View Full Forums : Task officers in Norrath

07-28-2004, 07:59 AM
(I'll bite the bullet and put the crosspost here since that's where the one in EQ general is going.) It would still be nice to limit the sony bashing and do not invoke the word "Fanboi".

They still don't get it.....*shakes head*

This is exactly what I thought when I read it. In fact, the idea does sound very familiar, what other game did I see that in? (ok that was sarcasm)

In truth, I'm not sure the people at Sony actually understand that not everyone who hits 50 is inducted into a guild that can do their content. What I do see is this is a fairly good idea and will help but once these people hit 50 they wll suddenly be left out in the cold.

07-28-2004, 08:51 AM
If there was content that I could solo/duo for levels 55+ that I could use to advance/equip my characters in a meaningful way, I'd restore my 2 EQ accounts immediately.

Some caveats though:

1 - that content shouldn't involve camping the same stationary spawn for 36 hours to see a bubble of experience

2 - that content shouldn't involve having to be a grandmaster in every tradeskill in order to make a pair of gloves that are mid-level armor

What would be wrong with making high level quests that are solo/duo possible? Make them long and involved, I don't care. But make it so I could play for an hour here or two hours there and still advance the quest without simply camping a spawn spot hoping for something to show up. Make the experience/loot for actually killing a high level quest mob small enough that people wouldn't camp it constantly, but make it so that if you have a certain quest active and you kill a sequence of mobs over a period of time, the entire quest rewards you with a nice item or a nice experience boost.

Why not make instanced content available for solo/duo players. Maybe have the same rewards available as for others, but at least solo players could have a shot at actually obtaining some of that content for a change. I bought LDoN and never played in an instanced dungeon. I bought PoP and never got a flag, in fact I only really played in 2 zones of that expansion (PoK and PoD) much at all. LoY I bought and never played in any of the new zones there either. I did make a froggie shaman and played for a while, but it was in old world content. Why did I waste my money on those expansions? Well, there was always the hope that I could play in them and do something meaningful as a solo high level player, but eventually I saw the light and realized that it was a pipe dream. My 58 druid and 56 monk were pretty much at the limits of what I had time to do to advance them.

GoD I never bought as I'd cancelled my accounts by then, but it doesn't sound much better. OoW has no appeal to me at all.

I am not playing any other MMoGs currently (I didn't play CoH past the free month and am cancelling FFXI after only 2 days). At this point I'd play almost any MMoG simply out of boredom. But I have no desire to play EQ as it stands currently.

07-28-2004, 11:04 AM
I'm trying to see this from SOE's perspective. They're probably thinking the problem with creating universally-soloable content (i.e. doable by classes which can't solo very well traditionally) is that every player engaged in soloing is one less potential groupmate for those who prefer to group.

Thing is, we tend to ask the wrong question: "Would it hurt the game's grouping pool if you allowed people who can only play for 1 hour the ability to make some significant progression in that session?"

Answer is: No. Logically, the folks who can only play in very short stints wouldn't have time for a group anyway, so this wouldn't detract from the 'grouping pool' as we know it.

But the correct question is: "Would it detract from the 'grouping pool' if players had a choice between a 1 hour solo session and a 2 hour group session, assuming both yielded roughly the same quality of reward?"

And the obvious answer is: Yes. Even players who prefer grouping and socializing would more often choose soloing if it allowed them to play shorter sessions. Unfortunately, these are the players who *can* spend more time playing, hence these are the players who enable raiding guilds to thrive.

As much as I'd love to see solo options for my pure melee alts, I do anticipate that giving too much soloability to 'group/raid-centric' classes would have a detrimental impact on the raiding game. Over the long term, it could eventually turn Everquest into a massively mutliplayer FPS. So the final question: is that what EQ players really want? Or: would the game last in that format?


07-28-2004, 11:36 AM
The true question to ask is "Would allowing solo or duo'd instanced adventures impact the SOE bottom line?"

Negatively: Yes it would impact their bottom line because it would increase their hardware usage. More instances = more usage, thus they would be reluctant to allow solo adventures.

Positively: Yes it would impact their bottom line because it would keep many people in the game longer, and would bring some other solo'ers duo'ers back.

The positive aspect is tangible to the playerbase whereas the negative is not. In the air of doing something positve for the player base that would also help SOE's bottom line, they should allow for solo'd duo'd adventures as a bone throw to the community for now.

In the future they can think about making a balanced true soloing instance content based system, but a HUGE bone could be thrown to the community simply by allowing single and duo'd adventures.

07-28-2004, 11:47 AM
It seems like every game runs into this issue of grouping versus soloing. If you tune a game so it can be solo'd then people seem to stop grouping. Why? Well... people don't like grouping with strangers for one. Some people don't make friends easily, so they never do anything but solo. Sometimes its a time or afk issue.

Then the next issue is that it always seems like soloing is the privilege of a few classes. If you choose the wrong class, you might find soloing impossible or really dangerous or extremely boring and slow. CoH and EQ both have this issue.

So do you make soloing fun for everyone, will they stop grouping? I wouldn't, because I play games to be social, but I suspect lots of people would.

In the Woody interview that Task system sounded really awful. If you're doing a task because you're looking for a group and want to be busy doing "something", you have to abandon your task, or tell your group to wait for you? No. That's just a terrible idea. You should be able to put the task on a back burner and resume it later.

Then it just sounds boring. It sounds like a bunch of boring quests to go here and there and find rare drops off of greens. Otherwise, how is a non-solo class going to complete the task?

While EQ definitely needs to provide activities for people who are either time-restricted or waiting for a group, they really ought to make them fun!

Why not have some sort of arena contest? You're ported into an instance and given tougher and tougher mobs to fight. Maybe you get a team of NPC's to fight with you, depending on your class. Now that would be an amusing thing.

07-28-2004, 12:55 PM
Why not have some sort of arena contest? You're ported into an instance and given tougher and tougher mobs to fight. Maybe you get a team of NPC's to fight with you, depending on your class. Now that would be an amusing thing.
One of the old Might and Magic single player games had that. You could go once a week to the Arena and choose your difficulty level. Then it would populate a bunch of monsters for that level.

You earned experience for killing the monsters and also coin based on your level choice.

I don't think it would translate very well to EQ because it would get old retriggering single mobs or get pretty dangerous fighting 3 and 4 (or more) at a time.

I personally don't see whats so wrong with something along the lines of Anarchy Onlines mission terminals but fantasy based. You go into the guild of tasks, the wizards there assign you to solve a problem that is not worth the time of a full group but is still inconveniencing a group of people. Something like a rogue xxxxx attacking things on the outskirts of a town and its now cornered in a cave, or go into this building and clean out the bandits within.


Just reread your suggestion Panamah. I guess spawning tougher and tougher single mobs might work but I just dont see Sony allowing us to sit and root/rot spawns and in an arena "this mob is immune to changes in run speed" would get me killed pretty damn

07-28-2004, 12:57 PM
That would be good too, but I wonder how non-soloing classes are going to do that?

07-28-2004, 01:02 PM
It's been awhile since I played but if i remember right, AO does it with 3 sliders that control mob difficulty(level and frequency) mob type(human, otherwise) and stealth(locked chests, etc)

Non solo classes would crank the sliders down( or the mystic crystals, etc) and classes with greater solo ability would crank them up.

Less reward for the non-solo classes but then thats the penalty you pay for being more group friendly.

07-28-2004, 05:10 PM
Players say to Sony .. There is nothing interesting to solo in GoD and PoP. We get bored outside of raids being lfg all the time.

Sony say to designers .. Players have asked for solo content for all classes.

Designers say to Project Manager .. We can make solo dungeons, but it's a lot easier to only design it up to level 50. We haven't a clue how to scale content to AA's and raid gear.

Project Manager says to Sony .. I can't made deadlines or budget unless we chop out content, how about losing solo dungeons for 50+.

Marketing Man says to Sony .. Put lots of toys into OoW for people under 50 to make our sales job easier.

Sony says to Players .. Look, we're putting this great content into OoW that you asked for. People under 50 can do solo dungeons!

07-28-2004, 07:09 PM
6 sliders on AO, as well as a difficulty slider. Every class can solo meaningfully, but grouping has its own rewards (some items are only available from group missions. Plus, the group missions have multiple floors, bosses and are generally a lot more fun than the single player missions.)

It's a well balanced system. And honestly it would translate just fine into a fantasy setting. How many hundreds of fantasy stories begin in a tavern with the adventurer (or party) being approached by someone with a task and promise of treasure...

07-28-2004, 10:00 PM
The WoW model, similarly, says you can solo in the open area's, but the most interesting places are more challenging and need a group. This could work in EQ as well, make having a group something you want. But the risk / reward for the challenging area's in EQ are screwed up. Sub 60 LDoN earns virtually no points and the loot in the dungeons can be bettered with 50plat and a trip to the bazaar.

07-29-2004, 07:58 AM
The Horizon's Task Officers are just a "quest" that says kill xx number of yy monster. You can do them any time, you can take week or 10 minutes if you like. When your done, you go back and report you are done and you get a chunk (noticable chunk) of experience, some money (12 silver which is a lot for the wolves).

You don't have to quit the quest if you find a group. Its not timed. If your friends log on or a big community event occurs, you can pop over to Augendell and fight off the undead hoards or join your friends and try to thin out the Crimson Scourge without hosing the task quest.

08-15-2004, 11:36 AM
If there was content that I could solo/duo for levels 55+ that I could use to advance/equip my characters in a meaningful way, I'd restore my 2 EQ accounts immediately.

Lets see what you can do as a druid.
Qinimi - you can kill the named hyina, you can camp the potmaid, if u have DC AA then you can also do restless soul.
ME - you could get fast XP there.
UP - you can get nice drops there.
PoN - fast XP, nice quest.
Riwwi - depend what your duo class, but if it's slower or a war then at 65 you can duo that zone for good drops.

Group stuff?
Did you check VP new quests? you will probably need to be level 65 to get group that do that but 55-65 is about 40 hours of play time.