It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
No. In the software world there is a huge difference. It's not even considered in the same realm. WB and its partner used code directly from Bethesda without permission. On the other hand Bethesda markets to a gaming community that likes to mod games. Making the comparison is false and misrepresents what is happening. This isn't even akin to open source applications receiving code commits from non-team members.Aeander said:If true, shame on WB. The whole thing is kind of ironic though, considering that Bethesda's 1st party games have sold solely off of the work and code of others (modders) for years now.
Dammit I just bought that a couple of months ago because I wanted to play it through Steam.blueturtle13 said:That is a steal at that price point. That is a staggering amount of content for $15 USDHariken said:Any old GW 1 players here? They have GW 1 Trilogy for 14.99. That game never goes on sale let alone Trilogy for that price. They just did that graphics update too.
Most devs give the same poor and token consideration to soloing as well, just like grouping.It's not enough of an advantage for players to actually take to it without the game searching, grouping, and many times, porting the members to a dungeon entrance. WoW even went full-tilt and ensured you had everyone ever to pull from. There is no social community to be had from pulling from a pool like that.Torval said:Right, DAoC is one of those follow on games that imitated the EQ mindset not just with grouping but with contrived themepark factions too. You didn't have those arbitrary lines in the first gen games except EQ. UO, Lineage, AC were all fairly open and let players do what they wanted how they wanted. It was EQ that said, "you're a tank, or a 'this' or 'that' and you can only succeed if you get the other plug-n-play puzzle pieces together". Other games had roles too but they allowed for a lot more freedom in how those roles were combined and used to overcome content.This was just not true in the case of DAoC, though. Solo or duo was much slower than a full group that included all roles. It damn near felt like power-leveling at times when you had a group that was chaining purple mobs. You didn't want to log off because you were making such great gains in such little time.Torval said:Grouping wasn't the quickest way to progress. Solo or duo often was, but grouping was the safest. That was an important consideration. Do I get more xp per kill and more loot for myself at greater risk of PK or death and xp penalty? Or do I group up with 2 or 3 more people and we burn through stuff faster and probably get a little lower xp overall but are very unlikely to face PK or death xp loss.Is it confirmed that you won't be able to progress at all without a group? Or does it harken back to the time when grouping actually was the quickest way to progress and, as such, worth the logistics?Theocritus said:I am anxious to see how Pantheon does....EQ had little or no competition so people happily paid and played...Pantheon has tons of MMO competition (many of them free)....ALot of years have passed since we have HAD to group....I just don't think I can do it again tbh.
The problems, solutions, and situations "back then" were more complex than people are making them out to be now. Outside of EQ most content wasn't arbitrarily divided into group and not-group. It was just content and if you were good and powerful enough you could solo, or do it with fewer people. Reward drops were based on damage contribution.
Of first gen MMOs only EQ was the "had" to group game. It was the only game where characters were weak mewling piglets that needed each other to change a light bulb or tie their shoes or face a deer. The spinoffs and followups that came closely on its heels (DAoC, FFXI, etc) mimicked that pattern of "helpless weak character unable to accomplish a task without help".
Grouping was far more efficient, assuming you weren't trying to put together a full group of Infiltrators or something.
That's lost today. Grouping does not exponentially increase the efficiency of progression during leveling. It's reserved as a gateway to additional content that can't be accomplished solo.
Again, grouping was only more efficient always in EQ and games that followed its design. Grouping in other games was more efficient in some ways, but not in others. There were tradeoffs to everything, unlike EQ or DAoC or FF11 where there were clearly right and wrong ways to do the content. Those games mostly defined "on-rails" for the rest of the industry which I feel WoW cut, polished, and made digestible to the masses.
Grouping today is still always more efficient in the long run than soloing. It's faster and easier access to xp, leveling, and the best gear. Need a recent example? Rift Prime. If you focused and grouped, like some members of the guild did, you'd rocket to the top. Group grinding is still king.
Even in vanilla WoW, many classes still enjoyed a more consistently effective leveling progression by merely grinding solo. Food reduced the downtime experienced by not having classes like a healer. Both my Paladin and my Mage experienced this.
That's my point: most devs give poor consideration to the logistics of grouping. Many have tried to ensure those logistics are completely mitigated, but that came with a cost in and of itself (aforementioned cross-realm grouping in WoW). The trend hasn't been to merely give the due consideration to the extra time and effort it would take to amass a band of adventurers, instead sectioning off swathes of content that "required" a group to complete at all. That's forced grouping.
Having a well-oiled group greatly increase rate of progression is not forced grouping. It's beneficial grouping.