Elsterchen wrote: »

Shunravi wrote: »

Elsterchen wrote: »

As far as i know this has been disscussed before, ... craglorn is meant to be group territory (at least if you are interested in finishing the quests). The reason was to: "encourage grouping" if I recall correctly.

So, ... well... please stop beating a dead horse?

There is a big difference between forcing grouping and encouraging it. The zone origonally suffered because you needed to be on the same quest stages to do stuff, glad they got rid of that. But for some things, you still need exactly four people to even access them. no more and no less. That isnt very friendly to groups. And instances are still capped for how many on a group can enter. Again, very group unfriendly unless you only run with three other people and no more and no less.

Don't get me wrong, I agree 100% that this is a mechanism that forces grouping. Nonetheless, everything has been said 1000 times before, to no avail. It just ended in solo-players vs MMO-fanatics raging at each other that life isn't always fair and the meaning of MMO not beeing forced grouping... etc etc etc.

... and that was at a time where there was no solo content (like wrothgar) in sight...

Don't want to heat up any discussion, just saying this horse has been beaten already... often and badly... just let it rest in peace.

Not like wrothgar, but the vet zones are definately soloable. What failed with craglorn was the need to group outside said forced mechanics. The zone was and is perfectly soloable. But again a major failing was the fact that if you put together a group in open craglorn, you could not bring the whole group into an instance, some would have to wait outside. Which discouraged grouping as well.

What i find bizarre is that the 'MMO fanatics' defend these group-toxic systems under the guise of 'group content in mmos.'