Need everybody's vote on potential content

In reality, there’s nothing multiple people can get that one person cannot, that doesn’t have some form of socialization as its raison d’ etre and goal.

Please present a single mechanism by which you could stop a single player from completing a group objective/acquiring a difficult item that doesn’t boil down to pure “because you can’t” on the part of the game designers?

I’ll just go ahead and jump to the conclusion. If the objective isn’t socialization, and the item isn’t a social abstract, you can’t. Full stop.

You didn’t explicitly state it, but it’s quite reasonably implied. “A few objectives” versus “Absolutely NO objectives”. Even though you didn’t precisely say it, most people would quite reasonably assume it from the way it’s phrased. Even Then you Still didn’t include a third option, so it’s still not really honest.

I’m not angry at all. I’m saying things the way I say them. Any anger you’re perceiving is purely what you, yourself, are projecting on me.

Gotcha, well I’m not projecting it on you any more. As far as I’m concerned we’re BFF’s :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:. I don’t need a third option because it’s plain and simple.

Choice 1 - Do you want at least a few (not many) objectives that you CANNOT do by yourself which means if you want to complete that objective you HAVE to team up. Very simple.

Choice 2 - No, I do not want any objectives that I can’t do by myself even if it takes me a long time to complete it, I still want that option and ability to do it solo.

Do you agree with this?

2 Likes

Yeah, that’s a lot better.

2 Likes

Well, from what I understood about objectives, is they serve a purpose apart from granting exp, and it is to guide in a certain form or shape across the multiple things he can do in game. Based solely on that, there’s many things that require at least two people to be achieved.

My point was that somethings would be impossible without the involvement of at least two people, because the activity will require two sides in order to be achieved.

  • Trading (You can’t trade with yourself, and it’s important to have these objectives to guide people on how to trade)
  • PVP (If there’s PVP objectives, you need too battle another player in order to achieve it, you’ll need at least two people to do combat)
  • Healing others (You as a healer, will need to heal other players, thus involving forming a group or finding others to play with)
  • Revive (It would demand a dead character to revive him)
  • Introducing the beacon permission mechanic (You’ll need to friend someone at one point, and then give them permissions to your beacon, thus generating socialization)
  • Guilds (Running a guild by yourself, it’s not truly a guild, it would require at least two people)

Those are the points I can come up for now, also we have to remember, there’s no way for a character to achieve all the objectives, as we’ll find ourselves hitting a level cap, and spending our skill points, depending how you play and allocate those skill points, closing off certain activities to happen to that character. Because Boundless will have generalists and specialists, but not a “complete” character, with all skills unlocked.

3 Likes

I love that we can’t have everything. It means we’re gonna have a very diverse bunch of players and abilities. I’ll help you with this if you help me with that.

2 Likes

If that’s what you meant, I agree with you completely. All of those fall within socialization and the social abstract.

1 Like

All those things are accepatable because none are anything like fighting a titan or finding a rare block simply because they don’t offer a rare reward that requires multiple players to obtain. As a solo player I intend to do a lot of trading. That’s why I need the multiplayer world. If pvp worlds are the go to option for pvp, then as a solo player, all I have to do is go there and play. I won’t have to include another player. Even group pvp content. Should I not be allowed to kill a whole group alone if I’m capable? Honestly these aren’t the type of multiplayer tasks I have a problem with. It’s content that locks out solo players for no reason, such as fighting titans and finding rare blocks, that I have issues with. I’ll probably start a guild at some point just for solo players. Which sounds weird but makes perfect sense for me. But I don’t want to be forced into bringing 3 people exploring with me so I don’t miss out on the rare block I’ve been looking for just because everyone else wanted to lock it away from solo players. I just don’t see the point.
If you want to play it as group content that’s awesome! Go do it! Balance it for group content!
But don’t lock me out just because I generaly play alone. That’s just unreasonable.

2 Likes

Absolutely agree.

1 Like

I can honestly say that the way I read those options, neither of them appeals to me overmuch. I’d much rather take option 3:

A range of content, balanced for varying groups sizes, that may be attempted by anyone. Should a solo player be skillful and well geared or just plain persistent enough, they might be able to succeed at content balanced for small groups, but that should be a notable exception, not the rule.

In terms of objectives, this could include things like building very large plots of land (harder as a solo, because of the speed at which you obtain plots), or objectives that may require a number or alts to achieve, but are still ‘technically’ soloable.

Sadly, your option one could be seen as totally excluding solo players challenging themselves with harder content, and option two suggests that everything should be accomplish-able by your average solo player, as opposed to attempted by one, which I also disagree with. I can’t really cast an genuine vote in this survey.

1 Like

Ok…(takes a deep breath) option 1 IS saying that there WILL be some objectives that a single player CANNOT do by themselves. Literally it says that very clearly. If you pick that option that means you understand that there will be things you can’t do by yourself.
Choice 2 is exactly what your saying choice 3 should be. That by one way or another a single player can somehow complete an objective by himself even though it may be easier and more efficient if done in a group.

Somebody help me here. Are the options really not clear enough? Is it my own mental blindness that’s missing something? What’s happening here???

I’m being punked aren’t I? @Pseudonym84 are you behind this. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

2 Likes

No, it’s just the way different people understand different phrasing and use of words. For me, I totally agree with your interpretation of option 1.

However, to me, Option 2 reads like “Content should be designed with solo completion in mind, so that every piece of content should be achievable by your average player”.

I find that this is the problem with trying to take things and make them black and white alternatives. Even when you think you’ve cracked it, someone with a different perspective can come along and totally fail to understand your intent (my bad).

1 Like

No no no.! I totally understand what you’re saying. Trust me, I’m celebrating our 14 year anniversary this month and know exactly what taking something the wrong way means. If I ever do a vote again I will make sure to be very specific and detailed. Thank you for being patient with me. :sweat_smile:

1 Like

Hey… I’m celebrating my 14 years locked in with the same person this month too… Wait, you’re not my other half are you? That WOULD be weird!

I’d say not even more detailed, perhaps just a thing one, thing two or somewhere in between survey. I suggest that two options for such a potentially broad ranging topic just leave people picking the best of two different options they don’t really agree with, (much like the current political climate of the country I live in… lol).

On the plus side, with the additional clarification, I can totally vote in this poll now :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

Awesome, that just made my day :grin:

1 Like