I said solo should be a reasonable rate just not as fast as group play. The difference is the definition of reasonable rates is different from person to person. My reasonable is definitly not as slow as FFXI solo, but not the same as group play either.
And my question is, why should you care? And the only answer put forward is that if you can progress solo at a base level roughly on par with what you can achieve in a group, people will be less inclined to group. So I say no, and if you'd played an MMO other than FFXI for any length of time you'd understand. Layers
of reward above and beyond base progression are what create the incentive for group play beyond just the appeal of working in a group.
We are talking about strictly level progression here,
No, we're not. We're talking about progression as a whole. You
may want to restrict the conversation to base progression. I don't. I'm talking about a balanced system where everyone can feel like they're progressing well regardless of whether their interests/schedule lead to frequent grouping, with additional layers of rewards for participating in group content.
When I say the game will be a solo game, I mean when you level everyone will be doing it solo. I don't mean you will get good gear solo. You end up with skilled players that know how to play in a group, and not solo players that just know how to survive by themselves.
If group play in an MMO is so much more challenging for you that you need all that practice to be able to function well in a group, maybe a solo game is more suited to you anyways. Group play is rarely more difficult than solo play. Group leveling in FFXI was a joke in terms of difficulty. There was nothing you learned in an FFXI xp party that would help you in FFXI endgame so much that you needed dozens of hours to practice it. In fact, the dull zerg of FFXI group leveling did more harm to the playerbase than good, and pre-nerf CoP proved that better than any argument I could put forward.
Assuming a solo player is more skilled then a group player is not right.
I've made no such assumption. I have, however, said that a skilled solo player should always progress faster than a crappy/mediocre group. That narrows the window for tuning in terms of base progression rewards for the two different approaches/avenues of developing your character so that no, you aren't going to be progressing faster in a group that's tripping over itself trying to execute on faceroll fundamentals. You'd actually have to execute with some measure of skill and coordination to outstrip the solo player, and rightly so.
As someone else said at least in FFXi people at cap knew there jobs,
********* No bloody way is that an accurate statement. I knew no shortage of level 75 players in FFXI that were fundamentally clueless about anything beyond zerging. I knew no shortage of dps jobs in FFXI that couldn't manage threat, tanks that couldn't build threat, and healers that went to pieces if they had to do anything more than stand in one spot and spam heal the tank.
WoW any MMO its a lot of noobs at the cap
Skills level has nothing to do with group or solo, you just keep ignoring the benefits you get when you solo and the negatives you get when you group. That faster pace just makes up for these imbalances. I would like it where grouping still has a benefit to group, but where soloing is possible at my idea of an reasonable rate.
I'm not ignoring the benefits of solo. That's why games with truly viable solo components can be labeled as flops and still generate as many if not more subscribers as FFXI. Solo play as a genuinely viable alternative in an MMO works. Forced grouping does not.
All I want is for FFXIV to be successful, provide enjoyment to as many players as possible regardless of their preferred playstyle, and last for a good, long time before the decline starts. FFXI's decline started 3-4 years ago and it has since plateaued with the additions SE has made to accommodate a more casual style of play. Had they not made those changes, I'm fairly certain FFXI's net population decline would have continued. I don't feel the need to "barely" accommodate solo play to preserve group play because I know from first hand experience that you don't need to restrict solo play to maintain group play as an entertaining and viable option.
And that's really what it boils down to. My experience > your supposition, and always will be. So unless you're prepared to offer a balanced argument based on personal experience centered around equal inclusion
as opposed to selective exclusion
of different kinds of players, I don't really see much point in arguing this with you anymore.