.....And there's the problem with scalable content, you can't really do it in an open world. Guild Wars 2 is trying it but I have no knowledge on how it works, but from what I've heard it doesn't so much as group people together as throw them all into a big mob. There's a difference there, a group is a more intimate thing with people spending time together, joking, talking, facing content together. The mob idea is like a riot in action - people are doing their own thing, they're just heading in the same direction.
It's certainly more chaotic than the type of rigidly structured grouping you see in existing MMO's, but it is more inclusive. People aren't forced to do anything, but anyone who chooses to participate in the dynamic events, whether they be in a group, or solo, and contributes in a meaningful way, will gain the ability to advance their character, up to the highest level of effectiveness.
.....And there's the problem with scalable content, you can't really do it in an open world. Guild Wars 2 is trying it but I have no knowledge on how it works, but from what I've heard it doesn't so much as group people together as throw them all into a big mob. There's a difference there, a group is a more intimate thing with people spending time together, joking, talking, facing content together. The mob idea is like a riot in action - people are doing their own thing, they're just heading in the same direction.
It's certainly more chaotic than the type of rigidly structured grouping you see in existing MMO's, but it is more inclusive. People aren't forced to do anything, but anyone who chooses to participate in the dynamic events, whether they be in a group, or solo, and contributes in a meaningful way, will gain the ability to advance their character, up to the highest level of effectiveness.
Definitly more inclusive, and its almost like scaleable content, best Ive seen so far in any MMO.
Originally posted by AdalwulffIts too late, you have already claimed that you want ONLY solo content, you believe that any content made just for groups is unfair. Now your just back peddling and getting more and more insulting.You also have a much different memory of CoH than I had, becasue the scaleable content did NOT work, not even close!
Even had he said he wanted all content to be soloable, that is not a request for all content to be solo only. Now I can anticipate your response, you will say, as you said before that any solo content would be unchallenging for groups. This is obviously false since content can be variable or dynamic based on many factors.
The simplest example:
A solo player engages an npc. The npc and player becomes unavailable for other players to attack / assist.No change to hp / mana / loot / attack power occurs
A group engages the same npc. The npc and group become unavailable for other players to attack / assist. The npc has a % increase in hp / mana / loot / attack power.
Simple and easy to do for a dumb person like me. Imagine what some smart, creative developers could do.
That doesnt even make sense, you ask for content to be soloable, but it cant be solo only? How does a group do solo content? The only way to do that is with scaleable content, which I havent seen work, not ever.
Now your back peddling too, I cant believe how you guys twist and turn with every post. I cant even take you seriously anymore. You guys have made it clear, you only want solo content, the rest is unfair too you.
Are you certain the only way to make content both soloable and group is by scaleable content? Thats not true for even old games like Everquest 1.
Lodizal in Iceclad was a big turtle that usually required a group to kill. He would have been soloable by kiting classes however he summoned, meaning he teleported you into melee range. Had he only summoned when attacked by 2 players he would have been both a challanging group and challanging solo encounter.
How am I back peddling? The link I posted? The link doesn't have anything to do with the argument, I just thought it was interesting.
Are you certain the only way to make content both soloable and group is by scaleable content? Thats not true for even old games like Everquest 1.
Lodizal in Iceclad was a big turtle that usually required a group to kill. He would have been soloable by kiting classes however he summoned, meaning he teleported you into melee range. Had he only summoned when attacked by 2 players he would have been both a challanging group and challanging solo encounter.
The thing with that is only classes capable of kiting could be able to do it, assuming he didn't summon, which would make it a special case that only certain classes could do. Once you make it so every class can solo it, that becomes a problem. It removes the need to group to be able to do it, thus making it solo only content. A couple of special classes being able to do it I have no problem with, but if everyone can do it then it makes Lodizal another mob that's just a little harder than the rest.
Originally posted by AdalwulffIts too late, you have already claimed that you want ONLY solo content, you believe that any content made just for groups is unfair. Now your just back peddling and getting more and more insulting.You also have a much different memory of CoH than I had, becasue the scaleable content did NOT work, not even close!
Even had he said he wanted all content to be soloable, that is not a request for all content to be solo only. Now I can anticipate your response, you will say, as you said before that any solo content would be unchallenging for groups. This is obviously false since content can be variable or dynamic based on many factors.
The simplest example:
A solo player engages an npc. The npc and player becomes unavailable for other players to attack / assist.No change to hp / mana / loot / attack power occurs
A group engages the same npc. The npc and group become unavailable for other players to attack / assist. The npc has a % increase in hp / mana / loot / attack power.
Simple and easy to do for a dumb person like me. Imagine what some smart, creative developers could do.
That doesnt even make sense, you ask for content to be soloable, but it cant be solo only? How does a group do solo content? The only way to do that is with scaleable content, which I havent seen work, not ever.
Now your back peddling too, I cant believe how you guys twist and turn with every post. I cant even take you seriously anymore. You guys have made it clear, you only want solo content, the rest is unfair too you.
Are you certain the only way to make content both soloable and group is by scaleable content? Thats not true for even old games like Everquest 1.
Lodizal in Iceclad was a big turtle that usually required a group to kill. He would have been soloable by kiting classes however he summoned, meaning he teleported you into melee range. Had he only summoned when attacked by 2 players he would have been both a challanging group and challanging solo encounter.
How am I back peddling? The link I posted? The link doesn't have anything to do with the argument, I just thought it was interesting.
It is very intersting, how you guys first said you only wanted solo content, anything that was designed for groups is deemed unfair by you.
Then you started with the scaleable content, which I agreed with you on. You then dropped that real fast, probably because I agreed with you. Now your trying hard to make group content look like solo content.
So ya, that is called back peddling. My opinion has been the same, inclusive to all players.
But I'll say it again, every game should have content for all types of players, not just soloers. Its not exclusive to you, because it doesnt bar you from the content, its your preffered playstyle that is barring you. You guys cant seem to wrap your heads around that one, or your just unwilling too.
It kinda like the cash shop debate. I am a very active player, so I dont need those bonus exp items, but I know there are a lot of players that dont have the time to play like I do. The cash shop gives those players an OPTION so they can level at a decent pace. I think options are good, and it would be selfish to deny them a chance to catch up to me.
Game content is the same, we have a lot of different players, there is NOTHING wrong with giving them some content for thier PREFFERED playstyle. Thats the part I find bizzare, how you guys harp and harp about YOUR preffered playstyle, and deny anything else. The latest attemtp to turn group content into solo content, is further proof of how desperate your trying to make your point.
Maybe someday we will have an MMO where ALL content scales, but I doubt it. Honestly that sounds kinda boring anyway.
The thing with that is only classes capable of kiting could be able to do it, assuming he didn't summon, which would make it a special case that only certain classes could do. Once you make it so every class can solo it, that becomes a problem. It removes the need to group to be able to do it, thus making it solo only content. A couple of special classes being able to do it I have no problem with, but if everyone can do it then it makes Lodizal another mob that's just a little harder than the rest.
Again, you insist that anything that doesn't REQUIRE grouping must be solo only. The only content you're willing to see as group content is content where grouping is forced.
So long as you only see it that way, there's no point ot discussing it.
Again, you insist that anything that doesn't REQUIRE grouping must be solo only. The only content you're willing to see as group content is content where grouping is forced.
So long as you only see it that way, there's no point ot discussing it.
The way MMO's are currently designed, that's the case. If it can be soloed by everyone, thus making the content not exactly challenging, then it doesn't need a group to do, thus becomes solo content. How hard is that to understand? Group content = requires multiple players. Solo content = can be done alone.
And there's that idea of 'forced grouping' again. I was actually thinking about that today and wondered how MMO's got to such a state where grouping is now considered something you're 'forced' to do. I mean, when I started with EverQuest it was cool, we were grouped up, something single player games couldn't offer us, we worked together to fight overwhelming odds, we delved the darkest most dangerous dungeons. It was cool!
Now it's flipped on its head. It's somehow cool to be able to solo dungeons and overwhelming odds, and if you need other people to do it then you're being 'forced' into the situation. It's kinda sad really how MMO's have changed that drastically to consider a fun pastime as something people do against their will, which is the definition of forced.
Again, you insist that anything that doesn't REQUIRE grouping must be solo only. The only content you're willing to see as group content is content where grouping is forced.
So long as you only see it that way, there's no point ot discussing it.
The way MMO's are currently designed, that's the case. If it can be soloed by everyone, thus making the content not exactly challenging, then it doesn't need a group to do, thus becomes solo content. How hard is that to understand? Group content = requires multiple players. Solo content = can be done alone.
And there's that idea of 'forced grouping' again. I was actually thinking about that today and wondered how MMO's got to such a state where grouping is now considered something you're 'forced' to do. I mean, when I started with EverQuest it was cool, we were grouped up, something single player games couldn't offer us, we worked together to fight overwhelming odds, we delved the darkest most dangerous dungeons. It was cool!
Now it's flipped on its head. It's somehow cool to be able to solo dungeons and overwhelming odds, and if you need other people to do it then you're being 'forced' into the situation. It's kinda sad really how MMO's have changed that drastically to consider a fun pastime as something people do against their will, which is the definition of forced.
Its a political tactic, if you repeat the same thing enough, people will eventually believe it.
Thats why these guys keep saying, ANY group content is forced grouping, but really its just NOT thier PREFFERED play style.
We have also heard them say, over and over, that thier PREFFERED playstyle is the more popular one, and even claim that its thier playstyle that is keeping player retention rates high, even on older games.
The way MMO's are currently designed, that's the case. If it can be soloed by everyone, thus making the content not exactly challenging, then it doesn't need a group to do, thus becomes solo content. How hard is that to understand? Group content = requires multiple players. Solo content = can be done alone.
And there's that idea of 'forced grouping' again. I was actually thinking about that today and wondered how MMO's got to such a state where grouping is now considered something you're 'forced' to do. I mean, when I started with EverQuest it was cool, we were grouped up, something single player games couldn't offer us, we worked together to fight overwhelming odds, we delved the darkest most dangerous dungeons. It was cool!
Now it's flipped on its head. It's somehow cool to be able to solo dungeons and overwhelming odds, and if you need other people to do it then you're being 'forced' into the situation. It's kinda sad really how MMO's have changed that drastically to consider a fun pastime as something people do against their will, which is the definition of forced.
We've already talked about scalable content though and the fact that it ought to operate based on who shows up at the front door, no matter how many people that happens to be. So if it's already been discussed and largely agreed upon, how come you keep going back to "group content only for groups"?
Are you certain the only way to make content both soloable and group is by scaleable content? Thats not true for even old games like Everquest 1.
Lodizal in Iceclad was a big turtle that usually required a group to kill. He would have been soloable by kiting classes however he summoned, meaning he teleported you into melee range. Had he only summoned when attacked by 2 players he would have been both a challanging group and challanging solo encounter.
The thing with that is only classes capable of kiting could be able to do it, assuming he didn't summon, which would make it a special case that only certain classes could do. Once you make it so every class can solo it, that becomes a problem. It removes the need to group to be able to do it, thus making it solo only content. A couple of special classes being able to do it I have no problem with, but if everyone can do it then it makes Lodizal another mob that's just a little harder than the rest.
It does seem like that but Lodizal had 32,000 HP (the max limit on HP at the time I think) + health regen, for a single player to kill him would have taken an enormous amount of time vs a group, if I recall it would take a Shaman an hour or so (Shamans could just manage to solo him in Velious)
I killed him both with a group (velious era) and solo as an enchanter with dire cham (PoP era) and as a group it took a minute or so.
Obviouisly given that, if you could get a group you certainly would, unless you really wanted something from him or you just wanted the challenge.
We've already talked about scalable content though and the fact that it ought to operate based on who shows up at the front door, no matter how many people that happens to be. So if it's already been discussed and largely agreed upon, how come you keep going back to "group content only for groups"?
I point you to my post about 15 before this one that you either missed or chose to ignore. Go read it, it covers a lot.
It does seem like that but Lodizal had 32,000 HP (the max limit on HP at the time I think) + health regen, for a single player to kill him would have taken an enormous amount of time vs a group, if I recall it would take a Shaman an hour or so (Shamans could just manage to solo him in Velious)
I killed him both with a group (velious era) and solo as an enchanter with dire cham (PoP era) and as a group it took a minute or so.
Obviouisly given that, if you could get a group you certainly would, unless you really wanted something from him or you just wanted the challenge.
Okay, so lets say that everyone can solo him, but it takes a lot longer and that a group can do it a lot quicker. Now, Lodizal was a rare spawn, he was jumped on within minutes of him spawning with groups across the continent teleporting in to try and catch him. How do you make this work without kill stealing? If one person can kill it then the first person who wanders past can tag it and start fighting. Those groups don't even have a chance of jumping in to challenge for that content, there would need to be 6 people sat there the entire time to be able to claim it.
So 6 people are excluded from content so 1 person can solo something. Even Spock said that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Excuse my geek-ism there. It just seems to me that the more you make a game soloable, the more you take away from groups, no matter how you try and do it.
It does seem like that but Lodizal had 32,000 HP (the max limit on HP at the time I think) + health regen, for a single player to kill him would have taken an enormous amount of time vs a group, if I recall it would take a Shaman an hour or so (Shamans could just manage to solo him in Velious)
I killed him both with a group (velious era) and solo as an enchanter with dire cham (PoP era) and as a group it took a minute or so.
Obviouisly given that, if you could get a group you certainly would, unless you really wanted something from him or you just wanted the challenge.
Okay, so lets say that everyone can solo him, but it takes a lot longer and that a group can do it a lot quicker. Now, Lodizal was a rare spawn, he was jumped on within minutes of him spawning with groups across the continent teleporting in to try and catch him. How do you make this work without kill stealing? If one person can kill it then the first person who wanders past can tag it and start fighting. Those groups don't even have a chance of jumping in to challenge for that content, there would need to be 6 people sat there the entire time to be able to claim it.
So 6 people are excluded from content so 1 person can solo something. Even Spock said that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Excuse my geek-ism there. It just seems to me that the more you make a game soloable, the more you take away from groups, no matter how you try and do it.
Thats a bit too specific to really argue over when we're really arguing about a theoretical game sometimes in the future and those sorts of "unfair" things would have to be addressed specifically to the game.
However, Everquest was not "fair" and was never meant to be, I camped and farmed Lodizal quite a lot, most often there were a few scouts hanging out at his spawn location for a few hours prior to his expected spawn time. What would usually happen is if a group turned up to kill Lodizal the soloers would hand the camp over no problems. Other times the group would see the pop first and aggro him first. Some times a group scout would kite him (no summoning if you did no damage) till the group got organized and arrived.
When you think about it, whether you are in a group or solo, everyone has an equal chance to "tag" a mob, just comes down to lag, reflexes and luck.
Probably the most interesting thing about Everquest was its unfairness and politics, where an uber guild would wipe every raid mob, they had week long or longer spawns (even when they didn't need them) so up and coming guilds could not get the gear and compete with them for high tier content, or just because they could. I miss those days.
So I guess the consenses is scaleable content or group content, because you can solo group content. That gives everyone something to do.
We will probably see it sooner than I expect, because GW2 has some scaleable content and it works ok.
I got fed up of the whole thread, soloers can only see things for themselves, hence their need to be on their own all the time. Groupers bring other people into the equation and want everyone to work together in a massive hippy commune. The two don't go together, it's like trying to argue religion.
So I guess the consenses is scaleable content or group content, because you can solo group content. That gives everyone something to do.
We will probably see it sooner than I expect, because GW2 has some scaleable content and it works ok.
So the consensus is, 1 or a hundred, that game shapes itself to you, and or your group. Does scalable content = scalable rewards? If I solo Aradune the Galactic, should get the same reward as the entire zerg party or do I get a different reward because I solo'ed the encounter?
So the consensus is, 1 or a hundred, that game shapes itself to you, and or your group. Does scalable content = scalable rewards? If I solo Aradune the Galactic, should get the same reward as the entire zerg party or do I get a different reward because I solo'ed the encounter?
I'd say it should scale with the difficulty. If Aradune the Galactic can be swatted down by one guy then he's probably just a little guy with a big name. If 30 people smack him down and more than half those die in the process then he's probably deserved the name and has some cool stuff.
So the consensus is, 1 or a hundred, that game shapes itself to you, and or your group. Does scalable content = scalable rewards? If I solo Aradune the Galactic, should get the same reward as the entire zerg party or do I get a different reward because I solo'ed the encounter?
I'd say it should scale with the difficulty. If Aradune the Galactic can be swatted down by one guy then he's probably just a little guy with a big name. If 30 people smack him down and more than half those die in the process then he's probably deserved the name and has some cool stuff.
If it scaled with difficulty then if a soloer could swat him down with apparantly little effort then a group of any size could equally swat him down with little effort. If not the its not scaling properly.
In a properly scaled fight a npc would be challenging to the soloer and equally challanging to the group. If the soloer takes 5 minutes and loses 50% of the time then the group should take 5 minutes and lose 50% of the time (given equally geared and skiled groups). At the end of the encounter the soloer walks away with 1 item while the group walks away with 1 item for each member.
I actually don't like this, I think groups should have an advantage over soloers in terms of rewards, there should just be no exclusivity in terms of reward power (a soloer who has 100 hours played should have comparable gear to a grouper with 100 hours played). I also think some bosses should be group only and that there should be both group content and solo content that is different but able to lead to similiar rewards.
And if it's not fun to play in a group, then the game shouldn't be a mmorpg.
Most of the things that are worst about group play have nothing to do with the game and everything to do with the immature asshats who are playing the game.
Group play makes a game a lot more interactive. It also gives you chance to gain new friends. I actually enjoy playing a game more when I have friends online. It also encourages team work.
Solo play tests your skills as a gamer--How well you use your character and how strong your character really is. For example, if you finished a four-man dungeon on your own, you'll feel like you really did a good job with your hero.
Games should give players the option to choose whether to do quests alone or in a party.
How I feel about this issue is the only right way to see it, no compromise should be attempted. MMO's should cater exlusively to my playstyle, everyone else is an idiot.
i play mmorpg games a lot and unless you are in top 5% lvl player you cant play totally solo, {well you can but will always be a low lvl noob}
Comments
Once again guys, please discuss the topic at hand without resorting to personal atacks.
To give feedback on moderation, contact mikeb@mmorpg.com
It's certainly more chaotic than the type of rigidly structured grouping you see in existing MMO's, but it is more inclusive. People aren't forced to do anything, but anyone who chooses to participate in the dynamic events, whether they be in a group, or solo, and contributes in a meaningful way, will gain the ability to advance their character, up to the highest level of effectiveness.
Definitly more inclusive, and its almost like scaleable content, best Ive seen so far in any MMO.
Are you certain the only way to make content both soloable and group is by scaleable content? Thats not true for even old games like Everquest 1.
Lodizal in Iceclad was a big turtle that usually required a group to kill. He would have been soloable by kiting classes however he summoned, meaning he teleported you into melee range. Had he only summoned when attacked by 2 players he would have been both a challanging group and challanging solo encounter.
How am I back peddling? The link I posted? The link doesn't have anything to do with the argument, I just thought it was interesting.
The thing with that is only classes capable of kiting could be able to do it, assuming he didn't summon, which would make it a special case that only certain classes could do. Once you make it so every class can solo it, that becomes a problem. It removes the need to group to be able to do it, thus making it solo only content. A couple of special classes being able to do it I have no problem with, but if everyone can do it then it makes Lodizal another mob that's just a little harder than the rest.
It is very intersting, how you guys first said you only wanted solo content, anything that was designed for groups is deemed unfair by you.
Then you started with the scaleable content, which I agreed with you on. You then dropped that real fast, probably because I agreed with you. Now your trying hard to make group content look like solo content.
So ya, that is called back peddling. My opinion has been the same, inclusive to all players.
But I'll say it again, every game should have content for all types of players, not just soloers. Its not exclusive to you, because it doesnt bar you from the content, its your preffered playstyle that is barring you. You guys cant seem to wrap your heads around that one, or your just unwilling too.
It kinda like the cash shop debate. I am a very active player, so I dont need those bonus exp items, but I know there are a lot of players that dont have the time to play like I do. The cash shop gives those players an OPTION so they can level at a decent pace. I think options are good, and it would be selfish to deny them a chance to catch up to me.
Game content is the same, we have a lot of different players, there is NOTHING wrong with giving them some content for thier PREFFERED playstyle. Thats the part I find bizzare, how you guys harp and harp about YOUR preffered playstyle, and deny anything else. The latest attemtp to turn group content into solo content, is further proof of how desperate your trying to make your point.
Maybe someday we will have an MMO where ALL content scales, but I doubt it. Honestly that sounds kinda boring anyway.
Again, you insist that anything that doesn't REQUIRE grouping must be solo only. The only content you're willing to see as group content is content where grouping is forced.
So long as you only see it that way, there's no point ot discussing it.
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
The way MMO's are currently designed, that's the case. If it can be soloed by everyone, thus making the content not exactly challenging, then it doesn't need a group to do, thus becomes solo content. How hard is that to understand? Group content = requires multiple players. Solo content = can be done alone.
And there's that idea of 'forced grouping' again. I was actually thinking about that today and wondered how MMO's got to such a state where grouping is now considered something you're 'forced' to do. I mean, when I started with EverQuest it was cool, we were grouped up, something single player games couldn't offer us, we worked together to fight overwhelming odds, we delved the darkest most dangerous dungeons. It was cool!
Now it's flipped on its head. It's somehow cool to be able to solo dungeons and overwhelming odds, and if you need other people to do it then you're being 'forced' into the situation. It's kinda sad really how MMO's have changed that drastically to consider a fun pastime as something people do against their will, which is the definition of forced.
Its a political tactic, if you repeat the same thing enough, people will eventually believe it.
Thats why these guys keep saying, ANY group content is forced grouping, but really its just NOT thier PREFFERED play style.
We have also heard them say, over and over, that thier PREFFERED playstyle is the more popular one, and even claim that its thier playstyle that is keeping player retention rates high, even on older games.
We've already talked about scalable content though and the fact that it ought to operate based on who shows up at the front door, no matter how many people that happens to be. So if it's already been discussed and largely agreed upon, how come you keep going back to "group content only for groups"?
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
It does seem like that but Lodizal had 32,000 HP (the max limit on HP at the time I think) + health regen, for a single player to kill him would have taken an enormous amount of time vs a group, if I recall it would take a Shaman an hour or so (Shamans could just manage to solo him in Velious)
I killed him both with a group (velious era) and solo as an enchanter with dire cham (PoP era) and as a group it took a minute or so.
Obviouisly given that, if you could get a group you certainly would, unless you really wanted something from him or you just wanted the challenge.
I point you to my post about 15 before this one that you either missed or chose to ignore. Go read it, it covers a lot.
Okay, so lets say that everyone can solo him, but it takes a lot longer and that a group can do it a lot quicker. Now, Lodizal was a rare spawn, he was jumped on within minutes of him spawning with groups across the continent teleporting in to try and catch him. How do you make this work without kill stealing? If one person can kill it then the first person who wanders past can tag it and start fighting. Those groups don't even have a chance of jumping in to challenge for that content, there would need to be 6 people sat there the entire time to be able to claim it.
So 6 people are excluded from content so 1 person can solo something. Even Spock said that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Excuse my geek-ism there. It just seems to me that the more you make a game soloable, the more you take away from groups, no matter how you try and do it.
Thats a bit too specific to really argue over when we're really arguing about a theoretical game sometimes in the future and those sorts of "unfair" things would have to be addressed specifically to the game.
However, Everquest was not "fair" and was never meant to be, I camped and farmed Lodizal quite a lot, most often there were a few scouts hanging out at his spawn location for a few hours prior to his expected spawn time. What would usually happen is if a group turned up to kill Lodizal the soloers would hand the camp over no problems. Other times the group would see the pop first and aggro him first. Some times a group scout would kite him (no summoning if you did no damage) till the group got organized and arrived.
When you think about it, whether you are in a group or solo, everyone has an equal chance to "tag" a mob, just comes down to lag, reflexes and luck.
Probably the most interesting thing about Everquest was its unfairness and politics, where an uber guild would wipe every raid mob, they had week long or longer spawns (even when they didn't need them) so up and coming guilds could not get the gear and compete with them for high tier content, or just because they could. I miss those days.
You bored UsualSuspect to death...
So I guess the consenses is scaleable content or group content, because you can solo group content. That gives everyone something to do.
We will probably see it sooner than I expect, because GW2 has some scaleable content and it works ok.
I got fed up of the whole thread, soloers can only see things for themselves, hence their need to be on their own all the time. Groupers bring other people into the equation and want everyone to work together in a massive hippy commune. The two don't go together, it's like trying to argue religion.
So the consensus is, 1 or a hundred, that game shapes itself to you, and or your group. Does scalable content = scalable rewards? If I solo Aradune the Galactic, should get the same reward as the entire zerg party or do I get a different reward because I solo'ed the encounter?
in my oppinion this has been solved by gw2 and others will follow suit...
I'd say it should scale with the difficulty. If Aradune the Galactic can be swatted down by one guy then he's probably just a little guy with a big name. If 30 people smack him down and more than half those die in the process then he's probably deserved the name and has some cool stuff.
If it scaled with difficulty then if a soloer could swat him down with apparantly little effort then a group of any size could equally swat him down with little effort. If not the its not scaling properly.
In a properly scaled fight a npc would be challenging to the soloer and equally challanging to the group. If the soloer takes 5 minutes and loses 50% of the time then the group should take 5 minutes and lose 50% of the time (given equally geared and skiled groups). At the end of the encounter the soloer walks away with 1 item while the group walks away with 1 item for each member.
I actually don't like this, I think groups should have an advantage over soloers in terms of rewards, there should just be no exclusivity in terms of reward power (a soloer who has 100 hours played should have comparable gear to a grouper with 100 hours played). I also think some bosses should be group only and that there should be both group content and solo content that is different but able to lead to similiar rewards.
Homogenizing all content is a bad idea imo.
There is already an advantage for groups in terms of rewards: the reward of fun playing in a group. I think it's more than enough advantage as it is.
And if it's not fun to play in a group, then the game shouldn't be a mmorpg.
This is how I feel too.
The main arguments here seem to be centered on loot, while my arguement had to do with difficutly. Both of these have been dealt with in GW2.
Lets hope future MMOs take a lesson.
Most of the things that are worst about group play have nothing to do with the game and everything to do with the immature asshats who are playing the game.
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
There should be balance.
Group play makes a game a lot more interactive. It also gives you chance to gain new friends. I actually enjoy playing a game more when I have friends online. It also encourages team work.
Solo play tests your skills as a gamer--How well you use your character and how strong your character really is. For example, if you finished a four-man dungeon on your own, you'll feel like you really did a good job with your hero.
Games should give players the option to choose whether to do quests alone or in a party.