In Regards to the Recent EQ2 Vault Interview

[Hyru]

<div></div><hr><i><b>Sassee:</b> A lot of new players are posting concerns about population recently. For instance, some feel that it is too hard to find groups that are in their level range. Is there anything in the works to help new players with population difficulties?</i> <b>Steve "Moorgard" Danuser:</b> I don't really feel that the problem is a lack of players in any particular level range. Rather, there may be issues that make grouping less desirable. We're examining the amount of downtiering we did to our zones to see if we should bring back more heroic content, which I think would make grouping occur more naturally like it did a few months back. Also, the upcoming combat changes will make soloing heroic encounters a lot less likely, which will in turn add to the benefits of forming a group with your fellow players.<hr>Please don't make this change. The whole reason I came back was the ability to be in small 2-3 person groups and do solo content when there was lack of people to group with.Thank YouHyrut<div></div>

[Jezekie]

The concern is mostly about that they may have overdone the amount of downtiering leaving little to no heroic group content left. As was posted elsewhere (<a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=zonepop&message.id=20568#M20568" target=_blank>Link</a>), changes made will be select spots in the zones rather then specific zones. <div></div>

[Dae]

Why would any small group kill solo encounters? Lower con heroics give far better rewards for your effort. <div></div>

[Exmortis_MT]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Hyrut1 wrote:<BR> <HR> <BR><I><B>Sassee:</B> A lot of new players are posting concerns about population recently. For instance, some feel that it is too hard to find groups that are in their level range. Is there anything in the works to help new players with population difficulties?</I><BR> <B>Steve "Moorgard" Danuser:</B> I don't really feel that the problem is a lack of players in any particular level range. Rather, there may be issues that make grouping less desirable. We're examining the amount of downtiering we did to our zones to see if we should bring back more heroic content, which I think would make grouping occur more naturally like it did a few months back. Also, the upcoming combat changes will make soloing heroic encounters a lot less likely, which will in turn add to the benefits of forming a group with your fellow players.<BR> <HR> <BR><BR>Please don't make this change. The whole reason I came back was the ability to be in small 2-3 person groups and do solo content when there was lack of people to group with.<BR><BR><BR>Thank You<BR><BR>Hyrut<BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I on the other hand want it back.  when played through with my Sk i was rarely with out a group.  Now with my 22nd warlock im forced to quest level becasue solonig is not what i like to do.  And warlock suck at it, root breaks you die, unless you want to fight greens or blues all day.  Give me back the days of fighting yellows,organges and reds in heroic clashes with my many friends and community members of my server.</P> <P>I do not, will not, ever understand the thought process behind joining an online community of hundreds of thousands to play by your self.  Quite frankly there are dozens of better games the EQ2 for that type of game play.</P> <P>The only reason to play online games is to play with or against other people.  </P>

[Daffid011]

The trouble in my opinion is not the lack of available heroic monsters.  There are plenty of those in dungeons and small areas of the world.  It is risk vs reward and maximum gain for least effort.  Not my playstyle, but it is pretty easy to see that since the changes.  When I do solo it is faster, safer and better experience.  Making less solo content does not make grouping more beneficial. <div></div>

[neofit]

<div></div><span> <blockquote><hr>Hyrut1 wrote: <hr>Please don't make this change. The whole reason I came back was the ability to be in small 2-3 person groups and do solo content when there was lack of people to group with. <hr></blockquote>Totally agree. <b>"</b></span><b><span> We're examining the amount of downtiering we did to our zones to see if we should bring back more heroic content, which I think would make grouping occur more naturally like it did a few months back." </span></b><span>Hellooo? "A few months back" you hemorrhaged enough players to warrant this downtiering in the first place. Grouping didn't occur "naturally" back then. It was forced upon us through all available orifices, we couldn't do any quest past 20 without first wasting one hour or more looking for a group - and a full group of a certain composition to have anything done at all in the Steppes. And now that these people ate up all the WoW content, appreciated the freedom to group or not, heard about how much EQ2 has changed and are starting to come back - you are thinking about changing it back? You can count me out too as soon as it gets uptiered. While you're at it, since apparently you have some spare resources to spend on redesigning things, why not use them on getting rid of that "group mob" vs "solo mob" concept? It's been giving you headaches, costing you money and pi***ng off countless players. Why not have normal mobs as everywhere else, plus some bosses/nameds, and scale the regular ones in difficulty and exp so that, as a rule of thumb: up to my level = solo; lvl+1 = duo; lvl+2 = trio; etc., plus minus 1 level to account for classes/equipment/madskillz disparity? That way, as it used to be in other games, everyone will have access to all of the content, whether solo or as a group (but earlier if grouped). </span><span></span><div></div>

[Hyru]

<div></div> Blizzard is learning a lesson as I post this, as in the recent patch they are catering to the UBER guild players. Casual Gamers were welcomed at first, and now the hardcores who have 12 hours to play and 4 to post are getting the wishes come true with 40 man raid instances. Well guess what Blizzard is getting? Loss of subscriptions. SOE is doing it right. They are creating instances that can be solo'd , grouped, or raided. What more can you ask for people? If forced grouping/guild raiding comes to EQ 2....I am sure mine will not be the only account cancelled. SOE stay on target, you did something very few MMORPG's have done thus far. You are gaining customers BACK. Don't screw this one up. A returned customer Hyrut <p>Message Edited by Hyrut1 on <span class=date_text>07-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:27 PM</span>

[RavenFeather]

<span><blockquote><hr><span></span><span> While you're at it, since apparently you have some spare resources to spend on redesigning things, why not use them on getting rid of that "group mob" vs "solo mob" concept? It's been giving you headaches, costing you money and pi***ng off countless players. <font color="#cc00ff"><b>Why not have normal mobs as everywhere else, plus some bosses/nameds, and scale the regular ones in difficulty and exp so that, as a rule of thumb: up to my level = solo; lvl+1 = duo; lvl+2 = trio; etc., plus minus 1 level to account for classes/equipment/madskillz disparity?</b></font> That way, as it used to be in other games, everyone will have access to all of the content, whether solo or as a group (but earlier if grouped). </span><span></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>That is the best idea so far I've heard in the solo vs group issue thats been plaguing this game awhile now. Cater to one group you upset the other, and vice versa.  It seems reasonable that harder fights would require more and more people to defeat however as you get better skills/equipment those fights would become easier enough that you could solo it if need be though with a fair amount of difficulty.  This wouldnt require too much revamping of the current system and would make the game much more playable for all the various types of play styles.  Scaled creatures based on con color would fill a range of needs from both sides of this issue and help balance the games combat/quest system much more.  Working from a base of averages every ten levels one could develop a tier system where you look at what each of the classes base attack/defence/resist would be, scale the mobs in that range to solo green-white with varied degrees of difficulty vs xp and yellow/orange/red even to two/four/six member groups.  That way a solid tank with enhanced (think adept 3 etc) skills and top end equipment could solo yellows and oranges with the same degree of difficulty as a pair of average tanks with base skills/equipment.  This could also be form fitted to varying types of groups.  If SOE took the time to really look into this I know they could come up with a system that would generally smooth out the PvE issues that are cropping up.</span><div></div>

[fisherman_188]

Just make the Rotstuffed Scarecrows in Antonica Heroic again, an the riverbed skeles in TS Heroic, the main things you xp on till your mid 20's.

[Cheshirepezk]

<P align=center><FONT color=#ff6666>my husband and I hate grouping at low levels on our alt, because theres no real challenge to groups that aren't heroic and so you don't get the xp either.. honestly if there were more heroic encounters, I think a lot of people would be happier (me I'd love encounters like it was at launch) but I would settle for a happy medium just to see some.. it would suck though if they didn't... yeah I see where some people want to see solo content.. imo, at some of these zones, there's just too much of it.. i could get more xp on my own on my alt I level with him tbh atm... I don't particularly care for it personally... sure its nice to be able to solo things, but I think the grouping for community involved and what not is what is great about playing this game vs WoW... thats just my 2c though</FONT></P>

[Amise]

<div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Exmortis_MT wrote: <p>I do not, will not, ever understand the thought process behind joining an online community of hundreds of thousands to play by your self.  Quite frankly there are dozens of better games the EQ2 for that type of game play.</p> <p>The only reason to play online games is to play with or against other people.  </p> <div></div><hr></blockquote> Just because you do not understand it does not make it wrong.  There are very specific reasons to play an online game that aren't invalidated by solo play in the slightest.  What games are better than EQ2 for solo game play <i>of the type that EQ2 offers?   </i>Online games of this sort are unique in that they offer a never-ending world in which to develop a character or set of characters.  That is something that is simply not offered by any solo off-line RPG.     I have seen people on this board say well if you want to solo go play Baldur's Gate.   And this is what <i>I</i> don't understand - that people can see any resemblance between the two games at all (beyond the fact that they are called RPGs) to the point where playing BG would serve just as well as playing EQ2.  The Baldur's Gate series is a great set of games. I have played them all several times with different characters and party combinations.   I have also "soloed" all three games, in that I have played them all through with a single character (Archer kit is freaking awesome for BG2).    Have a quick think about it and you will see immediately that there are two  fairly significant differences between games like BG and games like EQ2. 1) when I play BG to the end, it's over.  If I want to play it again, I have to start a new game.  In an online game like EQ2 you don't have to finish playing one game and then start all over again with a new game.  There is a finite amount of content in BG that I can play and re-play but it will not be added to by the original game designers once the game has been published (note that I am aware of all the mods available and I have played many of them.  I said original designers).     On the other hand, while there isn't an infinite amount of content in EQ2 there is a lot more and it's being continually added to such that it is unlikely I will run out of things to do before I decide to stop playing the game. 2) When I am not playing EQ2 the world is still there and people are still in it.  When I stop playing BG, the world is not there and nothing is happening.    EQ2 cannot be paused, I can't save it and I can't reload when something goes wrong.  So tell me.  What am I to do if I want to play the kind of game that EQ2 is, but want to play it by myself?  What if I want to solo my way through a dynamic online world that persists and changes when I'm not around?  What if I want to play by myself in a world where I'm responsible for and have to live with my actions because I can't reload my game when the [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] hits the fan? The only reason for YOU to play online games might be to play with (or against) others but it is not particularly fair for others to be bound by your rules and opinions is it?  There ARE valid reasons to play an online game even if you are a die-hard soloer.  Just because you can't see and understand them does not invalidate those reasons.</span><div></div><p> </p> <p>Just to clarify.  I am not saying that rethinking what down-tiering did to the game is a bad thing.  I think they probably did go a little too far and some of the heroic mobs need to return.  But I don't think it will or should be at the expense of people who solo (whether it's by choice or neccessity).  Nor do I see why there has to be such a vast schism between soloers and groupers or anyone in between.  There is enough world for everyone, it just needs a little bit of retuning. </p> <p> </p><p>Message Edited by Amise on <span class=date_text>07-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:13 PM</span>

[Hyru]

One other thing of mention. What made EQ I turn in a uber guild fest? Simple, when you reached high level if you did not raid with a guild, you did not get to do cool quests, see cool zones, and get cool gear. simple. Please do not let that happen here, where the large raiding guilds once again prevail, and players who continue/or stay playing the game are forced to join em cause they cant beat em. Oh and BTW......I am not seeing this game as easy.....it is not like I am gaining a level a day, questing for exp is fun....thats how exp should be, rather than a mob grind. Hyrut

[Margen]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Hyrut1 wrote:<BR>One other thing of mention. What made EQ I turn in a uber guild fest? Simple, when you reached high level if you did not raid with a guild, you did not get to do cool quests, see cool zones, and get cool gear. simple.<BR><BR><BR>Please do not let that happen here, where the large raiding guilds once again prevail, and players who continue/or stay playing the game are forced to join em cause they cant beat em.<BR><BR>Oh and BTW......I am not seeing this game as easy.....it is not like I am gaining a level a day, questing for exp is fun....thats how exp should be, rather than a mob grind.<BR><BR><BR>Hyrut<BR><BR><BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Well said</P> <P>Blackoath</P>

[Mulethree]

<DIV>Rather, there may be issues that make grouping less desirable</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Mainly that the game has gotten so easy that anyone who has figured out the 'HO' can progress indefinitely.  This results in incompetent, immature or distracted players, under-equipped/under-upgraded characters out there looking for groups or sending blind invites until some hapless person groups up with them.  This results in a high level of dissapointment in "LFG's" and pick-up-groups in general.   The biggest 'challenges' left in the game are in figuring out the undocumented and illogical 'features'  and dealing with people who are allowed to play beyond their ability without stressing-out everyone involved.  'Features' like spell upgrades that aren't improvements, undocumented spell interactions, how to kill a monster that you can't 'see' because it's head is touching the wall or how to find the monster that you somehow can 'see' even though it's not on your screen beyond some orange and green numbers spouting up from the floor.  Personell problems like the guy who doesn't see the need for eating and drinking, or doesn't understand what his debuff spells are for or doesn't understand agro-control because they are all undocumented and he feals defensive that worked hard to level this far he surely must be doing it as 'right' as the other players his level.  Boot them from the group = stressful, don't boot them = stressful  I want the 'good' stress like deciding whether to run or keep fighting, not the heartburn stress of explaining to someone that if they aren't drinking they are holding the whole group back and contributing less than a drinking character could.   </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Add to it the solo/heroic classification which tailors one set of encounters to a single player and others to a 5-person group, with little regard for finding an appropriate challenge when there are 2,3,4,6,7 or 8 friends who happen to be online.   </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If my friend and I want a challenge we have to find a solo encounter between orange and one-level-into-red - yellow are not a challenge and one level more into the red and the mobs suddenly resist everything and can hardly be hit.  Or we can look for heroic mobs that are hard-green or easy-blue because easy-green are no challenge and hard blue heroics take so-long-to-kill as to not be worth the time.   Just an example because the whole con system gets out of whack when you cross a zoneline.  A L45 heroic in Rivervale is not equal to a L45 heroic in Cazic is not equal to a L45 heroic in splitpaw. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> Then we got to be level 48 or so and there were no more orange solos, few yellow ones and  easy green heroics are no challenge - though they take a LONG time - and one-level-higher hard-green heroics are a big challenge taking like 10 minutes and all your power.   The blue solo mobs are often dead before you can finish debuffing them and what good is a 30-second DOT spell in a 15 second fight?  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I much prefer the old mechanism where you pull as much as you want, and within the limits of your pulling/crowd control methods and the added risk of a bad pull, failure of a pacify etc.   In the current game several solo mob's often can't be consolidated into a 'bite-sized' challenge because so many of the AE spells are encounter spells rather than true AE spells.   There is no way for the user to define his own encounter by saying we want to fight these 3 solo mobs as an encounter, or we want to pacify - and exclude from the 'encounter' 2 of those 6 linked mobs.  Less skill required, less control over risk, fewer choices, less room for creativity ..... how do you do that and still keep it fun? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[imready2go]

<EM>While you're at it, since apparently you have some spare resources to spend on redesigning things, why not use them on getting rid of that "group mob" vs "solo mob" concept? It's been giving you headaches, costing you money and pi***ng off countless players. <FONT color=#cc00ff><B>Why not have normal mobs as everywhere else, plus some bosses/nameds, and scale the regular ones in difficulty and exp so that, as a rule of thumb: up to my level = solo; lvl+1 = duo; lvl+2 = trio; etc., plus minus 1 level to account for classes/equipment/madskillz disparity?</B></FONT> That way, as it used to be in other games, everyone will have access to all of the content, whether solo or as a group (but earlier if grouped).<BR><BR><SPAN></SPAN></EM> <P><BR><EM></EM></P> <HR> <P><EM>That is the best idea so far I've heard in the solo vs group issue thats been plaguing this game awhile now. Cater to one group you upset the other, and vice versa.  It seems reasonable that harder fights would require more and more people to defeat however as you get better skills/equipment those fights would become easier enough that you could solo it if need be though with a fair amount of difficulty.  This wouldnt require too much revamping of the current system and would make the game much more playable for all the various types of play styles.  Scaled creatures based on con color would fill a range of needs from both sides of this issue and help balance the games combat/quest system much more. <BR><BR>Working from a base of averages every ten levels one could develop a tier system where you look at what each of the classes base attack/defence/resist would be, scale the mobs in that range to solo green-white with varied degrees of difficulty vs xp and yellow/orange/red even to two/four/six member groups.  That way a solid tank with enhanced (think adept 3 etc) skills and top end equipment could solo yellows and oranges with the same degree of difficulty as a pair of average tanks with base skills/equipment.  This could also be form fitted to varying types of groups. <BR><BR>If SOE took the time to really look into this I know they could come up with a system that would generally smooth out the PvE issues that are cropping up.</EM></P> <P> </P> <P>The mob design in EQ2 is a complete and utter failure.  In designing a system of solo and group, normal and heroic, arrow up and arrow down, etc., Sony painted themselves into a corner.  With that type of system, they will never make all their customers happy.  That system totally inhibits FREEDOM for the players to make their own decisions about what they want to kill; instead, the game tells the player what they are supposed to kill.  That's not how the game should work, and that's why no one is happy.  The game should have been designed in a similar fashion to EQ1 - there was no confusion and players had the freedom to make decisions for themselves and not have everything dictated by the software.  The only thing you were forced to do in EQ1 was determine tactics in attacking certain mobs, and that was not a bad thing (in fact, it is one of the things sorely lacking in EQ2).</P> <P>There was nothing wrong with mob design in EQ1, but I guess someone at Sony decided they had to make changes (regardless of how bad the changes were) just so they could claim EQ2 was different from EQ1.  If Sony had stuck to the basics, then the system would could have been designed to cater to different play styles.  Unfortunately, they designed a piece of garbage and we're stuck with the mess.  And I would not expect any type of response (i.e., a re-design) because Sony is not about to admit they screwed up one of the basic designs of the game.</P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>