1. Hey Guest! If you're more than just a WildStar fan and want to keep up on the latest MMO news, reviews and opinion pieces then I'd like to suggest you visit our sister site MMO Central

Elder Game / Raid gear and how to not make raids mandatory for non raiders

Discussion in 'WildStar General' started by Fownie, Jul 31, 2013.

  1. Kayelia

    Kayelia Cupcake

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I don't think so. At least, not inherently. A "soloer" can contribute to multiplayer in a lot of ways: crafting, providing materials, figuring out gameplay mechanics, etc. Also, a world filled with players helps make a world feel alive in a way npcs cannot. I don't think that can be found elsewhere. Even ignoring all that, I've seen "soloers" party with people quite often. The "Solo" content can include content for 2 to 4 players which is what many of board games or card games use. At a minimum, carbine itself said "solo" content is solo+small group content.



    There is a problem here. "Dynamic" and "Difficult" have very little to do with the number of players present. Many "Dynamic" boss mechanics can be added to a solo or small group. For example, in Final Fantasy 5, there's a boss that one shots a party member, then tries to suck them to prevent reviving them. The entire fight is a race against time. That doesn't sound like the simple content I usually see mmos do for solo/small group.

    HP itself equates only to time. It doesn't really mean anything else on it's own. It makes sense that a mmo would want to keep fight times reasonable regardless of the number of players. (By reasonable, I mean a boss fight not lasting 8+ hours or 8- seconds.)

    I'm not sure there are any genres based purely on an individual player. Even console rpgs have tried adding multiplayer. Pokemon supported link-cables for as long as it existed. Golden Sun had a pvp arena option. Final Fantasy 6 has an option for 2 player support. Probably others, but that's what I can think of offhand.
    Livnthedream likes this.
  2. Kira_Yamato

    Kira_Yamato New Cupcake

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2013
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    California
    Wh
    Cool. I agree, raiding takes a significant investment in terms of both time and energy. I look forward to see if there is solo play continuation (end game style) and how it will work.
  3. Kira_Yamato

    Kira_Yamato New Cupcake

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2013
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    California

    Well that makes more sense. I think that would be cool. Maybe like events similar to GW2 or Rift. Give achievements and gear drops that are relative to the level of difficulty of the encounters. I think that might be an option. I think that the perception is, the more people it takes to down a boss, instance, etc, the higher the difficulty therefore the better the loot. If people could receive the same gear, or extremely similar gear as far as stats, for doing a 2-4 man encounter, why would anyone raid 25 or 40 man? There would be no reward for the larger encounter versus the smaller encounter. That is the difficulty I see with providing similar or equal to gear for "solo" content versus full on raid content.

    Now someone mentioned earlier adding a different stat to gear for "solo" type quests/encounters. The only thing I see that could be a potential barrier is "solo" play and raiding are the same. They are both PvE. How to differentiate the gear for the same mode of play would be interesting.
  4. RazorHed

    RazorHed Cupcake

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8

    Cool did you see the idea I had to give casual type players content that compliments Raiders ?

    here ill repost incase

    What do you think of that?
    Kira_Yamato likes this.
  5. Kira_Yamato

    Kira_Yamato New Cupcake

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2013
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    California
    That is an interesting way of approaching it. So rather than just PvE and PvP modes, you add in say "Casual" or "Group" and have set quests/encounters for that. I think that is viable. I like the idea of having higher level crafting schematics and other ways to benefit those who raid as well as those who choose "Casual". In SWToR (I use this as an example because I am most familiar with it) they gave companions to each toon, which operated sort of like support. I think it would be cool to have "Casual" players be support roles (and I am not diluting the players marked as "Casual". I recognize the importance of having support in every fight and how valuable they can be to the groups in raids/dungeons). They handle rez's, they provide all of the intangibles for the raid group and fights, yet they still have access to the loot. We shall see what Carbine thinks, but I think that could be a good option.
  6. Vexed

    Vexed Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2013
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Leicester, UK

    I'd like to see solo players get their own progression system, I really do. Mainly because it's a different avenue to raiding which means Carbine won't have to lower group sizes or create multiple difficulties of a raid to cater to players with a lack of end game choices. Solo progression and raiding progression can coexist perfectly fine even if solo gear that is rewarded is not the same item levels as raid gear. I'd rather see solo players get their unique armor sets with looks and stats to help them progress down their chosen avenue. There is absolutely no need to make solo and raid gear equivalent in terms of power and item level.

    Solo could progress like t0.5 > t1 > t1.5
    Raid gear could progress like t1 > t2 > t3

    This is terms of comparable power overall. Both iterations of each separate tier can provide different looks and separate set bonuses.

    There, you have your own progression path and raiders have theirs. Now, if you want to say why can't solo be T1 then T2 then T3 as well, then you're just backing yourself into a corner. You will not win that argument on any grounds as it's just illogical to do that. Solo players going into raids with solo gear and raiders having to do solo content to stay competitive in raiding. Just no. I doubt legendaries will ever be available in solo either which is exactly how it should be.

    If you're going by relative tier progress then the comparable T0.5 will be T1 solo so on and so forth. Try to argue against that being a decent progression system for solo players. Hopefully obtaining a full t0.5 set will require a lot of effort and time. I would love to see crafting somehow integrated into it as well as gold sinks, much like WoW's incarnation of up-gradable dungeon sets in Vanilla. That continuation can progressively come with patches as it will be a lot easier to create fresh solo content quickly comparable to raids.
    Livnthedream likes this.
  7. Kayelia

    Kayelia Cupcake

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I have seen that so much...

    I disagree with it, obviously. My experience has been the difficulty is in the entire setup, not a single piece.

    The problem is that it goes both ways. If raid gear is better for soloing than solo gear, then why should I go for solo gear? Assuming I have enough time, etc. In essence, it would be better for me to do something I dislike to be better at something I like. That doesn't seem like a good thing for a game.

    For what it's worth, Carbine has said they want solo gear to be best for soloing, and raid gear to be best for raiding. But, that does bring up your last paragraph.

    This is the one thing that throws a monkey wrench into everything. Carbine doesn't seem to want to do hardcoded stats to separate them (aka "this stat only works here"). I can't say I blame them either. They haven't really said what they will do instead. They have asked for suggestions, but that's about it.
  8. Jeuraud

    Jeuraud Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2013
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Pac North Wet
    This is your opinion; 65% of the player base says otherwise.

    It’s not a conundrum to me; you as an individual have no more risk when facing a Raid Boss, then do I as a solo player have in facing a Solo Boss. In fact your risk is less because there is 1 chance out of 20 or 40 that the Boss is paying attention to you, but when I solo there is 1 chance out 1 that the Boss is paying attention to me. Also if you <REDACTED> up in a raid you have 19 or 39 other players to help you from face planting, or bring you back, or complete the raid. If I <REDACTED> up in solo I have no one to keep me from face planting, or bring me back, or complete the encounter for me.

    The primary issue as I see it is that many Raiders do not think a solo player will ever face a Boss, because they did not do so while they were leveling up. The problem with this is that we are talking about Eldergame content, not leveling content, and in Eldergame content a solo player should come up against a Boss; just as you would if you were playing a single player RPG (Unless you have it set on easy mode.), and just like a single player RPG you should face plant until you figure out how to defeat the Boss; just like raids do.

    Carbine has stated that there are Eldergame Solo Instances, and that they are supposed to be difficult. All of us should be thinking of these instances as single player RPGs, not MMO leveling content.
  9. Tonks

    Tonks Cupcake

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2013
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I'm going to be a bit nit-picky here and concentrate on one facet of this post only because its been mentioned by others and i don't think its really been addressed well:


    I don't really agree with this. I'd say just about any scenario designed for a single player can be "multiplied out" so to speak to easily add difficulty simply due to group coordination being required. While maybe not the most engaging method i think it still wholly covers any single player scenarios. Say in your final fantasy example you are now playing with 3 other people each with their own parties and each party has to fight 3 bosses with linked HP that behave how you described. Lets say you have to ensure that once the bosses HP hits 50% all current KOed party members are separated from their parties and revived and must fight a 4th boss that spawns with linked HP. Suddenly now you have to plan appropriate group compositions to survive without a party member for an extended period of time and work with others to assure the party that forms at 50% HP can sufficiently survive on their own. Now party composition becomes a tougher problem to solve as well as the timing of downed characters.

    The point is here that coordination required in a fight automatically increases complexity and hence difficulty. Look no further than the Thorim fight in Ulduar (WoW). For those unaware, the group must be split into two parties, one of which attempts to reach the boss while the other holds a central area. Each group has its own goals and if either fails to meet them the raid wipes.
  10. Kayelia

    Kayelia Cupcake

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Like I said, it goes both ways.

    Final Fantasy 5, Fork Tower. Party has to split into 2 groups and defeat two bosses, each with their own rules, in a row to succeed. No saving nor grace time between fights. Not that much different from my perspective.

    Edit: Now that I think about it, Dark Cloud 2. The player only controls one of two people at a time. One of the bosses has one character protecting an npc, and the other defeats a boss. The game switches between the two on a timer, but if either fails, game over.

    Alternatively, a boss has an attack that does 100% max hp / targets. 100%/40 is easy. 100%/1 is instakill. To avoid this, a single player has to use devices to clone himself/herself to give the boss more targets.

    It's not really that hard to come up with mechanics to do stuff like this. Sure, some player amounts might work more naturally with some concepts than others. But that doesn't mean it's not possible to do it with different amounts.
  11. Tonks

    Tonks Cupcake

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2013
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I'm not trying to be a jerk here but you seem to greatly undervalue the complexity coordination of a group adds. Sometimes that coordination is strategy, sometimes its timing, sometimes its execution. Most times its all of those things. Just because I might know the original lich king fight in and out doesn't mean a lack of knowledge or lapse in judgement won't cause an errant cleanse to wipe the raid or an extra second in defile to wipe everyone out. If that was just me, likely I would have downed him sooner. What you're talking about is very dependent on the encounter, tough encounters don't let slackers be carried at all. Now suddenly 39 people need to play as well as you do and you also rely on them to do their own specialized jobs.

    Anyways, maybe the simplest example of this is playing Battletoads solo and then with a friend. There is a clear difference in difficulty solely based on the addition of one player and the inter-dependence of one another. Maybe at MLG levels of Battletoads the addition of another player makes things easier... but for the rest of us peasants, the coordination added multiplies difficulty immensely.
  12. Zyd

    Zyd Cupcake

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2013
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I can't believe some people is still ranting about this method. You want better gear, then go and get it! Nobody should reward lazyness, no one should hold your hand and no one should give you equivalent gear so you can be happy.

    Don't remember who i talked about this, but the progression is going to be as usual i believe, Solo Gear > Dungeon gear > Raid Gear, if you want Raid equivalent gear, i'm sorry but start looking for a 20man guild, solo players shouldn't be able to have the same gear that other 20 people worked so hard for.

    A game without competition and without goals that take work and time to achieve(raids, arenas, rated bgs, housing, etc) it's going to die fast or turn into a casualfest, and i don't want that for WS.
  13. Bnol

    Bnol Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    43
    That would only require raiders to level solo alts to farm consumables etc, creating a bigger chore and barrier to entry to raiding. Solo should have its own progression content with rewards for themselves. There is no need for a connection like you propose.
  14. Kira_Yamato

    Kira_Yamato New Cupcake

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2013
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    California

    It is true, people forget that in a 25 or 40 man raid, there aren't 25 or 40 pieces dropping, there are a handful, and those raiders get to roll for it. Some people have to beat a raid many many times until they get one piece of gear. You have to work really hard and invest a lot of time to get the best gear available. Like in SWToR, that is one thing that irks me. Anyone can get top tier gear by obtaining coms which almost everything gives you coms. There is no incentive to learn fights or invest time, it is simply earn coms and walk around in top tier gear. Risk/reward still rules in MMOs. The more time you invest, the greater change of loot.
  15. Kayelia

    Kayelia Cupcake

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18

    No worries. :) I was a bit rushed when I wrote the last post anyway.

    Multiplayer can make things harder. I don't believe I ever stated otherwise.

    My point is that mmos can do a better job with solo and small group content than they do. Many aspects raids use for dynamic and difficulty are not raid-specific. If carbine really wants to do a compelling solo+small group endgame, they need to make use of many dynamic and difficult aspects. They may need to invent new ones too.

    Can 1-4p difficulty surpass raid difficulty? I can guess, but I really don't care. I just want carbine to make it a worthwhile alternative to raiding. Many mmos fail horribly at this.

    Your first part I agree with. One person's knowledge doesn't mean a second person can't mess up. It doesn't always prevent the first person from messing up either.

    I doubt you would be able to down him sooner. The original lich king would still have his ton of hp to go through. I have little doubt you could keep going for awhile, but hours? Assuming 1 person would have to do the work of 30 damage dealers, your looking at a 10 minute fight turning into a ~5 hour ordeal. It only gets worse from there. I'm not sure anyone could stay at 100% for that long. If a failure did happen, you'd loose those hours worth of damage.

    If the hp gets lowered, sure. But then it's no longer the original lich king.

    Honestly, my experience has been that everything is very dependent on the encounter. The difficulty of an encounter is like a web of many factors. Number of players is indeed one of factors. But it isn't always the most important for a given encounter.

    In a tough solo encounter, there are no successful slackers. Slackers die because there is 0 people to fall back on. All or nothing is how those fights go. That seems comparable to a tough raid. Just from a different vantage point.
  16. RazorHed

    RazorHed Cupcake

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8

    This reeks of so much argument from ignorance. Whats that you ask? It means that because you can't imagine any other possibilities , then yours must be absolutely correct.

    Ideas like
    Non raiders are lazy.
    Non raiders want something for nothing.
    All solo or non raid content is easy.
    There is no competition outside of raids.

    All of these theories are just opinions based on how much you don't understand about the way things actually work. They don't hold up
  17. Livnthedream

    Livnthedream Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Likes Received:
    1,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So your arguments that raiders are only 1-2% is how it really is? Seriously guy, you are the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black. By comparison soloing is easier. Just like how the gear soloers tend to get is more than fine for their content but is <REDACTED> in comparison. If you really want to claim that solo'ers gear is terrible, then stop comparing it against what group players get.
  18. RazorHed

    RazorHed Cupcake

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8

    hmm ok so what is a more accurate number? 3% 4%? Should I say the vast minority ?
    If you see this
    A=# of casuals in a game
    B=# of people who spend most of the time pvping
    C=# of raiders who get to see the end game content
    and don't agree with
    A>>>>B>>>C
    then you are delusional

    I make my theories based on observations of everything across the board. And then I think of options , and I modify my theory based on as many options as I can come up with knowing full well there are options still not thought of. Then I come up with tentative conclusions .
  19. Livnthedream

    Livnthedream Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Likes Received:
    1,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except players do not fit into just one category. For example roughly 30% of players identify as pvpers, and 30% of players identify as pve'rs, yet 70% of players take part in both regularly. What do raiders do when they are not raiding? Simply log off? Some do, while many will go solo stuff. That is the playerbase you are attempting to describe.

    Except your theories are terrible because you are not qualified to make them. You throw out terms like "argument from ignorance" as though it has any kind of meaning. Anyone who has taken classes in debating knows that every argument can be attributed to one fallacy or another. Its all about how persuasive you can be with them.

    Here, maybe this will make more sense to you as this is essentially what the thread is doing:
  20. Calahan

    Calahan Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    May 25, 2013
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    All this debating arround percent numbers is nonsense.

    1. This 1 % hardcore raiders statement means, that 1 % can master the content (aka killing the final tier boss) before any new raid tier will be released or the content will be nerfed. It doesn't means, that only 1% will even try it.

    2. This 65% is, even as a statement of a dev, a pure fictional number. The encouragement of grouping with other players depends on multiple game design decisions. If a MMO has such high numbers of pure single players, it's an issue in the game design. And of course I know some MMOs which reaches this 65% without problems (SWTOR and GW2 for example). 65% plays alone don't means, they want to play alone, more likely is, that there is absolutly no reason for them, to group up. If group quests and instances are more rewarding in loot, xp and money, and not a pure waste of time, they will played by nearly everybody. If it's a waste of time, you will play them once for background/story and with your alts never again.

    Fact is, if there are 65% of pure single players in a MMO, you have to rethink your complete quest design and not to focus more on single player content. We will all start as WS newbies. Many of us without guilds and friends. Best way to find guilds and friends is forcing us to play together.

    If I would be in charge at wildstar beta testing, I would disable guilds and check the friendslist of my testers after a few days. If there are empty, game needs more and more group content and I would revamp some single player content to group content.

Share This Page