Valerika

Exactly--which is why I suggested that simply by adding that terminal you would be -changing- the density of that market trading area. I believe that if you put that terminal in a highly dense area of Pocket D, you'd come back a month later and discover that the area where you put the terminal was no longer high-density. People will have migrated to other parts of the D to do their socializing, leaving the market area relatively clear. People would -use- the terminal, but much like WWs, they'd use it, then head off to different parts of the zone to socialize.

Actually, size -is- an issue, because it affects population density. The D is large enough that the people in it an any given time aren't packed together--there are hotspots where people congregate, and those spots are highly concentrated, but that isn't true of the entire -zone-. That's why I said that where you placed that terminal in the D would make all the difference.

I think what would happen is that the area where you place the terminals would become the "market area" of Pocket D, and socializers/RP'ers would steer clear of it by a small radius, much like they do around the tailor--people back away from that contact by at least 20 feet or so in order to chat or RP, because the people right -at- the tailor are typically busy and won't respond, in my personal experience.

Since Pocket D is relatively large, this wouldn't present a problem, unless you -deliberately- put a market terminal in a highly concentrated area, like in one of the bars, or on top of the dance floor. In that case, you'd start to see angry posts on the forums about the change from people who go to the D to chat/RP, but in the end, that highly concentrated hotspot would gradually dissolve, and people would socialize in other parts of the D in order to avoid blocking the terminals and trying to chat with people who don't respond because they're busy marketeering. Essentially, putting a terminal in the D wouldn't tell you that much about convenience over socialization--instead, it would just subtly alter the makeup of the D, which is large enough to easily compensate for such a change.

Not on Virtue, it isn't. Is that really what this is about? Is this just another one of those "My server doesn't have enough people on it, merge the servers" threads with twist? When you aren't around enough people, go to where the -people- are. Don't force them to come to you.

False dichotomy. Not wanting a crowded WWs is NOT the same thing as hating people or not wanting to socialize in general. I love to socialize in-game, but I do it in places where people don't go to conduct business--I go to Pocket D, or to one of the many other social hotspots where I won't block access to terminals.

Quote from Monovalent:
It's ironic (at least to me) that people use arguments like these in order to champion greater social interaction in this game. It comes across as so horribly obnoxious and abrasive. It's counterproductive at best.

There are a number of things that make Pocket D more appropriate for socialization than the markets. First and foremost, there's the original purpose of the markets--the market contacts. The more people crowd around them, the harder it is to access them. This isn't that big of a deal for the Black Market, but for WWs, which is enclosed in a relatively small place, a large gathering of people would make it difficult to actually reach the contacts, adding to the "get out of my way, I just want to conduct business and you're blocking my path" annoyance factor. Pocket D, on the other hand, is very large, very open, and has the added effect of bars, chairs, etc. There's very little to do in Pocket D -except- socialize, and having more people there doesn't make it harder for you to reach contacts. In other words, if Pocket D were crowded with people, it wouldn't make it more difficult to -do- anything the way a crowded WWs would.

You've managed to turn a very bad idea into a good one, Leo. I'm impressed, and I'd love to see your solution implemented.

That's true, but even by the standards of team xp versus solo xp...it's pretty darn low right now. I still think they'll make an adjustment at some point to make it more (but not -too- much more) comparable.

Actually, I'd say that Tier 3 Clarion Destiny is equally if not more important for soloers, because it allows for a permanent click-based mez protection for things like squishies and human-form khelds. It's incredibly useful. Same goes for Tier 3 Rebirth for chars that don't have a self-heal (like /SR, /Shield) High tier Destiny is reaaaaally useful. Hell, I'd say game-changing.

I would be very surprised if they didn't increase the rate of progression over time. I think the devs are playing it smart and downplaying expectations early on to give themselves more leeway for future adjustments--it's a lot easier to increase rewards and make everyone happy than to throttle them back and piss everyone off.

One of the many reasons I tried WoW, made it to end content, gave up, and cancelled my subscription I think in a lot of games, people accept that design because that's all they've ever known and all they've ever seen. Trends seem to be moving away from that, though.

Absolutely, and you're right. That's why, when people started begging/pleading for a solo option, the developers were surprised. But the assumption that the drive for a solo option means soloists are spoiled brats who want EVERYTHING, including the TFs that existed before, to suddenly become soloable, just doesn't ring true to me.

From reading this thread, and many like it before, it appears that the soloists were generally comfortable with the previous team-only rewards, but when it came to end-game content, they weren't just missing out on a little bit of exclusive content/accolades, etc. They're missing out on something HUGE. And while I consider those who boycott the system to be overreacting (I prefer to solo, but I've run the trials enough to get tier 4s on both my main chars )), I still think they have a point about how the -major- content in the game should be made with consideration given for soloists.

I think -some- team only content is healthy for any game, but incarnate material is simply too big for soloists to ignore/consider "unnecessary". Regardless of whether the buffs are "necessary" or not, it's hard to argue that they're trivial. They make a big difference, as I can personally attest to on my KM/Shield and Elec/Elec scrappers. Even if I can bite the bullet and team to get those buffs, as I have done, many soloists don't feel the same way, and they deserve consideration.

Here's my opinion on exclusively team-based end-game content: I don't think it's good design if it's done on purpose. As a "We promise we'll get to you when we've optimized the teaming method", it's perfectly okay. As a "We still want the teaming method to be easier so you'll want to do it, but here's a not-as-good solo option", it's still perfectly okay. But as a "NO, THIS IS AN MMO, TEAM OR GET LEFT BEHIND"...no. That's absolutist and exclusionist for the sake of exclusion.

For the most part, I'd agree. I just found that one specific assumption to be inconsistent.

Just because something's always been done a certain way, doesn't mean it's optimal design, or even a good idea. And the fact that people didn't scream bloody murder over earlier team-only content (like TFs) tells me that soloers aren't nearly as absolutist or demanding as people assume.

It's not only the shifts, it's the enormous boosts to endurance/resistance/defense, etc from Alpha that allow you to completely transform a build and reoptimize for slotting, the self-heal/mez protection from Destiny that fills holes in builds with no mezz protection or healing, etc. Those buffs are HUGE for soloers.

No, I'm saying that no one (Bill included) specifically asked you how you'd deal with soloists who demand that ALL content, without exception, in this game be soloable. Even he admits that's not feasible or a fair compromise, because he's comfortable with workarounds/a more difficult solo path/etc. You're fighting windmills, and you're basing your "compromise" on the idea that soloists are demanding that under all circumstances, EVERY piece of content MUST be soloable.

Essentially what I'm telling you is that your original assumption, which boiled down to "I don't wish to cater to people who demand X" in your hypothetical game design, rest on the assumption that the soloists are the ones making such demands. They aren't. And they aren't likely to do so on other games, either. On the other hand, it's very clear that there -are- people, even in this game, that are demanding X, with X being "No end-game solo option." If you're concerned with not wanting to cater to absolutists, you're looking at the wrong end of the spectrum here.

It's not a case of soloists demanding ALL rewards be soloable. They're simply for soloability to be one of the considerations given. It's not an absolute. If small things (like TF accolade rewards) are team-only, that's fine. But end-game content isn't considered small by any stretch of the imagination.

Okay, here:

Yes, but your response was based on the premise that people were advocating that ALL rewards be soloable. That's not what's being advocated. People are asking for MOST rather than all, and only in reference to end-game content.

Yes, TonyV and lordlodonis seem to believe that MMORPG means either you team, or you -should- miss out on rewards, period. By design. Left up to them, there would be no viable solo option, ever.

Except that's not what any of this is about. If it were, you'd hear people calling for TFs to be dismantled. I think very few people think that ALL rewards should be obtainable solo.

On the other hand, there -are- a number of people saying "I do not want any solo option at all, without exception, for new end-game content."

Now that you mention it, Skyrim would make an AWESOME MMO...

Yet another way to deal with it is to make the teaming method of progression faster, easier, and "flashier" in terms of storyline/special effects, etc. without artificially staggering (delaying the release of) the slower, more grindy solo alternative. That way, no one feels alienated by "forced teaming" even though the teaming method obviously yields faster results (which makes those who believe teaming to be the "superior" playstyle in an MMO happy). In other words...handle it the way most MMOs are starting to handle it.

If you want a moral to accompany this picture, I'd say this is what it looks like when you try to change canon by remaking the storyline in your own image. Bad things happen, and it's not a pretty picture.