Solo Instances? Comments please....

[jasonwade]

<p>With the upcoming release of RoK - I thought it might be a good time to implement some new types of instanced zones (not only to the RoK content - but also to the previous areas of Norrath), specifically solo instances.  Any thoughts from other players?  </p><p>For all the solo players out there - and even those of us who like the occasional break from grouping/raiding - a few solo (or small group - up to 3 players) zones that include storylines, traps, etc. similar to Unrest (scaled down of course) would be an interesting addition.  The mechanics of these zones would only allow one (maybe up to 3) character to enter and rewards would be suitable for a solo "dungeon crawl".  </p><p>I posted a similar idea under another related topic, but wanted to get some additional feedback.  </p>

[Sassinak]

Solo instances are an old concept.  The game already has many solo instances for levels 15-45.  After that, SOE decided that they didn't like the concept, because it takes soloers out of the places where they might find others to group with.  So you aren't likely to see any more of them.  SOE would rather that soloers be in the outdoors and in the foyers of dungeons where they will encounter other players.From DoF onward, SOE changed their philosophy so that every dungeon would have a solo area, so that soloers would easily find groups if they wanted them.  So you have Clefts of Rujark (1st floor all solo), Silent City (front area all solo), Living Tombs and Tunaria (all throughfares are solo), and most other dungeons have at least a front area that is soloable.  All old dungeon revamps included a soloable section like this.Now that said, I loved nothing more than challenging myself to a large solo dungeon such as Sullon Mines at level 35.  I loved the challenge so much that I did 5 levels there when I first found it.  The extreme challenge of killing a boss mob alone, of choosing gear upgrades to try to help me beat them, etc. was very refreshing to me.  But you see SOE's issue with this: for 5 levels I was totally disconnected from the rest of the community.

[Leatherneck]

<cite>Sassinak wrote:</cite><blockquote>But you see SOE's issue with this: for 5 levels I was totally disconnected from the rest of the community.</blockquote>And on that, I disagree heaviliy with SOE.  Let's take your example, you weren't forced to solo.  Instead you were having fun doing content which happened to be solo.  Where is the harm in that?  You enjoyed something so much you stayed there for 5 levels, having fun.  Who does that hurt?

[Moongloom]

I still wish for a LDoN type of series, where as a group you can get missions to go do in random dungeons with (more random than what was actually in LDoN) random mob types.  Was my favorite expansion in EQ1. 

[Leatherneck]

<cite>Moongloom wrote:</cite><blockquote>I still wish for a LDoN type of series, where as a group you can get missions to go do in random dungeons with (more random than what was actually in LDoN) random mob types.  Was my favorite expansion in EQ1.  </blockquote>Mine too.  I liked that far better than any other expansion they came out with.

[jasonwade]

<p>The following is a quote from my original post (that spawned this topic): </p><p>"Dungeons are another matter.  While I think that the <u>entrance</u> areas inside public dungeons should include some solo content - deeper areas of public dungeons and all areas in group instances should contain heroic content that encourages "dungeon crawling" with a group.  This is the essence of most RPGs and it makes sense that the harder challenges that would require grouping would be found in dungeon settings (where they have had time to gain strength - away from the interference of civilization and the everyday adventurer).  With this said, I am surprised that no soloers suggested that SOE implement a few challenging, solo instances!  This would allow soloers to experience playing in a dungeon setting (including puzzles, traps, storylines, etc.) without the need to group.  These "solo-instances" would limit entry to solo players (maybe even groups of 3 or less, depending on flexibility of content).  Not only would these instances accommodate the player who prefers to solo, but they would more than likely be utilized by those of us who are locked out of other instanced zones or who want something to do while we wait for friends to log in, raids to start, etc."</p><p>Also - I fully agree with the previous post - SOE should not "force" anyone to group.  Supplying some challenging and fun solo content (for higher level players as well as low and mid level) just gives us more variety.  Who among us wouldn't like to be able to run a solo instance when they can't find a group, are waiting for friends to log in, or are just plain in a "soloing" mood?</p>

[Leatherneck]

<p>Any minute now, the anti-choice gamers will come out saying "OMG, you soloists expect raid level loot from solo instances!"  So I'll just head that off now.</p><p>I wouldn't care if the solo instances dropped only VENDOR LOOT.</p>

[Maroger]

<cite>jasonwade wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>The following is a quote from my original post (that spawned this topic): </p><p>"Dungeons are another matter.  While I think that the <u>entrance</u> areas inside public dungeons should include some solo content - deeper areas of public dungeons and all areas in group instances should contain heroic content that encourages "dungeon crawling" with a group.  This is the essence of most RPGs and it makes sense that the harder challenges that would require grouping would be found in dungeon settings (where they have had time to gain strength - away from the interference of civilization and the everyday adventurer).  With this said, I am surprised that no soloers suggested that SOE implement a few challenging, solo instances!  This would allow soloers to experience playing in a dungeon setting (including puzzles, traps, storylines, etc.) without the need to group.  These "solo-instances" would limit entry to solo players (maybe even groups of 3 or less, depending on flexibility of content).  Not only would these instances accommodate the player who prefers to solo, but they would more than likely be utilized by those of us who are locked out of other instanced zones or who want something to do while we wait for friends to log in, raids to start, etc."</p><p>Also - I fully agree with the previous post - SOE should not "force" anyone to group.  Supplying some challenging and fun solo content (for higher level players as well as low and mid level) just gives us more variety.  Who among us wouldn't like to be able to run a solo instance when they can't find a group, are waiting for friends to log in, or are just plain in a "soloing" mood?</p></blockquote><p>So far the solo instances I have done have not been all that great. Surely SOE could gives us some good solo instances at upper levels. They could probably take some of their current dungeons and make a few changes to the gangs of mobs and they would be great for solo instances. I would like some challenging solo instances.</p>

[Grim67]

<p>No I never met a soloer who expected a Solo mob to drop Raid Type loot.  They just solo to get mostly experience on days they cant group and yes maybe vendor loot to sell for a few cash.   That what i solo for experience and few silver.   If there is a soloer who want high loot for soloing he in the wrong game.  Me and the ones I met never did expect that.  When I want high loot I group on my days I can group.</p><p>Yes bring back LDoN i love that expansion.</p>

[Maroger]

<cite>Grim67 wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>No I never met a soloer who expected a Solo mob to drop Raid Type loot.  They just solo to get mostly experience on days they cant group and yes maybe vendor loot to sell for a few cash.   That what i solo for experience and few silver.   If there is a soloer who want high loot for soloing he in the wrong game.  Me and the ones I met never did expect that.  When I want high loot I group on my days I can group.</p><p>Yes bring back LDoN i love that expansion.</p></blockquote>I have always believed that the reward should be commensurate with the difficulty. In many cases raids are not that difficult but soloing a lot of instances is.  People fail to appreciate the difficult involved in soloing effectively.

[Sassinak]

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>So far the solo instances I have done have not been all that great. </blockquote>They are good enough, although many of them are small.  But the basic problem with them is that the boss mobs are too rare.  I have done them extensively and the boss mobs show up <i><u>maybe</u></i> 1 in 6 runs.  Most solo instances have several named mobs that can spawn, and yet on most runs you will see none at all.    They are so rare that you can't even google most of their names.The only real change necessary is to guarantee at least one named mob every time you go in.  The loot they drop isn't going to cripple the economy, but it will make the visit feel worthwhile.  In exchange, they could implement a 1-hour lockout or something like that.I love how there are so many solo instances through the 20's and 30's.  I do wish there were more of them at higher levels.  But without a reward every time you go inside, there's no point in making any more of them.

[Armawk]

<p>Its indeed the norm, and a stupid one, to think of the game as solo-group-raid = easy-hard-veryhard</p><p>Ill tell anyone that likes that soloing very tough content can be harder than any group Ive ever been in, and given how many raiders will proudly tell you they have never wiped in certain raid zones in spite of running them dozens of times the same is also true for SOME raiding (IMPORTANT NOTE: I have no doubt that the hardest raid stuff is the hardest thing in the game by far)</p><p>Unless the difficulty they refer to is getting the group/raid together, but I dont think thats the actual thing they do mean. Rainding of course is about building up your gear over a long time and getting ready for the harder raids, and its totally appropriate that raid drops are on a different level to other drops. Theres little logic in group drops being much much better than solo ones though.</p><p>The problem of course is that if you make very tough solo content with good loot then groups will play it all the time, roll it too easily and therefore decent loot isnt viable from it.. but solo instances solve that problem. If you cant zone a group in you cant do the instance with a group so you have to work it the hard way, and if its a well laid out dungeon you cant bypass the mobs and go zap the named etc.</p><p>Soloing is a very valid style, and theres value in making it fun. Not huge amounts of solo instances mind, its not an offline game, but a few in each tier would be nice.</p>

[LordPazuzu]

For me, Solo Instances are somthing to do when I'm really bored, but feeling anti-social, yet still want to play one of my characters.  9 times out of 10 I'd rather be grouping, but a solo instance is a good thing to do when you just can't get a group, or are just having a bad day.

[aquavia]

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite> <blockquote><p>Soloing is a very valid style, and theres value in making it fun. Not huge amounts of solo instances mind, its not an offline game, but a few in each tier would be nice.</p></blockquote>I very much agree with this (and the rest of shaunfletcher's post, actually).  Personally, I have gained a lot of knowledge about the finer points of my class from playing in a variety of situations: solo/duo/trio, as well as the usual 6-person group, and raids of various sizes.  Playing in a non-typical setup is really a chance to test one's limits.

[Rahatmattata]

<p>No thanks. There's already tons and tons and tons of stuff to do solo. I'd prefer more group/raid oriented stuff.</p><p>And I'm sorry but, getting 24 people together at the same time all on the same page doing what they are supposed to do is a bit more challenging than going somewhere and killing a solo mob by yourself.</p>

[Armawk]

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>No thanks. There's already tons and tons and tons of stuff to do solo. I'd prefer more group/raid oriented stuff.</p><p>And I'm sorry but, getting 24 people together at the same time all on the same page doing what they are supposed to do is a bit more challenging than going somewhere and killing a solo mob by yourself.</p></blockquote><p>a DIFFERENT challenge. And organising a raid is indeed a complex challenge for the organiser/s.. most people arent the organisers though.</p><p>Oh  and if you think soloing consists of going and killing a solo mob then you have perhaps forgotten what the game involves outside the raid zones?</p>

[kcirrot]

<cite>jasonwade wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>With the upcoming release of RoK - I thought it might be a good time to implement some new types of instanced zones (not only to the RoK content - but also to the previous areas of Norrath), specifically solo instances.  Any thoughts from other players?  </p><p>For all the solo players out there - and even those of us who like the occasional break from grouping/raiding - a few solo (or small group - up to 3 players) zones that include storylines, traps, etc. similar to Unrest (scaled down of course) would be an interesting addition.  The mechanics of these zones would only allow one (maybe up to 3) character to enter and rewards would be suitable for a solo "dungeon crawl".  </p><p>I posted a similar idea under another related topic, but wanted to get some additional feedback.  </p></blockquote>I group and raid regularly and I would love to see some solo instances.

[Haapy]

There already are a few of fun solo instances for higher levels in game:Nest, HoF (if you are a coercer), Poet's Palace, Monk trials on Island of Mara (only fun a first few times though), Den, Acad.Non-instanced  zones for soloing include Forsaken City, SoS, PoA, Shimmering Citadel.Just because the mobs are heroics, does not make it a non-solo instance. With a right class, gear and strategy, most of group zones are perfectly soloable. Now, I really hope that OP does not mean he wants instances soloable by ANYBODY, with any gear, skill level and ANY class. An instance tuned for a templars in treasured (or worse!) gear with  App1 spells  that have never  been outside a group before would be incredibly boring for 99% of population. One thing I really wish is that SoE would scale and upgrade Splitpaw to make it an attractive option for soloers once again.

[Armawk]

<cite>Haapy wrote:</cite><blockquote>There already are a few of fun solo instances for higher levels in game:Nest, HoF (if you are a coercer), Poet's Palace, Monk trials on Island of Mara (only fun a first few times though), Den, Acad.Non-instanced  zones for soloing include Forsaken City, SoS, PoA, Shimmering Citadel.Just because the mobs are heroics, does not make it a non-solo instance. With a right class, gear and strategy, most of group zones are perfectly soloable. Now, I really hope that OP does not mean he wants instances soloable by ANYBODY, with any gear, skill level and ANY class. An instance tuned for a templars in treasured (or worse!) gear with  App1 spells  that have never  been outside a group before would be incredibly boring for 99% of population. One thing I really wish is that SoE would scale and upgrade Splitpaw to make it an attractive option for soloers once again.</blockquote><p>Indeed, heroic mobs do NOT mean its not soloable.. if its packed throughout with 3up heroics its likely to be unplayable for soloers in a reasonable range though. Ill add my voice in for solo meaning tough but soloable.</p>

[PhozFa]

<p>the problem with solo instances is the fact not all classes are equal. In a perfect world i see nothing wrong with a very hard solo instance capable (not always gaurenteed) of getting something decent (but not raid quality) but the fact is some classes will do it alot easier than other classes. the classes that generally find it harder will complain and whine till some sort of nerf happens either to the better solo'ing classes or dumbing down the instance/reward.</p><p> to a pervious poster saying about group content is trivial. you are almost right. Most is. We do need more zones like nizara in rok thats like x2 content made for single groups. Not too many thou. Drops should be entry level raid gear so people can farm them to gear up before hitting some of the raid content and prefeable make the group instance require you to learn basic raid tactics that newer players are unfamiliar with which handicaps them when raiding with people who've done raids since T5 which noone does anymore</p>

[Rainfinder]

<p>I personaly dont see any thing wrong with adding solo instances. Whether you group, raid, or just want to solo all the time , there is days you just want to go off by your self and be away from everyone else. And there is nothing wrong with that. </p><p>Also I dont see a problem with  solo instance giveing some decent treasured gear. The gear should reflect the difficulty of the task at hand. An easy zone should give low lvl loot , medium range in diff. should yeld decent  loot , hard diffculty should yeld some good treaured gear.</p><p>The one problem with dungeons and thier solo areas is often they are over ran by to many players and then the plat farmers/sellers take the area over eventualy. So yes  imo I would like very much to see solo instances put into the game for higher lvl areas and future expansions.</p>

[TaleraRis]

I would love to see more solo instances. Putting challenge back into soloing is something that could benefit EQ2 greatly, not the watered down version of soloing that's in the game right now. All the overland zones having solo mobs seems to me to be is just lip service to the idea of soloing with no effort to put thought or creativity into making it a valid playstyle. I don't solo because I'm anti-social really. I solo because most of the PUGs I join just want to grind, either grind an instance so I can't really pay heed to the lore, or grind mobs somewhere over and over and over a la EQ Live. Plus I enjoy questing and most groups just don't want to quest, at least not quests besides the "good" quests. I quest just to quest because I have fun with it. I hate being limited in the ones I can do because my group decides the rewards aren't good enough.

[Belaythien]

I'd love to see more solo instances. After all doing the same group instances over and over is boring after some time. It is also getting increasingly difficult to even find a group so we should at least have something to do solo. Of course that would only make sense if solo instances would actually drop decent loot. So far each and every solo content in EQ2 drops rubbish. All those solo nameds only drop vendor trash nobody in their right mind would even consider wearing. Without decent loot you might as well waste your time in overland zones and hunt for sellloot.The problem with solo instances however is that some classes will easily run through them while others (templars or bards) will have a REALLY hard time. Making solo instances hard would require the game to adjust to the class of the player. You can't make an instance hard for a good soloing class and thus prohibit support classes from going there.

[Arleonenis]

<p>solo instances are bad idea, why you may ask? and the answer is inbalance in soloing ability of many classes. You remember splitpaw? So nice for some classess but for others it was major pain. For example imagine templar soloing entire dungeon, is it doable? sure but it will take eternity, and what about ranger? small closed spaces without place to kite are a nightmare. Class that can pass in group and be very usefull may be very bad at soloing, not that it cant be done in most cases but its to painfull to even try, and costly repair bill wise.</p><p>So basically you ask for content that not only is geared to part of the population but also for only part of classes. I already can imagine the whine that will start when it will be implemented: "my class isnt geared to solo that", "i wasted my money on it", "i quit" and soe really have enough whines already (many legitimate) to add another controversial feature into game that will create much more whine and worst of they will have a point there.</p><p>Existing soloing is already very rich, in any level you can find very interesting zones, why to create instances especially geared for it? almost entire outdoor is solo friendly, and if you like to solo and have instance feeling try new tunaria though this is shared dungeon but its extremally solo friendly</p>

[Leatherneck]

<cite>Arleonenis wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>sure but it will take eternity, and what about ranger? small closed spaces without place to kite are a nightmare. </p></blockquote>My main is a ranger in treasured/legendary.  He solo'd just fine in Splitpaw until 50, at which point I didn't feel it was worth going in there anymore.

[TaleraRis]

<cite>Belaythien wrote:</cite><blockquote>The problem with solo instances however is that some classes will easily run through them while others (templars or bards) will have a REALLY hard time. Making solo instances hard would require the game to adjust to the class of the player. You can't make an instance hard for a good soloing class and thus prohibit support classes from going there.</blockquote>I think they could benefit from the past a bit there. They could take a feather from the old class quests, that were tailored instances with challenges geared toward one class, since it was your turning point for taking the next step up either into your class or your subclass. It would require a lot of effort on the part of the development, though. Then there's the issue of which levels, although I think EQ2 could take another feather there from CoX and at least try to look into scaleable instances, both by level and by amount of people, not to mention that CoX allows you to choose your own challenge rating. Granted, there are no loot drops, but a hybrid of the idea wouldn't be a bad start.

[Maroger]

<cite>Sassinak wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>So far the solo instances I have done have not been all that great. </blockquote>They are good enough, although many of them are small.  But the basic problem with them is that the boss mobs are too rare.  I have done them extensively and the boss mobs show up <i><u>maybe</u></i> 1 in 6 runs.  Most solo instances have several named mobs that can spawn, and yet on most runs you will see none at all.    They are so rare that you can't even google most of their names.The only real change necessary is to guarantee at least one named mob every time you go in.  The loot they drop isn't going to cripple the economy, but it will make the visit feel worthwhile.  In exchange, they could implement a 1-hour lockout or something like that.I love how there are so many solo instances through the 20's and 30's.  I do wish there were more of them at higher levels.  But without a reward every time you go inside, there's no point in making any more of them.</blockquote>I never realized a boss was supposed to be there. There sure haven't been any when I have run them and I have never gone back for a second try as they were so dull and unrewarding -- I mean even the coin loot was junk.

[Maroger]

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>The problem of course is that if you make very tough solo content with good loot then groups will play it all the time, roll it too easily and therefore decent loot isnt viable from it.. but solo instances solve that problem. If you cant zone a group in you cant do the instance with a group so you have to work it the hard way, and if its a well laid out dungeon you cant bypass the mobs and go zap the named etc.</p><p>Soloing is a very valid style, and theres value in making it fun. Not huge amounts of solo instances mind, its not an offline game, but a few in each tier would be nice.</p></blockquote>When I was in EQ1 and they released LDON -- you had to have a certain number to enter the zone or even get the quest. Surely they can make a solo instance that only allows ONE person in the zone.

[Armawk]

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>The problem of course is that if you make very tough solo content with good loot then groups will play it all the time, roll it too easily and therefore decent loot isnt viable from it.. but solo instances solve that problem. If you cant zone a group in you cant do the instance with a group so you have to work it the hard way, and if its a well laid out dungeon you cant bypass the mobs and go zap the named etc.</p><p>Soloing is a very valid style, and theres value in making it fun. Not huge amounts of solo instances mind, its not an offline game, but a few in each tier would be nice.</p></blockquote>When I was in EQ1 and they released LDON -- you had to have a certain number to enter the zone or even get the quest. Surely they can make a solo instance that only allows ONE person in the zone. </blockquote>Thats what a solo instance is, and thus thats why I said they would solve the problem.

[Leatherneck]

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>No thanks. There's already tons and tons and tons of stuff to do solo. I'd prefer more group/raid oriented stuff.</p><p>And I'm sorry but, getting 24 people together at the same time all on the same page doing what they are supposed to do is a bit more challenging than going somewhere and killing a solo mob by yourself.</p></blockquote>No it's not.  I ran many, many raids in EQ with up to 72 people.  The "work" for the average raider is not all that difficult.  Run here.  Stand here.  Shoot shoot shoot.  /tell so-and-so Gratz.

[Noaani]

<p>The real question is, what is the difference between soloing in a solo instance and soloing in an overland zone?</p><p>I have yet to see a solo area of an overland zone full to capacity of soloers. I have yet to see a group of more than 2 people powering through a solo overland area.</p><p>The chances of getting more from a solo instance than we do from non instanced solo names is non existant, so loot is not a reason to want solo instances. XP would not be increases in solo instances, so is not a reason to want them.</p><p>Since there is a limited amount of resources avalible to create an expansion, and those reasourses would be divided up into solo/group/raid content as SoE sees fit, adding solo instances would by necessity reduce the amount of overland solo content. </p><p>So, the only thing I can think of that adding solo instances would do to the game is create portions of solo content that, once finished, a player is locked out of for a period of time. Is that a good thing to have?</p>

[Leatherneck]

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>The real question is, what is the difference between soloing in a solo instance and soloing in an overland zone?</p></blockquote>I haven't had a plat-farmer yet infect (and yes, I mean infect, not affect or even effect) my experience in an instance.  I have been soloing places and all but run out of the zone by plat-farmers.

[Sassinak]

The difference in a solo instance is that you (usually) can't run away, and you lose the whole instance if you die.

[Armawk]

<p>exactly.. its about the challenge. In an instance run you have to keep going forwards, you either progress or you die/leave. The mobs keep coming, there is pressure and it can be difficult. The point is the progressively harder fight to the end, managing resources and skills to get there alive.</p><p>Id think a raider would get that, as thats the point of raids isnt it?</p>

[Hekynn]

They should put dungeon instances like from ldon in rok with solo option for all dungeon for people that wants to solo and a raid option too =) i think then Rok will get more eq2 newbies into the game =)

[TaleraRis]

<cite>Leatherneck wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>No thanks. There's already tons and tons and tons of stuff to do solo. I'd prefer more group/raid oriented stuff.</p><p>And I'm sorry but, getting 24 people together at the same time all on the same page doing what they are supposed to do is a bit more challenging than going somewhere and killing a solo mob by yourself.</p></blockquote>No it's not.  I ran many, many raids in EQ with up to 72 people.  The "work" for the average raider is not all that difficult.  Run here.  Stand here.  Shoot shoot shoot.  /tell so-and-so Gratz.</blockquote>Exactly! Where is the work in being told what you need to do? I will agree that it's work for the organizers, or even group leaders. But the vast majority of people in a raid are just following what they're told to do. That is no more "work" than a soloer going against a solo mob, or a group going against a group mob.

[jasonwade]

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>The real question is, what is the difference between soloing in a solo instance and soloing in an overland zone?</p></blockquote><p>I am glad to see that so many people have responded so far with their opinions regarding this topic - hopefully the developers take notice.  Sounds like most people are supportive of solo instances.</p><p>In any event - I wanted to directly respond to the question posed by the poster above.  The real difference between soloing in an instance an soloing in an overland zone is the experience itself.  Soloing in an overland zone generally means "grinding" for most players - not to say that there aren't some decent solo quests that could be implemented to offset the boredom associated with grinding - but for all intents and purposes it is still repetitious killing of mobs.  A solo or small group (3 players or less) instance on the other hand could incorporate a storyline, puzzles, etc. and added challenges.  Of course added challenge goes hand in hand with higher quality loot - but looting would not be the primary reason for a solo instance - the main purpose would be to add more fun to the game (think of some of the great group instances that have been implemented with storylines, lore, traps, and puzzles like Unrest and Nektropos).  Solo instances could also be incorporated into longer questlines (i.e. Claymore-type quest series) - making a step of the longer series require the player to perform a heroic action all on their own (thereby giving all players the opportunity to experience them and not feel like they are wasting valuable grouping/raiding time since they will be working toward a largert goal).</p><p>In any event, I don't think a few solo instances would hurt the multi-player aspects of EQ2 - they would simply be there as an added bonus for all players regardless of play style.</p>

[Talz]

<cite>jasonwade wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>The real question is, what is the difference between soloing in a solo instance and soloing in an overland zone?</p></blockquote><p>I am glad to see that so many people have responded so far with their opinions regarding this topic - hopefully the developers take notice.  Sounds like most people are supportive of solo instances.</p><p>In any event - I wanted to directly respond to the question posed by the poster above.  The real difference between soloing in an instance an soloing in an overland zone is the experience itself.  Soloing in an overland zone generally means "grinding" for most players - not to say that there aren't some decent solo quests that could be implemented to offset the boredom associated with grinding - but for all intents and purposes it is still repetitious killing of mobs.  A solo or small group (3 players or less) instance on the other hand could incorporate a storyline, puzzles, etc. and added challenges.  <span style="color: #00ff00;">Of course added challenge goes hand in hand with higher quality loot - but looting would not be the primary reason for a solo instance - the main purpose would be to add more fun to the game (think of some of the great group instances that have been implemented with storylines, lore, traps, and puzzles like Unrest and Nektropos).</span>  Solo instances could also be incorporated into longer questlines (i.e. Claymore-type quest series) - making a step of the longer series require the player to perform a heroic action all on their own (thereby giving all players the opportunity to experience them and not feel like they are wasting valuable grouping/raiding time since they will be working toward a largert goal).</p><p>In any event, I don't think a few solo instances would hurt the multi-player aspects of EQ2 - they would simply be there as an added bonus for all players regardless of play style.</p></blockquote>I believe it's fair to say that the chances of meaningful and in depth solo instanced content are so rare that we may never see them.  That's too bad because they could be fun.The problem is the players.  Challenging solo content isn't something SOE will tailor.  You aren't going to get 24 versions of an instance.  SOE just won't do it.So what do they do?  They put in things like the arena champion and monk trials.  They have a base difficulty and some classes have an easier time with it than others.  What happens?  People whine and moan while making up stories that it's impossible for X class.Challenging solo content gets little use and the only solo content that's challenging are the monk trials.  People don't do them very much.  Surprise.. surprise.The player base has unfortunately been given a voice with this issue.  Harclave loot and fast experience YES!  No experience and little, if any loot NO!  Introduce loot and the quality of the loot will increase the rants by crappy and lazy players which are unfortunately listened to.I loved the monk trials.  I think they're the only challenging area in the entire game but their replay value is small.  I would love instances with lore and challenging things to do on the level that the trials are.  I bet we get another Shattered Veil or whatever it was called.  It was touch and go for a minute but when my cat finally pressed the autoattack button the portal monster died.

[Armawk]

<p>The monk trials are a:amusing like once then mindkillingly repetitive, and b: only available in a paid adventure pack.</p><p>Of course they arent popular!</p>

[Belaythien]

Well there are two core problems:- Zones have to adjust to the class of the player.- Loot has to be decent, yet not more than you get in groups.Both aren't really hard to tackle, are they?As I see it solo areas in overland zones are a waste of time. Even nameds only drop junk. Why not make a solo instance with legendary items that are no-trade and few sellloot to prevent farming? Or a very good treasured set that drops in solo instances? There would have to be a loot incentive or else they would be as superflous as most solo areas. The only reason for solo overland zones is that you can make quests without getting torn to shreds.

[Leatherneck]

<cite>Talzar wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>I believe it's fair to say that the chances of meaningful and in depth solo instanced content are so rare that we may never see them.  That's too bad because they could be fun.The problem is the players.  Challenging solo content isn't something SOE will tailor.  You aren't going to get 24 versions of an instance.  SOE just won't do it.So what do they do?  They put in things like the arena champion and monk trials.  They have a base difficulty and some classes have an easier time with it than others.  What happens?  People whine and moan while making up stories that it's impossible for X class.Challenging solo content gets little use and the only solo content that's challenging are the monk trials.  People don't do them very much.  Surprise.. surprise.The player base has unfortunately been given a voice with this issue.  Harclave loot and fast experience YES!  No experience and little, if any loot NO!  Introduce loot and the quality of the loot will increase the rants by crappy and lazy players which are unfortunately listened to.I loved the monk trials.  I think they're the only challenging area in the entire game but their replay value is small.  I would love instances with lore and challenging things to do on the level that the trials are.  I bet we get another Shattered Veil or whatever it was called.  It was touch and go for a minute but when my cat finally pressed the autoattack button the portal monster died.</blockquote></blockquote><p>None of those are givens though.  You say that people won't use it if there are no experience and little if any loot.  Well of course they won't.  People don't do heroic instances that have no exp or loot, why would soloists?</p><p>The only two situations you show there are Harclaves and no exp or loot.  There is a whole spectrum of possibilities inbetween.</p><p>I've done each of the splitpaw solo instances at least once.  My favorite thing to do, by far, is hideout.  However, I don't complete it.  I kill all the mobs in there, skip blowing up the kegs, zone out, reacquire quest, do it again, so the only thing I'm getting is the random coin, tradeskill material substitutes and the random small chest.  However, I rather like it.  It's calm, mello, gives meaningful-though not excessive-exp.  I don't have to worry about a random group bulling their way into the area I'm working and taking it over, as has happened to me recently at all different tiers of overland play.</p><p>Maybe they won't (and possibly shouldn't) tune it for 24 different classes, but I don't think they have to.  Adjusting the difficulty as a player choice (like the current normal, difficult, very difficult) would work out just fine.</p><p>I really liked the system DAoC had with it's catacombs expansion.  Get your instance, work as far into it as you could, collect crystals, trade crystals for gear, rinse-repeat.  Each instance was tiered, so you would end up bluing, greening and eventually greying out the instance.  At that point, you go to the next tier up which would be located somewhere else.  It was the exact same instance every time, so you could challenge yourself to actually finish the instance.  Once you got that down pat, finish it in under 2 hours...then 90 minutes...then 60 minutes, etc.  If you got bored of doing that, there was the whole rest of the game to do.  You could take groups in or do it solo, so if you had a duo that liked to play together but had a tough time finding content, that was your "out".</p><p>I don't think you could sell either the loot or the rewards, so it was like LDoN in that regard.</p><p>I group about 40-50% of the time and solo the rest, but it seems to me that groupers feel threatened by being able to meaningfully solo.</p><p>Is that because they think if people had a choice there would be less groups?</p>

[TaleraRis]

<cite>Leatherneck wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>I group about 40-50% of the time and solo the rest, but it seems to me that groupers feel threatened by being able to meaningfully solo.</p><p>Is that because they think if people had a choice there would be less groups?</p></blockquote>I think it hearkens back to the unfortunate adage that has developed in online games that more people = more fun and more challenge.  I second the support of puzzles that was mentioned earlier, too. I love puzzles. I've been playing through Minish Cap and remembering anew that the biggest reason I love the Zelda series are all the clever puzzles to solve. Having a solo instance that required thought would be a nice addition.

[Devbear]

I think solo instances are a bad idea, If you want to solo, make a necro or conj. I like playing a Templar, and if my templar can't find a group because everyone is soloing, then that's more than a bummer.

[Hikinami]

I would love to see puzzles in things.

[Grass]

<cite>Devbear wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think solo instances are a bad idea, If you want to solo, make a necro or conj. I like playing a Templar, and if my templar can't find a group because everyone is soloing, then that's more than a bummer.</blockquote><p>What?</p><p> You like to play a Templar so to insure that you always have a group (aside from joining a like-minded guild or just being a really good templar) you want to force everyone to evergroup.  Wow, I think your mentality sums up why so many want solo instances.  What did necro or conj have to do with it?  Do they get to goto solo instances I am not aware of?</p><p> to sum up... your selfish!</p>

[Vatec]

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Its indeed the norm, and a stupid one, to think of the game as solo-group-raid = easy-hard-veryhard</p><p>Ill tell anyone that likes that soloing very tough content can be harder than any group Ive ever been in, and given how many raiders will proudly tell you they have never wiped in certain raid zones in spite of running them dozens of times the same is also true for SOME raiding (IMPORTANT NOTE: I have no doubt that the hardest raid stuff is the hardest thing in the game by far)</p><p>Unless the difficulty they refer to is getting the group/raid together, but I dont think thats the actual thing they do mean. Rainding of course is about building up your gear over a long time and getting ready for the harder raids, and its totally appropriate that raid drops are on a different level to other drops. Theres little logic in group drops being much much better than solo ones though.</p><p>The problem of course is that if you make very tough solo content with good loot then groups will play it all the time, roll it too easily and therefore decent loot isnt viable from it.. but solo instances solve that problem. If you cant zone a group in you cant do the instance with a group so you have to work it the hard way, and if its a well laid out dungeon you cant bypass the mobs and go zap the named etc.</p><p>Soloing is a very valid style, and theres value in making it fun. Not huge amounts of solo instances mind, its not an offline game, but a few in each tier would be nice.</p></blockquote>Heh. I may disagree with you over fluff clothing, but I agree entirely here.  Most heroic/group content is pathetically easy if you more than three people, especially if you have a tank, a healer, and some DPS.  To exacerbate the problem, most pickup groups won't roll without a full complement of people and a mix of classes.  And, of course, at least one person is a level 50+ mentoring down to the highest person in the group, who is already 8-10 levels higher than the content.  Because it's natural for people to want to minimize risk, especially when there are other players involved.Conversely, some quests and instances are almost impossible for some classes to solo, even if they're 10 levels above the area.  But =that= isn't a problem.  Running around by yourself, especially in dungeons, =should= be hard.  Personally, I do it for a combination of reasons, but the increased challenge is high on that list.  I'd rather solo a green ^^^ or a green heroic group than chain-pull blue-white solo mobs or totally pwn a dungeon with an overpowered group....That being said, I think Splitpaw Saga pretty much killed the idea of solo instances.  For the first couple of months it was out, half the population disappeared into that place because it was easy xp (for most classes) and a decent money.  I would love to see more well-designed solo instances, but I don't have high hopes in that regard....

[Talz]

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>The monk trials are a:amusing like once then mindkillingly repetitive, and b: only available in a paid adventure pack.</p><p>Of course they arent popular!</p></blockquote>I agree that they have little replay value but it's really the only challenging solo content in the game and there's little to no interest in it.

[Belaythien]

<cite>Hikinami@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>I would love to see puzzles in things.</blockquote>That would be a great idea for solo instances, something to think about, like the Splitpaw x2 raid. This raid was always fun, with the exception that 10 players were afk while 2 tried to solve the riddles. It's something you can't do in groups because they don't have the patience but it would be fun solo, like a set of minigames.

[jasonwade]

<cite>Devbear wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think solo instances are a bad idea, If you want to solo, make a necro or conj. I like playing a Templar, and if my templar can't find a group because everyone is soloing, then that's more than a bummer.</blockquote><p>I saw that another poster already responded to this quote - but due to the fact that I started this topic I felt compelled to respond to this one as well.  The fact is that just about every single class in the game can solo.  Is it easier for some classes than others?  Yes, probably.  But that is each players choice when they create their character.  Further, I personally play a Templar - and I have no trouble soloing.  I think that a person's ability to solo is based on two things - 1) their personal ability/familiarity with their chosen class and 2) their selection of enemies to solo.  As a Templar I normally solo undead since that is where my offensive abilities tend to shine (btw there is no shortage of undead mobs in any tier).  I actually have been able to solo the front entrance of Mistmoore Castle (almost to the pianist) - with the right selection of AAs and equipment it is still challenging and fun, but possible.  No one is going to be the best at everything - some classes just require more strategy when soloing than others - but once again - that is a choice each of us makes.</p><p>Finally, I intended this thread to serve as a place for people to lend their support (or voice their concerns) about adding INTERESTING/CHALLENGING solo instances to the game - zones that have a point for existing (storylines, interesting NPCs, traps, unique environments, strategic encounters, etc.) beyond <u>just</u> loot or the normal grind that we could enjoy when we feel like being alone for whatever reason. </p><p>Wouldn't it be fun to navigate a dungeon on your own, solving dynamic puzzles along the way, maybe with different paths to the same "boss" room each of which caters to the general class archtypes (a gauntlet of traps and areas that require stealth rather than assault for scout classes, a labyrinth filled with undead or tests of faith for priests, logic puzzles for mages, and a gladiator battle for fighters)?  Maybe even a x2 "boss" at the end who could be reduced to a ^^heroic by destroying its power sources along the way to the final showdown.  I just want to see more content that has the ability to present a storyline or strategy rather than just hacking my way through x number of mobs again and again.</p>

[Vatec]

<cite>jasonwade wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Devbear wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think solo instances are a bad idea, If you want to solo, make a necro or conj. I like playing a Templar, and if my templar can't find a group because everyone is soloing, then that's more than a bummer.</blockquote><p>I saw that another poster already responded to this quote - but due to the fact that I started this topic I felt compelled to respond to this one as well.  The fact is that just about every single class in the game can solo.  Is it easier for some classes than others?  Yes, probably.  But that is each players choice when they create their character.  Further, I personally play a Templar - and I have no trouble soloing.  I think that a person's ability to solo is based on two things - 1) their personal ability/familiarity with their chosen class and 2) their selection of enemies to solo.  As a Templar I normally solo undead since that is where my offensive abilities tend to shine (btw there is no shortage of undead mobs in any tier).  I actually have been able to solo the front entrance of Mistmoore Castle (almost to the pianist) - with the right selection of AAs and equipment it is still challenging and fun, but possible.  No one is going to be the best at everything - some classes just require more strategy when soloing than others - but once again - that is a choice each of us makes.</p><p>Finally, I intended this thread to serve as a place for people to lend their support (or voice their concerns) about adding INTERESTING/CHALLENGING solo instances to the game - zones that have a point for existing (storylines, interesting NPCs, traps, unique environments, strategic encounters, etc.) beyond <u>just</u> loot or the normal grind that we could enjoy when we feel like being alone for whatever reason. </p><p>Wouldn't it be fun to navigate a dungeon on your own, solving dynamic puzzles along the way, maybe with different paths to the same "boss" room each of which caters to the general class archtypes (a gauntlet of traps and areas that require stealth rather than assault for scout classes, a labyrinth filled with undead or tests of faith for priests, logic puzzles for mages, and a gladiator battle for fighters)?  Maybe even a x2 "boss" at the end who could be reduced to a ^^heroic by destroying its power sources along the way to the final showdown.  I just want to see more content that has the ability to present a storyline or strategy rather than just hacking my way through x number of mobs again and again.</p></blockquote>I would love to see content like this, but I'm not sure it's in SOE's best interest to create it.  I particularly like the idea that different classes would have different ways to deal with the situation, because I frankly hated all the puzzles in Splitpaw.  But again, such areas would require a lot of time to design properly and wouldn't necessarily be used by the majority of the player base.  Then again, raid zones also take a lot of time to design properly and probably benefit even fewer players, so maybe it would be a good idea after all....

[LiNkInPaRk789]

I've thought of something like that as well. I know online games are designed to be online group games, but I would like to see some soloing opportunities too. I thought maybe they could make two different "paths" for each quest (maybe not all as that would take forever to redo, but most or many). For example, when you walk into a dungeon alone for a quest, you get the solo dungeon vs. the group one (less creatures, no heroics, ect.)

[Vatec]

<cite>LiNkInPaRk789 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've thought of something like that as well. I know online games are designed to be online group games, but I would like to see some soloing opportunities too. I thought maybe they could make two different "paths" for each quest (maybe not all as that would take forever to redo, but most or many). For example, when you walk into a dungeon alone for a quest, you get the solo dungeon vs. the group one (less creatures, no heroics, ect.) </blockquote>There are a few instances like that where you can choose a "solo" or "heroic" version.  The Pirate Stash or whatever it's called in Thundering Steppes, the Caves of Wonder in Enchanted Land.  Problem is, I'm guessing they were a lot of work because they needed to be populated and itemized individually.  Also, they pretty much suck (boring, linear, almost no nameds, etc.).As far as I can tell, SOE has stopped doing these multi-purpose instances, so there's probably a reason....

[LiNkInPaRk789]

<cite>Vatec wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>LiNkInPaRk789 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've thought of something like that as well. I know online games are designed to be online group games, but I would like to see some soloing opportunities too. I thought maybe they could make two different "paths" for each quest (maybe not all as that would take forever to redo, but most or many). For example, when you walk into a dungeon alone for a quest, you get the solo dungeon vs. the group one (less creatures, no heroics, ect.) </blockquote><p>There are a few instances like that where you can choose a "solo" or "heroic" version.  The Pirate Stash or whatever it's called in Thundering Steppes, the Caves of Wonder in Enchanted Land.  Problem is, I'm guessing they were a lot of work because they needed to be populated and itemized individually.  Also, they pretty much suck (boring, linear, almost no nameds, etc.).As far as I can tell, SOE has stopped doing these multi-purpose instances, so there's probably a reason....</p></blockquote>Maybe they messed up with their first try. They could start again.