Re: /comfortsamuraikittyFebruary 7 2005, 01:40:51 UTC
Well the online rpgs I've played before (MUDs) have always worked like this:
You *can* solo, but that doesn't mean you *have* to. Just like you *can* group, but it's not a requirement.
They had 'solo' mobs and then they had 'group' mobs. The experience of the things you fought was designed so that you could level fairly well on your own, but things were much better and faster (not to mention safer) overall if you went with a full group.
I guess it would be the FF equivalent of making 150 exp per mob and getting down to 1/2 life at the end of the fight if you went solo.
If they set something up like that, it really wouldn't change the dynamic of the game so much - there'd still be much more of a plus side for going with a full party - but it would make life easier for those of us that don't have 5 hours a day to play.
And as a side note, you can interact with people in more ways than just exping with them. It wouldn't be paying money to play by yourself, it would be getting more for the money you spend on the game.
Re: /comfortsamuraikittyFebruary 7 2005, 18:00:41 UTC
I've thought about playing bst, but honestly, it doesn't interest me that much. Thief and bard are the two jobs I wanted to stick with. When I realized on thief I would have to wait upwards of 5 to sometimes even 8 hours for a party invite, I decided that even my uber sata fun wasn't even worth that kind of irritation and took up bard. A job people swore to me would be the easiest job ever to level.. and it was, until about 50.
Now I wait an hour or so sometimes for groups, which isn't terrible compared to thief, but it's certainly making me think 'hmm.. why am I paying $15/month for this game again? So I can log on and sit lfp until I get bored and leave again?"
Bst would certainly solve that, but it wouldn't make me very happy about playing a game that forces me to play as a beastmaster if I want to get my money's worth.
"Square doesn't want you to sacrifice your job, friends, family, or outside social life to play their game..."
Well, they're obligated to do that, and I'm sure that Everquest suicide had a hand in it.
Well, it's like Budweiser saying "Please enjoy our product in moderation" when they sell it packs of six, 12, and 24. In other words, Buzzed, Drunk, and Barely Alive.
Comments 3
(The comment has been removed)
You *can* solo, but that doesn't mean you *have* to. Just like you *can* group, but it's not a requirement.
They had 'solo' mobs and then they had 'group' mobs. The experience of the things you fought was designed so that you could level fairly well on your own, but things were much better and faster (not to mention safer) overall if you went with a full group.
I guess it would be the FF equivalent of making 150 exp per mob and getting down to 1/2 life at the end of the fight if you went solo.
If they set something up like that, it really wouldn't change the dynamic of the game so much - there'd still be much more of a plus side for going with a full party - but it would make life easier for those of us that don't have 5 hours a day to play.
And as a side note, you can interact with people in more ways than just exping with them. It wouldn't be paying money to play by yourself, it would be getting more for the money you spend on the game.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Now I wait an hour or so sometimes for groups, which isn't terrible compared to thief, but it's certainly making me think 'hmm.. why am I paying $15/month for this game again? So I can log on and sit lfp until I get bored and leave again?"
Bst would certainly solve that, but it wouldn't make me very happy about playing a game that forces me to play as a beastmaster if I want to get my money's worth.
Reply
Well, they're obligated to do that, and I'm sure that Everquest suicide had a hand in it.
Well, it's like Budweiser saying "Please enjoy our product in moderation" when they sell it packs of six, 12, and 24. In other words, Buzzed, Drunk, and Barely Alive.
Reply
Leave a comment