. As a solo you would have to repeatedly go into a special instance that was only available after a certain time interval, just like dynamis, and trudge through several difficult encounters and quests. You would also probably have to farm/quest up buff items similarly to how people prepare for dynamis runs. The encounter could be adjusted in difficult to mimic however hard you felt it was to get the necessary number of people together for dynamis.

If this still seems too easy, and you think everyone would want to solo their relic weapon this way, then you can keep adding extra difficult/weights/annoyances to the solo part until you feel it balances out.

It's possible to design solo content that is harder than group content. It's possible to design solo content that is easier than group content. Therefore it's obviously possible to design solo content equally hard to group content.


Again, this would be exact the same argument people have to _gain_ xp solo vs. group. By simple logic, no matter how you do it getting 25 man together will always be harder. Also making encounters that only will meet 1 single player will be very very limited on how hard you can make the encounter and almost no variation whatsoever or even strategy. And if by your logic this would be available in a MMORPG this would leave no intensive for anyone bothering doing any type of raid content.

What you strive for I think is something like Diablo Online.

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 7:06am by Maldavian
#30 Jun 14 2009 at 2:51 AM Rating: Good
*
192 posts
Quote:
I think that partying should be made so good or soloing so bad that players would want to group up at all times- I don't think that player should get "good enough" exp as solo, so that he may think that partying would be meaningless.


I hate to be blunt, but

English speaking MMORPGs aren't known for their fantastic player bases. Even FFXI, which supposedly had a good one. There are a lot of younger players who aren't good communicators, rude people, immature AND rude people with poor senses of humor, power-gamers that demand everyone play the "best" way, and everything in between.

And sometimes I want to play and enjoy the game without being subjected to all this. I honestly would refuse to play a game where I would be punished (unable to even level up at something resembling a decent speed) for not wanting to put up with, well, humans. People are people, and it's not like I'm complaining that the community needs to change. But I shouldn't be punished because that community sometimes makes me want to play on my own.
____________________________
The Other Castle
#31Maldavian, Posted: Jun 14 2009 at 2:59 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Not wanting to put up with humans ,,, hmm,, let me see,,, did it occur to you that 99% of all games in the world are actually offline based and thus you eliminate the need to interact with humans. So my suggestion is look around, broaden your horizon and pick a game that is not a MMO.
#32 Jun 14 2009 at 3:09 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
253 posts
Quote:
Party of 6 you fight a sheep and get up to 12x sheep skins and 100xp


Of course there is a chance that you won't get a single drop if you roll poorly.
____________________________
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
We are the BLU. Lower your shields and power down your weapons. You will be assimilated. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile
#33 Jun 14 2009 at 3:26 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
21 posts
The major issue with having large parts of the game soloable is that it homogenizes the game and makes it a lot less interesting in the long run. How would you expect a bard or a white mage equivalent type of class to be able to kill stuff as fast as a pure damage dealing class? Of course they'll have to add proper DPS skills to those classes. Same thing goes for the pure damagedealers, they'll have to get abilities to recover health to lessen downtime. I've played many MMO's since EQ1, so I can draw alot of conclusions from them. In games where you have ways to solo and party to progress your character, a vast majority will solo, even if party:ing may yield some better items and is better xp/hour. Even with party:ing being slightly better xp/hour, a lot of people just don't want to get involved with a group unless absolutely required.

It has destroyed any kind of flavour World of Wacraft had, making many classes similar to eachother, since everyone basically needs a way to dps and being able to take damage without dying their *** off. Of course, since the game is only marketed towards the extreme casual players, the content has taken a big hit in that regard too, and I remember being able to finnish the lastest expansion (Wrath of the Lich King) in about 7 days, getting to max levels, having done all the 5-man instances available, 80% of the quests and clearing all raid-instances. That's not my idea of fun gaming.

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 7:29am by muppenz
#34 Jun 14 2009 at 3:44 AM Rating: Default
**
572 posts
muppenz wrote:

It has destroyed any kind of flavour World of Wacraft had, making many classes similar to eachother, since everyone basically needs a way to dps and being able to take damage without dying their *** off. Of course, since the game is only marketed towards the extreme casual players, the content has taken a big hit in that regard too, and I remember being able to finnish the lastest expansion (Wrath of the Lich King) in about 7 days, getting to max levels, having done all the 5-man instances available, 80% of the quests and clearing all raid-instances. That's not my idea of fun gaming.

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 7:29am by muppenz


Haha, clearing Wrath of the Lich King in 7 days, welcome to World of Casualcraft ;D
#35 Jun 14 2009 at 3:48 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
Muppenz,

I wasn't refering to killing ability when I made the thread. I expect a healing class to take a long time to solo a mob that a DD could kill fairly quick. This is partially offset by a resting time, but the disadvantage (read fun challenge for some) is to DD with a squishy mage. By no means do I want WHM types doing physical dmg on the same scale as a WAR type.

I also don't want to spend 10-15 minutes soloing EMs for small gains on a DD (such as THF or RNG were on a lot of mobs in XI)

Not that it matters, the defualt police have awoken and the thread is derailed.
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#36 Jun 14 2009 at 5:00 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,842 posts
Well, as it has been already state, if you make solo = group than solo is always going to be the preferred method. It's simply easier to just head out and kill things than trying to form a group up. Making a group means you have to find 4 more players to start with, then depending on how the gameplay is you have find certain job/classes such as tanks and healers. In WoW I've seen it take 15mins to 2 hours trying to get a group start to do a simple instances simply because nobody was on or nobody wanted to do it.

Solo play already has benefit over group from the very start. Pick up and play/no waiting is the first, not having to deal with "kids" is another.

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 7:37am by dyvidd
____________________________
FFXIV Dyvid (Awaiting 2.0)
FFXI Dyvid ~ Pandemonium (Retired)
SWTOR Dy'vid Legacy - Canderous Ordo
#37 Jun 14 2009 at 5:08 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
I hate to be blunt, but

English speaking MMORPGs aren't known for their fantastic player bases. Even FFXI, which supposedly had a good one. There are a lot of younger players who aren't good communicators, rude people, immature AND rude people with poor senses of humor, power-gamers that demand everyone play the "best" way, and everything in between.

And sometimes I want to play and enjoy the game without being subjected to all this. I honestly would refuse to play a game where I would be punished (unable to even level up at something resembling a decent speed) for not wanting to put up with, well, humans. People are people, and it's not like I'm complaining that the community needs to change. But I shouldn't be punished because that community sometimes makes me want to play on my own.


It doesn't have to actually involve leveling or whatever its called in XIV, but I think that the main way of your character progression should be like that. Anything else, be it unlocking a weapon skill, crafting, PvP, exploring I think that could be done solo, and not in group. Maybe some missions too, but specifically tailored for soloers imo.
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#38 Jun 14 2009 at 5:29 AM Rating: Default
**
370 posts
MMOs should be based on group play. That is the reason why we play online. However SE decides to let us "grow" our characters should be easier to do while grouping than it would be solo. There should be a way to "grow" our characters solo but nowhere near as fast or as well as grouping would allow.
____________________________
Thaumaturge/Archer/Marauder
http://xivpads.viion.co.uk/?id=1847776
Moogle Inc linkshell
http://www.moogleinc.com
Stand in front of me fool...I am a Thaumaturge
#39 Jun 14 2009 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,576 posts
Maldavian wrote:

So, if you succeed in a group should the award be higher or the same as if you succeed in solo?


I believe that is what has been said, yes. And the rewards should be tuned so that it's the success that should be rewarded, and not just the method of earning the success that was attempted.
#40 Jun 14 2009 at 9:32 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,576 posts
muppenz wrote:

It has destroyed any kind of flavour World of Wacraft had, making many classes similar to eachother, since everyone basically needs a way to dps and being able to take damage without dying their *** off. Of course, since the game is only marketed towards the extreme casual players, the content has taken a big hit in that regard too, and I remember being able to finnish the lastest expansion (Wrath of the Lich King) in about 7 days, getting to max levels, having done all the 5-man instances available, 80% of the quests and clearing all raid-instances. That's not my idea of fun gaming.


You can't "finish" an expansion that hasn't been fully released yet.
#41 Jun 14 2009 at 9:33 AM Rating: Decent
6 posts
maybe theyll implement something where there are certain skillsets for example that can only be attained in group play like skillchain skill? or something lol that is a bad example but yeh if you get where im coming from
#42 Jun 14 2009 at 10:01 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Maldavian wrote:

Not wanting to put up with humans ,,, hmm,, let me see,,, did it occur to you that 99% of all games in the world are actually offline based and thus you eliminate the need to interact with humans. So my suggestion is look around, broaden your horizon and pick a game that is not a MMO.


"99%" of all games in the world are something you pay for once and then you can play whenever you want for as long as you want and not have to continue paying for it. If someone is paying to play on a monthly basis, having the option to play and progress whether or not they want to deal with other people is a pretty good idea.

Unfortunately, for all your would-be clever arguments, there's only a relative handful of people that share your view. SE doesn't even share your view. If all the "MMOs are for grouping" pundits were right, why are there so few MMOs coming out these days that focus on group play almost to the exclusion of all else? Why has robust solo content become a standard feature in most MMOs?

Oh, that's right. Because group-centric focus in an MMO doesn't work. You can maintain your notion of how things should be, but all that matters is how things actually are. Forced grouping for the majority of the content in an MMO has been demonstrated over time to be a failure of a concept. Games like EQ and FFXI had a certain advantage for a period of time in that MMO gamers didn't exactly have a mountain of options. Now that MMO gaming has hit mainstream levels, every game developer and their dog is looking to get in on the action. Even if the bulk of the games currently available are not all that appealing, there's always a new MMO around the corner. If you're a developer looking to create a game with staying power, you can't afford to be alienating an enormous segment of your potential playerbase.
#43 Jun 14 2009 at 10:05 AM Rating: Decent
**
572 posts
AureliusSir wrote:
muppenz wrote:

It has destroyed any kind of flavour World of Wacraft had, making many classes similar to eachother, since everyone basically needs a way to dps and being able to take damage without dying their *** off. Of course, since the game is only marketed towards the extreme casual players, the content has taken a big hit in that regard too, and I remember being able to finnish the lastest expansion (Wrath of the Lich King) in about 7 days, getting to max levels, having done all the 5-man instances available, 80% of the quests and clearing all raid-instances. That's not my idea of fun gaming.


You can't "finish" an expansion that hasn't been fully released yet.


Wrath of the Leech King was released in November 13, 2008 and he finished it in about 7 days, meaning November 20, 2008.

From November 20, 2008 until April 14, 2009 (which was the date of the next patch containing new end game content) he had nothing to do, roughly 4 months and 3 weeks.
#44 Jun 14 2009 at 10:07 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,576 posts
abzzuk wrote:
maybe theyll implement something where there are certain skillsets for example that can only be attained in group play like skillchain skill? or something lol that is a bad example but yeh if you get where im coming from


That's a good point that I was going to bring up when I was done responding to the overnight lunacy.

There's a lot of speculation right now about how characters will actually develop. Based on what SE has said and what they've implemented in recent releases as well as the systems offered by other successful RPGs, an on-use character progression system is not all that far fetched. SE has said they prefer the idea of balanced parties going into FFXIV (ie. tank, healer, dps/support). Combine an on-use development system with party roles and it's not too hard to see how players would develop differently in groups than they would in a solo environment. Tanks and healers would likely see the most substantial difference over time in how their character develops in groups compared to solo play. Group players would likely end up more specialized, whereas solo players would tend to be more rounded.
#45 Jun 14 2009 at 10:10 AM Rating: Excellent
*
192 posts
Quote:
Not wanting to put up with humans ,,, hmm,, let me see,,, did it occur to you that 99% of all games in the world are actually offline based and thus you eliminate the need to interact with humans. So my suggestion is look around, broaden your horizon and pick a game that is not a MMO.


You don't seem to be aware of the fact that "Solo"ing is still different from playing an offline game.

Very different, actually. Honestly, it's kind of the basic theory of an MMO, in case you didn't know. That you're playing with people around, even if you aren't partying.

Let me make it sound nice and simple for you, friend:

Playing an offline game (Like a regular Final Fantasy) is like taking a jog out in the middle of the woods where there's no one around. You can't meet anybody, you're perfectly alone.

Playing an MMO and partying is like jogging down a busy city street with some friends; there are other people there, but you've also already got people to talk to that you're sharing the journey with.

Playing an MMO and soloing is like jogging down a busy city street, but by yourself; you have ambient company, you can find and make friends, have conversations with strangers, call for help if you get in trouble, but you don't have to deal with the same friends for the entire jog. You can enjoy having people around, but at the same time you don't have to listen to your annoying friend talk about how much he likes Coldplay, or cursing about "teh gays" for 45 minutes.

Soloing isn't a "travesty against the very nature of MMORPGs". I've made friends soloing and generally had some fun experiences with other people. And then, later, when I felt like braving the storms again, I went back to partying.

When I think of MMORPG's, I don't think "Oh boy, I'm going to have to group with people everytime I play!" It bears reminding for some people that most people don't think that about MMO's. It's more about simply playing and enjoying a world where there are many people around.

Let's not presume to tell other people how to play their games, eh buddy? ;)

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 1:14pm by PrinnyFlute
____________________________
The Other Castle
#46 Jun 14 2009 at 10:13 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Maldavian wrote:
Wrath of the Leech King was released in November 13, 2008 and he finished it in about 7 days, meaning November 20, 2008.

From November 20, 2008 until April 14, 2009 (which was the date of the next patch containing new end game content) he had nothing to do, roughly 4 months and 3 weeks.


I'll take an armory link for 2000, Alex. Something tells me I won't see achievement dates that back up the claim.
#47 Jun 14 2009 at 10:19 AM Rating: Default
**
572 posts
AureliusSir wrote:
Maldavian wrote:

Not wanting to put up with humans ,,, hmm,, let me see,,, did it occur to you that 99% of all games in the world are actually offline based and thus you eliminate the need to interact with humans. So my suggestion is look around, broaden your horizon and pick a game that is not a MMO.


Forced grouping for the majority of the content in an MMO has been demonstrated over time to be a failure of a concept.


I would say that a majority of the content in a MMO _IS_ the endgame. Let’s take WoW as an example. As posted previously it doesn’t take more then 1-2 weeks to reach max level in that game, and then usually, if you want to progress you have to join group or raid activities to further advance you character. So according to your logic that would mean WoW is a failure?
#48 Jun 14 2009 at 10:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,813 posts
Maldavian wrote:
Again, this would be exact the same argument people have to _gain_ xp solo vs. group. By simple logic, no matter how you do it getting 25 man together will always be harder. Also making encounters that only will meet 1 single player will be very very limited on how hard you can make the encounter and almost no variation whatsoever or even strategy. And if by your logic this would be available in a MMORPG this would leave no intensive for anyone bothering doing any type of raid content.

Not at all. It will not always be harder to get a 25 man together. I'm not saying that this particular method is the best or even a good solution, but it is an example that proves a point. There can be balance between solo and group content. You can argue that is is difficult to achieve, but not that it is impossible. If solo truly equals group, then you can't say that people would prefer to solo, because all the benefits and drawbacks of soloing have been balanced with group play.

It's like a scale. If you think the scale is still off balance keep adding weights to one end until it does balance. there's always a way to balance a scale. solo content can always be made harder or easier to balance with group content, and vice versa.
Maldavian wrote:
What you strive for I think is something like Diablo Online.

No. I think the idea of soloable content is so foreign to you that you have difficulty picturing how it could be viable.
#49 Jun 14 2009 at 10:25 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,576 posts
Maldavian wrote:

I would say that a majority of the content in a MMO _IS_ the endgame. Let’s take WoW as an example. As posted previously it doesn’t take more then 1-2 weeks to reach max level in that game, and then usually, if you want to progress you have to join group or raid activities to further advance you character. So according to your logic that would mean WoW is a failure?


There's a very substantial amount of content suited to solo players at the level cap. Players often tend to spend the majority of their time in group content, but that doesn't mean group content comprises the majority of end-game content.
#50 Jun 14 2009 at 10:29 AM Rating: Default
**
572 posts
AureliusSir wrote:
Maldavian wrote:

I would say that a majority of the content in a MMO _IS_ the endgame. Let’s take WoW as an example. As posted previously it doesn’t take more then 1-2 weeks to reach max level in that game, and then usually, if you want to progress you have to join group or raid activities to further advance you character. So according to your logic that would mean WoW is a failure?


There's a very substantial amount of content suited to solo players at the level cap. Players often tend to spend the majority of their time in group content, but that doesn't mean group content comprises the majority of end-game content.


Then enlighten me as to how I can progress my character when I have reach level 80 through solo in WoW?

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 2:29pm by Maldavian
#51 Jun 14 2009 at 10:35 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Maldavian wrote:
AureliusSir wrote:
Maldavian wrote:

I would say that a majority of the content in a MMO _IS_ the endgame. Let’s take WoW as an example. As posted previously it doesn’t take more then 1-2 weeks to reach max level in that game, and then usually, if you want to progress you have to join group or raid activities to further advance you character. So according to your logic that would mean WoW is a failure?


There's a very substantial amount of content suited to solo players at the level cap. Players often tend to spend the majority of their time in group content, but that doesn't mean group content comprises the majority of end-game content.


Then enlighten me as to how I can progress my character when I have reach level 80 through solo in WoW?


Rep, achievements, and accumulating gold to name 3.
« Previous 1 2 3 4
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 17 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (17)