Lost Ranger_sl
shitlord
- 1,027
- 4
For the record I'm glad they are charging for forum access. I want Brad to squeeze every last cent he can out of these people before they finally call it quits. The more they get the funnier this becomes.
Actually, TOR has tons and tons of group based content. I'd wager as much group as they do solo. The thing is you don't have to do any of it, but it still is there. Yes, both leveling and endgame.Perhaps i should have clarified not only END game content. TOR was not primarily group based content ( pvp does not count ) at least through alderaan/tatooine which is where i got bored... Spent most of my time alone other than the 30 minitue McDungeons they had along the way ( the one on the space station for both sides was cool however, nice hook )Going to bite here. It depends on how you view content. TOR had lots and lots and lots of single player stuff. Absolutely no question about that. Butthe -vast- majority of actual content was the group-required dungeons and operations (raids) comparatively, as well as all the group-suggested quests(which were quite a bit in each area).
If they don't share our opinions about what makes a great game and how Pantheon will use those mechanics to put out somewhat of an ol' school game, then what is the purpose of even posting in the thread? Its like me going to the WOW thread and complaining about the mechanics WOW uses. If you don't want to play the game and don't like the direction its going, why bother posting here? It serves no purpose. And to post here day after day after day repeating the same shit=troll.What you call rif-raf, and trolls is really just people who don't share your opinions. The amount of trolling that has happened in this thread is significantly less then what you and others claim. Someone comes along and tries to explain to you that your personal opinion is not some undeniable law of the fucking universe and you label him a troll, or too stupid to "get it". It really isn't surprising that people get fed up with that nonsense and just start to shit on you and your interests.
Yes I would like to see this as well. Games like WoW and EQ are just two sides of the same coin. They both took it too far. This is probably the biggest reason that of the big three classics (EQ, UO and DAoC) I am the least excited for EQ. It doesn't really bring anything fresh back to the genre. It is just WoW + loads of tedium. Ultima Online, and DAoC both had gameplay that was unique for their time, and I think both can translate well into modern games.My problem isn't group vs solo content, it's I really want more sandbox and a lot less themepark.
shabushabu;584213 said:My experience (which, of course, your mileage my vary) in mmos has -always- been to find a group before I start trying to solo crap. As stated in previous threads, I'm the guy that invites random people I see in a small area so that we can do whatever content in that area is as efficiently as possible. In many cases that area can be soloed, but being in a group makes it substantially faster.I don't think it has to be forced grouping per se, but something where finding a group is the FIRST thing i want to do when i login, EVERY TIme and if i can't find one then perhaps there are other activities... but not the other way around i.e. Solo to the 5 or so dungeon experiences that are linear and 30 min MC dungeons while you level... that is what took socialization out of MMO combat
Going back to the concept of soloing at all, I am pretty sure that the vast majority of people who soloed in EQ did it not because they "could" but that they couldn't find a group within a reasonable time-frame within logging in. There was a very real disparity between group availability and player space within those groups. Lots of DPS wanted to be in groups, but if you weren't in one you were SOL for playing that day. What modern mmos have done is created something for them to do outside of that. Taken outside the microcosm that was EQ's grouping structure, that just means that people who would have been the bad dps/bad healer/bad tank/bad player are still contributing to funding the game they are playing instead of simply not playing (which, in many cases, is a real consequence) by being able to complete tasks that do not require a group. I'm gonna say it was pretty rare for anyone in a game to turn down a group invite if they were capable of engaging in content, which is still very much the case. The slight difference being that certain dungeons/instances in current mmos might be gated behind a quest line that needs completing prior. Otherwise, when you get invited to run a dungeon, time permitting you pretty much always do.
The first "choice" is always to group up. But it has to be a choice and not a binary "Do you not play this game or do you group?" decision in today's marketplace.
Still standing firmly by my statement that games are highly group centric today, just that for people with time constraints/terrible playing skills, there is still an option to play the game and accomplish something for their invested time. It just isn't -required- that in order to do anything, you group.
edit: Going to once again reiterate the probable cause of people wanting the required grouping days again. The majority of these people (Merlin definitely included, see: all those threads on mechanics on FoH and why a wizard is a terrible person to ask about the importance of player teleporting in mmos) are people that benefited substantially more by being in a group, and were generally wanted. Enchanters, Clerics, Warriors, Wizards, Druids. (wizards and druids because porting was unique to those classes) The people who tend to comment negatively on the concept of required grouping were those that weren't always 100% desired in group settings (SKs/Necros/Shaman) with the rest just wanting to be in groups (the deepz) This is just as much a problem because of specific abilities being unique to classes (rez/Defensive/mez/teleportation) as it was the dynamic of grouping period. Also cue in the hybrid/off-race penalties.
Admittedly, many of those issues went to the way-side during EQ's development, but the primary suspect for people wanting required grouping is being one of the big 3 or having the ability to teleport. This is just a theory, but I think it holds up fairly well in most instances.
You may not do that personally Merlin, but keep in mind that quite a few of your comrades do. There hasn't been a single MMO thread that hasn't at some point or another derailed into a shit sandwhich because someone came along and started in with the "I <3 EQ, and this game sucks because it isn't EQ!" crap. Honestly the way I see it is if some of these guys are only here to anger the fans then it is really just a case of giving as good as they get. Karma is a bitch and I have a hard time seeing them as the bad guy here. Why should a EQ friendly thread be left alone when that same respect isn't given in return?If they don't share our opinions about what makes a great game and how Pantheon will use those mechanics to put out somewhat of an ol' school game, then what is the purpose of even posting in the thread? Its like me going to the WOW thread and complaining about the mechanics WOW uses. If you don't want to play the game and don't like the direction its going, why bother posting here? It serves no purpose. And to post here day after day after day repeating the same shit=troll.
sorry my friend I do not agree... pantheon is an idea at this point.. it is not at all far enough along to warrant the crazy shit people have been posting here. Is the idea worth 50 bucks ? That is everyone's personal decision... is it a guarantee ? NFW. Its a shot at something different that is all.. and yes the MMO industry has fallen into shit far enough that 50 bucks on an idea is worth it to me...What you call rif-raf, and trolls is really just people who don't share your opinions. The amount of trolling that has happened in this thread is significantly less then what you and others claim. Someone comes along and tries to explain to you that your personal opinion is not some undeniable law of the fucking universe and you label him a troll, or too stupid to "get it". It really isn't surprising that people get fed up with that nonsense and just start to shit on you and your interests.
Rezz;584244 said:I appreaciate your approach to this but i do not agree that titles today are based around grouping. take vanguard for instance, there were literally 10 or more dungeons per tier 1-10, 10-20, etc etc... dungeons that you COULDNT solo and had premium gear, lore and content. that is what i call a group based game, could you solo ? Sure but solo quests were a vehicle to progress during downtime, or funnel people toward group content... grouping was the game.My experience (which, of course, your mileage my vary) in mmos has -always- been to find a group before I start trying to solo crap. As stated in previous threads, I'm the guy that invites random people I see in a small area so that we can do whatever content in that area is as efficiently as possible. In many cases that area can be soloed, but being in a group makes it substantially faster.
Going back to the concept of soloing at all, I am pretty sure that the vast majority of people who soloed in EQ did it not because they "could" but that they couldn't find a group within a reasonable time-frame within logging in. There was a very real disparity between group availability and player space within those groups. Lots of DPS wanted to be in groups, but if you weren't in one you were SOL for playing that day. What modern mmos have done is created something for them to do outside of that. Taken outside the microcosm that was EQ's grouping structure, that just means that people who would have been the bad dps/bad healer/bad tank/bad player are still contributing to funding the game they are playing instead of simply not playing (which, in many cases, is a real consequence) by being able to complete tasks that do not require a group. I'm gonna say it was pretty rare for anyone in a game to turn down a group invite if they were capable of engaging in content, which is still very much the case. The slight difference being that certain dungeons/instances in current mmos might be gated behind a quest line that needs completing prior. Otherwise, when you get invited to run a dungeon, time permitting you pretty much always do.
The first "choice" is always to group up. But it has to be a choice and not a binary "Do you not play this game or do you group?" decision in today's marketplace.
Still standing firmly by my statement that games are highly group centric today, just that for people with time constraints/terrible playing skills, there is still an option to play the game and accomplish something for their invested time. It just isn't -required- that in order to do anything, you group.
This is in direct contrast to most MMOs today where there are what 5-8 dungeons from 1-cap ? its lame as shit, if i want to play single player i will play skyrim
For the record i loved vanilla wow. Wow did immersion better than anyone although there wasa bit too much soloing for my tastes, there were significant dungeon experiences along the way and the classes at least at launch were designed more toward grouping with solo capability than solo classes that can group like WOLK+. When I went into Wrath and I was tanking encounters in dungeons, i was done... every encounter wasYes I would like to see this as well. Games like WoW and EQ are just two sides of the same coin. They both took it too far. This is probably the biggest reason that of the big three classics (EQ, UO and DAoC) I am the least excited for EQ. It doesn't really bring anything fresh back to the genre. It is just WoW + loads of tedium. Ultima Online, and DAoC both had gameplay that was unique for their time, and I think both can translate well into modern games.
I guess we will see what Garriott and Jacobs produce from KS. If both of those fail miserably that might be the end of revisiting old school for quite some time.
shabushabu;584262 said:Yea but then you get quality vs quantity. From what I know of Vanguard, there may have been 10 dungeons per tier, but 8 of the 10 were always shit.I appreaciate your approach to this but i do not agree that titles today are based around grouping. take vanguard for instance, there were literally 10 or more dungeons per tier 1-10, 10-20, etc etc... dungeons that you COULDNT solo and had premium gear, lore and content. that is what i call a group based game, could you solo ? Sure but solo quests were a vehicle to progress during downtime, or funnel people toward group content... grouping was the game.
This is in direct contrast to most MMOs today where there are what 5-8 dungeons from 1-cap ? its lame as shit, if i want to play single player i will play skyrim
I don't disagree. This works both ways though. Someone strongly believing this is a scam is just as valid as you strongly believing this is all above board. Anyone who is 100% certain of anything is a moron. I just think it is wrong to instantly label people who are not waving their "Team Brad!" flags around as trolls. A discussion where everyone is smiling and politely agreeing with each other is how things can quickly go to shit. Opposing viewpoints are important. I can see how making a place for only die hard supporters can be viewed as a bad thing. Surrounding yourself with yes men is bad. You need people to say "Hey, this sucks and here is why". Unfortunately those people tend to get shouted down very quickly by the rabid fans who can't stand to see anyone being critical of something they are excited about.its all guesswork at this point.
Vandyn;584274 said:You don't know much if you are saying that.From what I know of Vanguard, there may have been 10 dungeons per tier, but 8 of the 10 were always shit.
The point you bring up is not why Vanguard was a launch disaster, it was the tech and SOE rushing the game not the designs in the game. At this point, you are paying for those old designs which AAA publishers will not fund anymore. That's it.I don't disagree. This works both ways though. Someone strongly believing this is a scam is just as valid as you strongly believing this is all above board. Anyone who is 100% certain of anything is a moron. I just think it is wrong to instantly label people who are not waving their "Team Brad!" flags around as trolls. A discussion where everyone is smiling and politely agreeing with each other is how things can quickly go to shit. Opposing viewpoints are important. I can see how making a place for only die hard supporters can be viewed as a bad thing. Surrounding yourself with yes men is bad. You need people to say "Hey, this sucks and here is why". Unfortunately those people tend to get shouted down very quickly by the rabid fans who can't stand to see anyone being critical of something they are excited about.
Seriously the Vanguard beta forums still blows my mind. So many people desperately fighting to make the game as shitty as possible and they couldn't even see it. There was clearly something wrong with Vanguard, but to say so in their presence was sacrilege. I see the Pantheon champions section being no different.
VG had a great leveling experience and the dungeons were fun. Not sure where you are getting 8 of 10 were shit. The issue VG had was it was buggy as fuck and the game engine was shit so most people would not go through all the headache of trying to get the game to run worth a shit and back in the day the hitching alone made most quit frankly. If you had a perma group VG was some fun shit and was second only to EQ in leveling experience and was great until you hit the high 40's and the content ran out.Yea but then you get quality vs quantity. From what I know of Vanguard, there may have been 10 dungeons per tier, but 8 of the 10 were always shit.
I'll bite for this. I was in a raid guild, it was even the top guild on the server for a while. That said overall I'd say grouping was more fun then raiding, although I did like both parts of the game. I think EQ had some great mechanics that have been abandoned and I would like to experience them again, mainly public dungeons as a game focus and the combination of respawn and crowd control putting pressure on a group that challenged itself with content at or above their level. On the other hand I'm playing GW2 right now while writing this, losing my ass betting on moa races.People that are stuck in this "JUST RESKIN EQ!" mindset were either never in a raiding guild, or weren't in one for long. EQ is almost universally looked down upon as horrible, at least amongst the people who raided for any serious length of time at the high-end(guilds that cleaned up the scraps don't count as "raiding" guilds). It doesn't mean we didn't enjoy our time spent, but looking back at EQ mechanically? Gameplay wise? It was an awful game.
Thanks Merlin, i just want a social MMO where the primary basis for world exploration is grouping and the game is built around people helping people achieve something greater than what they can do themselves.. I always thought this was the beauty of MMOs and it has been lost. I mean it was the whole point to a "persistent online world" . . not just an auction house.Vanguard was the natural progression from EQ so I don't see an issue here. Brad is a lot of things but hes very very good at understanding everything relating to content, art, graphics, etc...Vanguard was done very well in those terms. And I've never seen shab say anything that was out of the ordinary. I agree with most of his posts so I think Brad can take advice without it over-influencing the design decisions.
Yeah I agree... I played TOR some and enjoyed it a bit, not so much GW2 and i think there is a place for all these games, i just want a real group based game to come back we have not had one in forever it seems.I'll bite for this. I was in a raid guild, it was even the top guild on the server for a while. That said overall I'd say grouping was more fun then raiding, although I did like both parts of the game. I think EQ had some great mechanics that have been abandoned and I would like to experience them again, mainly public dungeons as a game focus and the combination of respawn and crowd control putting pressure on a group that challenged itself with content at or above their level. On the other hand I'm playing GW2 right now while writing this, losing my ass betting on moa races.
I think the issue is that most people see this as binary situation - it doesnt have to be that way. I can like EQ and want new content in that style (no interest in P99, done that content to death a decade ago), while at the same time liking GW2 or TOR or WoW for other reasons. Or not like some of them without calling everyone that disagrees "stuck in the past", "WoW kiddie" or whatever else.
Yes, I will confess I ran a RAMDisk to kill the hitching pretty early on 08 ish ? after it was posted on the forums. Too much effort for most I completely agree.. i love to do whack shit like that but one should not have to get all whack techie to play a game.. this does not take away from the content designs that were in place and stellar IMO.VG had a great leveling experience and the dungeons were fun. Not sure where you are getting 8 of 10 were shit. The issue VG had was it was buggy as fuck and the game engine was shit so most people would not go through all the headache of trying to get the game to run worth a shit and back in the day the hitching alone made most quit frankly. If you had a perma group VG was some fun shit and was second only to EQ in leveling experience and was great until you hit the high 40's and the content ran out.
You can talk shit on several parts of VG but dungeons and leveling content was not one of them.
Agreed that TOR had some group content in all places... I think their major failure was having the dungeons all at the main hub instead of mixed into the natural flow on the appropriate planets.It doesn't have to be a binary situation of group content or not. And in every game since EQ, it isn't.