If you are playing a game that requires grouping, then you are going to be grouping with people who want to group (or they wouldn't be playing that game). As opposed to people who are grouping because there is something they want from the group content and they do it while holding their nose.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Jixx it's sorta goofy to act disgruntled about that, given that "RPG" when used in the context of videogames has nearly never referred to the type of playacting you do in a tabletop RPG. Nobody cares if you argue semantics anyway. The only argument that holds weight in whether grouping should be forced or not is "is it fun?" Nobody's going to stop playing an otherwise fun game just because they're hung up on the genre label attached to it. "This game is so fun! I could play for years! ...oh wait, they're calling this an RPG?! That's an outrage, I quit!"
That's the problem though, grouping in many games just isn't fun, that's why a lot of soloers don't want to group, it's an annoying, obnoxious, exasperating activity where you have to deal with asshats who are only out to use you for their own personal rewards. I'm paying my subscription fee to be entertained, not to be frustrated.
The fact is that computer-based RPGs have never been about roleplaying. Square-Enix was one of the biggest problems in that regard, Final Fantasy had nothing to do with roleplaying, it was about being dragged by the nose through a ridiculously overblown story that you had no choice to follow. Roleplaying is all about choices. When MMOs came along, they just "borrowed" the FF "RPG" idea.
I'd love to see MMOs that were actually RPGs but... that'll never happen.
The fact is that computer-based RPGs have never been about roleplaying. Square-Enix was one of the biggest problems in that regard, Final Fantasy had nothing to do with roleplaying, it was about being dragged by the nose through a ridiculously overblown story that you had no choice to follow. Roleplaying is all about choices. When MMOs came along, they just "borrowed" the FF "RPG" idea.
And thank god for that.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
the problem is the soloers and the lack of players. Games should find a way to keep the community close to each other so they may aid each other whenever necessary.
Self-sufficient players don't need generally need aid, but if we do, that's what RL friends and family are for.
Apart from too many players being either immature, inarticulate, greedy, whiny or inept - if not actually all five - grouping with some total stranger for 10 minutes where the only conversational response from them is "kk" or "lol" is utterly boring. That seems to be most people's idea of grouping, and they can keep it!
Also the problem that a lot of groupers are self-absorbed and are specifically just using others. I've seen plenty of tanks tell healers that it's their sole purpose in life to keep them alive. Grouping really isn't about achieving group success, it's a bunch of self-important leeches using each other.
The fact is that computer-based RPGs have never been about roleplaying. Square-Enix was one of the biggest problems in that regard, Final Fantasy had nothing to do with roleplaying, it was about being dragged by the nose through a ridiculously overblown story that you had no choice to follow. Roleplaying is all about choices. When MMOs came along, they just "borrowed" the FF "RPG" idea.
And thank god for that.
I don't necessarily think it's a good thing, other than it being a set of letters they used for their acronym. The fact is, we ought to have actual PnP-style online RPGs, they'd probably be a lot more fun than most MMOs, but because they require more work to make, devs would rather make these much easier games that require no imagination, no effort and no skill than actually put together a game that requires all three.
When was the last time you grouped, a bad formative experience may have ruined you for life? These days finding someone who thinks the healer is there to heal them and so on is a rare find. In fact we make fun of that sort of attitude and joke about who’s ‘fault’ it is and so on.
I am not saying that grouping is all fantastic, yes you still have idiots, get yourself into a mature guild and have a laugh at such player follies.
The fact is that computer-based RPGs have never been about roleplaying. Square-Enix was one of the biggest problems in that regard, Final Fantasy had nothing to do with roleplaying, it was about being dragged by the nose through a ridiculously overblown story that you had no choice to follow. Roleplaying is all about choices. When MMOs came along, they just "borrowed" the FF "RPG" idea.
And thank god for that.
I don't necessarily think it's a good thing, other than it being a set of letters they used for their acronym. The fact is, we ought to have actual PnP-style online RPGs, they'd probably be a lot more fun than most MMOs, but because they require more work to make, devs would rather make these much easier games that require no imagination, no effort and no skill than actually put together a game that requires all three.
MMO's in general require more work than normal games. Now you call that lazy, and say they should require even more work so only the big companies would even have a chance at making them?
I like the way MMO's are right now as well, and would argue that if MMO's were as you described they would be a lot worse.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
I don't really care if I come across a part that I have to group up to continue, let alone just get the best gear. But if there was a point in your character development that you couldn't even advance any further, unless you did a short scripted encounter with 1 other person (yes a 2 man team) where class didn't matter, would you quit right there?
No I would not quit because I would need to group, I would quit if I never would have to group in MMOG.
Great MMOs offer a choice. Lousy MMOs force a playstyle on people. Basically if you have a life, you won't be playing any game that forces you to sit for multiple hours at a time without reasonable breaks. Simply, if my wife needs to ask me a question, I'm going to pause the videogame. If the group is pissed off at that which is bound to happen, tough noogies. If I could group up for an HOUR and actually get something accomplished, thats fine. But we know there just isn't too many opportunities for that sort of grouped up session, even in WOW. Grouping was great when I was single. Now with a family, real life>videogame.
Great MMOs offer a choice. Lousy MMOs force a playstyle on people. Basically if you have a life, you won't be playing any game that forces you to sit for multiple hours at a time without reasonable breaks. Simply, if my wife needs to ask me a question, I'm going to pause the videogame. If the group is pissed off at that which is bound to happen, tough noogies. If I could group up for an HOUR and actually get something accomplished, thats fine. But we know there just isn't too many opportunities for that sort of grouped up session, even in WOW. Grouping was great when I was single. Now with a family, real life>videogame.
The only problem is that his statement is flawed, if you are trying to say games that allow an easy solo path to the level cap offer a "choice".
Those games do not offer the "choice" of a good solid challenging grouping game.
Can you really point to dozens of MMORPGs where you can't group and solo to the cap?
For example, you could solo in EQ all the way to the cap, and in DAoC.
So there's no lack of "choice" in these games to begin with.
Making a game solo easy to the level cap isn't adding a "choice" it's just making a game solo friendly. Making a game "forced grouping" doesn't take away any choices since you can still solo (no games have mechanics that prevent you from soloing) it's just adding better group content.
Id' say if the group is NOT pissed off because you put the game on pause, it's a pretty poor grouping game. So, if what you want to choose is a good grouping game, your argument is against choice, not for it.
Seriously think about your statement. Forcing me to play a solo friendly game, is offering more choice? It's absurd on it's face.
Great MMOs offer a choice. Lousy MMOs force a playstyle on people. Basically if you have a life, you won't be playing any game that forces you to sit for multiple hours at a time without reasonable breaks. Simply, if my wife needs to ask me a question, I'm going to pause the videogame. If the group is pissed off at that which is bound to happen, tough noogies. If I could group up for an HOUR and actually get something accomplished, thats fine. But we know there just isn't too many opportunities for that sort of grouped up session, even in WOW. Grouping was great when I was single. Now with a family, real life>videogame.
The only problem is that his statement is flawed, if you are trying to say games that allow an easy solo path to the level cap offer a "choice".
Those games do not offer the "choice" of a good solid challenging grouping game.
Can you really point to dozens of MMORPGs where you can't group and solo to the cap?
For example, you could solo in EQ all the way to the cap, and in DAoC.
So there's no lack of "choice" in these games to begin with.
Making a game solo easy to the level cap isn't adding a "choice" it's just making a game solo friendly. Making a game "forced grouping" doesn't take away any choices since you can still solo (no games have mechanics that prevent you from soloing) it's just adding better group content.
Id' say if the group is NOT pissed off because you put the game on pause, it's a pretty poor grouping game. So, if what you want to choose is a good grouping game, your argument is against choice, not for it.
Seriously think about your statement. Forcing me to play a solo friendly game, is offering more choice? It's absurd on it's face.
There lies the problem if the group was made of decent mature people they would understand that sometimes you get wifegro. Those who get mad in my opinion are just the selfish leeches mentioned earlier. Grouping is fine but the problem is finding people you can actually tolerate to group with for any length of time. I think the mmos community would be better if they actually understood the rpg part or at the very least people practicing basic manners would be a huge boost. Solo content is needed for survival in mmos and correct me if I am wrong but I do not know of any mmo where soloing can get you all of the same loot as grouping does. I don't mind grouping but I am very much against pve raiding.
I still do not see grouping and solo as impossible bed mates. We have MMO’s which have fine PvP and PvE elements, grouping and solo are no more opposites than that. It is the way MMO’s have developed that have made them so solo friendly. Make grouping and soloing two paths like the night and day quests of AoC perhaps.
PvP and PvE do not mix happily when smack on top of one another, but give PvP its own zones, its own endgame and scenarios and it works just fine. So give grouping its own zones, endgame (raids) and its own scenarios (e.g. solo or grouping Skirmish) and they can coexist.
There lies the problem if the group was made of decent mature people they would understand that sometimes you get wifegro. Those who get mad in my opinion are just the selfish leeches mentioned earlier. Grouping is fine but the problem is finding people you can actually tolerate to group with for any length of time. I think the mmos community would be better if they actually understood the rpg part or at the very least people practicing basic manners would be a huge boost. Solo content is needed for survival in mmos and correct me if I am wrong but I do not know of any mmo where soloing can get you all of the same loot as grouping does. I don't mind grouping but I am very much against pve raiding.
The more the grouping aspect is favored in the MMO the more understandable the people are towards common issues such as wifegro. When it's an every day issue people learn to be patient about it (is what I've noticed when playing group MMO's anyway). If they can't tolerate a bit of a downtime then they'll leave the game after first 20 levels anyway.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
I still do not see grouping and solo as impossible bed mates. We have MMO’s which have fine PvP and PvE elements, grouping and solo are no more opposites than that. It is the way MMO’s have developed that have made them so solo friendly. Make grouping and soloing two paths like the night and day quests of AoC perhaps. PvP and PvE do not mix happily when smack on top of one another, but give PvP its own zones, its own endgame and scenarios and it works just fine. So give grouping its own zones, endgame (raids) and its own scenarios (e.g. solo or grouping Skirmish) and they can coexist.
Soloing has been part of EVERY MMO ever released. Of course soloing and grouping are not impossible. What's impossible is to make an EASY solo to the cap game, and a GOOD grouping game.
How do you make grouping and soloing two different paths?
Are you saying two different servers? otherwise, how are the paths separate?
I'm standing around looking for group, I find one, we spend time traveling to meet each other, we group, then we find out one of the players in the group sucks and we get a party wipe. Everyone leaves the group, disgusted.
Ok, that's just part of playing a grouping game. Now it's time to look for another group.
I just spent an hour and made no xp. But I don't care, because this is normal. I COULD have spent that time soloing, but, I'd only make half the xp of grouping, so it's no big deal. In the next hour I find a good group, and I'm still ahead, versus if I had chosen to solo. Great game!
OR, I could solo and make the exact same xp as grouping. Now it's a shitty grouping game, because grouping means making xp at half the normal rate. Why would players CHOOSE to make xp at half the normal rate?
So, where's your "two paths" in that scenario? It's really one path, solo, and that's it. OR, play the game at half xp rate, which I don't see why players would do that. And they DON"T in a solo friendly game, they just solo, and jump in a group and right back out now and then.
The SOLO path destroys the grouping path, becuase you can ALWAYS solo. HOWEVER< the grouping path does NOT destroy the solo path. Soloing can still be easier, because you don't have to deal with people in a group, even if you are making less xp per mob kill. There's no downtime waiting for others. But you cannot ALWAYS group, you need to find other players for that, which means you will still need to solo.
Ihmotepp that's absolutely ridiculous. That's like saying "My freedom as an American should give me complete freedom to enslave others, or it's not true freedom." American freedom isn't anarchy (ie true total freedom.) It's a more logical freedom, tempered by the concept of equality and the rights of individuals.
The same common sense applies to player freedom in games: more overall freedom is attained by considering all players equal.
Put another way: if Player A likes grouping and Player B likes soloing, what type of game structure will keep both players paying? (Hint: It's not the one that kicks Player B in the gonads.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The original poster seriously doesn't get why some players don't like forced grouping or grouping period. Lets look at the acronym MMORPG. Massively
Multiplayer
Online
Role
Playing
Game Its freaking crappy role players like you that just don't get it. How am I playing the role I want to play if I'm forced to consistantly play by another set of rules? My character has a personality as a lone wolf on the out skirts of civiliation. Its not role playing if you are forced to play the way somebody else wants you to play. This is the way I explain it... Original Poster: *I enter a room and everybody quakes with fear*
Thats not role playing. This is is role playing... Original Poster: *I enter a room with the look that I am about to kill somebody*
Patron 1: *Quakes with fear*
Patron 2: *Dismisses the pissant that just walked through the door* Seriously don't call it a MMORPG if the games ruleset forces a player to behave in a manner they typically would behave.
This is probably the number one reason you don't see many Role Players in current MMOs. Especially class based theme park mmos.
Yeah - but it isn't
Massively
multiplayer
self-directed
role
playing
game
Which is what you seem to assume. When you choose your role, you choose the role the developer intended, not the one you intended. So if you choose a ranger's role, it is the role the developer had in mind for a ranger, and he may have thought that ranger would group up every once in awhile.
Until they actually come up with a modern sandbox fantasy game, you will be doomed to play by the roles as defined by the game itself. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Ihmotepp that's absolutely ridiculous. That's like saying "My freedom as an American should give me complete freedom to enslave others, or it's not true freedom." American freedom isn't anarchy (ie true total freedom.) It's a more logical freedom, tempered by the concept of equality and the rights of individuals. The same common sense applies to player freedom in games: more overall freedom is attained by considering all players equal. Put another way: if Player A likes grouping and Player B likes soloing, what type of game structure will keep both players paying? (Hint: It's not the one that kicks Player B in the gonads.)
Why is it keeping anyone from soloing, just because they have to play longer to solo to the cap?
Are you saying you can't play the game, if solo isnt' the fastest route to the cap? Why is that?
You're saying you played some game, and when you tried to kill a mob solo, the game just booted you and said that's not allowed?
We're not debating over "CHOICE".
ALL games allow group and solo play.
The only thing we are debating on is what should be the fastest route to the level cap. Group or solo.
Why do you insist you have no "choice" if solo isn't the fastest route to the level cap?
So, stop trying to please both groups in one game. Right now, the big names are focusing on the solo players, and tacking on group stuff at the end. The core gameplay is based around solo'ing. Change that, and you have a very different game. There wouldn't be so much waiting around for groups if everything required grouping to do. Now, I know that a lot of solo players wouldn't want to play this game. That's fine. Other people are making games for you. Group-y folks like myself just want some love, too. No need for us both to be playing the same game. I don't think there can be a perfect MMO that will make everyone happy.
Important facts: 1. Free to Play games are poorly made. 2. Casuals are not all idiots, but idiots call themselves casuals. 3. Great solo and group content are not mutually exclusive, but they suffer when one is shoved into the mold of the other. The same is true of PvP and PvE. 4. Community is more important than you think.
So, stop trying to please both groups in one game. Right now, the big names are focusing on the solo players, and tacking on group stuff at the end. The core gameplay is based around solo'ing. Change that, and you have a very different game. There wouldn't be so much waiting around for groups if everything required grouping to do. Now, I know that a lot of solo players wouldn't want to play this game. That's fine. Other people are making games for you. Group-y folks like myself just want some love, too. No need for us both to be playing the same game. I don't think there can be a perfect MMO that will make everyone happy.
Oh but that's FORCING!!! The players are FORCED to buy the game off the shelf. And nobody likes FORCING.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
So, stop trying to please both groups in one game. Right now, the big names are focusing on the solo players, and tacking on group stuff at the end. The core gameplay is based around solo'ing. Change that, and you have a very different game. There wouldn't be so much waiting around for groups if everything required grouping to do. Now, I know that a lot of solo players wouldn't want to play this game. That's fine. Other people are making games for you. Group-y folks like myself just want some love, too. No need for us both to be playing the same game. I don't think there can be a perfect MMO that will make everyone happy.
This seems like a logical argument to me.
The solo argument seems wierd to me. That argument goes, you MUST be happy playing a solo game, and here's why...
Or to state it a different way, my SOLO game is a great grouping game! but the grouper just told you it isn't for him, so why would you not believe him?
How could someone think they can tell another person what sort of game they have to like, for any reason?
Ihmotepp that's absolutely ridiculous. That's like saying "My freedom as an American should give me complete freedom to enslave others, or it's not true freedom." American freedom isn't anarchy (ie true total freedom.) It's a more logical freedom, tempered by the concept of equality and the rights of individuals. The same common sense applies to player freedom in games: more overall freedom is attained by considering all players equal. Put another way: if Player A likes grouping and Player B likes soloing, what type of game structure will keep both players paying? (Hint: It's not the one that kicks Player B in the gonads.)
Why is it keeping anyone from soloing, just because they have to play longer to solo to the cap?
Are you saying you can't play the game, if solo isnt' the fastest route to the cap? Why is that?
You're saying you played some game, and when you tried to kill a mob solo, the game just booted you and said that's not allowed?
We're not debating over "CHOICE".
ALL games allow group and solo play.
The only thing we are debating on is what should be the fastest route to the level cap. Group or solo.
Why do you insist you have no "choice" if solo isn't the fastest route to the level cap?
No reasonable person has ever demanded soloing is the fastest route. All a reasonable person wants is equality. Equality creates the highest possible amount of player freedom, because you're completely free to choose which path to pursue.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Jixx it's sorta goofy to act disgruntled about that, given that "RPG" when used in the context of videogames has nearly never referred to the type of playacting you do in a tabletop RPG. Nobody cares if you argue semantics anyway. The only argument that holds weight in whether grouping should be forced or not is "is it fun?" Nobody's going to stop playing an otherwise fun game just because they're hung up on the genre label attached to it. "This game is so fun! I could play for years! ...oh wait, they're calling this an RPG?! That's an outrage, I quit!"
That's the problem though, grouping in many games just isn't fun, that's why a lot of soloers don't want to group, it's an annoying, obnoxious, exasperating activity where you have to deal with asshats who are only out to use you for their own personal rewards. I'm paying my subscription fee to be entertained, not to be frustrated.
The fact is that computer-based RPGs have never been about roleplaying. Square-Enix was one of the biggest problems in that regard, Final Fantasy had nothing to do with roleplaying, it was about being dragged by the nose through a ridiculously overblown story that you had no choice to follow. Roleplaying is all about choices. When MMOs came along, they just "borrowed" the FF "RPG" idea.
I'd love to see MMOs that were actually RPGs but... that'll never happen.
To be clear, my post didn't state my own opinion. I merely demanded that the previous poster use better arguments to support their opinion (because the "RPGs aren't tabletop roleplaying" argument is basically not even the same topic.)
Also, the majority of MMORPGs' roots were computer RPGs like MUDs. FF style RPGs have had extremely little influence over MMORPGs, to be honest.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Ihmotepp that's absolutely ridiculous. That's like saying "My freedom as an American should give me complete freedom to enslave others, or it's not true freedom." American freedom isn't anarchy (ie true total freedom.) It's a more logical freedom, tempered by the concept of equality and the rights of individuals. The same common sense applies to player freedom in games: more overall freedom is attained by considering all players equal. Put another way: if Player A likes grouping and Player B likes soloing, what type of game structure will keep both players paying? (Hint: It's not the one that kicks Player B in the gonads.)
Why is it keeping anyone from soloing, just because they have to play longer to solo to the cap?
Are you saying you can't play the game, if solo isnt' the fastest route to the cap? Why is that?
You're saying you played some game, and when you tried to kill a mob solo, the game just booted you and said that's not allowed?
We're not debating over "CHOICE".
ALL games allow group and solo play.
The only thing we are debating on is what should be the fastest route to the level cap. Group or solo.
Why do you insist you have no "choice" if solo isn't the fastest route to the level cap?
No reasonable person has ever demanded soloing is the fastest route. All a reasonable person wants is equality. Equality creates the highest possible amount of player freedom, because you're completely free to choose which path to pursue.
Yes, equality would mean the group makes about double the rate of the solo player, or else the solo route is the quickest route to the cap.
So you're asking for the quickest route to the top, and just changing that term to "equality".
But of course it's NOT equal, since the solo player has the quickest route to the cap.
Ihmotepp that's absolutely ridiculous. That's like saying "My freedom as an American should give me complete freedom to enslave others, or it's not true freedom." American freedom isn't anarchy (ie true total freedom.) It's a more logical freedom, tempered by the concept of equality and the rights of individuals. The same common sense applies to player freedom in games: more overall freedom is attained by considering all players equal. Put another way: if Player A likes grouping and Player B likes soloing, what type of game structure will keep both players paying? (Hint: It's not the one that kicks Player B in the gonads.)
Why is it keeping anyone from soloing, just because they have to play longer to solo to the cap?
Are you saying you can't play the game, if solo isnt' the fastest route to the cap? Why is that?
You're saying you played some game, and when you tried to kill a mob solo, the game just booted you and said that's not allowed?
We're not debating over "CHOICE".
ALL games allow group and solo play.
The only thing we are debating on is what should be the fastest route to the level cap. Group or solo.
Why do you insist you have no "choice" if solo isn't the fastest route to the level cap?
For the same reason you say you have no choice if grouping isn't rewarded with 4x the XP gains.
Yes you can technically solo in a group based game, even to max, but it is so monsterously ineffecient that you have to group to do anything in a timely manner.
Like when you say why should you bother grouping and go through the hassel of finding a group if you could solo and level faster.
So technically the option is there it is just not a very good one.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Comments
If you are playing a game that requires grouping, then you are going to be grouping with people who want to group (or they wouldn't be playing that game). As opposed to people who are grouping because there is something they want from the group content and they do it while holding their nose.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
That's the problem though, grouping in many games just isn't fun, that's why a lot of soloers don't want to group, it's an annoying, obnoxious, exasperating activity where you have to deal with asshats who are only out to use you for their own personal rewards. I'm paying my subscription fee to be entertained, not to be frustrated.
The fact is that computer-based RPGs have never been about roleplaying. Square-Enix was one of the biggest problems in that regard, Final Fantasy had nothing to do with roleplaying, it was about being dragged by the nose through a ridiculously overblown story that you had no choice to follow. Roleplaying is all about choices. When MMOs came along, they just "borrowed" the FF "RPG" idea.
I'd love to see MMOs that were actually RPGs but... that'll never happen.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
And thank god for that.
Self-sufficient players don't need generally need aid, but if we do, that's what RL friends and family are for.
Apart from too many players being either immature, inarticulate, greedy, whiny or inept - if not actually all five - grouping with some total stranger for 10 minutes where the only conversational response from them is "kk" or "lol" is utterly boring. That seems to be most people's idea of grouping, and they can keep it!
Also the problem that a lot of groupers are self-absorbed and are specifically just using others. I've seen plenty of tanks tell healers that it's their sole purpose in life to keep them alive. Grouping really isn't about achieving group success, it's a bunch of self-important leeches using each other.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
And thank god for that.
I don't necessarily think it's a good thing, other than it being a set of letters they used for their acronym. The fact is, we ought to have actual PnP-style online RPGs, they'd probably be a lot more fun than most MMOs, but because they require more work to make, devs would rather make these much easier games that require no imagination, no effort and no skill than actually put together a game that requires all three.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
When was the last time you grouped, a bad formative experience may have ruined you for life? These days finding someone who thinks the healer is there to heal them and so on is a rare find. In fact we make fun of that sort of attitude and joke about who’s ‘fault’ it is and so on.
I am not saying that grouping is all fantastic, yes you still have idiots, get yourself into a mature guild and have a laugh at such player follies.
And thank god for that.
I don't necessarily think it's a good thing, other than it being a set of letters they used for their acronym. The fact is, we ought to have actual PnP-style online RPGs, they'd probably be a lot more fun than most MMOs, but because they require more work to make, devs would rather make these much easier games that require no imagination, no effort and no skill than actually put together a game that requires all three.
MMO's in general require more work than normal games. Now you call that lazy, and say they should require even more work so only the big companies would even have a chance at making them?
I like the way MMO's are right now as well, and would argue that if MMO's were as you described they would be a lot worse.
No I would not quit because I would need to group, I would quit if I never would have to group in MMOG.
MMORPG.COM has worst forum editor ever exists
Great MMOs offer a choice. Lousy MMOs force a playstyle on people. Basically if you have a life, you won't be playing any game that forces you to sit for multiple hours at a time without reasonable breaks. Simply, if my wife needs to ask me a question, I'm going to pause the videogame. If the group is pissed off at that which is bound to happen, tough noogies. If I could group up for an HOUR and actually get something accomplished, thats fine. But we know there just isn't too many opportunities for that sort of grouped up session, even in WOW. Grouping was great when I was single. Now with a family, real life>videogame.
The only problem is that his statement is flawed, if you are trying to say games that allow an easy solo path to the level cap offer a "choice".
Those games do not offer the "choice" of a good solid challenging grouping game.
Can you really point to dozens of MMORPGs where you can't group and solo to the cap?
For example, you could solo in EQ all the way to the cap, and in DAoC.
So there's no lack of "choice" in these games to begin with.
Making a game solo easy to the level cap isn't adding a "choice" it's just making a game solo friendly. Making a game "forced grouping" doesn't take away any choices since you can still solo (no games have mechanics that prevent you from soloing) it's just adding better group content.
Id' say if the group is NOT pissed off because you put the game on pause, it's a pretty poor grouping game. So, if what you want to choose is a good grouping game, your argument is against choice, not for it.
Seriously think about your statement. Forcing me to play a solo friendly game, is offering more choice? It's absurd on it's face.
The only problem is that his statement is flawed, if you are trying to say games that allow an easy solo path to the level cap offer a "choice".
Those games do not offer the "choice" of a good solid challenging grouping game.
Can you really point to dozens of MMORPGs where you can't group and solo to the cap?
For example, you could solo in EQ all the way to the cap, and in DAoC.
So there's no lack of "choice" in these games to begin with.
Making a game solo easy to the level cap isn't adding a "choice" it's just making a game solo friendly. Making a game "forced grouping" doesn't take away any choices since you can still solo (no games have mechanics that prevent you from soloing) it's just adding better group content.
Id' say if the group is NOT pissed off because you put the game on pause, it's a pretty poor grouping game. So, if what you want to choose is a good grouping game, your argument is against choice, not for it.
Seriously think about your statement. Forcing me to play a solo friendly game, is offering more choice? It's absurd on it's face.
There lies the problem if the group was made of decent mature people they would understand that sometimes you get wifegro. Those who get mad in my opinion are just the selfish leeches mentioned earlier. Grouping is fine but the problem is finding people you can actually tolerate to group with for any length of time. I think the mmos community would be better if they actually understood the rpg part or at the very least people practicing basic manners would be a huge boost. Solo content is needed for survival in mmos and correct me if I am wrong but I do not know of any mmo where soloing can get you all of the same loot as grouping does. I don't mind grouping but I am very much against pve raiding.
I still do not see grouping and solo as impossible bed mates. We have MMO’s which have fine PvP and PvE elements, grouping and solo are no more opposites than that. It is the way MMO’s have developed that have made them so solo friendly. Make grouping and soloing two paths like the night and day quests of AoC perhaps.
PvP and PvE do not mix happily when smack on top of one another, but give PvP its own zones, its own endgame and scenarios and it works just fine. So give grouping its own zones, endgame (raids) and its own scenarios (e.g. solo or grouping Skirmish) and they can coexist.
I could see a game like Scot is talking about working. A game should of multiple paths to keep more people involved in the game.
The more the grouping aspect is favored in the MMO the more understandable the people are towards common issues such as wifegro. When it's an every day issue people learn to be patient about it (is what I've noticed when playing group MMO's anyway). If they can't tolerate a bit of a downtime then they'll leave the game after first 20 levels anyway.
Soloing has been part of EVERY MMO ever released. Of course soloing and grouping are not impossible. What's impossible is to make an EASY solo to the cap game, and a GOOD grouping game.
How do you make grouping and soloing two different paths?
Are you saying two different servers? otherwise, how are the paths separate?
I'm standing around looking for group, I find one, we spend time traveling to meet each other, we group, then we find out one of the players in the group sucks and we get a party wipe. Everyone leaves the group, disgusted.
Ok, that's just part of playing a grouping game. Now it's time to look for another group.
I just spent an hour and made no xp. But I don't care, because this is normal. I COULD have spent that time soloing, but, I'd only make half the xp of grouping, so it's no big deal. In the next hour I find a good group, and I'm still ahead, versus if I had chosen to solo. Great game!
OR, I could solo and make the exact same xp as grouping. Now it's a shitty grouping game, because grouping means making xp at half the normal rate. Why would players CHOOSE to make xp at half the normal rate?
So, where's your "two paths" in that scenario? It's really one path, solo, and that's it. OR, play the game at half xp rate, which I don't see why players would do that. And they DON"T in a solo friendly game, they just solo, and jump in a group and right back out now and then.
The SOLO path destroys the grouping path, becuase you can ALWAYS solo. HOWEVER< the grouping path does NOT destroy the solo path. Soloing can still be easier, because you don't have to deal with people in a group, even if you are making less xp per mob kill. There's no downtime waiting for others. But you cannot ALWAYS group, you need to find other players for that, which means you will still need to solo.
Ihmotepp that's absolutely ridiculous. That's like saying "My freedom as an American should give me complete freedom to enslave others, or it's not true freedom." American freedom isn't anarchy (ie true total freedom.) It's a more logical freedom, tempered by the concept of equality and the rights of individuals.
The same common sense applies to player freedom in games: more overall freedom is attained by considering all players equal.
Put another way: if Player A likes grouping and Player B likes soloing, what type of game structure will keep both players paying? (Hint: It's not the one that kicks Player B in the gonads.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yeah - but it isn't
Massively
multiplayer
self-directed
role
playing
game
Which is what you seem to assume. When you choose your role, you choose the role the developer intended, not the one you intended. So if you choose a ranger's role, it is the role the developer had in mind for a ranger, and he may have thought that ranger would group up every once in awhile.
Until they actually come up with a modern sandbox fantasy game, you will be doomed to play by the roles as defined by the game itself. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Why is it keeping anyone from soloing, just because they have to play longer to solo to the cap?
Are you saying you can't play the game, if solo isnt' the fastest route to the cap? Why is that?
You're saying you played some game, and when you tried to kill a mob solo, the game just booted you and said that's not allowed?
We're not debating over "CHOICE".
ALL games allow group and solo play.
The only thing we are debating on is what should be the fastest route to the level cap. Group or solo.
Why do you insist you have no "choice" if solo isn't the fastest route to the level cap?
So, stop trying to please both groups in one game. Right now, the big names are focusing on the solo players, and tacking on group stuff at the end. The core gameplay is based around solo'ing. Change that, and you have a very different game. There wouldn't be so much waiting around for groups if everything required grouping to do. Now, I know that a lot of solo players wouldn't want to play this game. That's fine. Other people are making games for you. Group-y folks like myself just want some love, too. No need for us both to be playing the same game. I don't think there can be a perfect MMO that will make everyone happy.
Important facts:
1. Free to Play games are poorly made.
2. Casuals are not all idiots, but idiots call themselves casuals.
3. Great solo and group content are not mutually exclusive, but they suffer when one is shoved into the mold of the other. The same is true of PvP and PvE.
4. Community is more important than you think.
Oh but that's FORCING!!! The players are FORCED to buy the game off the shelf. And nobody likes FORCING.
This seems like a logical argument to me.
The solo argument seems wierd to me. That argument goes, you MUST be happy playing a solo game, and here's why...
Or to state it a different way, my SOLO game is a great grouping game! but the grouper just told you it isn't for him, so why would you not believe him?
How could someone think they can tell another person what sort of game they have to like, for any reason?
Why is it keeping anyone from soloing, just because they have to play longer to solo to the cap?
Are you saying you can't play the game, if solo isnt' the fastest route to the cap? Why is that?
You're saying you played some game, and when you tried to kill a mob solo, the game just booted you and said that's not allowed?
We're not debating over "CHOICE".
ALL games allow group and solo play.
The only thing we are debating on is what should be the fastest route to the level cap. Group or solo.
Why do you insist you have no "choice" if solo isn't the fastest route to the level cap?
No reasonable person has ever demanded soloing is the fastest route. All a reasonable person wants is equality. Equality creates the highest possible amount of player freedom, because you're completely free to choose which path to pursue.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That's the problem though, grouping in many games just isn't fun, that's why a lot of soloers don't want to group, it's an annoying, obnoxious, exasperating activity where you have to deal with asshats who are only out to use you for their own personal rewards. I'm paying my subscription fee to be entertained, not to be frustrated.
The fact is that computer-based RPGs have never been about roleplaying. Square-Enix was one of the biggest problems in that regard, Final Fantasy had nothing to do with roleplaying, it was about being dragged by the nose through a ridiculously overblown story that you had no choice to follow. Roleplaying is all about choices. When MMOs came along, they just "borrowed" the FF "RPG" idea.
I'd love to see MMOs that were actually RPGs but... that'll never happen.
To be clear, my post didn't state my own opinion. I merely demanded that the previous poster use better arguments to support their opinion (because the "RPGs aren't tabletop roleplaying" argument is basically not even the same topic.)
Also, the majority of MMORPGs' roots were computer RPGs like MUDs. FF style RPGs have had extremely little influence over MMORPGs, to be honest.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Why is it keeping anyone from soloing, just because they have to play longer to solo to the cap?
Are you saying you can't play the game, if solo isnt' the fastest route to the cap? Why is that?
You're saying you played some game, and when you tried to kill a mob solo, the game just booted you and said that's not allowed?
We're not debating over "CHOICE".
ALL games allow group and solo play.
The only thing we are debating on is what should be the fastest route to the level cap. Group or solo.
Why do you insist you have no "choice" if solo isn't the fastest route to the level cap?
No reasonable person has ever demanded soloing is the fastest route. All a reasonable person wants is equality. Equality creates the highest possible amount of player freedom, because you're completely free to choose which path to pursue.
Yes, equality would mean the group makes about double the rate of the solo player, or else the solo route is the quickest route to the cap.
So you're asking for the quickest route to the top, and just changing that term to "equality".
But of course it's NOT equal, since the solo player has the quickest route to the cap.
Why is it keeping anyone from soloing, just because they have to play longer to solo to the cap?
Are you saying you can't play the game, if solo isnt' the fastest route to the cap? Why is that?
You're saying you played some game, and when you tried to kill a mob solo, the game just booted you and said that's not allowed?
We're not debating over "CHOICE".
ALL games allow group and solo play.
The only thing we are debating on is what should be the fastest route to the level cap. Group or solo.
Why do you insist you have no "choice" if solo isn't the fastest route to the level cap?
For the same reason you say you have no choice if grouping isn't rewarded with 4x the XP gains.
Yes you can technically solo in a group based game, even to max, but it is so monsterously ineffecient that you have to group to do anything in a timely manner.
Like when you say why should you bother grouping and go through the hassel of finding a group if you could solo and level faster.
So technically the option is there it is just not a very good one.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit