Saying that the devs might fuck up and make some class abilities OP and allow you to solo is misleading people about soloing, it's wrong, sorry that is some sad bullshit Lithose, I would hope Brad wouldn't do that. Say either that soloing isn't intended and the game won't be designed around it or the mobs tuned to make it possible or say that it will be possible but grouping xp will be tuned so that it is ideal over soloing. This was true on EQ progression for example because of how SOE adjusted the level curve, they had increased it like 1000% over the vanilla curve, then for progression they put percent caps on what killing a mob could give you, so a solo player killed something and like 75%+ of the xp the mob was worth poofed because of the cap, but in a group of 5 you got the full value per kill, and essentially the same amount per kill as a solo player got.
I'm not even sure where you got this from. Here, let me highlight some portions for you.
mobs are so difficult,that grouping is the safest, more efficient way to defeat them.However, particularly skilledadventurers, with well chosen gear and spells, can challenge themselves to overcome them."
Then I spoke about how specific classes could do this in EQ, and that community of people still do this on EMU servers. Here.
See, the Dark Souls crowd are essentially the same people that were solo chanters, shamans and necros+Duo partners (Monks, SKs, Clerics ect). Pushing the boundary of what they could do by memorizing precise timings, patterns and extreme usage of their class abilities.
Then I talked about how to
generalize(IE not make them special to one class) these mistakes, and design solo as different type of meta game. Solo play should be built as more of a stealth fantasy--here. (IE it should not play the same way as the group game, it should be riskier, more difficult and less efficient--but the attraction isn't the grind, it's overcoming odds. Just like in Dark Souls.)
Bring these aspects up to your market. Tell them your game is built to be as free as possible. The mobs are so difficult that many will rely on groups. But there will be ways for the clever player to use his abilities, and his intelligence to exploit the mobs, and bring them down--making a name for himself as a "loner". Really play up the "assassin against all odds" angle. Because that's the type of game play Dark Souls taps into well, and there was MOST certainly an aspect of it within EQ.
I'm not sure what is "sad bullshit" here. The problem has always been developers trying to control every minutia in the game, rather than making the world, giving the players tools they know are balanced with everyone's tools and letting players figure stuff out on their own. I said, very specifically, that he should say "the game is designed to make grouping the best and safest experience"--However, you'll be free enough in the game that there won't be artificial limiters on how you exploit mobs.
Your bullshit about how grouping exp was tuned to specifically to punish players who thought outside the box? Is exactly what
ruinedgames like EQ. It's so ironic you bring this up, because this is the bullshit that figuratively drove a spike into the games heart--controlling raid numbers, instancing, TLC/Required levels (And all kinds of other artificial "controls" on everything). Grouping should be the most viable method
BECAUSE THE WORLD DICTATES IT.
Notbecause some developer has a vision and puts in some rule that makes any other method of play impossible or artificially difficult (And yes, I know EQ always had experience deficits and bonuses for groups--but they sucked, and were balanced on old table top rules that allowed for certain classes to be stronger. Next time ask a ranger if he was "stronger" than anyone.). If I join a group, it should be because it's far less dangerous and makes it far more efficient for me to kill mobs--not because some dev was like "hurr durr let me knee cap your experience even though you put in more work than a group would have".
That freedom, to explore different avenues to deal with problems OUTSIDE the intended? That's the essence of what made EQ great. And it's something developers have been learning to actively build into stealth games. Again, watch the Extra Credits video (Really everyone should). Stealth games are like a puzzle with
manysolutions. If you force everything to be one solution, then you run the same sad gambit that WoW and every other modern MMO does by trying to control everything down to the most infinitesimal level in order to make players "play your way".
And this all goes back to table top gaming. The best part of table top games is the DM's imagination was broad and powerful enough to allow for a variety of unintended strategies to be employed that create unique experiences, beyond what even he imagined. MMO's really need to try to capture that again. There is nothing "sad" about choices, freedom and agency in MMO's--what's sad is that we've traded that in for single solution problem solving (IE get bigger axe, smash better. Get new crit to fireball, burn
hotter! While moving out of fire.Hodor! You see how the point of the game is now to execute a predetermined set of moves, rather than figure out "how can I, given these tools, beat this obstacle".).
Edit: And just the expound on the DM comment. Mediocre DM's wrote a story and let you partake in it. The best DM's made a world, put in story elements, and then worked with the players to create the story. It's a much more passive role, and I think developers who are able to do that? Make worlds feel very alive. They make obstacles, give players tools but then let the players create a myriad number of outcomes. Modern game developers for a lot of "power games" seem simply unable to do that--if you don't kill it the way they want you to? They nerf or change the mob ect. They change the focus of the game from overcoming obstacles, to HOW you overcome them (Their way) and I think that really narrows game design to a boring level. (And I think a lot of this has to do with the increasingly complexity of scripting..when mobs have so many variables, you have to limit the number of ways players can react.)
