I will return you the same comment you make earlier.
How does it affect raiders what happen in the grouping game(or soloing game)? As long as it dont affect raiding, it should not bother them, and those are bothered, wont be ''a big lost'' anyway, no?
PS: WoW make the same mistakes EQ and maybe Vanguard will make, the high end is in raiding and thereby the game is NOT for me. Dont even try to trash me there. However, WoW is for casuals(and I personnally beat Afterlife and make a serverwide first for some solo content achievements as who solo what first, despite been trapped in a lame toon, so I am definitely NOT A CASUAL despite the lack of focus of the uberguild to solo stuff first, I still beat them all in some setting, which mean I aint a causl, they all try to solo as great stuff as possible here and there, and I dont know many of them that solo stuff that kill them in 1 tick and summon, I did a lot...) and EQ was for hardcores, which Vanguard have always been appealing to. I aint a casual, I am mostly a grouper and somewhat of a soloer, yet with all the soloing trash going on, I am gladly defending the soloers. You know that, Bandwith wise, 34 raiders in 1 raid require more from your system then 1000 soloers(instanced) according to Admin numbers? So what is the big deal to make soloers trashy and unworthy and abuse them? What happen in solo should not affect anyone outside of solo, and no, WoW is a very lame game, 1 set of gear to have the same stats that affect everyone is lame. 3 possible solutions basically, the soloers/raiders/groupers dont use the same stats at all OR, solo have static stats(like 60 hps, always 60), group have higher multiplier (like 20 X number of players in group, so 120 HPS in a group, yet only 20 in solo and only 120 in raid) and raiders have smaller multipliers (like 10 X 24 raiders in a small raid for 240 HPS, yet only 10 in solo and barely 60 in groups) OR having bonus on items that apply only when a condition happen(if soloing + 100 hps, if raiding + 100 hps, if grouping +100 hps, and so on). Again the peoples that want raiding to crush the others aspects of the game are the peoples who have more then arguables reasons for raiding, and they are the peoples the devs should find silly, not those that want the proper rewards to the proper activities.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
You're missing the whole point. MMORPG's are about community based gaming, thus they are not meant for the solo player. Go play final fantasy while you sit in a chatroom on your computer and you'll get just the game you're asking for.
Originally posted by Anofalye PS: WoW make the same mistakes EQ and maybe Vanguard will make, the high end is in raiding and thereby the game is NOT for me. Dont even try to trash me there. However, WoW is for casuals(and I personnally beat Afterlife and make a serverwide first for some solo content achievements as who solo what first, despite been trapped in a lame toon, so I am definitely NOT A CASUAL despite the lack of focus of the uberguild to solo stuff first, I still beat them all in some setting, which mean I aint a causl, they all try to solo as great stuff as possible here and there, and I dont know many of them that solo stuff that kill them in 1 tick and summon, I did a lot...) and EQ was for hardcores, which Vanguard have always been appealing to. I aint a casual, I am mostly a grouper and somewhat of a soloer, yet with all the soloing trash going on, I am gladly defending the soloers. You know that, Bandwith wise, 34 raiders in 1 raid require more from your system then 1000 soloers(instanced) according to Admin numbers? So what is the big deal to make soloers trashy and unworthy and abuse them? What happen in solo should not affect anyone outside of solo, and no, WoW is a very lame game, 1 set of gear to have the same stats that affect everyone is lame. 3 possible solutions basically, the soloers/raiders/groupers dont use the same stats at all OR, solo have static stats(like 60 hps, always 60), group have higher multiplier (like 20 X number of players in group, so 120 HPS in a group, yet only 20 in solo and only 120 in raid) and raiders have smaller multipliers (like 10 X 24 raiders in a small raid for 240 HPS, yet only 10 in solo and barely 60 in groups) OR having bonus on items that apply only when a condition happen(if soloing + 100 hps, if raiding + 100 hps, if grouping +100 hps, and so on). Again the peoples that want raiding to crush the others aspects of the game are the peoples who have more then arguables reasons for raiding, and they are the peoples the devs should find silly, not those that want the proper rewards to the proper activities.
I don't think anyone has suggested that there be no solo'ing. The Vanguard devs certainly haven't. In fact, when they talk about they advanced encounter system, they sometimes refer to a solo'er as "a group of one".
Having solo content in the game is not the issue. Having the majority of the content in the game soloable is. Doing so is what produces a game like WoW, where no one really groups at all until the endgame, and no community bonds form until then. THere's nothing wrong with a system like that. It's just not the system that a good chunk of players want to participate in.
Yes, you can group in WoW anytime you like... if you can get anyone to group up regularly. But that's a rarity since no one needs a group, solo'ing is more efficient than grouping, and if you do get a group it's so that you can help someone else with a quest, and they'll drop you the second they get what they want done. There are a lot of players out there that really miss both the cooperative requirements of Everquest for many things, and the freedom to solo when they choose to for other things.
There are many people that desire a balance in the types of content, with a stronger emphasis on the grouping.
You don't have to like it. You don't even have to agree with it. But it doesn't make it wrong, or a bad choice for Sigil.
My problem with Vanguard is not the amount of solo they put into the game, it is the progression chart associated with solo. Always at the bottom.
Best soloers need to be soloers. I dont care if solo content is barely enought for 1 afternoon or can last many years, as long as the solo hierarchy is independant of the grouping and raiding game.
Solo need it own high end, no matter the rest...then of course the more the better, like everything else, if you see more players max 1 aspect of the game, then you should focus on improving this aspect, common sense really.
See, soloers need to find it MOTIVATING to solo, have no fear, everyone rather group then solo if they can commit to a group, it will never kill grouping, as long as grouping also have it own high end(A system like WoW is bad both for solo and grouping, since they share the same high end system, it is a lose/lose scenario, peoples dont focus on grouping and solo is a weaker form of grouping...double lose scenario)...all is about motivating players to do something. If solo is barely something to do while been LFG, most peoples will not solo and just wait LFG and if they dont find a group, they will log. You dont want them to wait LFG, if they like solo, you want them to solo and be motivated by the aspect and nearly forget they have their LFG tag.
Soloers still complain even in WoW, mark my words, only a self high end, a solo independant hierarchy, will nearly quiet the solo endless rambling. The other option would be to kill grouping and make everything accessible throught solo, which is not acceptable, thereby solo need it own high end, completely independant. Heck, personnally in the solo aspect of the game, I would remove class and work with skills...it would be a different game inside Vanguard, using the same skills, but not even the class system(class harm solo IMO). Solo need to be an overgrown mini game.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Hahahaha. Yes, in an online game, where being able to interact with people in an ever-persistant world is the whole damn point, they are going to implement a solo high end game along with the high end raiding.How about this: You play vanguard, and at the same time you play Final Fantasy or some RPG, that way you get both your MMO and solo fix. Offline games are for solo players, nuff said.
So what exactly do you want? You want a high end solo game that people can solo an item that has 20 hp. You also want a grouping high end where a group can get a 20 hp item. Then you also want a raid high end where someone can get a 20 hp item? No offense but you ramble a lot and it's hard to discern a valid point.
In my personal opinion I think soloing is the worst gameplay style. MMORPGs are based are interaction with other people, otherwise they're just a paying monthly version of a single player game. Solo should always take a back seat to grouping. I think people should be able to solo, but never as effectively as grouping. Encouraging people to solo by having a "solo high end" is pretty retarded as it kills the whole point of a MMORPG.
I'm not sure whether you were also talking about content suited for the different styles or not but I figured I'd address it as well. Both WoW and EQ2 are wrong in this regard imo- they have normal mobs and then "group mobs". Nothing imho has come close to original EQ where there was just "content". For example in Skyfire you could solo some of the weaker mobs if you were the right class, you would need a group or 2 to solo the Gwurms and you needed a raid to kill Talendor. I detest having mobs labelled as "group" or "elite". There should be no mobs that are meant for a "solo high end" or a "group high end" or a "raid high end". I dont think every high level mob should have to be raided but that's the way the genre is trending.
No offense again but I'm glad you aren't near any designer of a game that I want to play. If you want a solo game go play something on the PS.
PS. Anyone else pardon my rambling I wanted to make sure I addressed what Anofalye was saying.
Best soloers need to be soloers. I dont care if solo content is barely enought for 1 afternoon or can last many years, as long as the solo hierarchy is independant of the grouping and raiding game.
I'm really not trying to bash you about your English, it's obviously not your first language. However, I don't even understand what you might be trying to say here.
Solo need it own high end, no matter the rest...then of course the more the better, like everything else, if you see more players max 1 aspect of the game, then you should focus on improving this aspect, common sense really.
If the world is built as a world, instead of building it as a 'this is solo content' and 'this is group' content, then the solo'ers do have a high end. The most talented solo'ers will be able to do things that other solo'ers can't. However, specifically crafting solo content just breeds solo'ing.
See, soloers need to find it MOTIVATING to solo, have no fear, everyone rather group then solo if they can commit to a group, it will never kill grouping, as long as grouping also have it own high end(A system like WoW is bad both for solo and grouping, since they share the same high end system, it is a lose/lose scenario, peoples dont focus on grouping and solo is a weaker form of grouping...double lose scenario)...all is about motivating players to do something. If solo is barely something to do while been LFG, most peoples will not solo and just wait LFG and if they dont find a group, they will log. You dont want them to wait LFG, if they like solo, you want them to solo and be motivated by the aspect and nearly forget they have their LFG tag.
A game built with cooperation and inter-dependance at it's core, does not want to motivate solo'ers. And no, most people will take the path of least resistence. If solo'ing is even as profitable as grouping for xp and/or loot, people will solo instead of group. Why? Because it's easier. You don't have to organize a group, you don't have to agree on a place to go, or a quest to do. You don't have to agree on loot distribution. It's human nature to take the easiest available path with the highest relative reward.
If you encourage solo'ing in any way, then people will solo. And you will find a situation as it is in WoW, where most people solo to progress in levels, until they reach the end game, where they form community ties to group in instances or raid.
Your suggestion would take it another step beyond WoW's current scheme, and encourage solo'ing beyond the level progression. Removing a chunk of the need for anyone to ever form those community bonds.
Vanguard seeks to encourage those bonds and interdepencies early on. You can't do that and give everyone a means to solo throughout the entire game. That's not to say that smart play, solid tactics, and determination won't allow for a person to solo. But designing the game to the lowest common denominator so that any monkey can solo, and so that they can see consistent and fast progression, is counterproductive to a desire to build a cooperative community.
Soloers still complain even in WoW, mark my words, only a self high end, a solo independant hierarchy, will nearly quiet the solo endless rambling. The other option would be to kill grouping and make everything accessible throught solo, which is not acceptable, thereby solo need it own high end, completely independant. Heck, personnally in the solo aspect of the game, I would remove class and work with skills...it would be a different game inside Vanguard, using the same skills, but not even the class system(class harm solo IMO). Solo need to be an overgrown mini game.
Or here's a wild idea: How about since there are already a number of games on the market that allow for a great deal of solo'ing, make one that instead concentrates entirely on the groupers, with a little solo'ing available to those who can figure out how to....
...Oh. Wait. My bad. That's what Vanguard is.
- "Solo is, will always be, the main market. A MMORPG that succeed with little or no solo appeal is doing great considering they are ignoring the main player base.''
You do see the contridiction in this logic right?
If every game on the market is targeting the people who want to solo all the time, then the bulk of the games on the market are all targeting the same people. The possible results are: a) no game has that many subscribers, because all games are more or less equally appealing to the market. b) 1 or 2 games dominate the market, because they are the best made versions of the more-or-less equal options. c) No one game maintains an average subscription length of more than a few months, because people can easily bounce around to something new while still getting basically the same game mechanics.
In any case, there is no innovation in the industry because instead of trying to do something new, your are locked into a mindset that only a+b+c=profit. You also have segments of the market that never get what they really want, because no one will make it.
Now, if a company (let's just say Sigil, as a hypothetical...) were to identify a portion of the market that does not have what they desire available, and provides a game that covers those desires, and they're the only ones with the balls to actually try it, they stand a decent chance to get a very loyal long-term subscriber base. If for no other reason than there are no other games that fit what they desire out there....
It's all about the target audience.
I agree that the mass market is the biggest. Let's call them the people who buy sedans (the most popular type of car on the road). But there are people out there that want a minivan. And people who want a truck. And people who want a sportscar. None of those people would ever be fully satsified in one of the other vehicle types. However, that does not mean that there isn't a good market for one of other types of vehicles. And it wouldn't be foolish for a company to make just one of them.
In fact, if a single company really wanted to completely dominate the MMO market, they'd make one of each.
Vanguard have potential to be fun, on some aspects, but what are they planning to do to keep me online?
Soloer been lames wont keep me online. Tradeskill, dont even talk about it. Groups and raids, if I cant get it started NOW, I will log, I wont be playing it.
So again, how exactly do they plan to keep me LFG or LFR and available for others players to do stuff with them?
SOLO IS THE BEST TOOL TO KEEP PEOPLES ONLINE AND PLAYING. And in order to do that, solo uberness need to belong to soloers. Once they are online and playing, you can start talking about making a group or a raid(which need their own high end as well).
Skars: I already answer and give 3 solutions(1 exemple I have is 60 hps, 20hps X group number, 10hps X raid number, so best soloer is a soloer, best grouper is a grouper, and best raider is a raider), scroll up and read. Of course WoW and EQ2 are wrong, and so will be Vanguard if they keep on that road. Best soloer need to be a soloer, period! End of discussion.
Vega: Unless I can be LFG with my computer turn off while I play FF, I dont see how you can seriously propose that. I wont be LFG and AFK playing another game. It is not good for the energy and the planet to run 2 systems at once and be in 2 differents rooms, anyway, if I am LFG and in another room, how am I suppose to know I receive a group offer and leave my solo game? Again, a MMORPG need to be able to keep me online, and lame solo options is certainly making me leave. I need to receive my group/raid messages on the screen I am playing my solo game, and I dont dual box since it lower performances and I want the best results, all the time. EQ would never have fall behind EQ2 or WoW if you where right, and Vanguard is heading for a big wall head first, they have a thick skull, but that thick? Such a MMORPG with lame solo features belong to the stone age primate group, nuff said.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
There's games out there that do let the top people solo and everything is solo. They're called RPG's. Maybe you should check one out? The best soloer's shouldnt be soloers, the best soloers should be people who have the most skill and the best gear. MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER.
Vanguard's focus will definitely be on casual grouping, regular grouping, and raiding. And I think we can accomplish that with our encounter system. There will be dungeons and quests that you simply cannot do by 'zerging' or using a very large party. This is how we will insure that the game doesn't always come down to just the 'largest group' being the optimal choice and therefore it only being a raiding game.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said earlier, even with no nice solo I will prolly give Vanguard a good try, it have definitely many appealing potential, I didnt play EQ for years for no reason. See, with them arguing, I got carried away.
However, I am scarred, even how you write you suggest that to be on top of the grouping system, you will have to raid sometimes.
Which mean not only do you enforce grouping on peoples that love raiding, you also enforce peoples who love grouping to raid...enforcing gameplays dont work.
If peoples have resist gear in Kunark, why not have grouping and raiding gear been distinct and earn in their respective fields only?
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Comments
For the last bloody time: IF YOU WANT SOLO CONTENT DON'T PLAY MMORPG'S!
koto
I will return you the same comment you make earlier.
How does it affect raiders what happen in the grouping game(or soloing game)? As long as it dont affect raiding, it should not bother them, and those are bothered, wont be ''a big lost'' anyway, no?
PS: WoW make the same mistakes EQ and maybe Vanguard will make, the high end is in raiding and thereby the game is NOT for me. Dont even try to trash me there. However, WoW is for casuals(and I personnally beat Afterlife and make a serverwide first for some solo content achievements as who solo what first, despite been trapped in a lame toon, so I am definitely NOT A CASUAL despite the lack of focus of the uberguild to solo stuff first, I still beat them all in some setting, which mean I aint a causl, they all try to solo as great stuff as possible here and there, and I dont know many of them that solo stuff that kill them in 1 tick and summon, I did a lot...) and EQ was for hardcores, which Vanguard have always been appealing to. I aint a casual, I am mostly a grouper and somewhat of a soloer, yet with all the soloing trash going on, I am gladly defending the soloers. You know that, Bandwith wise, 34 raiders in 1 raid require more from your system then 1000 soloers(instanced) according to Admin numbers? So what is the big deal to make soloers trashy and unworthy and abuse them? What happen in solo should not affect anyone outside of solo, and no, WoW is a very lame game, 1 set of gear to have the same stats that affect everyone is lame. 3 possible solutions basically, the soloers/raiders/groupers dont use the same stats at all OR, solo have static stats(like 60 hps, always 60), group have higher multiplier (like 20 X number of players in group, so 120 HPS in a group, yet only 20 in solo and only 120 in raid) and raiders have smaller multipliers (like 10 X 24 raiders in a small raid for 240 HPS, yet only 10 in solo and barely 60 in groups) OR having bonus on items that apply only when a condition happen(if soloing + 100 hps, if raiding + 100 hps, if grouping +100 hps, and so on). Again the peoples that want raiding to crush the others aspects of the game are the peoples who have more then arguables reasons for raiding, and they are the peoples the devs should find silly, not those that want the proper rewards to the proper activities.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
You're missing the whole point. MMORPG's are about community based gaming, thus they are not meant for the solo player. Go play final fantasy while you sit in a chatroom on your computer and you'll get just the game you're asking for.
koto
I don't think anyone has suggested that there be no solo'ing. The Vanguard devs certainly haven't. In fact, when they talk about they advanced encounter system, they sometimes refer to a solo'er as "a group of one".
Having solo content in the game is not the issue. Having the majority of the content in the game soloable is. Doing so is what produces a game like WoW, where no one really groups at all until the endgame, and no community bonds form until then. THere's nothing wrong with a system like that. It's just not the system that a good chunk of players want to participate in.
Yes, you can group in WoW anytime you like... if you can get anyone to group up regularly. But that's a rarity since no one needs a group, solo'ing is more efficient than grouping, and if you do get a group it's so that you can help someone else with a quest, and they'll drop you the second they get what they want done. There are a lot of players out there that really miss both the cooperative requirements of Everquest for many things, and the freedom to solo when they choose to for other things.
There are many people that desire a balance in the types of content, with a stronger emphasis on the grouping.
You don't have to like it. You don't even have to agree with it. But it doesn't make it wrong, or a bad choice for Sigil.
-Feyshtey-
My problem with Vanguard is not the amount of solo they put into the game, it is the progression chart associated with solo. Always at the bottom.
Best soloers need to be soloers. I dont care if solo content is barely enought for 1 afternoon or can last many years, as long as the solo hierarchy is independant of the grouping and raiding game.
Solo need it own high end, no matter the rest...then of course the more the better, like everything else, if you see more players max 1 aspect of the game, then you should focus on improving this aspect, common sense really.
See, soloers need to find it MOTIVATING to solo, have no fear, everyone rather group then solo if they can commit to a group, it will never kill grouping, as long as grouping also have it own high end(A system like WoW is bad both for solo and grouping, since they share the same high end system, it is a lose/lose scenario, peoples dont focus on grouping and solo is a weaker form of grouping...double lose scenario)...all is about motivating players to do something. If solo is barely something to do while been LFG, most peoples will not solo and just wait LFG and if they dont find a group, they will log. You dont want them to wait LFG, if they like solo, you want them to solo and be motivated by the aspect and nearly forget they have their LFG tag.
Soloers still complain even in WoW, mark my words, only a self high end, a solo independant hierarchy, will nearly quiet the solo endless rambling. The other option would be to kill grouping and make everything accessible throught solo, which is not acceptable, thereby solo need it own high end, completely independant. Heck, personnally in the solo aspect of the game, I would remove class and work with skills...it would be a different game inside Vanguard, using the same skills, but not even the class system(class harm solo IMO). Solo need to be an overgrown mini game.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Hahahaha. Yes, in an online game, where being able to interact with people in an ever-persistant world is the whole damn point, they are going to implement a solo high end game along with the high end raiding.How about this: You play vanguard, and at the same time you play Final Fantasy or some RPG, that way you get both your MMO and solo fix. Offline games are for solo players, nuff said.
koto
So what exactly do you want? You want a high end solo game that people can solo an item that has 20 hp. You also want a grouping high end where a group can get a 20 hp item. Then you also want a raid high end where someone can get a 20 hp item? No offense but you ramble a lot and it's hard to discern a valid point.
In my personal opinion I think soloing is the worst gameplay style. MMORPGs are based are interaction with other people, otherwise they're just a paying monthly version of a single player game. Solo should always take a back seat to grouping. I think people should be able to solo, but never as effectively as grouping. Encouraging people to solo by having a "solo high end" is pretty retarded as it kills the whole point of a MMORPG.
I'm not sure whether you were also talking about content suited for the different styles or not but I figured I'd address it as well. Both WoW and EQ2 are wrong in this regard imo- they have normal mobs and then "group mobs". Nothing imho has come close to original EQ where there was just "content". For example in Skyfire you could solo some of the weaker mobs if you were the right class, you would need a group or 2 to solo the Gwurms and you needed a raid to kill Talendor. I detest having mobs labelled as "group" or "elite". There should be no mobs that are meant for a "solo high end" or a "group high end" or a "raid high end". I dont think every high level mob should have to be raided but that's the way the genre is trending.
No offense again but I'm glad you aren't near any designer of a game that I want to play. If you want a solo game go play something on the PS.
PS. Anyone else pardon my rambling I wanted to make sure I addressed what Anofalye was saying.
If you encourage solo'ing in any way, then people will solo. And you will find a situation as it is in WoW, where most people solo to progress in levels, until they reach the end game, where they form community ties to group in instances or raid.
Your suggestion would take it another step beyond WoW's current scheme, and encourage solo'ing beyond the level progression. Removing a chunk of the need for anyone to ever form those community bonds.
Vanguard seeks to encourage those bonds and interdepencies early on. You can't do that and give everyone a means to solo throughout the entire game. That's not to say that smart play, solid tactics, and determination won't allow for a person to solo. But designing the game to the lowest common denominator so that any monkey can solo, and so that they can see consistent and fast progression, is counterproductive to a desire to build a cooperative community.
Or here's a wild idea: How about since there are already a number of games on the market that allow for a great deal of solo'ing, make one that instead concentrates entirely on the groupers, with a little solo'ing available to those who can figure out how to.......Oh. Wait. My bad. That's what Vanguard is.
You do see the contridiction in this logic right?
If every game on the market is targeting the people who want to solo all the time, then the bulk of the games on the market are all targeting the same people. The possible results are:
a) no game has that many subscribers, because all games are more or less equally appealing to the market.
b) 1 or 2 games dominate the market, because they are the best made versions of the more-or-less equal options.
c) No one game maintains an average subscription length of more than a few months, because people can easily bounce around to something new while still getting basically the same game mechanics.
In any case, there is no innovation in the industry because instead of trying to do something new, your are locked into a mindset that only a+b+c=profit. You also have segments of the market that never get what they really want, because no one will make it.
Now, if a company (let's just say Sigil, as a hypothetical...) were to identify a portion of the market that does not have what they desire available, and provides a game that covers those desires, and they're the only ones with the balls to actually try it, they stand a decent chance to get a very loyal long-term subscriber base. If for no other reason than there are no other games that fit what they desire out there....
It's all about the target audience.
I agree that the mass market is the biggest. Let's call them the people who buy sedans (the most popular type of car on the road). But there are people out there that want a minivan. And people who want a truck. And people who want a sportscar. None of those people would ever be fully satsified in one of the other vehicle types. However, that does not mean that there isn't a good market for one of other types of vehicles. And it wouldn't be foolish for a company to make just one of them.
In fact, if a single company really wanted to completely dominate the MMO market, they'd make one of each.
-Feyshtey-
*shrug*
Vanguard have potential to be fun, on some aspects, but what are they planning to do to keep me online?
Soloer been lames wont keep me online. Tradeskill, dont even talk about it. Groups and raids, if I cant get it started NOW, I will log, I wont be playing it.
So again, how exactly do they plan to keep me LFG or LFR and available for others players to do stuff with them?
SOLO IS THE BEST TOOL TO KEEP PEOPLES ONLINE AND PLAYING. And in order to do that, solo uberness need to belong to soloers. Once they are online and playing, you can start talking about making a group or a raid(which need their own high end as well).
Skars: I already answer and give 3 solutions(1 exemple I have is 60 hps, 20hps X group number, 10hps X raid number, so best soloer is a soloer, best grouper is a grouper, and best raider is a raider), scroll up and read. Of course WoW and EQ2 are wrong, and so will be Vanguard if they keep on that road. Best soloer need to be a soloer, period! End of discussion.
Vega: Unless I can be LFG with my computer turn off while I play FF, I dont see how you can seriously propose that. I wont be LFG and AFK playing another game. It is not good for the energy and the planet to run 2 systems at once and be in 2 differents rooms, anyway, if I am LFG and in another room, how am I suppose to know I receive a group offer and leave my solo game? Again, a MMORPG need to be able to keep me online, and lame solo options is certainly making me leave. I need to receive my group/raid messages on the screen I am playing my solo game, and I dont dual box since it lower performances and I want the best results, all the time. EQ would never have fall behind EQ2 or WoW if you where right, and Vanguard is heading for a big wall head first, they have a thick skull, but that thick? Such a MMORPG with lame solo features belong to the stone age primate group, nuff said.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
There's games out there that do let the top people solo and everything is solo. They're called RPG's. Maybe you should check one out? The best soloer's shouldnt be soloers, the best soloers should be people who have the most skill and the best gear. MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Woot, we have Brad answer here!
Like I said earlier, even with no nice solo I will prolly give Vanguard a good try, it have definitely many appealing potential, I didnt play EQ for years for no reason. See, with them arguing, I got carried away.
However, I am scarred, even how you write you suggest that to be on top of the grouping system, you will have to raid sometimes.
Which mean not only do you enforce grouping on peoples that love raiding, you also enforce peoples who love grouping to raid...enforcing gameplays dont work.
If peoples have resist gear in Kunark, why not have grouping and raiding gear been distinct and earn in their respective fields only?
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren