We've been through that before Usual. Bards, druids, monk, necro's, rangers, paladins, sk's and later beastlords could all solo. Yes it took longer but every single one of those classes had ways to either kite, snare, root, seperate mobs and/or heal.
Necro's and Druids could do it better (except for bards swarm kite) but all those classes could and did do it.
White/yellow/red mobs were hard, but they absolutely could take blue mobs.
If you died easily with a monk, you didn't play a monk well. Find blue, FD to seperate mobs, beat him, mend if needed. Done, bandage, repeat.
If kiting, dungeons were definately harder. In open areas Bards could charm, fear, swarm/dot kite, in dungeons they could charm, if in trouble, fear, than invis. And if you going to dot/swarm kite yes it takes long, but don't do just one mob, grab like 20 of them, fire up your drums and aoe dot to death, or charm kite the cyclops, only a few minutes to fight.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Anyone find it wierd how fantasy fiction, on which most MMO's are based, usually have a single hero or small group of hero's and the fictional content is usually a single soloable (by the hero) or small groupable (by the small group) villian but in MMO's the expectation by a lot of people is in game villians must only be destroyable with large numbers of people.
Pretty bizarre.
@Usual Suspect, you are having a hard time understanding because your definition of multiplayer in MMO's is seriously flawed.
You can do heaps of things solo in the real world, does that make everything you do in the real world by yourself single player too? If I go speeding down the road in my car, can I discount everyone else on the road because I'm in the car by myself?.
Your assertion that doing something solo in a game world in which many other players are also doing things in the same game world, somehow makes whatever they are doing inconsequtial to other players is total nonsense.
And you guys claim we are trying to tell you soloers how to play MMOs...HAHA!
Look at you, first you tell usualsuspect his definition of MMO is wrong, when it isnt, because there isnt one definition for all people.
Then you equate a MMO to a movie???? So game devs should redesign thier MMOs after movies, are you serious???
Then you try and equate real life with an MMO, by driving a car down the road? Sorry but your making one strawman after another.
How about you stick to the topic, can you do that?
I never claimed that. I don't care what groupers think or say.
His definition is incorrect. You can make up a definition if you like but I'll go by the original and proper definition of Massively (many) Multiplayer (multiple people playing) Online (while connected via the internet).
MMO's are like interactive movies. MMO's also model real life elements and we interact in MMO gameworlds like we do in Real Life, if we fall we may be damaged, if someone shoots us we may be killed...
The analogy I used is quite accurate.
I think Adawulf and Usualsuspectt, you will continue to argue your "points" regardless of whether they are untenable or unreasonable. You inability to consider other points of view and your willingness to create new definitions or skip logic so that you can "Win" this argument really makes the whole argument a waste of time and "Winning" it worthless.
Anyone find it wierd how fantasy fiction, on which most MMO's are based, usually have a single hero or small group of hero's and the fictional content is usually a single soloable (by the hero) or small groupable (by the small group) villian but in MMO's the expectation by a lot of people is in game villians must only be destroyable with large numbers of people.
Pretty bizarre.
@Usual Suspect, you are having a hard time understanding because your definition of multiplayer in MMO's is seriously flawed.
You can do heaps of things solo in the real world, does that make everything you do in the real world by yourself single player too? If I go speeding down the road in my car, can I discount everyone else on the road because I'm in the car by myself?.
Your assertion that doing something solo in a game world in which many other players are also doing things in the same game world, somehow makes whatever they are doing inconsequtial to other players is total nonsense.
And you guys claim we are trying to tell you soloers how to play MMOs...HAHA!
Look at you, first you tell usualsuspect his definition of MMO is wrong, when it isnt, because there isnt one definition for all people.
Then you equate a MMO to a movie???? So game devs should redesign thier MMOs after movies, are you serious???
Then you try and equate real life with an MMO, by driving a car down the road? Sorry but your making one strawman after another.
How about you stick to the topic, can you do that?
I never claimed that. I don't care what groupers think or say.
His definition is incorrect. You can make up a definition if you like but I'll go by the original and proper definition of Massively (many) Multiplayer (multiple people playing) Online (while connected via the internet).
MMO's are like interactive movies. MMO's also model real life elements and we interact in MMO gameworlds like we do in Real Life, if we fall we may be damaged, if someone shoots us we may be killed...
The analogy I used is quite accurate.
I think Adawulf and Usualsuspectt, you will continue to argue your "points" regardless of whether they are untenable or unreasonable. You inability to consider other points of view and your willingness to create new definitions or skip logic so that you can "Win" this argument really makes the whole argument a waste of time and "Winning" it worthless.
I'm going to go solo something.
"Pot meet kettle"
Your claim is bizzare, I see you argueing your point, with no regard to our points of view, you still want games soloable all the way thru. I never said it wansnt an MMO, I am saying its a stupid way to make an MMO, and I will never play one of those MMOs.
So when I see you soloers come into a game forum, trying hard to promote more solo mechanics, and its a game I intend to play, you can bet that I will be there to make my view heard.
Even If I have to repeat it a thousand times..... just like you are doing.
Anyone find it wierd how fantasy fiction, on which most MMO's are based, usually have a single hero or small group of hero's and the fictional content is usually a single soloable (by the hero) or small groupable (by the small group) villian but in MMO's the expectation by a lot of people is in game villians must only be destroyable with large numbers of people.
Pretty bizarre.
@Usual Suspect, you are having a hard time understanding because your definition of multiplayer in MMO's is seriously flawed.
You can do heaps of things solo in the real world, does that make everything you do in the real world by yourself single player too? If I go speeding down the road in my car, can I discount everyone else on the road because I'm in the car by myself?.
Your assertion that doing something solo in a game world in which many other players are also doing things in the same game world, somehow makes whatever they are doing inconsequtial to other players is total nonsense.
And you guys claim we are trying to tell you soloers how to play MMOs...HAHA!
Look at you, first you tell usualsuspect his definition of MMO is wrong, when it isnt, because there isnt one definition for all people.
Then you equate a MMO to a movie???? So game devs should redesign thier MMOs after movies, are you serious???
Then you try and equate real life with an MMO, by driving a car down the road? Sorry but your making one strawman after another.
How about you stick to the topic, can you do that?
I never claimed that. I don't care what groupers think or say.
His definition is incorrect. You can make up a definition if you like but I'll go by the original and proper definition of Massively (many) Multiplayer (multiple people playing) Online (while connected via the internet).
MMO's are like interactive movies. MMO's also model real life elements and we interact in MMO gameworlds like we do in Real Life, if we fall we may be damaged, if someone shoots us we may be killed...
The analogy I used is quite accurate.
I think Adawulf and Usualsuspectt, you will continue to argue your "points" regardless of whether they are untenable or unreasonable. You inability to consider other points of view and your willingness to create new definitions or skip logic so that you can "Win" this argument really makes the whole argument a waste of time and "Winning" it worthless.
I'm going to go solo something.
"Pot meet kettle"
Your claim is bizzare, I see you argueing your point, with no regard to our points of view, you still want games soloable all the way thru. I never said it wansnt an MMO, I am saying its a stupid way to make an MMO, and I will never play one of those MMOs.
So when I see you soloers come into a game forum, trying hard to promote more solo mechanics, and its a game I intend to play, you can bet that I will be there to make my view heard.
Even If I have to repeat it a thousand times..... just like you are doing.
You are just inventing things to suit your needs (again). If you read my posts I have never argued against grouping, nor advocated for solo only, my position is in the middle ground.
I believe that both group based, solo based and a combination of both in a game are legitimate ways to create MMO's. I don't like to play group based content at the moment because of the random nature of current grouping mechanics. Just as I wouldn't like to go to a party with randoms pulled from the street, I don't want to go to a dungeon with a complement of people pulled randomly from the internet.
I think your ideology (everyone should be forced to group or not be rewarded) [mod edit] ignores the natural inclination of humans to group because social activity is already a reward in and of itself.
I think your ideology (everyone should be forced to group or not be rewarded) [mod edit] ignores the natural inclination of humans to group because social activity is already a reward in and of itself.
The problem here is we're talking about a video game, not people gathering and chatting in a social area. When you're playing a video game you're already on your own, you're sat in front of your screen with nobody else around. This is where you need poking to interact with people, as everyone out there is a stranger. This is where all those comments come from, "I don't want to group with a bunch of strangers.", "They're probably all morons.", "I'd rather group with my friends.", etc.
It's the same as real life, it's easy to go and chat with people you know, but to just jump in and start interacting with people you don't know is a whole different thing, so we make excuses not to bother. That's where the grouping idea works so well, it brings people together through necessity, and through that necessity you create friendships or acquaintances, or perhaps you find people you won't be bothering with again.
The problem here is we're talking about a video game, not people gathering and chatting in a social area. When you're playing a video game you're already on your own, you're sat in front of your screen with nobody else around. This is where you need poking to interact with people, as everyone out there is a stranger. This is where all those comments come from, "I don't want to group with a bunch of strangers.", "They're probably all morons.", "I'd rather group with my friends.", etc.
It's the same as real life, it's easy to go and chat with people you know, but to just jump in and start interacting with people you don't know is a whole different thing, so we make excuses not to bother. That's where the grouping idea works so well, it brings people together through necessity, and through that necessity you create friendships or acquaintances, or perhaps you find people you won't be bothering with again.
This is 2012, social interaction doesn't have to be face-to-face.
Sometimes it is over voice-comm (like a phone or skype) or it is typing via IM or in-game client.
Forcing people to do X will always have smaller appeal than letting people optionally do X as people don't like being forced to do anything.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
This is 2012, social interaction doesn't have to be face-to-face.
Sometimes it is over voice-comm (like a phone or skype) or it is typing via IM or in-game client.
Forcing people to do X will always have smaller appeal than letting people optionally do X as people don't like being forced to do anything.
This idea of being forced to do anything is one that I really don't like. Nobody is being forced to do anything, there's nobody coming to your house and holding a gun to your head forcing you to join a group. Much like I don't log into Call of Duty and feel forced to shoot things, I wouldn't log in to an MMO and feel forced to group if I didn't want to group. I'd just not be logging in.
That said, if you don't want to feel forced into a group, then go solo. I don't think anyone ever said the solo option should be removed, just that grouping should be a more viable option than it is now. I could solo the entire way through games like LOTRO and SW:TOR, which by your definition means I was being forced to solo.
This idea of being forced to do anything is one that I really don't like. Nobody is being forced to do anything, there's nobody coming to your house and holding a gun to your head forcing you to join a group. Much like I don't log into Call of Duty and feel forced to shoot things, I wouldn't log in to an MMO and feel forced to group if I didn't want to group. I'd just not be logging in.
That said, if you don't want to feel forced into a group, then go solo. I don't think anyone ever said the solo option should be removed, just that grouping should be a more viable option than it is now. I could solo the entire way through games like LOTRO and SW:TOR, which by your definition means I was being forced to solo.
Groups are a viable option for the vast majority of MMOs.
WoW/SWTOR/RIFT etc all offer higher exp/gold/item compared to solo.
Group vs Solo are different playstyles and most MMOs offer both choices.
Whether you agree with what someone's choice (it is their '$15' afterall) or the vast majority of playerbase's choice is irrelevant.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Yes I think MMO's have gone wrong by basing essential reward which leads to advancement primarily on grouping (the most uber items, acheivements only being attainable by raiding) rather then basing the reward on time / effort.
I would like to see a system where 1 person could acquire uber item x in 50 hours or 10 people could each acquire the same uber item x in 5 hours. I think its unacceptable that 1 person could never acquire the item no matter how much time they put in if they didn't want to group.
In Everquest I experienced situations where I was never able to acquire items, and found it impossible to advance further even though I had 100+ days played while I had friends with 2 days played alts who had the highest end game items that were acquired by fellow guild members logging that alt in while my friends were sleeping, at work, using call of the hero and looting the item.
I know in WoW there are services offered for RL cash in which people can provide account details and have their accounts pimped with gear from the highest end groupable content and where "uber guild" members will pimp out their own alts by running trivial content, its hardly "hard work" or "deserved" loot in comparison to soloers.
The very idea that a topic like this is still raging on after so many years points to the very heart of the problem with this genre.
It is stagnated with closed minds which is why the games themselves havent evolved much...both players AND developers.
This entire issue could be resolved easily if a game maker would just stop being lazy and use the tools at hand. Scaled content would make a game solo, group AND raid friendly. It can be done, it can be done RIGHT and there have even been top developers that have states so at the game developers conference several times, with examples of HOW it can be done right.
No company, large or small should be making an MMO that targets ANY one group of players. Doesnt matter if its solo, group, pvp, pve, raid, elite...
Any game made to target a FEW players will limit their income AND the longevity of the game itself. A game that can scale to the player is the single best way to go.
player is soloing a mob, the player is level 5, the mob is level 5 and has the skills that matches up best to the lvl 5 class the player belongs to. If a mage, the mob gains a skill set to be challenge a mage.
If the lvl 5 mage is grouped with a lvl 5 cleric, the mob scales upward to best match a group of 2 with a healer.
if its a full group of level 5 players, the mob because elite and gains a skillset to match a group.
That is just one of many examples given by people like Raph Koster, a vet MMO maker(whom I dont even like BTW) that made UO, SWG and EQ2 as how to create an MMO that is for EVERY type of player and not only that, but a game that will remain 100% playable no matter what level you become...no more making 10% of a game for levels 1-20 that may NEVER be played by that character again...100% of the game remains a playable option for every character.
Stop thinking in terms of the past...as long as the players think in terms of the past, the game makers will never be forced to making games truly new...for the future.
I think this is the direction Arenanet is going towards with Guild Wars 2. The dynamic events are scaled, thereby making a larger percentage of the content available to both group and solo players.
Additionally, all players enjoy equal access to the highest level of gear functionality without being forced to completely invalidate their respective playstyles. It's good to see devs finally allow all of the cream to rise to the top.
Anyone find it wierd how fantasy fiction, on which most MMO's are based, usually have a single hero or small group of hero's and the fictional content is usually a single soloable (by the hero) or small groupable (by the small group) villian but in MMO's the expectation by a lot of people is in game villians must only be destroyable with large numbers of people.
Pretty bizarre.
@Usual Suspect, you are having a hard time understanding because your definition of multiplayer in MMO's is seriously flawed.
You can do heaps of things solo in the real world, does that make everything you do in the real world by yourself single player too? If I go speeding down the road in my car, can I discount everyone else on the road because I'm in the car by myself?.
Your assertion that doing something solo in a game world in which many other players are also doing things in the same game world, somehow makes whatever they are doing inconsequtial to other players is total nonsense.
And you guys claim we are trying to tell you soloers how to play MMOs...HAHA!
Look at you, first you tell usualsuspect his definition of MMO is wrong, when it isnt, because there isnt one definition for all people.
Then you equate a MMO to a movie???? So game devs should redesign thier MMOs after movies, are you serious???
Then you try and equate real life with an MMO, by driving a car down the road? Sorry but your making one strawman after another.
How about you stick to the topic, can you do that?
I never claimed that. I don't care what groupers think or say.
His definition is incorrect. You can make up a definition if you like but I'll go by the original and proper definition of Massively (many) Multiplayer (multiple people playing) Online (while connected via the internet).
MMO's are like interactive movies. MMO's also model real life elements and we interact in MMO gameworlds like we do in Real Life, if we fall we may be damaged, if someone shoots us we may be killed...
The analogy I used is quite accurate.
I think Adawulf and Usualsuspectt, you will continue to argue your "points" regardless of whether they are untenable or unreasonable. You inability to consider other points of view and your willingness to create new definitions or skip logic so that you can "Win" this argument really makes the whole argument a waste of time and "Winning" it worthless.
I'm going to go solo something.
"Pot meet kettle"
Your claim is bizzare, I see you argueing your point, with no regard to our points of view, you still want games soloable all the way thru. I never said it wansnt an MMO, I am saying its a stupid way to make an MMO, and I will never play one of those MMOs.
So when I see you soloers come into a game forum, trying hard to promote more solo mechanics, and its a game I intend to play, you can bet that I will be there to make my view heard.
Even If I have to repeat it a thousand times..... just like you are doing.
You are just inventing things to suit your needs (again). If you read my posts I have never argued against grouping, nor advocated for solo only, my position is in the middle ground.
I believe that both group based, solo based and a combination of both in a game are legitimate ways to create MMO's. I don't like to play group based content at the moment because of the random nature of current grouping mechanics. Just as I wouldn't like to go to a party with randoms pulled from the street, I don't want to go to a dungeon with a complement of people pulled randomly from the internet.
I think your ideology (everyone should be forced to group or not be rewarded) is stupid and closed minded, it ignores the natural inclination of humans to group because social activity is already a reward in and of itself.
Well if all that were true then making MMOs that cater to both crowds would be everywhere, but they arent. In fact what we see is a separation, PvE is now separate from PvP, solo content is before end game, grouping is end game. Thats been the pattern for many years now.
Im not for forced grouping, I dont play lineage or FX, so you are wrong about me.
What your not getting, is the more solo mechanics you put into a game, it takes away any incentive for teamwork, or to group. Then you would have us believe that players would naturally group up, basically ignoring all the evidence, your idealogy is short sighted at best.
Human nature is the follow the path of least resistance, so if we had better game mechanics, teamwork and grouping for something like an epic dungeon or PvP objective would be much easier.
Well if all that were true then making MMOs that cater to both crowds would be everywhere, but they arent. In fact what we see is a separation, PvE is now separate from PvP, solo content is before end game, grouping is end game. Thats been the pattern for many years now.
Im not for forced grouping, I dont play lineage or FX, so you are wrong about me.
What your not getting, is the more solo mechanics you put into a game, it takes away any incentive for teamwork, or to group. Then you would have us believe that players would naturally group up, basically ignoring all the evidence, your idealogy is short sighted at best.
Human nature is the follow the path of least resistance, so if we had better game mechanics, teamwork and grouping for something like an epic dungeon or PvP objective would be much easier.
But that's the problem, it shouldn't take any incentive. I solo because that's what I enjoy. I don't do it because it's easier, in fact, it's much more difficult than playing with a group. I do it because I like it. That's what groupers ought to do as well. Play in a group for no other reason than that's what they have fun doing. If people have to be bribed into playing that way, then it's just not that important to them. It just doesn't matter. Having to talk people into it, having to give them extra benefits, that's not a favored manner of play, it's buying people off!
If groupers can't play in a group, simply for the joy of playing in the group, what good are they?
Well if all that were true then making MMOs that cater to both crowds would be everywhere, but they arent. In fact what we see is a separation, PvE is now separate from PvP, solo content is before end game, grouping is end game. Thats been the pattern for many years now.
Im not for forced grouping, I dont play lineage or FX, so you are wrong about me.
What your not getting, is the more solo mechanics you put into a game, it takes away any incentive for teamwork, or to group. Then you would have us believe that players would naturally group up, basically ignoring all the evidence, your idealogy is short sighted at best.
Human nature is the follow the path of least resistance, so if we had better game mechanics, teamwork and grouping for something like an epic dungeon or PvP objective would be much easier.
But that's the problem, it shouldn't take any incentive. I solo because that's what I enjoy. I don't do it because it's easier, in fact, it's much more difficult than playing with a group. I do it because I like it. That's what groupers ought to do as well. Play in a group for no other reason than that's what they have fun doing. If people have to be bribed into playing that way, then it's just not that important to them. It just doesn't matter. Having to talk people into it, having to give them extra benefits, that's not a favored manner of play, it's buying people off!
If groupers can't play in a group, simply for the joy of playing in the group, what good are they?
More strawmen... seriously you guys cant come up with anything else?
Players who enjoy group content are not always in a group. There are only a few MMOs where grouping is needed for advancement, most of them are very solo friendly.
If a game penalizes you for grouping, then they will not group. Thats what you soloers are asking for, you dont want any group content, because you feel it excludes you. Even if that content offers no rewards at all.
You say you like to solo because thats how YOU like to play, then you deny players who would rather tackle some group content., because you feel it excludes you.
If soloers cant go solo thier content without whinning about what other players are doing, what good are they?
Well if all that were true then making MMOs that cater to both crowds would be everywhere, but they arent. In fact what we see is a separation, PvE is now separate from PvP, solo content is before end game, grouping is end game. Thats been the pattern for many years now.
Im not for forced grouping, I dont play lineage or FX, so you are wrong about me.
What your not getting, is the more solo mechanics you put into a game, it takes away any incentive for teamwork, or to group. Then you would have us believe that players would naturally group up, basically ignoring all the evidence, your idealogy is short sighted at best.
Human nature is the follow the path of least resistance, so if we had better game mechanics, teamwork and grouping for something like an epic dungeon or PvP objective would be much easier.
But that's the problem, it shouldn't take any incentive. I solo because that's what I enjoy. I don't do it because it's easier, in fact, it's much more difficult than playing with a group. I do it because I like it. That's what groupers ought to do as well. Play in a group for no other reason than that's what they have fun doing. If people have to be bribed into playing that way, then it's just not that important to them. It just doesn't matter. Having to talk people into it, having to give them extra benefits, that's not a favored manner of play, it's buying people off!
If groupers can't play in a group, simply for the joy of playing in the group, what good are they?
More strawmen... seriously you guys cant come up with anything else?
Players who enjoy group content are not always in a group. There are only a few MMOs where grouping is needed for advancement, most of them are very solo friendly.
If a game penalizes you for grouping, then they will not group. Thats what you soloers are asking for, you dont want any group content, because you feel it excludes you. Even if that content offers no rewards at all.
You say you like to solo because thats how YOU like to play, then you deny players who would rather tackle some group content., because you feel it excludes you.
If soloers cant go solo thier content without whinning about what other players are doing, what good are they?
I would say its more accurate that soloers don't want enforced group content, just as you rightfully don't seem to want enforced soloing.
It seems you are arguing for enforced grouping, because you believe that not enforcing grouping means making soloing a more viable option than grouping.
I believe that a properly balanced mmo can including soloing to end game as well as the majority of content and also include group based play that is challenging and as profitable as soloing. In fact I think group based gameplay should have accelerated progression (loot / xp) and possibly other benefits but should not exclude any solo person from achieving the same outcomes in terms of xp / loot / achievements abeit at a reduced rate.
Theres no reason for one or the other (solo vs group).
The best thing in mmo games for me is the possible to know new people. When the game is created for singe player people plays alone, and its harder to meet new friends. I like games, where quest or another things we should to do together. Playing with friends give me more fun than playing alone.
More strawmen... seriously you guys cant come up with anything else?
When you guys are so piss poor at actually answering any of this, why should we?
Players who enjoy group content are not always in a group. There are only a few MMOs where grouping is needed for advancement, most of them are very solo friendly.
What difference does it make if it's *NEEDED*? Do you enjoy it or not? If you enjoy it, DO IT! Just because the rest of the players are not forced to do it doesn't mean you can't.
If a game penalizes you for grouping, then they will not group. Thats what you soloers are asking for, you dont want any group content, because you feel it excludes you. Even if that content offers no rewards at all.
How are you being penalized? You are just not being rewarded above and beyond reason. You play the way you want to play, you get the same rewards as everyone else. If nobody wants to play with you, that's your problem.
You say you like to solo because thats how YOU like to play, then you deny players who would rather tackle some group content., because you feel it excludes you.
Who is denying you a thing? Form a group. Go do content. You just tackled some group content. Lots of people, myself included, advocate scalable content. It becomes harder the more people you bring along. It's the groupers who bitch about that. They don't want content they can do in a group, they want to make *ALL* content groupable only.
If soloers cant go solo thier content without whinning about what other players are doing, what good are they?
Who is whining? It's only the groupers who are bitching about things. Look in the mirror.
The best thing in mmo games for me is the possible to know new people. When the game is created for singe player people plays alone, and its harder to meet new friends. I like games, where quest or another things we should to do together. Playing with friends give me more fun than playing alone.
Fine, then play that way. Find other people who want to play that way. Stop pretending you get to dictate how others play because you want a game where that's true.
It seems you are arguing for enforced grouping, because you believe that not enforcing grouping means making soloing a more viable option than grouping.
And it seems that you're arguing for enforced soloing, because you believe that not enforcing soloing means making grouping a more viable option than soloing. What's the difference here? What is your opinion of enforced grouping? What constitutes a scenario where you feel forced to group?
I'd like a game more like the original LOTRO, before they turned everything into solo content, where you could solo all the way through it if you wanted to, but they also had great content for groups at every step of the way. From the Barrows to the Goblin encampment near Weathertop and the harder Book quests. Then for whatever reason they came along and dumbed it all down, even so far as giving you a personal buff so you could go fight trolls by the dozen. Now that, to me, is enforced soloing. What's your version of enforced grouping?
More strawmen... seriously you guys cant come up with anything else?
When you guys are so piss poor at actually answering any of this, why should we?
Players who enjoy group content are not always in a group. There are only a few MMOs where grouping is needed for advancement, most of them are very solo friendly.
What difference does it make if it's *NEEDED*? Do you enjoy it or not? If you enjoy it, DO IT! Just because the rest of the players are not forced to do it doesn't mean you can't.
If a game penalizes you for grouping, then they will not group. Thats what you soloers are asking for, you dont want any group content, because you feel it excludes you. Even if that content offers no rewards at all.
How are you being penalized? You are just not being rewarded above and beyond reason. You play the way you want to play, you get the same rewards as everyone else. If nobody wants to play with you, that's your problem.
You say you like to solo because thats how YOU like to play, then you deny players who would rather tackle some group content., because you feel it excludes you.
Who is denying you a thing? Form a group. Go do content. You just tackled some group content. Lots of people, myself included, advocate scalable content. It becomes harder the more people you bring along. It's the groupers who bitch about that. They don't want content they can do in a group, they want to make *ALL* content groupable only.
If soloers cant go solo thier content without whinning about what other players are doing, what good are they?
Who is whining? It's only the groupers who are bitching about things. Look in the mirror.
Still deflecting the real issue.
Everytime a game has content that you soloers cant get too, you cry and whine that your being excluded. You guys need to grow up and let other players have thier content.
It doesnt mean game devs dont like you, it doesnt mean you cant enjoy the game, it just mean you cant do the group content, unless you form a group.
Let me remind you, that it is you that refuses to do the group content, nobody is telling you that you cant do the content. But, you will have to actually talk to other players.
Scaleable content is awsome, I have NEVER heard a group type player complain about that. They might be complaining that is hasnt been done right, and they would be right.
I remember CoH tried it, but it was a mess. The content was never very tough, a full group would blow right thru it. I hope someday we do get scaleable content that works, then we could end this silly debate.
It seems you are arguing for enforced grouping, because you believe that not enforcing grouping means making soloing a more viable option than grouping.
And it seems that you're arguing for enforced soloing, because you believe that not enforcing soloing means making grouping a more viable option than soloing. What's the difference here? What is your opinion of enforced grouping? What constitutes a scenario where you feel forced to group?
I'd like a game more like the original LOTRO, before they turned everything into solo content, where you could solo all the way through it if you wanted to, but they also had great content for groups at every step of the way. From the Barrows to the Goblin encampment near Weathertop and the harder Book quests. Then for whatever reason they came along and dumbed it all down, even so far as giving you a personal buff so you could go fight trolls by the dozen. Now that, to me, is enforced soloing. What's your version of enforced grouping?
The above idiscredits you as a poster. I wrote the following (which you conveniently cut out):
"I believe that a properly balanced mmo can including soloing to end game as well as the majority of content and also include group based play that is challenging and as profitable as soloing. In fact I think group based gameplay should have accelerated progression (loot / xp) and possibly other benefits but should not exclude any solo person from achieving the same outcomes in terms of xp / loot / achievements abeit at a reduced rate."
Its quite clear to anyone with an IQ that advocating for a game where grouping was as viable as soloing and in which grouping let you attain an accelerated rate of xp gear is not advocating for enforced soloing. Its more advocating for grouping but allows for the option for soloers to compete, except at a slower rate of acqusition.
The above idiscredits you as a poster. I wrote the following (which you conveniently cut out):
"I believe that a properly balanced mmo can including soloing to end game as well as the majority of content and also include group based play that is challenging and as profitable as soloing. In fact I think group based gameplay should have accelerated progression (loot / xp) and possibly other benefits but should not exclude any solo person from achieving the same outcomes in terms of xp / loot / achievements abeit at a reduced rate."
Its quite clear to anyone with an IQ that advocating for a game where grouping was as viable as soloing and in which grouping let you attain an accelerated rate of xp gear is not advocating for enforced soloing. Its more advocating for grouping but allows for the option for soloers to compete, except at a slower rate of acqusition.
And yet you conveniently ignored Adalwulff's previous comment that said:
"Im not for forced grouping, I dont play lineage or FX, so you are wrong about me.
What your not getting, is the more solo mechanics you put into a game, it takes away any incentive for teamwork, or to group. Then you would have us believe that players would naturally group up, basically ignoring all the evidence, your idealogy is short sighted at best.".
The above idiscredits you as a poster. I wrote the following (which you conveniently cut out):
"I believe that a properly balanced mmo can including soloing to end game as well as the majority of content and also include group based play that is challenging and as profitable as soloing. In fact I think group based gameplay should have accelerated progression (loot / xp) and possibly other benefits but should not exclude any solo person from achieving the same outcomes in terms of xp / loot / achievements abeit at a reduced rate."
Its quite clear to anyone with an IQ that advocating for a game where grouping was as viable as soloing and in which grouping let you attain an accelerated rate of xp gear is not advocating for enforced soloing. Its more advocating for grouping but allows for the option for soloers to compete, except at a slower rate of acqusition.
And yet you conveniently ignored Adalwulff's previous comment that said:
"Im not for forced grouping, I dont play lineage or FX, so you are wrong about me.
What your not getting, is the more solo mechanics you put into a game, it takes away any incentive for teamwork, or to group. Then you would have us believe that players would naturally group up, basically ignoring all the evidence, your idealogy is short sighted at best.".
So again, what's the difference?
What you are not getting is "the more solo mechanics you put into a game, it takes away any incentive for teamwork and to group" is just your opinion. I feel it is an opinion that lacks thought and is knee jerk emotional, especially in light of the fact that it is a response to a post in which I stated "and in which grouping lets you attain an accelerated rate of xp gear".
As a great example of how wrong you are, in EvE Online one can conduct a mining operation, build a ship, run a plex / mission entirely solo, in fact when I started; every single function, npc, solar system could be soloed by a single player. Yet by far the most profitable and likely scenario for most people even back then was grouping because it increased profit, safety even though there was NO requirement to group.
The above idiscredits you as a poster. I wrote the following (which you conveniently cut out):
"I believe that a properly balanced mmo can including soloing to end game as well as the majority of content and also include group based play that is challenging and as profitable as soloing. In fact I think group based gameplay should have accelerated progression (loot / xp) and possibly other benefits but should not exclude any solo person from achieving the same outcomes in terms of xp / loot / achievements abeit at a reduced rate."
Its quite clear to anyone with an IQ that advocating for a game where grouping was as viable as soloing and in which grouping let you attain an accelerated rate of xp gear is not advocating for enforced soloing. Its more advocating for grouping but allows for the option for soloers to compete, except at a slower rate of acqusition.
And yet you conveniently ignored Adalwulff's previous comment that said:
"Im not for forced grouping, I dont play lineage or FX, so you are wrong about me.
What your not getting, is the more solo mechanics you put into a game, it takes away any incentive for teamwork, or to group. Then you would have us believe that players would naturally group up, basically ignoring all the evidence, your idealogy is short sighted at best.".
So again, what's the difference?
What you are not getting is "the more solo mechanics you put into a game, it takes away any incentive for teamwork and to group" is just your opinion. I feel it is an opinion that lacks thought and is knee jerk emotional, especially in light of the fact that it is a response to a post in which I stated "and in which grouping lets you attain an accelerated rate of xp gear".
As a great example of how wrong you are, in EvE Online one can conduct a mining operation, build a ship, run a plex / mission entirely solo, in fact when I started; every single function, npc, solar system could be soloed by a single player. Yet by far the most profitable and likely scenario for most people even back then was grouping because it increased profit, safety even though there was NO requirement to group.
Everyones comment on this thread is based on opinion, whats your point? My opinions are based on 12 years of playing online games. Mostly MMOs.
Besides that, you are still avoiding the real issue, so I will ask again. Do you or dont you feel excluded when a dungeon or quest is offered only to groups, even if there is no loot/exp reward?
That is what I am hearing from the solo crowd, and there is a ton of those kinds comments right here in this thread, so you cant claim that its "only my opinion".
Besides that, you are still avoiding the real issue, so I will ask again. Do you or dont you feel excluded when a dungeon or quest is offered only to groups, even if there is no loot/exp reward?
We have answered. No, there should be absolutely no content in a game which someone who is paying for that game via subscription should not have access to. There should be no solo-only content or group-only content, all content should scale to the type of gameplay that is being used. You say no loot/exp reward and then want content which is an inherent reward to the group gameplay. Reward is reward.
We have answered. No, there should be absolutely no content in a game which someone who is paying for that game via subscription should not have access to.
Everyone has access to it, soloers just don't want to access it which is a different thing altogether. It's a matter of choice, not some artificial block. You want the content? Then join up with people and see that content, that's how it's been designed to be approached, so it's your fault if you choose to avoid it. I wouldn't go to a themepark and whine because I didn't get to go on the rollercoaster if I don't like rollercoasters.
Comments
We've been through that before Usual. Bards, druids, monk, necro's, rangers, paladins, sk's and later beastlords could all solo. Yes it took longer but every single one of those classes had ways to either kite, snare, root, seperate mobs and/or heal.
Necro's and Druids could do it better (except for bards swarm kite) but all those classes could and did do it.
White/yellow/red mobs were hard, but they absolutely could take blue mobs.
If you died easily with a monk, you didn't play a monk well. Find blue, FD to seperate mobs, beat him, mend if needed. Done, bandage, repeat.
If kiting, dungeons were definately harder. In open areas Bards could charm, fear, swarm/dot kite, in dungeons they could charm, if in trouble, fear, than invis. And if you going to dot/swarm kite yes it takes long, but don't do just one mob, grab like 20 of them, fire up your drums and aoe dot to death, or charm kite the cyclops, only a few minutes to fight.
I never claimed that. I don't care what groupers think or say.
His definition is incorrect. You can make up a definition if you like but I'll go by the original and proper definition of Massively (many) Multiplayer (multiple people playing) Online (while connected via the internet).
MMO's are like interactive movies. MMO's also model real life elements and we interact in MMO gameworlds like we do in Real Life, if we fall we may be damaged, if someone shoots us we may be killed...
The analogy I used is quite accurate.
I think Adawulf and Usualsuspectt, you will continue to argue your "points" regardless of whether they are untenable or unreasonable. You inability to consider other points of view and your willingness to create new definitions or skip logic so that you can "Win" this argument really makes the whole argument a waste of time and "Winning" it worthless.
I'm going to go solo something.
"Pot meet kettle"
Your claim is bizzare, I see you argueing your point, with no regard to our points of view, you still want games soloable all the way thru. I never said it wansnt an MMO, I am saying its a stupid way to make an MMO, and I will never play one of those MMOs.
So when I see you soloers come into a game forum, trying hard to promote more solo mechanics, and its a game I intend to play, you can bet that I will be there to make my view heard.
Even If I have to repeat it a thousand times..... just like you are doing.
You are just inventing things to suit your needs (again). If you read my posts I have never argued against grouping, nor advocated for solo only, my position is in the middle ground.
I believe that both group based, solo based and a combination of both in a game are legitimate ways to create MMO's. I don't like to play group based content at the moment because of the random nature of current grouping mechanics. Just as I wouldn't like to go to a party with randoms pulled from the street, I don't want to go to a dungeon with a complement of people pulled randomly from the internet.
I think your ideology (everyone should be forced to group or not be rewarded) [mod edit] ignores the natural inclination of humans to group because social activity is already a reward in and of itself.
The problem here is we're talking about a video game, not people gathering and chatting in a social area. When you're playing a video game you're already on your own, you're sat in front of your screen with nobody else around. This is where you need poking to interact with people, as everyone out there is a stranger. This is where all those comments come from, "I don't want to group with a bunch of strangers.", "They're probably all morons.", "I'd rather group with my friends.", etc.
It's the same as real life, it's easy to go and chat with people you know, but to just jump in and start interacting with people you don't know is a whole different thing, so we make excuses not to bother. That's where the grouping idea works so well, it brings people together through necessity, and through that necessity you create friendships or acquaintances, or perhaps you find people you won't be bothering with again.
This is 2012, social interaction doesn't have to be face-to-face.
Sometimes it is over voice-comm (like a phone or skype) or it is typing via IM or in-game client.
Forcing people to do X will always have smaller appeal than letting people optionally do X as people don't like being forced to do anything.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
This idea of being forced to do anything is one that I really don't like. Nobody is being forced to do anything, there's nobody coming to your house and holding a gun to your head forcing you to join a group. Much like I don't log into Call of Duty and feel forced to shoot things, I wouldn't log in to an MMO and feel forced to group if I didn't want to group. I'd just not be logging in.
That said, if you don't want to feel forced into a group, then go solo. I don't think anyone ever said the solo option should be removed, just that grouping should be a more viable option than it is now. I could solo the entire way through games like LOTRO and SW:TOR, which by your definition means I was being forced to solo.
Groups are a viable option for the vast majority of MMOs.
WoW/SWTOR/RIFT etc all offer higher exp/gold/item compared to solo.
Group vs Solo are different playstyles and most MMOs offer both choices.
Whether you agree with what someone's choice (it is their '$15' afterall) or the vast majority of playerbase's choice is irrelevant.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Yes I think MMO's have gone wrong by basing essential reward which leads to advancement primarily on grouping (the most uber items, acheivements only being attainable by raiding) rather then basing the reward on time / effort.
I would like to see a system where 1 person could acquire uber item x in 50 hours or 10 people could each acquire the same uber item x in 5 hours. I think its unacceptable that 1 person could never acquire the item no matter how much time they put in if they didn't want to group.
In Everquest I experienced situations where I was never able to acquire items, and found it impossible to advance further even though I had 100+ days played while I had friends with 2 days played alts who had the highest end game items that were acquired by fellow guild members logging that alt in while my friends were sleeping, at work, using call of the hero and looting the item.
I know in WoW there are services offered for RL cash in which people can provide account details and have their accounts pimped with gear from the highest end groupable content and where "uber guild" members will pimp out their own alts by running trivial content, its hardly "hard work" or "deserved" loot in comparison to soloers.
I think this is the direction Arenanet is going towards with Guild Wars 2. The dynamic events are scaled, thereby making a larger percentage of the content available to both group and solo players.
Additionally, all players enjoy equal access to the highest level of gear functionality without being forced to completely invalidate their respective playstyles. It's good to see devs finally allow all of the cream to rise to the top.
Well if all that were true then making MMOs that cater to both crowds would be everywhere, but they arent. In fact what we see is a separation, PvE is now separate from PvP, solo content is before end game, grouping is end game. Thats been the pattern for many years now.
Im not for forced grouping, I dont play lineage or FX, so you are wrong about me.
What your not getting, is the more solo mechanics you put into a game, it takes away any incentive for teamwork, or to group. Then you would have us believe that players would naturally group up, basically ignoring all the evidence, your idealogy is short sighted at best.
Human nature is the follow the path of least resistance, so if we had better game mechanics, teamwork and grouping for something like an epic dungeon or PvP objective would be much easier.
But that's the problem, it shouldn't take any incentive. I solo because that's what I enjoy. I don't do it because it's easier, in fact, it's much more difficult than playing with a group. I do it because I like it. That's what groupers ought to do as well. Play in a group for no other reason than that's what they have fun doing. If people have to be bribed into playing that way, then it's just not that important to them. It just doesn't matter. Having to talk people into it, having to give them extra benefits, that's not a favored manner of play, it's buying people off!
If groupers can't play in a group, simply for the joy of playing in the group, what good are they?
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
More strawmen... seriously you guys cant come up with anything else?
Players who enjoy group content are not always in a group. There are only a few MMOs where grouping is needed for advancement, most of them are very solo friendly.
If a game penalizes you for grouping, then they will not group. Thats what you soloers are asking for, you dont want any group content, because you feel it excludes you. Even if that content offers no rewards at all.
You say you like to solo because thats how YOU like to play, then you deny players who would rather tackle some group content., because you feel it excludes you.
If soloers cant go solo thier content without whinning about what other players are doing, what good are they?
I would say its more accurate that soloers don't want enforced group content, just as you rightfully don't seem to want enforced soloing.
It seems you are arguing for enforced grouping, because you believe that not enforcing grouping means making soloing a more viable option than grouping.
I believe that a properly balanced mmo can including soloing to end game as well as the majority of content and also include group based play that is challenging and as profitable as soloing. In fact I think group based gameplay should have accelerated progression (loot / xp) and possibly other benefits but should not exclude any solo person from achieving the same outcomes in terms of xp / loot / achievements abeit at a reduced rate.
Theres no reason for one or the other (solo vs group).
The best thing in mmo games for me is the possible to know new people. When the game is created for singe player people plays alone, and its harder to meet new friends. I like games, where quest or another things we should to do together. Playing with friends give me more fun than playing alone.
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
Fine, then play that way. Find other people who want to play that way. Stop pretending you get to dictate how others play because you want a game where that's true.
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 it seems that you're arguing for enforced soloing, because you believe that not enforcing soloing means making grouping a more viable option than soloing. What's the difference here? What is your opinion of enforced grouping? What constitutes a scenario where you feel forced to group?
I'd like a game more like the original LOTRO, before they turned everything into solo content, where you could solo all the way through it if you wanted to, but they also had great content for groups at every step of the way. From the Barrows to the Goblin encampment near Weathertop and the harder Book quests. Then for whatever reason they came along and dumbed it all down, even so far as giving you a personal buff so you could go fight trolls by the dozen. Now that, to me, is enforced soloing. What's your version of enforced grouping?
Still deflecting the real issue.
Everytime a game has content that you soloers cant get too, you cry and whine that your being excluded. You guys need to grow up and let other players have thier content.
It doesnt mean game devs dont like you, it doesnt mean you cant enjoy the game, it just mean you cant do the group content, unless you form a group.
Let me remind you, that it is you that refuses to do the group content, nobody is telling you that you cant do the content. But, you will have to actually talk to other players.
Scaleable content is awsome, I have NEVER heard a group type player complain about that. They might be complaining that is hasnt been done right, and they would be right.
I remember CoH tried it, but it was a mess. The content was never very tough, a full group would blow right thru it. I hope someday we do get scaleable content that works, then we could end this silly debate.
The above idiscredits you as a poster. I wrote the following (which you conveniently cut out):
"I believe that a properly balanced mmo can including soloing to end game as well as the majority of content and also include group based play that is challenging and as profitable as soloing. In fact I think group based gameplay should have accelerated progression (loot / xp) and possibly other benefits but should not exclude any solo person from achieving the same outcomes in terms of xp / loot / achievements abeit at a reduced rate."
Its quite clear to anyone with an IQ that advocating for a game where grouping was as viable as soloing and in which grouping let you attain an accelerated rate of xp gear is not advocating for enforced soloing. Its more advocating for grouping but allows for the option for soloers to compete, except at a slower rate of acqusition.
And yet you conveniently ignored Adalwulff's previous comment that said:
"Im not for forced grouping, I dont play lineage or FX, so you are wrong about me.
What your not getting, is the more solo mechanics you put into a game, it takes away any incentive for teamwork, or to group. Then you would have us believe that players would naturally group up, basically ignoring all the evidence, your idealogy is short sighted at best.".
So again, what's the difference?
What you are not getting is "the more solo mechanics you put into a game, it takes away any incentive for teamwork and to group" is just your opinion. I feel it is an opinion that lacks thought and is knee jerk emotional, especially in light of the fact that it is a response to a post in which I stated "and in which grouping lets you attain an accelerated rate of xp gear".
As a great example of how wrong you are, in EvE Online one can conduct a mining operation, build a ship, run a plex / mission entirely solo, in fact when I started; every single function, npc, solar system could be soloed by a single player. Yet by far the most profitable and likely scenario for most people even back then was grouping because it increased profit, safety even though there was NO requirement to group.
Everyones comment on this thread is based on opinion, whats your point? My opinions are based on 12 years of playing online games. Mostly MMOs.
Besides that, you are still avoiding the real issue, so I will ask again. Do you or dont you feel excluded when a dungeon or quest is offered only to groups, even if there is no loot/exp reward?
That is what I am hearing from the solo crowd, and there is a ton of those kinds comments right here in this thread, so you cant claim that its "only my opinion".
Stop deflecting and answer the question.
We have answered. No, there should be absolutely no content in a game which someone who is paying for that game via subscription should not have access to. There should be no solo-only content or group-only content, all content should scale to the type of gameplay that is being used. You say no loot/exp reward and then want content which is an inherent reward to the group gameplay. Reward is reward.
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
Everyone has access to it, soloers just don't want to access it which is a different thing altogether. It's a matter of choice, not some artificial block. You want the content? Then join up with people and see that content, that's how it's been designed to be approached, so it's your fault if you choose to avoid it. I wouldn't go to a themepark and whine because I didn't get to go on the rollercoaster if I don't like rollercoasters.