Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,782
- 8,267
The Elder Scrolls Online
- Thread starter Anomander Rake
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Kreugen
Vyemm Raider
- 6,599
- 793
EQ, TOR and a few other MMOs put in the half-measure of giving you 1 NPC companion to help fill out a group, but it does little to help classes that can't run out and solo with just a healer or tank supporting them. You still have tons and tons of empty content that a player + mercenary simply can't handle. And so you still have the problem of finding enough other live humans to round out your group in a dead level range or out of the way content.
Instead you should be able to have as many as two or three npc companions at once so that every role is covered. This way, you can solo as any class while playing any given role instead of the "solo friendly" one. Now you can make the content require these roles and you feel like you are playing a party-based game at all times, even when alone.
The trick of course is making grouping with live players preferable but not always required. For one, your own group should never be your enemy when it comes to loot. This removes one of the larger reasons why people go as far as they do in EQ to solo. (the largest being the SWEET FREEDOM of not having to appease other players. Especially the entitled fucking cleric) And obviously, instanced dungeons and raids should not allow NPC companions.
Anyway, not really relevant to ESO. Just something I'd like to see tried. Especially after seeing this horrible "everything dies in 5 seconds" dogshit.
(Not that I advocate the "every snake and rat should be a nail-biting 20 minute Avatar of War reenactment!" that EQ diehards like to push for. Did you see the Underfoot expansion? Holy tedious fuck.)
Instead you should be able to have as many as two or three npc companions at once so that every role is covered. This way, you can solo as any class while playing any given role instead of the "solo friendly" one. Now you can make the content require these roles and you feel like you are playing a party-based game at all times, even when alone.
The trick of course is making grouping with live players preferable but not always required. For one, your own group should never be your enemy when it comes to loot. This removes one of the larger reasons why people go as far as they do in EQ to solo. (the largest being the SWEET FREEDOM of not having to appease other players. Especially the entitled fucking cleric) And obviously, instanced dungeons and raids should not allow NPC companions.
Anyway, not really relevant to ESO. Just something I'd like to see tried. Especially after seeing this horrible "everything dies in 5 seconds" dogshit.
(Not that I advocate the "every snake and rat should be a nail-biting 20 minute Avatar of War reenactment!" that EQ diehards like to push for. Did you see the Underfoot expansion? Holy tedious fuck.)
You mean like a random cave with a big, bad boss at the back with no quest or story attached in a small hidden area, that dropped a nice blue sword for killing him in one of the early zones<after he stomped me twice, and I brought back a few friends>? The game has those, and other non quest/story things, and I didn't make it that far in really. The game focuses on exploring and you can run in a direction and do a variety of things, that have all been mentioned before..
You don't have to do any quests to actually level in this game, you know.. The quest loot was weaker than what I got from farming chests, in addition.
WOW with dungeons (or actual mobs at different points of it's life), Rift with Mobs (at least it used to be). Does event farming count in GW2? AOC had it. Aion had it. LOTRO had it. Wildstar beta has it.
I don't think SWTOR had it though and I can't think of any other examples right now.
Jaybee
Silver Knight of the Realm
- 276
- 33
Yeah I played FFXIV, and in no way was this moire efficient than Fate grinding. At least not at release.
- 26,220
- 39,910
Were not taking about efficiency here are we? If every game made it the most efficient way to gain exp, everybody would be doing it, right? Thats why everyone is mindlessly running from point A to point B mashing the E button because its the most efficient.
But thats not even what I was getting at. See the rest of my post. Its not about grinding, its not about questing or EQ or whatever. Its about getting people to play together in an mmo, its breaking the solo questing mold that has been the norm for 8 yrs now. Come up with something new. Other genres are moving forward, are they not? Why cannot this one move forward. Hopefully EQ next does that and shatters all this bullshit we have been given over the past 8 yrs. Lets only hope.
Ukerric
Bearded Ape
- 8,297
- 10,261
Except, you know, for the incentive thing? Did you miss the part where doing quests shower you with XP and loot, and not doing quests... does not.
If the game tells you, clearly and unambiguously: QUEST OR BUST, then you quest. And if you quest, a-la-WoW then you solo.
If you want a game that favor groups, while leaving you the capacity to solo, then put in the proper incentives and mechanisms and people will group (like, you know, when they do dungeons?). Put in the other incentives, and people will solo. People, in their vast majority, will do what the game tells them to do. No more, and no less.
Kirun
Buzzfeed Editor
- 19,233
- 15,623
No, it isn't. Games, MMOs, hell the internet in general has never had more options to "connect" with other people. The difference is, interdependency isn't aforcedmechanic anymore. This hasn't resulted inlesssocialization in MMOs. It has resulted inlazypeople being unable to socialize in MMOs, because the game isn't forcing others to talk/group with them anymore. Hell, look at how lively your typical zone chat is in MMOs nowadays. Now, compare that to EQ. But, I'm betting your one of the countless players who turns it off, because you can'tstandlistening to people talking while trying to play the game, right? Guess what, that same inane drivel was present in EQ, but because your nostalgia clouds your memory, you think that EC was some amazing social experience.
There's plenty of incentive to group. I can't think of a single game where grouping is not only more efficient, but it rewards you with better loot. The issue for you and others with this mindset is, you want the disparity in rewards between grouping and soloing to be so large, that grouping then becomes theonlyoption.
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,782
- 8,267
Linear questing is terrible as a group. Mostly because there is NO INCENTIVE to continue to group with someone on a lower quest chain than you unless you want to give them some welfare. You get nothing for doing that content again.
Unless you have the exact same play schedule and log out at exactly the same place and log back in at the same time grouping with a friend is a total PIA. Unless you enjoy doing shit for no reward.
Unless you have the exact same play schedule and log out at exactly the same place and log back in at the same time grouping with a friend is a total PIA. Unless you enjoy doing shit for no reward.
Kreugen
Vyemm Raider
- 6,599
- 793
Everquest 2 opened with a billion quests and (mostly) forced grouping. Including barriers to progression that required multi-step group quests. It was a fucking nightmare. No game better demonstrates how badly forced grouping and questing go together.
Oddly enough, the only game to do it well is modern day Everquest. You have "missions" which are basically instanced versions of normal zones with objectives and scripting. These are often required for progression. And then you have "tasks" which are repeatable, open-world quests. But these they completely fucked up by not sharing credit, so everyone in the group has to loot the thing or whatever.
Of course, getting people to do these is still a nightmare, because hardly anyone who plays EQ actually gives a shit about anything outside of raiding and farming AA. Group missions for loot? Lol.
Oddly enough, the only game to do it well is modern day Everquest. You have "missions" which are basically instanced versions of normal zones with objectives and scripting. These are often required for progression. And then you have "tasks" which are repeatable, open-world quests. But these they completely fucked up by not sharing credit, so everyone in the group has to loot the thing or whatever.
Of course, getting people to do these is still a nightmare, because hardly anyone who plays EQ actually gives a shit about anything outside of raiding and farming AA. Group missions for loot? Lol.
Dashivax
N00b
- 114
- 3
Glad to hear it, we (Death Alliance from Stormbluff in GW2) will be looking to see what campaign you guys choose and hopefully we are playing separate factions. We will be playing Daggerfall Covenant.
I will also add the answer to this stupid shit is to drop levels and go with skill based systems with open worlds. Something that would be PERFECT with a game that traditionally is open world.
I see dropping thousands of people in 100 random places all over the world in a skill based ES MMO to be much better than herding them out of 3 with a fairly linear path through the entire game.
I see dropping thousands of people in 100 random places all over the world in a skill based ES MMO to be much better than herding them out of 3 with a fairly linear path through the entire game.
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,782
- 8,267
Gross. Glad I went the EQ -> EQOA -> WoW route. I didn't start EQ2 until Echoes of Faydwer, and I quite enjoyed it.
Kreugen
Vyemm Raider
- 6,599
- 793
Imagine if you will: Class specific quests that require a group. And I'm pretty sure credit wasn't shared.
Oh, and each major zone required you to do a quest to unlock it. As did most dungeons.
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,782
- 8,267
Kreugen
Vyemm Raider
- 6,599
- 793
They were thinking what EQ/EQ2 devs were always thinking at the time: Fuck You.
No, really, that was the design philosophy/profit model. Just like someone said earlier in the thread about shit like 20 minute downtime. That crap had a purpose.
SWTOR with it's social rewards comes to mind. It's better and far more rewarding to group in that game. It's something that game does very well.
I agree with Kedwyn's points. The linear non-group quest setup is a big disappointment. My hope is the game later on opens up even more with dungeons and PVP.
The only positive thing is quest killings are shared by everyone who hits the bad guys. So, if 20 people smack Mr BossSkeleton, they all get credit for killing him, regardless of if they are grouped or not. Also, you can complete quests far quicker while grouping, even if quest logs are not shared.