I just dont' see how you can be entertained doing stuff you enjoy.
I made a slight alteration. Yours is the extremists viewpoint; it's narrow, egocentric and it lacks empathy. You have very specific preferences. You don't like doing something so you can't understand why others do and it affects your ability to enjoy an MMO if people can achieve as well as you via a playstyle you don't enjoy.
A hardcore soloer could easily say the exact same thing about your preferences.
The rest of us don't look at this in black and white terms. Sometimes we group, sometimes we solo. A game that supports both gives us variety. We value that variety as it affords the ability to tailor our game experience to suit whatever preferences we happen to have when we log on.
I would solo WoW ot the level cap. I would not find the advantage of grouping to be worth the effort of taking one step in a different direction to join a group.
But would you solo once at the level cap or would you group? I bet you would almost exclusively group.
So you would HATE the 1-80 content because it's more solo-oriented ( i refuse to say "forced")
The soloer would HATE the cap content because it's more group-oriented.
On the flip side...
Sounds like there is content to make the soloer happy and the grouper happy in the game. Why is this bad?
disclaimer: i do not, nor ever have played WoW.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
But would you solo once at the level cap or would you group? I bet you would almost exclusively group.
So you would HATE the 1-80 content because it's more solo-oriented ( i refuse to say "forced")
The soloer would HATE the cap content because it's more group-oriented.
On the flip side...
Sounds like there is content to make the soloer happy and the grouper happy in the game. Why is this bad?
disclaimer: i do not, nor ever have played WoW.
There is actually more solo content in WoW than group content so no it's not more group oriented. The majority of the 8475 quests are solo quests with 3.9% of them group and 4.5% of them raid. Out of the 162 zones, 16 are end game group dungeons and only 9 end game raid dungeons. Numbers courtesy of wowhead...they make it easy.
So if you consider running the same unchallenging dungeons over and over every night for tokens fun then yeah WoW might be a game to make that type of grouper happy. WoW does have some fun dungeons, but they are extremely easy, take less than 30 minutes to complete, and just leave people who enjoy a challenge feeling unsatisfied.
But would you solo once at the level cap or would you group? I bet you would almost exclusively group.
So you would HATE the 1-80 content because it's more solo-oriented ( i refuse to say "forced")
The soloer would HATE the cap content because it's more group-oriented.
On the flip side...
Sounds like there is content to make the soloer happy and the grouper happy in the game. Why is this bad?
disclaimer: i do not, nor ever have played WoW.
There is actually more solo content in WoW than group content so no it's not more group oriented. The majority of the 8475 quests are solo quests with 3.9% of them group and 4.5% of them raid. Out of the 162 zones, 16 are end game group dungeons and only 9 end game raid dungeons. Numbers courtesy of wowhead...they make it easy.
So if you consider running the same unchallenging dungeons over and over every night for tokens fun then yeah WoW might be a game to make that type of grouper happy. WoW does have some fun dungeons, but they are extremely easy, take less than 30 minutes to complete, and just leave people who enjoy a challenge feeling unsatisfied.
I wasn't defending WoW (which i've never played), nor does the "difficulty" of group encounters factor into this argument. Difficulty if a different issue altogether. (If we have a game that has 100% forced grouping but it provides no challenge, that's a problem with encounter design not the split between group and solo content.)
My point was that the game provides gameplay for both playstyles - solo and group. If someone it is poorly designed, it needs to be designed better, but the problem isn't that it's not there
As far as repeating the same dungeon, group content by design provides more variety as it is different with every group. Doing a static dungeon solo is the same every time.
Dynamic content solves this problem, but creates others. I'm still in favour of it though.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
Alright, I think it's time for a fresh perspective on the comparison of solo vs group being that I am not the only 30 yr old gamer who has a family. Even making time for some of my fave online games is hard enough when things can suddenly go from calm to crazy in a house with children. Then throw in the fact that I have friends wanting me to play with them, but I end up ruining their experience if I am constantly going afk for some family reason. I don't want to be forced to disappoint people because I'm not 14 anymore, or single, and I have grown up responsibilities. Sure, things will get more interesting when my son is old enough to actually play these games and play outside and such, but for gamer parents of children under 4? It can be a serious headache to try and organize groups, especially to single parents or if one or both have different/irregular work schedules (ie. evening and night shifts). Oh, and hands up for all you people who have significant others who HATE video games?
Bottom Line?
I think there should be some bonuses for people who play in groups, but if I can't play a game at my own pace and at 3 am in the morning when no friends of mine are playing, just to advance my char a little further any chance I get, I won't play it.
The fact these days, people, is that people who were gamers as children are still gamers as they grow up. I have not lost any enthusiasm for playing games and most of my IRL gamer friends are the same age. The average gamer age these days is 29-32. Forcing these people to use some of their limited time to find groups to advance when even their gamer friends have different schedules is going to alienate them.
And I don't understand this at all.
Why would I bother to play an MMORPG solo?
Whacking mobs solo is as boring as watching paint dry. In fact, watching paint dry is much, much more exciting.
If I can't find a group, I'm not missing anything at all.
Im never "forced to group" because that is really the only thing I find entertaining about an MMORPg.
If you made the game 100% soloable, and made soloing absolutely 100% the same xp and loot as grouping, I would still never solo.
Oh, I might stand around in front of a dungeon whacking mobs waiting on a group, but I could just as easily be playing solitaire.
I certainly wouldn't bother to do any quests solo.
Now, this only applies after the early levels. Of course I'll do those solo to learn the game interface and what not, like everyone else.
OMG, if I don't find a group, I wont' be able to advance my character!
But I don't want to advance my character with boring game play. What's the point in doing that?
I just dont' see how you can be entertained whacking mobs by yourself.
Funny how I never said I enjoy soloing. I actually PREFER to play with my friends. It seems that you are young and have no idea what it's like to not be able to play with your best friends. To suddenly go from playing every day and all day to an hour or 2 a day at best. JSchindler said it best. If you are willing to play a game that you will no longer be able to enjoy or advance in once you find someone special and start a life, that's your prerogitive.
I think you should read my post again carefully and realize I believe that groups should get bonuses. I just think it's pretty ignorant to force people of many differing ages, beliefs (not just religious), upbringings, countries, and state of mind to play only one way.
Anyone else going to stop playing a game they thoroughly enjoy and have invested months in simply because they aren't able to play as liberally as they once were able to?
I would solo WoW ot the level cap. I would not find the advantage of grouping to be worth the effort of taking one step in a different direction to join a group.
But would you solo once at the level cap or would you group? I bet you would almost exclusively group.
So you would HATE the 1-80 content because it's more solo-oriented ( i refuse to say "forced")
The soloer would HATE the cap content because it's more group-oriented.
On the flip side...
Sounds like there is content to make the soloer happy and the grouper happy in the game. Why is this bad?
disclaimer: i do not, nor ever have played WoW.
There is actually a difference between group content and raid content.
I do like grouping. And you do join a group when you raid. But I don't really care for raiding.
Alright, I think it's time for a fresh perspective on the comparison of solo vs group being that I am not the only 30 yr old gamer who has a family. Even making time for some of my fave online games is hard enough when things can suddenly go from calm to crazy in a house with children. Then throw in the fact that I have friends wanting me to play with them, but I end up ruining their experience if I am constantly going afk for some family reason. I don't want to be forced to disappoint people because I'm not 14 anymore, or single, and I have grown up responsibilities. Sure, things will get more interesting when my son is old enough to actually play these games and play outside and such, but for gamer parents of children under 4? It can be a serious headache to try and organize groups, especially to single parents or if one or both have different/irregular work schedules (ie. evening and night shifts). Oh, and hands up for all you people who have significant others who HATE video games?
Bottom Line?
I think there should be some bonuses for people who play in groups, but if I can't play a game at my own pace and at 3 am in the morning when no friends of mine are playing, just to advance my char a little further any chance I get, I won't play it.
The fact these days, people, is that people who were gamers as children are still gamers as they grow up. I have not lost any enthusiasm for playing games and most of my IRL gamer friends are the same age. The average gamer age these days is 29-32. Forcing these people to use some of their limited time to find groups to advance when even their gamer friends have different schedules is going to alienate them.
And I don't understand this at all.
Why would I bother to play an MMORPG solo?
Whacking mobs solo is as boring as watching paint dry. In fact, watching paint dry is much, much more exciting.
If I can't find a group, I'm not missing anything at all.
Im never "forced to group" because that is really the only thing I find entertaining about an MMORPg.
If you made the game 100% soloable, and made soloing absolutely 100% the same xp and loot as grouping, I would still never solo.
Oh, I might stand around in front of a dungeon whacking mobs waiting on a group, but I could just as easily be playing solitaire.
I certainly wouldn't bother to do any quests solo.
Now, this only applies after the early levels. Of course I'll do those solo to learn the game interface and what not, like everyone else.
OMG, if I don't find a group, I wont' be able to advance my character!
But I don't want to advance my character with boring game play. What's the point in doing that?
I just dont' see how you can be entertained whacking mobs by yourself.
Funny how I never said I enjoy soloing. I actually PREFER to play with my friends. It seems that you are young and have no idea what it's like to not be able to play with your best friends. To suddenly go from playing every day and all day to an hour or 2 a day at best. JSchindler said it best. If you are willing to play a game that you will no longer be able to enjoy or advance in once you find someone special and start a life, that's your prerogitive.
I think you should read my post again carefully and realize I believe that groups should get bonuses. I just think it's pretty ignorant to force people of many differing ages, beliefs (not just religious), upbringings, countries, and state of mind to play only one way.
Anyone else going to stop playing a game they thoroughly enjoy and have invested months in simply because they aren't able to play as liberally as they once were able to?
I absolutely agree. you should not force everyone ot play the same way. Some like good grouping games, and there's people like you that like good solo games. I don't think there's any point in forcing you to play a good grouping game.
However, you seem to think it would be good to force me to play a solo game and you want me to pretend it's a good grouping game, but I don't know why. It makes no sense, if you don't want to force everyone to play the same game. So why force me to play a solo game when I like group games?
Oh, you think just letting someone group in a game makes it a group game? It doesn't. Never has, never will.
Grouping in a solo game, is grouping in a solo game. Grouping in a solo game, doesn't somehow magically turn that into a good group game.
So in essence, YOU want to force everyone to play the same game, a solo friendly game. And then accuse ME of forcing people to play the same game. Very hypocritical if you ask me.
The solution may be The Old Republic.
Here's my take on MMORPG game play. Boring! Very, very, very, very boring.
EQ, DAoC, WoW, you name it.
Ask yourself, would you play it offline?
I think most are going to answer no.
Why not? Because, it's boring.
And hence my preference for grouping. The interaction between the players is fun, even if the content is very lackluster.
I think what TOR is trying to do, is make a game you would actually play offline.
And then ad on top of that, online game play.
I don't know if they will succeed, but if they do, then there you go.
Soloing will actually be fun, because the game play will actually be fun, so grouping will be bonus fun.
Plus, I"m pretty excited about the multiplayer dialog. No more, everyone stands around and reads the NPC stock dialog.
You actually get to vote on what will happen! Sounds like fun to me.
Alright, I think it's time for a fresh perspective on the comparison of solo vs group being that I am not the only 30 yr old gamer who has a family. Even making time for some of my fave online games is hard enough when things can suddenly go from calm to crazy in a house with children. Then throw in the fact that I have friends wanting me to play with them, but I end up ruining their experience if I am constantly going afk for some family reason. I don't want to be forced to disappoint people because I'm not 14 anymore, or single, and I have grown up responsibilities. Sure, things will get more interesting when my son is old enough to actually play these games and play outside and such, but for gamer parents of children under 4? It can be a serious headache to try and organize groups, especially to single parents or if one or both have different/irregular work schedules (ie. evening and night shifts). Oh, and hands up for all you people who have significant others who HATE video games?
Bottom Line?
I think there should be some bonuses for people who play in groups, but if I can't play a game at my own pace and at 3 am in the morning when no friends of mine are playing, just to advance my char a little further any chance I get, I won't play it.
The fact these days, people, is that people who were gamers as children are still gamers as they grow up. I have not lost any enthusiasm for playing games and most of my IRL gamer friends are the same age. The average gamer age these days is 29-32. Forcing these people to use some of their limited time to find groups to advance when even their gamer friends have different schedules is going to alienate them.
And I don't understand this at all.
Why would I bother to play an MMORPG solo?
Whacking mobs solo is as boring as watching paint dry. In fact, watching paint dry is much, much more exciting.
If I can't find a group, I'm not missing anything at all.
Im never "forced to group" because that is really the only thing I find entertaining about an MMORPg.
If you made the game 100% soloable, and made soloing absolutely 100% the same xp and loot as grouping, I would still never solo.
Oh, I might stand around in front of a dungeon whacking mobs waiting on a group, but I could just as easily be playing solitaire.
I certainly wouldn't bother to do any quests solo.
Now, this only applies after the early levels. Of course I'll do those solo to learn the game interface and what not, like everyone else.
OMG, if I don't find a group, I wont' be able to advance my character!
But I don't want to advance my character with boring game play. What's the point in doing that?
I just dont' see how you can be entertained whacking mobs by yourself.
Funny how I never said I enjoy soloing. I actually PREFER to play with my friends. It seems that you are young and have no idea what it's like to not be able to play with your best friends. To suddenly go from playing every day and all day to an hour or 2 a day at best. JSchindler said it best. If you are willing to play a game that you will no longer be able to enjoy or advance in once you find someone special and start a life, that's your prerogitive.
I think you should read my post again carefully and realize I believe that groups should get bonuses. I just think it's pretty ignorant to force people of many differing ages, beliefs (not just religious), upbringings, countries, and state of mind to play only one way.
Anyone else going to stop playing a game they thoroughly enjoy and have invested months in simply because they aren't able to play as liberally as they once were able to?
The solution may be The Old Republic.
Here's my take on MMORPG game play. Boring! Very, very, very, very boring.
EQ, DAoC, WoW, you name it.
Ask yourself, would you play it offline?
I think most are going to answer no.
Why not? Because, it's boring.
And hence my preference for grouping. The interaction between the players is fun, even if the content is very lackluster.
I think what TOR is trying to do, is make a game you would actually play offline.
And then ad on top of that, online game play.
I don't know if they will succeed, but if they do, then there you go.
Soloing will actually be fun, because the game play will actually be fun, so grouping will be bonus fun.
Plus, I"m pretty excited about the multiplayer dialog. No more, everyone stands around and reads the NPC stock dialog.
You actually get to vote on what will happen! Sounds like fun to me.
That, in red, is the key, and i think the big thing thats been missing from MMOs for years.
Think back to the single player games many of us grew up on with the older systems, like the original Mario games. Would we have kept gaming as much as we have for so many years if every game that came out played exactly like Mario, but just had a different name & character? I sure as hell wouldnt. It was innovation that drove the gaming industry to where it is at now, but unfortunately weve hit a period wher einnovation has become the enemy for MMORPGs, and most prefer giving us rehashed cntent under a new name, similar to my previous example of if they had just kept reskinning Mario.
We're bored with the same old stuff. It may have excited us and been fun for us at one time, but after having done it in dozens and dozens of games, it loses it's appeal, but everyone is afraid to take a chance on something unique (with a few exceptions like CCP and ArenaNet).
With single player games, they tend to be quite a bit more creatuve and unique, and thats what makes them fun. Ive tried games just for the hell of it, even though i didnt think i would like it, and found myself having lots of fun, but in MMOs, there isnt much that stands out as different than the rest, and we keep basically playing the same game over and over again.
I found a few games years ago like Diablo 2 a blast to play, and even did play it offline quite a bit, and the multiplayer part just added to the fun, but youre right, there are very few, if any, MMORPGs out nowadays that i would play if not for the online play and interaction with others.
I wasn't defending WoW (which i've never played), nor does the "difficulty" of group encounters factor into this argument. Difficulty if a different issue altogether. (If we have a game that has 100% forced grouping but it provides no challenge, that's a problem with encounter design not the split between group and solo content.)
My point was that the game provides gameplay for both playstyles - solo and group. If someone it is poorly designed, it needs to be designed better, but the problem isn't that it's not there
As far as repeating the same dungeon, group content by design provides more variety as it is different with every group. Doing a static dungeon solo is the same every time.
Dynamic content solves this problem, but creates others. I'm still in favour of it though.
Oh I agree that solo and group content is there, it's been in every single MMO I've played since 1999 but I was disagreeing with your statement that just because it is there that soloers and groupers would be happy.
I thouroughly agree that I would not play MOST MMOs offline, though I immensly enjoyed playing FFXII because one of the things I enjoy is non random battles and not having to wait for your action bar. I actually enjoy that real time combat. I just hate the grind. IMO, it's the grinding that makes MMOs not fun to play by yourself.
But you don't need to group in an MMO to interact with other people. I always play on PVP servers and enjoy nothing more than killing an enemy of an opposite faction. Not in arranged PVP battles either, but out in the open, in any zone. And I have never gone after someone too low below my level, as I have always hated people who bring their max level char into a low level zone and start harrassing people who aren't even a challenge.
I also enjoy undercutting in markets and auctions.
You can't get any of that offline, and you don't need to group.
This was essentially why I quit WAR. I got to a point I needed to group to advance. However, the classes I needed were never on the same time I was and it was next to impossible to group with non-guildies. Too bad, but that's their lose.
The hypothetical ideal game allows both grouping and soloplay and makes both styles worthwhile. Grouping however has to get an edge over soloplay, otherwise its a bit pointless to have it in the first place.
Especially a good game should avoid the pitfall of allowing some classes to be good solists, while others strictly depend upon getting a group. Which is how it is in many asian games, like Lineage 2 (my Shillien Elder couldnt kill even any gray mobs when I was highlevel, as my last update of my undead attack skill was with level 35. And forget about any non-undead opponents. On the other hand, mages, summoners and archers where good and fast solo killers).
If I where to accept a game with forced group play, I would need to be sure I actually can always get a group in it.
I wasn't defending WoW (which i've never played), nor does the "difficulty" of group encounters factor into this argument. Difficulty if a different issue altogether. (If we have a game that has 100% forced grouping but it provides no challenge, that's a problem with encounter design not the split between group and solo content.)
My point was that the game provides gameplay for both playstyles - solo and group. If someone it is poorly designed, it needs to be designed better, but the problem isn't that it's not there
As far as repeating the same dungeon, group content by design provides more variety as it is different with every group. Doing a static dungeon solo is the same every time.
Dynamic content solves this problem, but creates others. I'm still in favour of it though.
Oh I agree that solo and group content is there, it's been in every single MMO I've played since 1999 but I was disagreeing with your statement that just because it is there that soloers and groupers would be happy.
Not "WOULD" be happy, rather "SHOULD" be happy. My point through my posts is that really it's perspective. It's not so much that people want to group or solo and that gameplay isn't available, it's that certain people - even though their prefered gameplay method is available in the game - refuse to be happy until the entire game is based around their specific playstyle.
It's the attitude of "I like to solo, therefore every single thing in the game should be soloable" or "I like to group, all content should be designed for groups and impossible to do without" or in other words "I pay, therefore the game should be made for me and me alone." Well, newsflash, you don't pay enough. It takes thousands (if not millions) of people paying to make the game successful and if all of them want the game to be "for me", you'll never get a game that has "massive" populations. It's a world, it's an adventure - sometimes you're on your own, sometimes you must find allies. Like the real world.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
It's the attitude of "I like to solo, therefore every single thing in the game should be soloable" or "I like to group, all content should be designed for groups and impossible to do without" or in other words "I pay, therefore the game should be made for me and me alone." Well, newsflash, you don't pay enough. It takes thousands (if not millions) of people paying to make the game successful and if all of them want the game to be "for me", you'll never get a game that has "massive" populations. It's a world, it's an adventure - sometimes you're on your own, sometimes you must find allies. Like the real world.
No one wants to pay to play the real world.
The problem is that the games try to include everyone - PvPers, crafters, soloer, everyone. No game like that will please people who are there for one of those playstyles.
Games need to specialize more. That way, the people who play them will be the target audience and the devs will have to meet their specific needs.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Which brings us back to the extremely expensive separate servers idea. Having many different servers for pvp rules, language etc is common. Having some for grouping and some for soloing would be like coding a MMO plus 20% extra work. That’s why I doubt separate severs is an answer.
It is difficult without there being any modern grouping games on the market to make a true comparison of the play style and what players really want. Our younger player base has only had one cake to eat, it knows no other and you can’t miss what you have never had.
I do not see us like some do as a minority that has no hope of getting a better MMO. Open peoples eyes to grouping and we would be a minority no more. But you need that first new MMO, the one to make people say ‘we love grouping!’ Maybe the new Final Fantasy will do that, hard to say. The one definite hope I can offer is that the technology is getting better, just that its not a priority so it is slow. WoW’s new grouping system shows designers do think about this issue and are trying to do something about it.
It is difficult without there being any modern grouping games on the market to make a true comparison of the play style and what players really want.
What data are you basing that on? To be clear, I am not saying you are wrong - I am just very interested in what data supports the stance that players really want a modern 'grouping game'. By 'grouping game' I am assuming you mean a game where solo play is not viable or supported.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I am basing that on the many threads in favour on this site, the polls in favour on here, friends in guilds and so on. As I said we don’t have a modern grouping MMO so we can’t test this by seeing how that MMO does. Even if someone was to do a MMO wide survey as I said you won’t want what you have never had so I doubt mandatory grouping would be the choice of the majority.
That’s the whole point, I don’t think that there is a majority of people who secretly want a grouping game out there. We are a substantial minority though, I don’t see any other game play issue in MMO’s being raised as much as this one. What I am saying is once given a chance in a new MMO many would convert to wanting a stronger grouping element in MMO’s.
The problem is that the games try to include everyone - PvPers, crafters, soloer, everyone. No game like that will please people who are there for one of those playstyles.
Games need to specialize more. That way, the people who play them will be the target audience and the devs will have to meet their specific needs.
So basically you want a game just for yourself and developer be damned if he wants more money out of his labor. To make it just only for a marginal target audiance will be like shooting yourself in the leg. Good luck finding funding for this kind of project!
Games will specialize more when the competition becomes tough enough. Natural evolution of the genre. I wouldn't be worried about it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
It is difficult without there being any modern grouping games on the market to make a true comparison of the play style and what players really want.
What data are you basing that on? To be clear, I am not saying you are wrong - I am just very interested in what data supports the stance that players really want a modern 'grouping game'. By 'grouping game' I am assuming you mean a game where solo play is not viable or supported.
I don't think that can be the definition of "grouping game" since such a game has never been released, as far as I know.
I think the poster is referring to games like EQ and DAoC which supported grouping much more than games like WoW, during the leveling phase of the game, before you reach the "end game".
And he is correct, that no modern such game exists.
There is no modern version, IMO, of EQ or DAoC. There are many very badly made games like WAR, for example, that are not any where close to EQ or DAoC.
AION, for example, is a modern version of the solo friendly game. I see no modern version of the group friendly game.
how do we know that no one will play a modern group friendly game, when no one has released such a game?
Maybe it would be an utter failure.
But we wont' know until one has a decent (as in playable) release.
And there are so many factors in a game's success, that it would be hard if not impossible to separate out just group friendly versus solo friendly.
Is it fantasy, sci fi, do people like the art, does it have crafting, interesting quests, class or skill diversity, etc., etc.
So basically you want a game just for yourself and developer be damned if he wants more money out of his labor. To make it just only for a marginal target audiance will be like shooting yourself in the leg. Good luck finding funding for this kind of project!
I myself do not want a "forced grouping" type game.
But the part of your post I highlighted brings to mind at least one game that proves it wrong: EVE. 400k+ subs for a niche game meant for a "marginal audience" speaks volumes.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
Which brings us back to the extremely expensive separate servers idea. Having many different servers for pvp rules, language etc is common. Having some for grouping and some for soloing would be like coding a MMO plus 20% extra work. That’s why I doubt separate severs is an answer.
That depends on what coding needs to be done.
For WoW, you could just adjust the relative levels at which characters get xp. If a player only gets xp for mobs 5 levels higher or more, it would be virtually impossible to level alone by killing mobs. The same adjustment could be made for quests.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Plus, I"m pretty excited about the multiplayer dialog. No more, everyone stands around and reads the NPC stock dialog.
You actually get to vote on what will happen! Sounds like fun to me.
It sounds bad to me, and I think most players will get to hate it very quickly.
Same here. I personally have no desire to have other people decide what actions I choose or what direction my story takes, through a "vote" or otherwise.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
Comments
I made a slight alteration. Yours is the extremists viewpoint; it's narrow, egocentric and it lacks empathy. You have very specific preferences. You don't like doing something so you can't understand why others do and it affects your ability to enjoy an MMO if people can achieve as well as you via a playstyle you don't enjoy.
A hardcore soloer could easily say the exact same thing about your preferences.
The rest of us don't look at this in black and white terms. Sometimes we group, sometimes we solo. A game that supports both gives us variety. We value that variety as it affords the ability to tailor our game experience to suit whatever preferences we happen to have when we log on.
But would you solo once at the level cap or would you group? I bet you would almost exclusively group.
So you would HATE the 1-80 content because it's more solo-oriented ( i refuse to say "forced")
The soloer would HATE the cap content because it's more group-oriented.
On the flip side...
Sounds like there is content to make the soloer happy and the grouper happy in the game. Why is this bad?
disclaimer: i do not, nor ever have played WoW.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
There is actually more solo content in WoW than group content so no it's not more group oriented. The majority of the 8475 quests are solo quests with 3.9% of them group and 4.5% of them raid. Out of the 162 zones, 16 are end game group dungeons and only 9 end game raid dungeons. Numbers courtesy of wowhead...they make it easy.
So if you consider running the same unchallenging dungeons over and over every night for tokens fun then yeah WoW might be a game to make that type of grouper happy. WoW does have some fun dungeons, but they are extremely easy, take less than 30 minutes to complete, and just leave people who enjoy a challenge feeling unsatisfied.
I wasn't defending WoW (which i've never played), nor does the "difficulty" of group encounters factor into this argument. Difficulty if a different issue altogether. (If we have a game that has 100% forced grouping but it provides no challenge, that's a problem with encounter design not the split between group and solo content.)
My point was that the game provides gameplay for both playstyles - solo and group. If someone it is poorly designed, it needs to be designed better, but the problem isn't that it's not there
As far as repeating the same dungeon, group content by design provides more variety as it is different with every group. Doing a static dungeon solo is the same every time.
Dynamic content solves this problem, but creates others. I'm still in favour of it though.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
Funny how I never said I enjoy soloing. I actually PREFER to play with my friends. It seems that you are young and have no idea what it's like to not be able to play with your best friends. To suddenly go from playing every day and all day to an hour or 2 a day at best. JSchindler said it best. If you are willing to play a game that you will no longer be able to enjoy or advance in once you find someone special and start a life, that's your prerogitive.
I think you should read my post again carefully and realize I believe that groups should get bonuses. I just think it's pretty ignorant to force people of many differing ages, beliefs (not just religious), upbringings, countries, and state of mind to play only one way.
Anyone else going to stop playing a game they thoroughly enjoy and have invested months in simply because they aren't able to play as liberally as they once were able to?
There is actually a difference between group content and raid content.
I do like grouping. And you do join a group when you raid. But I don't really care for raiding.
I absolutely agree. you should not force everyone ot play the same way. Some like good grouping games, and there's people like you that like good solo games. I don't think there's any point in forcing you to play a good grouping game.
However, you seem to think it would be good to force me to play a solo game and you want me to pretend it's a good grouping game, but I don't know why. It makes no sense, if you don't want to force everyone to play the same game. So why force me to play a solo game when I like group games?
Oh, you think just letting someone group in a game makes it a group game? It doesn't. Never has, never will.
Grouping in a solo game, is grouping in a solo game. Grouping in a solo game, doesn't somehow magically turn that into a good group game.
So in essence, YOU want to force everyone to play the same game, a solo friendly game. And then accuse ME of forcing people to play the same game. Very hypocritical if you ask me.
The solution may be The Old Republic.
Here's my take on MMORPG game play. Boring! Very, very, very, very boring.
EQ, DAoC, WoW, you name it.
Ask yourself, would you play it offline?
I think most are going to answer no.
Why not? Because, it's boring.
And hence my preference for grouping. The interaction between the players is fun, even if the content is very lackluster.
I think what TOR is trying to do, is make a game you would actually play offline.
And then ad on top of that, online game play.
I don't know if they will succeed, but if they do, then there you go.
Soloing will actually be fun, because the game play will actually be fun, so grouping will be bonus fun.
Plus, I"m pretty excited about the multiplayer dialog. No more, everyone stands around and reads the NPC stock dialog.
You actually get to vote on what will happen! Sounds like fun to me.
That, in red, is the key, and i think the big thing thats been missing from MMOs for years.
Think back to the single player games many of us grew up on with the older systems, like the original Mario games. Would we have kept gaming as much as we have for so many years if every game that came out played exactly like Mario, but just had a different name & character? I sure as hell wouldnt. It was innovation that drove the gaming industry to where it is at now, but unfortunately weve hit a period wher einnovation has become the enemy for MMORPGs, and most prefer giving us rehashed cntent under a new name, similar to my previous example of if they had just kept reskinning Mario.
We're bored with the same old stuff. It may have excited us and been fun for us at one time, but after having done it in dozens and dozens of games, it loses it's appeal, but everyone is afraid to take a chance on something unique (with a few exceptions like CCP and ArenaNet).
With single player games, they tend to be quite a bit more creatuve and unique, and thats what makes them fun. Ive tried games just for the hell of it, even though i didnt think i would like it, and found myself having lots of fun, but in MMOs, there isnt much that stands out as different than the rest, and we keep basically playing the same game over and over again.
I found a few games years ago like Diablo 2 a blast to play, and even did play it offline quite a bit, and the multiplayer part just added to the fun, but youre right, there are very few, if any, MMORPGs out nowadays that i would play if not for the online play and interaction with others.
Oh I agree that solo and group content is there, it's been in every single MMO I've played since 1999 but I was disagreeing with your statement that just because it is there that soloers and groupers would be happy.
I thouroughly agree that I would not play MOST MMOs offline, though I immensly enjoyed playing FFXII because one of the things I enjoy is non random battles and not having to wait for your action bar. I actually enjoy that real time combat. I just hate the grind. IMO, it's the grinding that makes MMOs not fun to play by yourself.
But you don't need to group in an MMO to interact with other people. I always play on PVP servers and enjoy nothing more than killing an enemy of an opposite faction. Not in arranged PVP battles either, but out in the open, in any zone. And I have never gone after someone too low below my level, as I have always hated people who bring their max level char into a low level zone and start harrassing people who aren't even a challenge.
I also enjoy undercutting in markets and auctions.
You can't get any of that offline, and you don't need to group.
This was essentially why I quit WAR. I got to a point I needed to group to advance. However, the classes I needed were never on the same time I was and it was next to impossible to group with non-guildies. Too bad, but that's their lose.
The hypothetical ideal game allows both grouping and soloplay and makes both styles worthwhile. Grouping however has to get an edge over soloplay, otherwise its a bit pointless to have it in the first place.
Especially a good game should avoid the pitfall of allowing some classes to be good solists, while others strictly depend upon getting a group. Which is how it is in many asian games, like Lineage 2 (my Shillien Elder couldnt kill even any gray mobs when I was highlevel, as my last update of my undead attack skill was with level 35. And forget about any non-undead opponents. On the other hand, mages, summoners and archers where good and fast solo killers).
If I where to accept a game with forced group play, I would need to be sure I actually can always get a group in it.
No.
Not "WOULD" be happy, rather "SHOULD" be happy. My point through my posts is that really it's perspective. It's not so much that people want to group or solo and that gameplay isn't available, it's that certain people - even though their prefered gameplay method is available in the game - refuse to be happy until the entire game is based around their specific playstyle.
It's the attitude of "I like to solo, therefore every single thing in the game should be soloable" or "I like to group, all content should be designed for groups and impossible to do without" or in other words "I pay, therefore the game should be made for me and me alone." Well, newsflash, you don't pay enough. It takes thousands (if not millions) of people paying to make the game successful and if all of them want the game to be "for me", you'll never get a game that has "massive" populations. It's a world, it's an adventure - sometimes you're on your own, sometimes you must find allies. Like the real world.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
No one wants to pay to play the real world.
The problem is that the games try to include everyone - PvPers, crafters, soloer, everyone. No game like that will please people who are there for one of those playstyles.
Games need to specialize more. That way, the people who play them will be the target audience and the devs will have to meet their specific needs.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Which brings us back to the extremely expensive separate servers idea. Having many different servers for pvp rules, language etc is common. Having some for grouping and some for soloing would be like coding a MMO plus 20% extra work. That’s why I doubt separate severs is an answer.
It is difficult without there being any modern grouping games on the market to make a true comparison of the play style and what players really want. Our younger player base has only had one cake to eat, it knows no other and you can’t miss what you have never had.
I do not see us like some do as a minority that has no hope of getting a better MMO. Open peoples eyes to grouping and we would be a minority no more. But you need that first new MMO, the one to make people say ‘we love grouping!’ Maybe the new Final Fantasy will do that, hard to say. The one definite hope I can offer is that the technology is getting better, just that its not a priority so it is slow. WoW’s new grouping system shows designers do think about this issue and are trying to do something about it.
What data are you basing that on? To be clear, I am not saying you are wrong - I am just very interested in what data supports the stance that players really want a modern 'grouping game'. By 'grouping game' I am assuming you mean a game where solo play is not viable or supported.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I am basing that on the many threads in favour on this site, the polls in favour on here, friends in guilds and so on. As I said we don’t have a modern grouping MMO so we can’t test this by seeing how that MMO does. Even if someone was to do a MMO wide survey as I said you won’t want what you have never had so I doubt mandatory grouping would be the choice of the majority.
That’s the whole point, I don’t think that there is a majority of people who secretly want a grouping game out there. We are a substantial minority though, I don’t see any other game play issue in MMO’s being raised as much as this one. What I am saying is once given a chance in a new MMO many would convert to wanting a stronger grouping element in MMO’s.
So basically you want a game just for yourself and developer be damned if he wants more money out of his labor. To make it just only for a marginal target audiance will be like shooting yourself in the leg. Good luck finding funding for this kind of project!
Games will specialize more when the competition becomes tough enough. Natural evolution of the genre. I wouldn't be worried about it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I don't think that can be the definition of "grouping game" since such a game has never been released, as far as I know.
I think the poster is referring to games like EQ and DAoC which supported grouping much more than games like WoW, during the leveling phase of the game, before you reach the "end game".
And he is correct, that no modern such game exists.
There is no modern version, IMO, of EQ or DAoC. There are many very badly made games like WAR, for example, that are not any where close to EQ or DAoC.
AION, for example, is a modern version of the solo friendly game. I see no modern version of the group friendly game.
how do we know that no one will play a modern group friendly game, when no one has released such a game?
Maybe it would be an utter failure.
But we wont' know until one has a decent (as in playable) release.
And there are so many factors in a game's success, that it would be hard if not impossible to separate out just group friendly versus solo friendly.
Is it fantasy, sci fi, do people like the art, does it have crafting, interesting quests, class or skill diversity, etc., etc.
I myself do not want a "forced grouping" type game.
But the part of your post I highlighted brings to mind at least one game that proves it wrong: EVE. 400k+ subs for a niche game meant for a "marginal audience" speaks volumes.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
Forced grouping not good.
But neither is forced soloing, which has been mostly the case in the post WoW landscape.
100% Scalable content, with group buffs that improve drop rates and other factors to encourage grouping is the best way to go imo.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
It sounds bad to me, and I think most players will get to hate it very quickly.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Same here. I personally have no desire to have other people decide what actions I choose or what direction my story takes, through a "vote" or otherwise.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-