Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Solo vs PartyFollow

#1 Nov 28 2010 at 9:01 PM Rating: Good
The "Possible Explanation for Poor SP Gains" thread got wayyy off track, so I restarted the conversation here.

KenJammin wrote:
Quote:
I'm okay with parties being required for most activities but for everything? What fun is leveling if the only display of your strength is done only with the accumulated strength of other players? Why have a job system that allows for different play styles if i'm gonna be constantly constrained to my class roll cause every other job will take care of keeping me alive, and facing up against the monster? Why do all my long term goals need to involve other players, always?

I agree that party play should be a majority of gameplay, but I don't think that everyone should aways be forced to do it. I spend all day at a job where i'm forced to interact with other people, I have a family and friends. Video games are my "Me time" activity, do I now need to continue to relinquish my independent tendency's so that you guys have an easier time to find people to play with? You'll most likely get the advantage over soloers once SE works out the new SP system but to remove soloing completely is just unfair. You don't enjoy soloing, most people do their are 0 annoyances I can go back to camp whenever I want, I can turn of the game, I can lay dead in a field, I can just start wandering off and fight different monsters, I have freedom to do what I want when i want to. I hate players like you that insist that i'm being a baby when your the ones who are upset that i'm soloing. I agree that parties should get the benefits, and that having an advantage over soloing makes parties more fun I'm okay with that. But to remove soloing completely? How is that fair? I think partying should be the fastest way to level but how could you possibly think removing soloing completely is fair to the players who don't share your play style? Their are times when I do enjoy partying just not 100% of every activity I do in the game.

FFXI had an awesome party system, but forcing players to level, quest, and accomplish tasks in large groups was one of the main contributing factors to the games struggle to break 1million active users. Its like the SP system, sure ideally you could make it work but you don't exactly have the time and resources to constantly be adjusting a broken system. Sure you could streamline partying so that it takes only seconds to find members, but its so unrealistic to think thats possibility. Let me solo, maybe you should take the time to form a static party and form strong relationships with your LS mates instead of forcing every player to gather whenever you want to engage in a social dynamic...



IKickYoDog wrote:
Quote:
I'm suggesting that people who want to strictly solo are in the wrong place. People say that they want to be able to do their own thing, whenever they feel like it, but theres one problem with that. There would be no variety between classes. I'll use XI as a template again for this one.

In XI, the only real jobs that could solo IT mobs or strong NM's were RDM or BLU. Some other jobs such as NIN, MNK, and DRG could with very specific subjobs and gear sets. All others virtually required help because each class is made for a specific purpose. A WHM shouldn't be able to solo a lvl 80 Dragon.

I see a lot of people applauding solo content, but wanna be able to do it on every class. This creates zero diversity because each job is essentially the same as all others. Why don't all classes get access to Dual-Wield and healing abilities? It'd be extremely boring to get a group of 15 healers Dual-Wielding daggers to go and swing all 30 daggers at all the Scorpion's feet while they heal themselves. There's less effort/strategy.

If people are content with being restricted to 1 or 2 jobs that can solo and don't mind that they wont be able to solo all the NM's, bosses and quests, then I have no problem. When they want a 50/50 split on the content, or even 60/40, I think that's an issue. I'm not saying its the final stance, just my opinion.


KujaKoF wrote:
Quote:
Again, being that SE has said they want this game to be very solo friendly, they are not in the wrong place.


____________________________
Our team is like a flock of woodpeckers in a petrified forest. We just need to keep working and keep an eye open for opportunity.

FFXI
Toofar - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - WHM BLM SMN
Rafoot - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - THF SAM BRD
#2 Nov 28 2010 at 9:02 PM Rating: Decent
I won't pretend to claim I know what they planned for the solo stuff, but I reckon they didn't mean they were gonna pull a 180 degree turn from everything else they've done. I assume <--- (keyword) they planned on adding a couple jobs or more NM's that are easier to kill, but not make each aspect of the game soloable. I think typical xp situations should give pt's a minimum 3x bonus compared to solo. This is barring mages killing pets and whatnot. Many bosses should require a group of 3-7, or more for elite monsters. There should be some group-exclusive quests. If games are going to go to this more "Lone Ranger" style like WoW, then they should create a new category for games. Then you can tailor the entire game to a specific group and have minimal complaints from customers, and all are happy. MMO's should stay true to their roots. Innovation is great, but some things should be constant. Comin from the traditionalist, anyway =P
____________________________
Our team is like a flock of woodpeckers in a petrified forest. We just need to keep working and keep an eye open for opportunity.

FFXI
Toofar - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - WHM BLM SMN
Rafoot - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - THF SAM BRD
#3 Nov 28 2010 at 9:11 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
322 posts
I think 3x the amount of XP is a bit excessive, maybe even 2x.

I'd like to see probably 1.5x at a minimum, I think thats fair.

____________________________


#4 Nov 28 2010 at 10:31 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,842 posts
Party sp = solo guardian access guildleve. That is fair to both "casual" solo'ers and people who enjoy PTs.
____________________________
FFXIV Dyvid (Awaiting 2.0)
FFXI Dyvid ~ Pandemonium (Retired)
SWTOR Dy'vid Legacy - Canderous Ordo
#5 Nov 28 2010 at 11:21 PM Rating: Excellent
*
216 posts
Blue mob: 1-50 SP..........
Green mob: 75-100 SP ...
Yellow mob: 125-200 SP.
Orange mob: 220-300 SP
Red mob: 350-500 SP....


That's what I want to see solo.

In parties I want to see...
2-3 member parties face a penalty of 6.25% decreased SP per mob for each member.
4-5 member parties to face a penalty of 5% decreased SP per mob for each member.
6-9 member parties to face a penalty of 5.5% decreased SP per mob for each member.
10 member parties to face a penalty of 5% decreased SP per mob for each member.
11-15 member parties to face a penalty of 4.75% decreased SP per mob for each member.

The penalty would raise as follows.
2 members: 12.5%
3 members: 18.75%
4 members: 20%
5 members: 25%
6 members: 33%
7 members: 38.5%
8 members: 44%
9 members: 49.5%
10 members: 50%
11 members: 52.25%
12 members: 57%
13 members: 61.75%
14 members: 66.5%
15 members: 71.25%

Then I want to see a 10% group bonus applied to the SP after member penalties for parties up to 5 members.

I want to see a 20% group bonus applied to the SP after member penalties for parties from 6 to 9 members.

I want to see a 40% group bonus applied to the SP after member penalties for parties from 10 to 15 members.

Then I want to see an additional 10% SP bonus given for each con over yellow for mobs (when grouped).
Blue, Green, and Yellow mobs would receive a 0% bonus.
Orange mobs would receive a 10% bonus after penalties and group bonus.
Red mobs would receive a 20% bonus after penalties and group bonus.

Here is how that would look for a group of 5 getting the maximum SP per mob color. This is with a 25% SP penalty due to group members, then a 10% group bonus given, and 10/20% bonuses for orange/red mobs.

Blue mob: 38 SP......
Green mob: 83 SP ...
Yellow mob: 165 SP.
Orange mob: 272 SP
Red mob: 495 SP....


Here is how that would look for a group of 9 getting the maximum SP per mob color. This is with a 49.5% SP penalty due to group members, then a 20% group bonus given, and 10/20% bonuses for orange/red mobs

Blue mob: 25 SP......
Green mob: 50 SP ...
Yellow mob: 100 SP.
Orange mob: 164 SP
Red mob: 299 SP....


And here is how that would look for a group of 15 getting the maximum SP per mob color. This is with a 71.25% SP penalty due to group members, then a 40% group bonus given, and 10/20% bonuses for orange/red mobs.

Blue mob: 21 SP......
Green mob: 42 SP ...
Yellow mob: 83 SP...
Orange mob: 150 SP
Red mob: 250 SP....


As for how mobs con, I want to see that change as well.

For parties up to 5 members, I want to see the rank of a mob be conned 0.6 rank lower for each additional member of a party, based upon the highest player in the group.

So if a group is made up of 5 players who are ranked 20-24, the mob cons will be based off of the rank 24. To fight mobs that would con even to them, they would need to fight rank 27 mobs.


For parties from 6-10 members, I want to see the rank of a mob be conned 0.55 rank lower for each additional member of the party, based upon the highest player in the group.

So if a group is made up of 10 players who are ranked 30-34, the mob cons will be based off the rank 34. To fight mobs that would con even to them, they wold need to fight rank 40 mobs.


For parties from 11-15 members, I want to see the rank of a mob be conned 0.575 rank lower for each additional member of the party, based upon the highest player in the group.

So if a group is made up of 15 players who are ranked 17-21, the mob cons will be based off the rank 21. To fight mobs that would con even to them, they would need to fight rank 30 mobs.


Now would that be a perfect system? I really doubt it. But it would be better than what we have right now, better than the old system, and it would retain both partying and soloing as viable options to players.

It would make a more reasonable /con system for choosing which mobs to attack in groups, and it would reward parties for seeking out tougher mobs.

Larger parties would not be required to seek out such higher mobs like they did under the old system, but they gain less SP per fight. Over time they would be capable of killing much faster, however, so their gains would be increased.
#6 Nov 28 2010 at 11:35 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
322 posts
Thats exactly something I envisioned without crunching the numbers.

However, I would like to see the maximum party size for efficient SP to be around 5-6 so it doesn't devolve into 15 man zergfests as they should be reserved for NM type encounters and raids imo.

I think 5-6 is an ideal number for people to still be a group yet still be able to communicate and socialize efficiently whereas anything over that starts getting into the "noone listens yet everyone wants to speak" size which also doesn't accomodate getting to know everyone present.
____________________________


#7 Nov 28 2010 at 11:51 PM Rating: Excellent
*
216 posts
tylerbee wrote:
However, I would like to see the maximum party size for efficient SP to be around 5-6 so it doesn't devolve into 15 man zergfests as they should be reserved for NM type encounters and raids imo.
I agree completely.

Under what I mentioned above, a party of 5 players rank 20-24 would need to fight low 30 mobs to be getting the red-con SP. Which is certainly something that is doable.

Gaining SP has to be viable for solo players, and for groups of all sizes from a trio, to 6 players, to 10, to 15. They all need to be able to gain SP at a rate that doesn't make one single way drastically better than the rest. If one way is clearly the fastest, that's all (most) players are going to do... even if it isn't the most enjoyable option available to them.
#8 Nov 29 2010 at 12:44 AM Rating: Good
**
291 posts
Yeah, but you're creating a situation where people will ONLY invite 5-6 members.

You think ... well barring a close group of friends... 6 people getting 500 per kill are going to be like "Yeah, come on in 7th person and we'll shave 200 off our total." Supposing that's faster kills it MAY (repeat: MAY) come out decently enough still but that's a heck of a lot faster for 1 extra member.

I agree with the idea in general but I'm real tired of the elitist crapola that was thrown around XI.

I kinda liked the "zergfest" - yeah it was silly, but it was all inclusive. I only got turned down once and I (to this day) have no idea why since I was within the level range - maybe it was LS onry or something. I liked that I could just go AFK for a second and get a drink and then just catch back up with the other 12 people. It was casual, but also you had to work for your points. Now that points are standardized, you're going to have a lot more lazy people out there leeching and milking the system - well once we find out what the system is and how to milk it.

The zergfest wasn't perfect but it was a cool change of pace for me. I worked my **** off in them (Conjurer) and I got 2x the exp I'm getting now (solo or otherwise). The way the party recruit system worked made it even easier (than XI) to get parties and get rolling; plus you got more exp for more people so the more the merrier. Oh well. It was fun while it lasted. We'll see where this new system goes ...

... but I'd like it to be balanced. Not catered to groups of 5 so ONLY groups of 5 gather up and fight things and every thing else is a waste of time (comparably).
____________________________
Battle Mage Kiru
#9 Nov 29 2010 at 3:39 AM Rating: Excellent
*
216 posts
Kirutaru wrote:
Yeah, but you're creating a situation where people will ONLY invite 5-6 members.

You think ... well barring a close group of friends... 6 people getting 500 per kill are going to be like "Yeah, come on in 7th person and we'll shave 200 off our total." Supposing that's faster kills it MAY (repeat: MAY) come out decently enough still but that's a heck of a lot faster for 1 extra member.
The percentages are scaled so that there isn't any drastic shift like that.

Here is how it would go for party of 7 players getting the maximum SP per mob color, after the 38.5% penalty due to group members is factored in, the 20% group bonus given, and 10/20% bonuses for orange/red mobs:

Blue mob: 38 SP......
Green mob: 75 SP ...
Yellow mob: 150 SP.
Orange mob: 248 SP
Red mob: 450 SP....


A group of 7 players would have to fight mobs 4 levels above their highest member in order for the mob to con even.
This is compared to a group of 5 players who would have to fight mobs 3 ranks above their highest member for them to con even.

So going from 5 players to 7 isn't going to be a drastic change. Their SP will only go down by a small amount, and they probably wouldn't even have to change mobs.

You can compare this to the group of 9 players I already did the figures for in my original post. You'll notice that they only get 299SP for reds, but the difficulty of mob they have to seek out is the same as the 7 member group. Which is why the SP wouldn't be as high, to account for them being able to kill much faster.

Edited, Nov 29th 2010 4:41am by theweenie
#10 Nov 29 2010 at 4:00 AM Rating: Decent
*
74 posts
dyvidd wrote:
Party sp = solo guardian access guildleve. That is fair to both "casual" solo'ers and people who enjoy PTs.


Define what is fair. The sp system has been downgraded up to a point where the fatigue system wont even take effect like it did before. The SP system was controlled at a simple pace where both the casual and hardcore players were able take effect of the fatigue system so that all others were able to catch up. Busy on the weekday? No problem. I can exp grind in the weekend all day with a party fighting efts, crabs, or a fun duo killing lemurs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abE09-tqhoM

Looking way back... and I mean way the **** back. I could have successfully been level 40 or over while we have people already popping up 50's already on here:

http://www.ffxivpro.com/achievements/job

Now, I don't know what to even think anymore or even say even. Half the time people post here against Square Enix's decisions are talked down while others are given a pat on the back for trying to explain a concrete explanation that their "path" is the right way (notice a trend anyone? Look at all the posts who are angry or have mixed attitude feelings toward Square Enix). If I'm... no we, get categorized to solo'ing fair, make it so that the hour rate per SP earned is equivalent to partying before SP system was downgraded. If party is meant to be fair then make it so that the reward system is fair by the number of players in the party is joined.

Point is I don't care how Square Enix "updates" their SP system, people will want to try to earn SP rate as others have. They want their levels just as others have, and we shouldn't have to be slowed down.
#11 Nov 29 2010 at 4:26 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
322 posts
I think the underlying point is if they make solo'ing as efficient as partying they'll lose one of the fundamentals of Final Fantasy and MMOS in general and go down the crooked path WoW has taken, in my opinion.

Yeah cool, I get it, the casuals enjoy solo'ing. Well this game wasn't designed for casuals even though we're constantly told that it is. Either they're spinning PR to try and get casuals into the game who may end up liking it or they're extremely out of touch as to what the majority casual MMO market wants (a game they can log into one hour a week and play solo to have the same advantages as people who play ten hours a day in parties).
____________________________


#12 Nov 29 2010 at 4:30 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
They want their levels just as others have, and we shouldn't have to be slowed down.


You can want something, doesn't mean you will get it, nor does it mean you should get it.

Soloing will be inferior to grouping. This is a group centric game with a possibility to solo when needed. Accept it, and rejoice because every single game in the industry is the opposite. Now when you get one game that does things differently the same group of people that can play million other games that cater exclusively to them starts *********

Cope.

Quote:
Yeah cool, I get it, the casuals enjoy solo'ing.


Okay and I don't get what this is supposed to mean. Soloers enjoy soloing.

There is no real difference of "casuals = solo", "hardcore = group". There is only the mechanics that have pigeon holed casuals into soloing and hardcore into grouping (in other games).

Casuals group just as much as hardcore do, as long as grouping is made casual. No more "you need exactly 6 players and exactly this class and exactly this monster exactly in this area to get sufficient exp"-mentality. That's what separates casuals from grouping.

Hardcore can enjoy soloing just as much sa casuals do.

But now let's be honest here. A group centric game needs an option to solo. No matter how well the systems are designed, things don't always go your way. And that kind of situation leads to frustration. That's why there should be always an option to progress even when there is no groups in sight. Solo activities are perfect to fill in the blanks and works as a bridge to more grouping.

That is precisely what a "forced" grouping game should look like. And if we want to go even beyond "soloing in a group game", they could make an event where you solo with other people. Campaign, anyone? Hamlet defense battles, anyone?

People say that the developers are confused and don't know the direction the game is heading. Well, frankly, I see it quite clearly. A group centric MMO is no good when there are no solo-activities. But those solo-activities can happen in a group setting as well. Brilliant.

Now how to make that work with crafting.. of course player interaction should happen, but how to make it function without making it too inconvenient? That's something devs will have to be careful about.

Edited, Nov 29th 2010 1:39pm by Hyanmen
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#13 Nov 29 2010 at 5:09 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
322 posts
And here I was thinking crafting and gathering were solo activities that you could do while waiting for a party
____________________________


#14 Nov 29 2010 at 5:14 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
They seem more like careers to me, not side activities you do "on the side".

Either way if a combat class can't get a group, that doesn't mean his only options should be to do something non-combat related instead.

Edited, Nov 29th 2010 2:14pm by Hyanmen
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#15 Nov 29 2010 at 5:16 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
322 posts
Thats your opinion but im pretty sure SE have designed it this way as they want people crafting and multiclassing as much as possible.

Check my sig, I manage alright doing exactly that. If people aren't going to take advantage of playing the game it was designed to be played then thats no skin off my nose.
____________________________


#16 Nov 29 2010 at 5:27 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
Thats your opinion but im pretty sure SE have designed it this way as they want people crafting and multiclassing as much as possible.


That seems to be SE's opinion as well. You can solo just fine while waiting for a group, as in do the solo activities for your class.

If you can't play Counter-Strike in a clan, the alternative is not to "play NHL '11 alone instead". There has to be some logic.
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#17 Nov 29 2010 at 5:31 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
322 posts
Bad analogy is bad.

Agree to disagree.
____________________________


#18 Nov 29 2010 at 5:39 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Yeah, I guess.

"If you can't play hockey in NHL '11 with your friends, you can always manage your team instead! There's no need for a single player mode for playing actual hockey now."

The point is, that players should be able to do what they want at any time, even without a group.
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#19 Nov 29 2010 at 9:40 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
62 posts
tylerbee wrote:
I think the underlying point is if they make solo'ing as efficient as partying they'll lose one of the fundamentals of Final Fantasy and MMOS in general and go down the crooked path WoW has taken, in my opinion.

Yeah cool, I get it, the casuals enjoy solo'ing. Well this game wasn't designed for casuals even though we're constantly told that it is. Either they're spinning PR to try and get casuals into the game who may end up liking it or they're extremely out of touch as to what the majority casual MMO market wants (a game they can log into one hour a week and play solo to have the same advantages as people who play ten hours a day in parties).


Have to disagree with this. I think SE has done a great job making a solo/casual friendly game, thanks to the levequests. I personally have maybe 2-3 hours a day to play, and I find that I barely have enough time to complete all of my leves every 36 hours.

When doing my battlecraft leves this weekend, I was getting 505 SP per mob I killed (apparently you can get more than 500 with the new SP system). I got my thaum from rank 18-19 from a single round of leves (with guardian's favor of course), it didn't take long at all. Maybe if I had a ton of time to play and grinded a lot it wouldn't seem so good to me, but as a casual player I'm loving it.

So for me, I log on, do my leves, sell/repair, browse the wards a bit, and I barely have time to do that. In fact, my Lancer hit rank 20 last week and I just finished the rank 15 main story quest this weekend because I haven't had time to do it since I have been busy doing leves.
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 18 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (18)