Scout Archive

And some players are scouts so that they don'tHAVE to group.

*sound of crickets chirping*

Terribly sorry to be such a downer, but although this seems wonderful to make scouts "a viable part of a group", it's completely deadly for the solo player. And I know I cannot be the only player in the entire game that does not want to run with a group, does not want to play with a group, and, in fact, doesn't even like going near groups.

At this point, with the reduced resources, scouts are being forced to group. This cannot be right. There are scouts (such as myself) that run solo (or with a pet only) so that they can get large amounts of the resources needed for the other skill trees that scouts can follow (such as, Oh, I don't know, the Bio-Engineer). Or, they go solo so they can gather resources for their artisan friends/contacts.

The point is, that they go solo, or with a pet for protection (those bloody TuskCats are a brilliant example of why there are so many CH Scouts out there). At this point in time, the changes are helping the group scout by sacrificing the solo one. Add in the reduced resources, and the solo player is getting less and less incentive to be a solo player.

Is that the intention? Is it the final goal of the designers to make it so that the only way that a player can survive within their chosen role is to be with a group?

Hastur,

"Terribly sorry to be such a downer, but although this seems wonderful to make scouts "a viable part of a group", it's completely deadly for the solo player. And I know I cannot be the only player in the entire game that does not want to run with a group, does not want to play with a group, and, in fact, doesn't even like going near groups"

Hastur, I don't want to sound like an ass, but you do realize that part of the fun of playing an MMORPG is to play with other people, right?

Kinda defeats the purpose if you don't want to do this.

Then again, it's not my place to judge alternative playstyles.

B

Just because you don't like to group doesn't mean you don't like other types of interaction. I like going out alone to collect some high quality resource (or sometimes just any resource). Then I bring it back and try to find a good price or maybe even barter my goods for theirs. Then I go and just hang out in the cantina even if I don't need the healing and listen to the music. I drop a few big tips on the good performers that I can tell for sure aren't afk (and aren't begging for money). Then I hop over to my favorite weaponsmith and check out his latest work and maybe pick up one or two. Then it is off to find a good slicer and hope for a little luck with the slice. I might then try to sell a few pets or give a few to some friends (sometimes in exchange for their wares). And then it is back to the hunt. This is all done by one player who prefers hunting solo.

I"d just like one person to point out to me where in word MMORPG the whole "group required" mentality comes from. Let's break it down. Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game. A roleplaying game that can be played online by a bunch of people at the same time.

Now some games like EQ really enforce the idea that it's group oriented because past a certain level you need a group to advance for most classes. But if you look at the upcoming game World of Warcraft, they have intentionally made the entire surface world solo-able. The dungeons of the world is where it behooves you to have a group because of the greater risk and thus greater reward.

SWG has been made more so than any other MMORPG a game where you can solo. With enough skill points you can be a scout/medic/entertainer if you like and rarely have to rely on others. Even then your interaction may be as much as visiting a weaponsmiths vendor to buy a weapon. If the game completely supports solo play then by goodness let people play solo if they want to!

Sakarab,

Hm. I thought the "Massively Multiplayer" part made it clear that interaction with other people was kinda the point.

In any event, the game is still "soloable". It's just not as easily soloable anymore.

B

Delta, just please explain to me how those two words mean group oriented. Since EQ became such a big hit do you know how many single player RPG's have come out? A great RPG was a fleshed out world that let you do a TON of stuff and took over 100 hours to beat. Now, if you are already making a world full of content how much harder would it be to make it massively multiplayer so you too can rake in the cash like EQ. The single player RPG's have suffered because of MMORPG (with noticable exceptions of course...Baldurs Gate anyone!).

Now, I have always loved RPG's since I played Bards Tale III and Eye of the Beholder on my 486. Since MMORPGs have become more prevalent than single player RPGs I choose to play the MMORPGs. What's better than an ever evolving world anyway!! But on these boards it seems that anyone who wants to be able to solo is looked upon like a madman because *obviously* MMORPG means you HAVE to be a good member of the community and have a grouping mentality.

Anyway....I know us solo'ers are the minority so I'll just zip my lip.

Sak,

Read my From Novice to Master guide to Scouting.

I state plainly - if you are going to go scout, don't bother with grouping. This was before the change, though

I love to solo. I do it all the time. I generally am under such a barage of tells between the PA and my minor celebrity status, that there are times when I just want to go out and hunt on my own.

But I don't go killingGnarled Rancorswhen I'm soloing either. I stick with creatures I can kill.

The real issue here isn't soloing - it's being able to take out high level mobs, social critters or high level NPCs withouta group. There isn't a single MMORPG where the toughest mob is soloable by a maxed out player. So there are always reasons to group.

That's what I'm arguing against - the people who use their pets as a way to cut down on the time it takes them to rack up huge amounts of hide and bone to sell.

All I'm trying to advocate is what I've always advocated - slow down, smell the roses, and enjoy playing.

B

Okay......I have no clue where you are coming from on your last post Delta. My original post was about losing 40% scouting experience if there is more than one scout in the group. I now realize that you don't lose any scouting xp just 40% of the harvest. I posted above that I was wrong about that.

Killing Gnarled Rancors though......where did that come from? How does a solo person killing a gnarled rancor have anything to do with wanting an opt-out switch? I personally agree with you, I just don't see what it has to do with group play versus solo play. Don't get me wrong....for three years I played a cleric in EQ. If there's ever been a group dependent class there you have it. I've been on both sides of the fence. This change slightly hurts those scouts who play with just a small group of people or apparently those that solo with a pet (that is a bug right?) so why not give them an option to let the one person who really cares about getting wooly hides and only wooly hides 100% of the resources.

Sak,

I'm not just arguing with you on this issue. I'm arguing with others who have differing opinions on soloing. Sorry if my threads aren't coherent. I'm starting to get a bit screwy in the head bouncing between here and the Ranger forums.

B

I like the new changes that every scout can harvest if they want. No more conflicts about who looted what and whenetc. And that its only 60% of the hides each one can harvest isnt a problem to me, we just kill more mobs

Isa'a

Didn't anyone tell you that doing the job of two correspondents has a negative effect on your health Delta