The EQ urban myth: No class is supposed to be able to solo.

Below is a number of Quotes, From Gordon, Brad, and even one from the FAQ's page on the EQ live sight.


<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Some classes excell at soloing, others at grouping, some can do either just as well. Strangely enough, the two top soloing casters and the top soloing meleer (for the most part) aren't on the top of everyone's "must have for the group" list. It's worked out quite well in that regard.

- Gordon[/quote]

This Quote from abashi was found in Casters Relms news archive section, at this link.

eq.crgaming.com/viewartic...ticle=2462 (http://eq.crgaming.com/viewarticle.asp?Article=2462)


Next

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I think you've got a good point there. The majority of content in EQ should definitely be targeted at a solid group (4-6 players). Then should come the really difficult stuff, requiring multiple groups, as well as content for people who prefer soloing. Recently, as we've focused quite a bit on higher levels and very difficult challenges, we've also added a lot of multiple group content. And while this in and of itself is definitely not a bad thing, in the future we'll make sure more single group challenges are added, as well as content for all level ranges, more playing styles, etc.

-Brad
[/quote]



That one was found at this link.

eq.crgaming.com/viewartic...ticle=3115 (http://eq.crgaming.com/viewarticle.asp?Article=3115)

Then of course you can't over look this one.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I'd say that's an accurate description of the issues. Grouping is a skill that needs to be developed early on. Certainly, some classes support soloing, but we've always said that soloers not be able to go everywhere and do everything. If going everywhere and doing everything is important to the person who plays a soloable class, I'd certainly recommend that they work on forming relationships early on and throughout the leveling process.

- Gordon[/quote]

Found here: eq.crgaming.com/viewartic...ticle=2447 (http://eq.crgaming.com/viewarticle.asp?Article=2447)

When dealing with the topic of soloing, you can not leave out this golden oldie.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>There's no intention here to "end" soloing, but what we have always said is that soloing should be a more difficult and longer path to advancement, even for those classes designed to be soloable.
These high level 6 minute static and solitary spawns make extended camping (which everyone agrees is boring) a preferred method for advancement.

- Gordon[/quote]

This the link for that one.

eq.crgaming.com/viewartic...ticle=1674 (http://eq.crgaming.com/viewarticle.asp?Article=1674)

This one though is my favorite.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>1. The post that probably disturbed me most (actually, I didn't respond to it because I wanted to give it more thought) was the one that claimed many classes could advance more efficiently soloing than in a group, but that soloing inherently involves more boring downtime, so therefore we encourage boring downtime for those who want to play efficiently with that subset of classes.

Now, EQ has always been a game focused on grouping, with a subset of classes that could solo if the player chose, but soloing was supposed to be slower and probably less exciting. No, we don't 'hate' the solo player or some such, but we think it might be impossible to make a great grouping and great soloing game (oh no, I probably just started a new gigantic thread with that one -- if so, please start it somewhere else so we don't get too confused, thanks). So, we designed most of the game in terms of balance and content around grouping. But, if we've erred and some classes can solo and gain experience more quickly than were they to group and these players feel therefore compelled to solo when they might be happier grouping, then we've goofed up.

- Brad[/quote]

Found that one here.

eq.crgaming.com/viewartic...ticle=3121 (http://eq.crgaming.com/viewarticle.asp?Article=3121)

In this next quote, the words "troll shadowknights" Was changed from "Troll Warriors" sometime after kunark release, do to the devs being beat over the head with the quote.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>3.22.1 What about people who prefer to play solo? Is the solo player "crippled" to the point of unplayability or are you just limited in where you can go and what you can do?
You are a bit limited in where you can go and what you can do (especially in more difficult areas), but definitely not 'crippled' - there are definitely race/class combos in EverQuest (troll shadowknights come to mind) that do fine as a solo character. But keep in mind that EverQuest has been built as a cooperative game, and grouping is encouraged and rewarded.

-FAQ's[/quote]

eqlive.station.sony.com/l...e.jsp#3.15 (http://eqlive.station.sony.com/library/faqs/faq_eqlive.jsp#3.15)

In closing

The next time you hear, or read a Anti-Soloing Nazi, blaming "Global Warming" on soloers, point them to these links. EQ has always supported soloing. :cool:

EQ doesn't mind that it's possible for people to solo, but they wish to align the game such that grouping is prefered, and have always wished to do so, now, moreso than ever.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>EQ doesn't mind that it's possible for people to solo, but they wish to align the game such that grouping is preferred, and have always wished to do so, now, moreso than ever.[/quote]

I agree completely with that statement. But that has nothing what-so-ever to do with the Myth that "No class is supposed to be able to solo."

I will point you back to this quote from gordon.


<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>There's no intention here to "end" soloing, but what we have always said is that soloing should be a more difficult and longer path to advancement, <strong>even for those classes designed to be soloable.</strong> These high level 6 minute static and solitary spawns make extended camping (which everyone agrees is boring) a preferred method for advancement.

- Gordon[/quote]

Gordon states quiet well, that some classes where actually designed with solo ability

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>But that has nothing what-so-ever to do with the Myth that "No class is supposed to be able to solo."[/quote]

I am failing to see where you found that quote? Some lost post? Same lame player?

Everything you post from Abashi appears to be in line with what most people believe. I fail to see the contradiction between current belief and Abashi's quoted comments. No myth.

Even if he did say "No class is supposed to be able to solo." at one time, who cares? I am sure no class was supposed to be able to solo pull a named from in a dungeon to zone in at will, but I seem to be able to do that. ;)

Great signature, Patofnaud. :)

I think the point of the post was that many players seem to have an attitude that soloing is not an intentional part of the game and a meer side effect not supported by the designers. These quotes were intended to debuf that myth that the designers do not support soloing.

What batu said.

I always thought the great urban myth was that people who were great soloers should have an "equal" shot at groups than those designed around grouping. The quotes you gave provided the following:

1. Soloing is by design

2. Soloing should be less effective than grouping

3. Those who can solo should have a little more difficulty getting into groups than the more group-dependent ones.

Too bad they didn't stick with that model, it was a lot better for the game.

Give Frodlin a Cigar!

That is exactly what the "Vision" was. Wether you agree with it or not, is not the issue.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>2. Soloing should be less effective than grouping[/quote]

The big argument comes from not having "less effective" being defined. Another problem comes from having soloists used to making very good solo experience, and enjoying that, and then having that experience rate reduced twice in a matter of months (charm nerf, PoP ZEM nerf).

Now, I'm a supporter of both of those adjustments personally, but I can definitely see where it hurts to have your xp per unit time reduced and the difficulty of it increased. I actually think the revamped xp isn't enough, and that a soloist should get as much xp per kill as each person of a group, regardless of the size of the group, and that therefore the group gets more experience as generally groups can kill faster than even the most tweeked-out soloer.

Didn't everyone who was involved in "The Vision" (tm) leave with Brad? You'll notice that "The Vision" (tm) is no longer mentioned in any of the new patches, upgrades or future plans for EQ. It's a dynamic world, meaning that SOE (not even the same company anymore) does not have to abide by or even follow the guidelines set forth by the original blueprints for the game. The only part that really applies right now as "set in stone" is what's mentioned in the FAQ.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The only part that really applies right now as "set in stone" is what's mentioned in the FAQ.[/quote]

I will point you Storm to the quote I took from the FAQ section on the WQ live sight.


<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>3.22.1 What about people who prefer to play solo? Is the solo player "crippled" to the point of unplayability or are you just limited in where you can go and what you can do?
You are a bit limited in where you can go and what you can do (especially in more difficult areas), but definitely not 'crippled' - there are definitely race/class combos in EverQuest (troll shadowknights come to mind) that do fine as a solo character. But keep in mind that EverQuest has been built as a cooperative game, and grouping is encouraged and rewarded.

-FAQ's[/quote]

Appears to be still consistant with the original "Vision" to me.

Its not that "No class was meant to solo" but rather " we dont want any classes to solo" being more accurate. I would say that whoever is running the show at Sony right now for EQ is looking things over and deciding to curtail soloing as a high end method of gaining experience.

Lets face it though...Soloing was NEVER, EVER meant to advance your character faster and further than being in a group in the same time frame. I would say they never ever intended to have that happen and certainly not by a factor of 2 and in some cases 3 or 4. Charm soloing was gaining experience faster than anything other than charm kiting for bards. Which again was a form of charm soloing.

EQ's success is as much from the social dynamic as anything else, maybe the bean counters have decided that forcing grouping to make more and more people meet each other would make more people "enjoy" the game. I dont know about that one but you never can tell what kinda weird ideas you get from polls and customer demographics.

<strong>Lets face it though...Soloing was NEVER, EVER meant to advance your character faster and further than being in a group in the same time frame. I would say they never ever intended to have that happen and certainly not by a factor of 2 and in some cases 3 or 4.</strong>

Probably right, but you have to admit they really screwed it up with a mere 20% XP bonus for full groups of 6. It never ever compensated for downtime from just finding the group let alone maintaining it, people going AFK, longer pulls or travel time etc. etc. The higher group XP bonus should have been how it was day 1. One of the few things they did right with Planetside... XP isn't split in a group, it's given, fully, to everyone. A soloer kills someone they get, say, 100xp. A squad of 10 kills that same person and they get, each person in the squad who is on the same continent, 100xp. Now THATS incentive to group! :D

Well, I think I percipitated some of the reasons for this thread, but I think it's all kinda moot really.

The original vision is gone and has been for a while. My priginal pint on this was in reply to someone who said certain classes were designed to solo from the beginning.

y argument was that no class was BUILT to solo, but that some would do it better than others, but it was still the original intent for people to group regardless of how a class was designed.

I mean it wasn't until the END of beta 3 that you had your first level 50 players. And guess what, one of the first was a druid. I read about druids soloing Cyclops' and thought - NO WAY!

There were no clerics above level 40 to use CH, and no tanks buff enough to even bother using it on. In beta, because of all this, a Druid with greater heal was just a viable as healer as a cleric because there were no high level clerics.

y belief is that the original design of EQ had all priests designed to be viable healers, and through beta they were. This is the classic design of priests throughout roleplaying. Look at Druid in AD&D, they get the same heal spells as clerics, but maybe a level later or so, and i believe this parallel was the intention of the original designers. It wasn't until the game went live and Kunark came about that the exclusive role for the cleric for raid and grouping purpose really came to the forefront.

And honestly back in the beginning 90% of druids solo'd. Quad kiting dorfs in Butcher was the fastest EXP in the game and druids did it best because or snare was better than the wizards. Most druids had manastones and regen, making recovery from quads faster than any other class.

Why should druids today have to pay for a flawed design of the past. Classically druids weren't nukers but healers.

SOE should just decide what druids are and stick with it. Healer or nuker? Half the people will be pleased and the other half angry, but at least we'd have the answer, direction and insight that we don't have now.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>My argument was that no class was BUILT to solo, but that some would do it better than others, but it was still the original intent for people to group regardless of how a class was designed.[/quote]

I will point you to this quote from Gordon

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Some classes excell at soloing, others at grouping, some can do either just as well. <strong>Strangely enough, the two top soloing casters and the top soloing meleer (for the most part) aren't on the top of everyone's "must have for the group" list. It's worked out quite well in that regard.</strong>
- Gordon[/quote]

Prety much blows that theroy out of the water.

Qwin said: I will point you Storm to the quote I took from the FAQ section on the WQ live sight.

Yes, hence why I said "The only part that really applies right now as "set in stone" is what's mentioned in the FAQ." Thank you for reiterating my own quote.

Lets look at another point of view about your posts:
Quote dates: SOLOING ISN'T THE BEST, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000
BRAD STRIKES BACK, JANUARY 6, 2001
WHERE'S ALL MY FRIENDS?, SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
RISK AND REWARD, JUNE 7, 2000
FINAL DECISIONS, JANUARY 9, 2001

Again, the only one that's anywhere near up to date is the FAQ. And what does the FAQ say? "...EverQuest has been built as a cooperative game, and grouping is encouraged and rewarded."

And it should have the addendum "soloing is discouraged and we will nerf it however we can and you will get messed over if you depend on it"

Sad, but true.


Belkram

Brad's vision has left EQ and is now located here: <a href="http://www.sigilgames.com/" target="top">www.sigilgames.com</a>

Those quotes reminded me of how good of a game designer he was. I believe most of the EQ creators are now with him at Sigil. Can't wait to see what they comes up with :D

Ah but storm you missed the entire point of the whole thread.

The point was to debunk the notion that Soloing was some kind of by product that was <strong>never supposed</strong> to be apart of the game. Those posts, while yes they where made back early in the game development, serve to show exactly how wrong that point of view is. Wether the "vision" still apply's, or is even still in effect, is not the issue here.

By the way that quote from the FAQ's section also states

<strong><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>there are definitely race/class combos in EverQuest (troll shadowknights come to mind) that do fine as a solo character.[/quote]</strong>

But thanks for playing

Qwin said: The point was to debunk the notion that Soloing was some kind of by product that was never supposed to be apart of the game. Those posts, while yes they where made back early in the game development, serve to show exactly how wrong that point of view is. Wether the "vision" still apply's, or is even still in effect, is not the issue here.

Actually it is.

Trying to use comments from people who:
A: Don't work for that company anymore
B: Do not have any say into how the game is developed in the present
C: Are over 2-3yrs old in some cases

to justify changes which were made to the game within the last three months is rather obtuse. Meanwhile the quote used from the FAQ both supports the soloing changes going into the game now, and supports the notion that grouping will always be preferred over soloing as a method of playing the game.

As for the origins of this thread, as Patofnaud said earlier, I've yet to see you link an official thread from SOE or VI in which they state "No class is supposed to be able to solo."

If you're intending this post to be a 'cut and copy' for people to be able to quote when/if a player of a class which is not friendly to soloing argues that soloing should be removed/nerfed, the same arguments apply - using comments and quotes from people who no longer work for the company or who are no longer actively involved in developing the future of the game is much like arguing that people should be allowed to have nuclear weapons for home defense because the Constitution says we have the rights to bear arms.

Tear the FAQ snip apart bit by bit:
3.22.1 What about people who prefer to play solo? Is the solo player "crippled" to the point of unplayability or are you just limited in where you can go and what you can do?
You are a bit limited in where you can go and what you can do (especially in more difficult areas), but definitely not 'crippled' - there are definitely race/class combos in EverQuest (troll shadowknights come to mind) that do fine as a solo character. But keep in mind that EverQuest has been built as a cooperative game, and grouping is encouraged and rewarded.

Word for word, as long as you are able to kill something in any zone, soloing is still a viable option in their eyes. They specifically state that you will be limited in places where you can go and what you can do (doesn't that pretty much cover 98% of the game's description?) by yourself. The word "fine" in the race/class combos in EverQuest that do fine as a solo character is not defined in any manner that you can gleam any type of useful information out of - it's a very political answer. It doesn't say "You will get full exp for a kill that you solo," nor does it say, "Soloing is always an option in every zone." All it does say is that when soloing, you're "definitely not 'crippled'". What does that mean? You don't know - could mean you can just zone in, or it could mean you can solo the boss of the area.

Edit - added one of my trademark idiotic analogies.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>But thanks for playing[/quote]

Now you're just acting like a dork. The point of this thread is that you had a stick up your butt in the form of an obscure opinion that you got from no one in particular. You set out to debunk this "urban myth" that probably less than 5% of the EQ population believe in and less than 1% of the EQ population cares about. Congratulations?

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Trying to use comments from people who:
A: Don't work for that company anymore
B: Do not have any say into how the game is developed in the present
C: Are over 2-3yrs old in some cases[/quote]

Since the purpose was to debunk the notion that "No class was <strong>supposed</strong> to be able to solo". It is entirely relevant to point out what the people who created the "Vision", or where charged with the job of explaining it to the player base (not to mention had a large part in tuning the game) had to say about the subject.

No where in any of my posts did I say that the "Vision" is still in effect in today's EQ, nor did I make the argument that it should, or shouldn't be in effect. Let alone wether or not I even agreed with the "Vision"

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>As for the origins of this thread, as Patofnaud said earlier, I've yet to see you link an official thread from SOE or VI in which they state "No class is supposed to be able to solo."[/quote]

That is because No one at SOE or Even back in the VI days, did any dev ever say such a thing. In fact all those quotes pretty much prove they wouldn't have said it do to Soloabilty actually being a part, albeit a small part, of the "Vision".

The Myth has been propelled over the years by many players and on many different boards. Heck it is a part of the Whole "dr00ds suck" mentality that has been seen on a lot of community boards over the years. The last 6 months with all the calls for the nerfing of charming, swarm kiting, and the ZEM's in pop zones, would tend to show there are a lot of people who believe in the myth, and beleive that it has always been against the "Vision" to solo.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It doesn't say "You will get full exp for a kill that you solo," nor does it say, "Soloing is always an option in every zone." All it does say is that when soloing, you're "definitely not 'crippled'". What does that mean? You don't know - could mean you can just zone in, or it could mean you can solo the boss of the area.[/quote]

I agree whole heatedly with you on that Storm. It does imply though that <strong>soloing is not a crime</strong>, and that you will still be able to advance as a soloing class or player.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>much like arguing that people should be allowed to have nuclear weapons for home defense because the Constitution says we have the rights to bear arms.[/quote]

I am not going to argue gun control with you in this thread.

Oh For the record, I do think it was a better game when the "Vision" Reined supreem.

I don't think anyone really believes in the myth.

Right or wrong it is envy and jealousy. Or ignorance.

All but 2 or 3 of all the classes can solo to one degree or another.

And Druids, by far, are not the most efficient at doing so.

I have always been a proponent of giving those who are non-soloers a viable means of soloing. Not taking away from those who can solo. Just a difference of opinion, that's all. I am not going to enter your fray, but rather run this tangential post instead.

Soloing characters were once intended to be balanced (in terms of experience progression) against grouping players, including the time it took to find a group. Given the era that many of Brad's comments above were made, these timeframes were pretty damn bad on occasion. Remember, there were camp line-ups in Guk and not a live Kobald in all of Sol B. Of course, to be completely fair, there was rather little content for soloers at high levels pre-Kunark I suppose.

It is all pretty moot though. The balance shifted to the point where certain soloists were gaining experience far, far, faster than grouping classes possibly could. (Nope, I'm not actually even talking about Druids.) That needed to get changed, although they waited so long I somewhat wonder why they bothered in the end. It wasn't a question ever of "No classes should be able to solo" it was always a question of "No class should even be better off soloing than they would be grouping".

cheers,
Faeril (53 Druid, retired in Kunark)
Celeris (Deceiver, retired in PoP)
et al