Magenta_Phoenix

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is the only date I will comment on, because it is unfair to raise your hopes that much.

No, it's not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I was about to post here asking who was doing what drugs, and where I could get some. Now I'll head over to that gaming site and ask them where they get their hallucinogens, instead.

(January 2005. Yah, right. Sheesh.)

My definition of griefing pretty much matches that of Lord Recluse.

(Gah, conspiring with a villain! Will my hands ever be free of the stain!?)

-=-

On a related note, another term that needs definition is "consensual".

A PvP zone that had non-PvP mission doors in it, for example, would not be consensual to me unless that was **clearly** pointed out ( BOLD RED CAPITAL LETTERS , for example) prior to mission acceptance, and utterly outside any mission arc. (That would be what I would refer to as "herding the lambs to the wolves", not "consensual".)

Badge/plaque locations in a PvP zone would be somewhat more acceptable, on the other hand, although they would represent a potential PvP camping spot, as well...

To be "consensual" in my opinion, it needs to be entirely possible to play the entire non-PvP aspects of the game, existing and future, without the slightest PvP interaction. Otherwise, you've made PvP participation a gateway mechanism, and the term "consensual" no longer applies.

Not to derail the discussion from the original topic, but there is a somewhat related concern I thought I should mention.

I believe that at least some of the insistence about the inclusion of group-only play derives from the inclusion of what have been defined in the game as "support" classes: i.e. Controllers, Defenders, and to a large extent, Tankers. These are roles that, at present, can (emphasis on "can": certain builds somewhat avoid this issue) find it rather difficult to progress without a group: since we (I include myself because I like playing Defender-style roles) are effectively blocked from play by any inability to find a group, it can become a touchy subject.

The main problem here is that these classes are effectively plumbers in a server farm. Yeah, you kinda need us to make sure the sprinkler system is ready and keep the bathrooms operational, but the electricians and network boys see the real action.

One thing that I would like to see addressed at some point is the inclusion of mission types designed to highlight the strengths of these "support" classes. Where are the "rescue civilians from a burning building" (Defender) missions, the "detain without damaging" (Controller) missions, the "destroy the runaway reactor core, up close and personal" (Tanker) situations? When there are missions that put every AT in the spotlight on occasion, not just the damage dealers, I believe some of the building acrimony re: solo v. group might go away.

Just wanted to try to provide a perspective that might not have been fully considered...

*edited to add some grey area when defining the present soloability of "support classes", since there are obvious exceptions.

Thank you. To me, this is a welcome change.

There is a fairly large quantity of group-centric content, already. From Hazard zones to Task Forces to the Respec missions to Archvillain fights, a good deal of the content is already accessible/explorable only (or at least primarily) thru a group. The addition of individual missions requiring a group to complete, while I'm still not exceptionally overwhelmed by the particulars of the current implementation of the concept, is another good step to creating more opportunities for group play.

On the solo side of the equation, there is some street hunting and the missions, and now (to some extent), badge collection. All of which are heavily story-related elements far more easily and fully appreciated when you don't have 1 or more team members typing at you to G-A-F-M-O. (translation: Get-A-%$^%$-Move-On, or more politely, "hurry up, you're reducing my XP accrual rate").

In short, the solution presented/provided is a good solution that addresses almost all concerns, regardless of what side of the issue you might choose to champion. To me, that qualifies it as a pretty good solution.