AC2,AO,D&L,Lotro,VsoH,SWG,Uo,HGL,Drunners,CoH,GW,Potbs,PWI Eq2,Dofus,WoW,WWIIO,Ryzom,Planetside,EvE,TR,DDO,RFonline,FOM,VC,..etc blabla also hobbies....staring at loadingbars
This is an issue on which there is an enormous culture gap between players in the genre. To me, MMOs are primarily about a shared world, not formal grouping. In fact, formal grouping is the antithesis of what an MMO means to me becasue it reduces the fluid crossing of paths to isolated pockets of forced dependancy.
Any argument that solo play is like a single-player game can be replaced with the argument that formal grouping is just a LAN party.
But in general, if I ever I find myself judging how other people are playing a game, I remind myself that it's my problem, not theirs.
Much of online interaction is shared but not very social, not unlike mass transit.
I found back in the early days (pre wow that is), game worlds were harsh enough that players needed to co-operate in order to progress. It makes for a much nicer community, vastly more rewarding than the current crop.
Pretty much this. I prefer the whole world be set up around being able to get more done in a group (if not finding it very hard to survive solo). I dislike being in the middle of a soloable quest in a themepark and suddenly being told "OK now you have to find a group to finish this quest " because some dev arbitrarily decides that part of the quest chain has to be group content. If you want to make players socialize reward them for defending or attacking something they care about. It's easier to play actual pen and paper games online now. We no longer need MMOs to provide second-rate pseudo D&D dungeon runs.
I'd add AOC's Tortage to the best soloable based on storyline play. I found it very engaging as a SP experience, although not what I'd be looking for in an MMORPG.
It's not soloable, it's solo, period (during the night, I mean). I agree, lately it became much easier to solo the day part as well, but back in the day you had to bring some friends for the group quests...
And that aspect leads back to the column, just like Zixizor I somewhat disagree with it - except in case of TOR There's a difference between the removal of forced grouping (or making it easier, like Rift's quick join) but still having a nice and fun group part in game, and between having an irrevelant (or in TOR's case even disturbing, during the cutscenes) multi mode.
I think if a game is throwing you group content from left and right (like Rift) or leading you into group content all the time like AoC, (and the list could go on) I wouldn't call that a solo game.
I'd put only TOR on the best mmo for soloers List... For me TOR was the only mmo I've labeled as solo so far, and I don't think I'm alone with that, I mean MikeB even had to wrote a column about how TOR is not a singleplayer game... but of course it is
Originally posted by bcbully Your #1 is completely wrong in the case of Age of Wushu. You essentially will not progress solo. The game does not apologize for this either.
The implication isn't that ALL games are solo-able, just that most are. I'm sure AoW is a peach.
That may be true, however that isn't what the article is about.The title has the word "soloers" however the article is about being social.Playing with others and being social aren't the same thing.The article says that you don't have to talk to other people to join a group but can just click a button.For an article that's suppose to be about soloers it talks a lot about people playing with other people.You can be social without playing you can just sit in a hub and chat.So why should you have to be social when you play.
This is an issue on which there is an enormous culture gap between players in the genre. To me, MMOs are primarily about a shared world, not formal grouping. In fact, formal grouping is the antithesis of what an MMO means to me becasue it reduces the fluid crossing of paths to isolated pockets of forced dependancy.
Any argument that solo play is like a single-player game can be replaced with the argument that formal grouping is just a LAN party.
But in general, if I ever I find myself judging how other people are playing a game, I remind myself that it's my problem, not theirs.
The problem with actual group content in themepark MMOs for end game is that it revolves around a gear grind.
Anything that takes hours of gameplay and the reward in the challenge is not worth the time investment is due to the mmo most likely lacking any influence from the players, no housing that is integrated with raiding and achievments, no complex guild mechanics again integrated with in game achievements for pve and pvp...
Then in a patch / update / expansion, they introduce one more raid or two but a whole new gear grind undermining all previous effort of the large amount of time to get gear in a simple mmo world which lacks the systems to properly reward players.
So why bother with raiding? Unless you have real life friends, and its something that you collectively do. However, meeting people online to do raids knowing that the rewards is not worth the effort due to the MMO lacking vision, is something that imo feels like you are working rather than having fun. Like there is some kind of obligation for being an online player, you have to do what others like... and maybe some like to waste thier time raiding... maybe some are new to MMOs as well... but for vets, I would be surprised they are willing to do raid gear grinds again and again especially if they take a lot of effort. In some MMOs they dont.
I think swtor does a decent job with the gear grind for OPs but still a grind to work up to that lvl for gear and very dependant on not only being the right spec but in a competent team. Since some specs are not good for either pvp/ raids... and possibly not good for both in terms of damage being the most important as a damage dealing class that is not a primary healer.
Is the solo part of questing anything special... maybe to some. I am more about the pvp, and even instanced pvp is something I enjoy compared to other games. I like choosing from a range of abilities as they would have them in MMOs.
Other than that, I would greatly enjoy grouping if it was not tangled with gear grinds, having the perfect spec, and people who memorized strategy in a game that required people to memorize strategy becuase the in game mechanics are not intuitive.
So in short, raids are a waste of time since they are not done right.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
I would love to see an MMO where you couldn't even proceed past level 10 without grouping with one other person, 25 without 4... it would certainly slow down the leveling curve and force people to get to know one another.
To be honest, I think there is a bit of nuance that is being missed in the subject. I'm very much against "Solo-Play" in MMO's but lack of "Solo-Play" also doesn't neccesarly mean the traditional "invite 5 people into some formal group to go into some pocket dimension of the world where you are cut-off from everything else and run content"..... I'm not so crazy about that either. "Solo-Play" means litteraly almost zero interaction with anyone else in the game world...which is pretty much how many MMO's today play.
What I really prefer is cooperative play and forced interdependancy. That means you are not off in some pocket dimension with a formaly organized group....but you do need to interact with other players in the game world, and you benefit significantly from working together with others to defeat challenges in the environment and against hostiles. If you think of how many multi-player FPS games that is a decent example. Yes if you "squad-up" and communicate tightly you will be more effective....but even when you are not, you are working toward a common goal with other players on your side....and you NEED to cooperate with other players on your side to be effective. If you are a sniper....and an enemy AFV comes your way, you NEED the assistance of an anti-tank guy to help you out.....your side will be FAR more effective if you are taking out enemy MG's and AA Guns that are blocking your sides approach to the control point they are attacking rather then randomly pot-shoting an enemy spawn point on your own. You can do all this without a single INVITE button being pressed....and just a bit of casual communication with other folks on your side to relay important data. I would argue that's NOT at all "Solo-Play" but a form of Cooperative Play and actualy taking advantage of the multi-player aspects of the game....possibly even more so then traditional grouping. Add in things like a player based economy and assistance for rescuing corpses, healing wounds, opening treasure chests, etc......and you have a real basis for social gameplay.
So it's not simply a binary choice between traditional grouping vs "Solo Play".
IMO, the sign of a good multi-player game is where you are always happy to encounter another friendly player out in the environment because thier mere presence helps you be more successfull, even without any "INVITES" exchanged.
Originally posted by Nadia this needs a companion article of Best MMOs for gamers who enjoy teamwork
It would be the same list, as each individual decides *how* they want to play their games, socially or not, you can play Rift, WoW, SWTOR, GW2 excusively with your guild if you want to.
I remember having friends over for solo games on C64, Amiga 500, Nintendo etc...
Its up to you to be social, or not.
Getting tired of reading this excuse for a lack of multi-player in MMORPGs, emphasis on the MM part. There is an entire genre for players that don't want to socialize, they're single-player games. I can be extremely social, doesn't mean anyone else is going to be. You need other people to actually care about grouping, and in these games they don't. WoW player-base is especially viscous, in my experience, with players that are not already experts in all the dungeons and simply want to enjoy the experience.
Grouping will always be a lot more work than soloing, if there is no incentive then these players will never do it. All we have left are dungeons and raids to actually interact with other players. The sad part of that is that in most of these games we can exclude the dungeons part for socializing. Being able to run through an entire dungeon without anyone ever saying ANYTHING is pretty common. Guild Wars 2 is especially bad for this. Other players may as well be NPC. If you don't want the MMO part in your game, that's fine. There are a TON of games, and an entire genre called "Single player role-playing games". Why are they trying to change the defining characteristic of this genre? Frankly, it sucks.
I agree to the fullest, the BIGGEST percentege of content should be focused on grouping not the other way around ...The best would be if there was no solo option at all but that will never happen..
Originally posted by Nadia this needs a companion article of Best MMOs for gamers who enjoy teamwork
It would be the same list, as each individual decides *how* they want to play their games, socially or not, you can play Rift, WoW, SWTOR, GW2 excusively with your guild if you want to.
I remember having friends over for solo games on C64, Amiga 500, Nintendo etc...
Its up to you to be social, or not.
Getting tired of reading this excuse for a lack of multi-player in MMORPGs, emphasis on the MM part. There is an entire genre for players that don't want to socialize, they're single-player games. I can be extremely social, doesn't mean anyone else is going to be. You need other people to actually care about grouping, and in these games they don't. WoW player-base is especially viscous, in my experience, with players that are not already experts in all the dungeons and simply want to enjoy the experience.
Grouping will always be a lot more work than soloing, if there is no incentive then these players will never do it. All we have left are dungeons and raids to actually interact with other players. The sad part of that is that in most of these games we can exclude the dungeons part for socializing. Being able to run through an entire dungeon without anyone ever saying ANYTHING is pretty common. Guild Wars 2 is especially bad for this. Other players may as well be NPC. If you don't want the MMO part in your game, that's fine. There are a TON of games, and an entire genre called "Single player role-playing games". Why are they trying to change the defining characteristic of this genre? Frankly, it sucks.
Originally posted by Incomparable I would greatly enjoy grouping if it was not tangled with gear grinds, having the perfect spec, and people who memorized strategy in a game that required people to memorize strategy becuase the in game mechanics are not intuitive.
one of the nice things about early EQ is that despite most nameds being "tank and spank",
you had situations where other players may accidentally train you
or you may encounter too many mobs due to patrols or fleeing wounded mobs
strategies for surviving mob trains could *not* be looked up on some website
-- it was a matter of teamwork and knowing your class
I have to admit that i solo alot on the mmo's i play, it started a few years ago when time was really short and random to play (fulltime job + studying at nights) but it sorta stay with me. The fact that i'm a loner irl doesn't help much either.
That said i usually don't have issues teaming up for something except endgame grind, never saw the point in repeating the same dungeon/quest/area dozens of times to get gear so you can go to another set and repeat it. So basically teaming at endgame for those it's pointless to me.
I believe that the future of mmo's is a well done mix of themepark and sandbox, not one to please everybody (it's impossible), but one that gives varied types of content for players to enjoy. For instance i adored TSW quests but something puts me off (can't pinpoint what), loved SWTOR class stories but nothing else in the game interests me, i liked GW2 events (a bit too shallow after a while tho) and the fighting was well done but there's nothing particular for you to do (personnal story is quite boring after lvl 20 and a new class just repeats the same stuff all over), i think i'll enjoy Wildstar pvp (the keeps fights) and ESO world but reaching endgame and have nothing of fun (for me)to do really annoys me. I tried playing FFXIV but getting stuck in the main story waiting for hours for a team to do a dungeon is stupid and not enough content to level several jobs (unless you grind fates/leves wich i will never do).
Mmo's need some fresh air with a mix of themepark and sandbox, gw2 tried it but didn't do that well. I'm really hoping for something to revitalize the genre.
It's interesting that this solo vs group tension exists at all considering most games toss the former playstyle aside for any and all endgame content. In essence, once a player hits the cap, most meaningful forms of progression require them to be in a group.
Anyway, I vastly prefer doing group content with competent, friendly people but I've yet to play a game where grouping didn't also bring its own annoyances. Waiting for people to arrive, waiting for people to finish their smoke breaks, waiting for a replacement when someone drops, and on and on. Even the groupiest of groupers can start to feel they can get a lot more done by playing alone. Until devs figure out how to make grouping a mostly seamless and painless element of gameplay (in comparison to soloing) there's going to continue to be a need for Forever Alone content.
As I've said before, a lot of the people who suggest that grouping should be the one way to play are the same who spend a lot of time disparaging their fellow players-- the ones who'd they'd presumably be forced to group with in such a game. Makes little sense to me.
That is part of why mmos keep failing so hard. MMOs are not meant to be able to solo. I agree with #1 though. Every mmo today is geared for solo play. Until developers bring back grouping up to play mmos will continue to fail.
You know, I think one of the factors that really contributes to this trend is that MMO's, even ones that strongly feature "grouping" are all focused pretty much entirely on individual progression. It doesn't matter if the entire rest of the world is falling flat on thier faces....as long as I go out and slay the Bunny of Doom, I get my +5 sword of Uberness. Even with traditional grouping or raiding it's really about the shot of an individual reward or progression item. One of the biggest problems there, of course, is it takes just one bad apple to wreck other players experience and nullify thier work.
It would be interesting for an MMO to take on more of an "us vs them" or "Kingdom at War" model...this could even be done under PVE....where how the player base as a whole was doing presented new opportunities for each player....such as taking over a part of the world opening up new gear or training opportunities to players.... under such a scenario, you would actualy care about how your fellow players were doing and want to see them succeed....and because of scale, you really wouldn't have to worry about 1 bad player or 1 bad move wrecking everything.
I would want to see mmorpg where leveling with group would be 5x faster than solo. And if someone wants to solo it, let him level to max for half year. This would be iniciative to group up, but still have option to solo
Originally posted by bcbully Your #1 is completely wrong in the case of Age of Wushu. You essentially will not progress solo. The game does not apologize for this either.
The implication isn't that ALL games are solo-able, just that most are. I'm sure AoW is a peach.
That may be true, however that isn't what the article is about.The title has the word "soloers" however the article is about being social.Playing with others and being social aren't the same thing.The article says that you don't have to talk to other people to join a group but can just click a button.For an article that's suppose to be about soloers it talks a lot about people playing with other people.You can be social without playing you can just sit in a hub and chat.So why should you have to be social when you play.
That is because, in my opinion, this article is a thinly veiled troll post replete with the Trollface graphic. The tone is one of starting a flamewar and poorly labeling solo play.
I like to play solo. There are too much kiddos and i have no patience with them. But sometimes make a groupa and run together or be part of a guild sounds cool.
...as long as I go out and slay the Bunny of Doom, I get my +5 sword of Uberness.
*big grin* Sorry, I realize this is OT, but with all the "cute" games out there, I just had to laugh at "Bunny of Doom". An interesting visual.
Okay, now back on topic. Without player run factions and a game focusing on war between factions, I consider it extremely difficult for any MMORPG to have true Massively Multiplayer content given the restriction that the world remains static. I think this leaves players with only self-progression as the primary gameplay mechanic.
For players on a faction on a server (or players on a full server) to actually work together to achieve something, the world has to change when the achievement is complete. Without change, there is nothing achieved.
I've read that old EverQuest (era?) had such mechanics in place. On completion the world did change by opening up a new zone or making changes to the existing world.
In some ways I consider "Massively Multiplayer" to be a myth, in that it rarely happens and is not integral in design. Most (all?) MMORPGs that I've seen (outside of PVP oriented player faction games) are simply a mix of SP-RPG and COOP-RPG mechanics with minimal large scale multiplayer elements.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
Originally posted by Nadia this needs a companion article of Best MMOs for gamers who enjoy teamwork
This and Suzie you are my favorite person today...
Unless Omeed announces that Landmark beta starts today.... you should be safe
I think a concept that is ignored in most MMOs is having group content along with solo in the open world. Aion gets it, EQ2 gets it, GW2 I think has some as well but by in large the group content is shoved into instances. Having solo content is a must, different people have different schedules and wants but I think group content in the open world is universally beneficial to an MMO.
This is one of the saddest parts about current MMOs.
They stopped being mMo, leaving out the multiplayer part. To archive this target they usually go the "we need to make sure noone can screw up, so make everything fool proof and make it even easier, just to make sure"-route.
Wake me up if a new and real MMO shows up again, ill be playing games from the 90s untill then.
This.
However I found my friends in Wurm. And EVE is still holding the banner (despite being weak in many ways).
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
The trouble with grouping in MMOs is that the landscape of the player base has shifted. More and more I find myself going it solo, solely because I know I can have fun that way.
Could you stand to be grouped for even 5 minutes with even half of the opinionated, "my way or the highway" jerks on this very forum? I know I couldn't.
Comments
Haha! humor gold
____________________
It`s alright
AC2,AO,D&L,Lotro,VsoH,SWG,Uo,HGL,Drunners,CoH,GW,Potbs,PWI
Eq2,Dofus,WoW,WWIIO,Ryzom,Planetside,EvE,TR,DDO,RFonline,FOM,VC,..etc blabla
also hobbies....staring at loadingbars
Much of online interaction is shared but not very social, not unlike mass transit.
Good observations
All die, so die well.
Pretty much this. I prefer the whole world be set up around being able to get more done in a group (if not finding it very hard to survive solo). I dislike being in the middle of a soloable quest in a themepark and suddenly being told "OK now you have to find a group to finish this quest " because some dev arbitrarily decides that part of the quest chain has to be group content. If you want to make players socialize reward them for defending or attacking something they care about. It's easier to play actual pen and paper games online now. We no longer need MMOs to provide second-rate pseudo D&D dungeon runs.
It's not soloable, it's solo, period
(during the night, I mean). I agree, lately it became much easier to solo the day part as well, but back in the day you had to bring some friends for the group quests...
And that aspect leads back to the column, just like Zixizor I somewhat disagree with it - except in case of TOR
There's a difference between the removal of forced grouping (or making it easier, like Rift's quick join) but still having a nice and fun group part in game, and between having an irrevelant (or in TOR's case even disturbing, during the cutscenes) multi mode.
I think if a game is throwing you group content from left and right (like Rift) or leading you into group content all the time like AoC, (and the list could go on) I wouldn't call that a solo game.
I'd put only TOR on the best mmo for soloers List... For me TOR was the only mmo I've labeled as solo so far, and I don't think I'm alone with that, I mean MikeB even had to wrote a column about how TOR is not a singleplayer game... but of course it is
That may be true, however that isn't what the article is about.The title has the word "soloers" however the article is about being social.Playing with others and being social aren't the same thing.The article says that you don't have to talk to other people to join a group but can just click a button.For an article that's suppose to be about soloers it talks a lot about people playing with other people.You can be social without playing you can just sit in a hub and chat.So why should you have to be social when you play.
Another +1 here. Very well said.
The problem with actual group content in themepark MMOs for end game is that it revolves around a gear grind.
Anything that takes hours of gameplay and the reward in the challenge is not worth the time investment is due to the mmo most likely lacking any influence from the players, no housing that is integrated with raiding and achievments, no complex guild mechanics again integrated with in game achievements for pve and pvp...
Then in a patch / update / expansion, they introduce one more raid or two but a whole new gear grind undermining all previous effort of the large amount of time to get gear in a simple mmo world which lacks the systems to properly reward players.
So why bother with raiding? Unless you have real life friends, and its something that you collectively do. However, meeting people online to do raids knowing that the rewards is not worth the effort due to the MMO lacking vision, is something that imo feels like you are working rather than having fun. Like there is some kind of obligation for being an online player, you have to do what others like... and maybe some like to waste thier time raiding... maybe some are new to MMOs as well... but for vets, I would be surprised they are willing to do raid gear grinds again and again especially if they take a lot of effort. In some MMOs they dont.
I think swtor does a decent job with the gear grind for OPs but still a grind to work up to that lvl for gear and very dependant on not only being the right spec but in a competent team. Since some specs are not good for either pvp/ raids... and possibly not good for both in terms of damage being the most important as a damage dealing class that is not a primary healer.
Is the solo part of questing anything special... maybe to some. I am more about the pvp, and even instanced pvp is something I enjoy compared to other games. I like choosing from a range of abilities as they would have them in MMOs.
Other than that, I would greatly enjoy grouping if it was not tangled with gear grinds, having the perfect spec, and people who memorized strategy in a game that required people to memorize strategy becuase the in game mechanics are not intuitive.
So in short, raids are a waste of time since they are not done right.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
To be honest, I think there is a bit of nuance that is being missed in the subject. I'm very much against "Solo-Play" in MMO's but lack of "Solo-Play" also doesn't neccesarly mean the traditional "invite 5 people into some formal group to go into some pocket dimension of the world where you are cut-off from everything else and run content"..... I'm not so crazy about that either. "Solo-Play" means litteraly almost zero interaction with anyone else in the game world...which is pretty much how many MMO's today play.
What I really prefer is cooperative play and forced interdependancy. That means you are not off in some pocket dimension with a formaly organized group....but you do need to interact with other players in the game world, and you benefit significantly from working together with others to defeat challenges in the environment and against hostiles. If you think of how many multi-player FPS games that is a decent example. Yes if you "squad-up" and communicate tightly you will be more effective....but even when you are not, you are working toward a common goal with other players on your side....and you NEED to cooperate with other players on your side to be effective. If you are a sniper....and an enemy AFV comes your way, you NEED the assistance of an anti-tank guy to help you out.....your side will be FAR more effective if you are taking out enemy MG's and AA Guns that are blocking your sides approach to the control point they are attacking rather then randomly pot-shoting an enemy spawn point on your own. You can do all this without a single INVITE button being pressed....and just a bit of casual communication with other folks on your side to relay important data. I would argue that's NOT at all "Solo-Play" but a form of Cooperative Play and actualy taking advantage of the multi-player aspects of the game....possibly even more so then traditional grouping. Add in things like a player based economy and assistance for rescuing corpses, healing wounds, opening treasure chests, etc......and you have a real basis for social gameplay.
So it's not simply a binary choice between traditional grouping vs "Solo Play".
IMO, the sign of a good multi-player game is where you are always happy to encounter another friendly player out in the environment because thier mere presence helps you be more successfull, even without any "INVITES" exchanged.
I agree to the fullest, the BIGGEST percentege of content should be focused on grouping not the other way around ...The best would be if there was no solo option at all but that will never happen..
Double post..Sorry
one of the nice things about early EQ is that despite most nameds being "tank and spank",
you had situations where other players may accidentally train you
or you may encounter too many mobs due to patrols or fleeing wounded mobs
strategies for surviving mob trains could *not* be looked up on some website
-- it was a matter of teamwork and knowing your class
EQ2 fan sites
I have to admit that i solo alot on the mmo's i play, it started a few years ago when time was really short and random to play (fulltime job + studying at nights) but it sorta stay with me. The fact that i'm a loner irl doesn't help much either.
That said i usually don't have issues teaming up for something except endgame grind, never saw the point in repeating the same dungeon/quest/area dozens of times to get gear so you can go to another set and repeat it. So basically teaming at endgame for those it's pointless to me.
I believe that the future of mmo's is a well done mix of themepark and sandbox, not one to please everybody (it's impossible), but one that gives varied types of content for players to enjoy. For instance i adored TSW quests but something puts me off (can't pinpoint what), loved SWTOR class stories but nothing else in the game interests me, i liked GW2 events (a bit too shallow after a while tho) and the fighting was well done but there's nothing particular for you to do (personnal story is quite boring after lvl 20 and a new class just repeats the same stuff all over), i think i'll enjoy Wildstar pvp (the keeps fights) and ESO world but reaching endgame and have nothing of fun (for me)to do really annoys me. I tried playing FFXIV but getting stuck in the main story waiting for hours for a team to do a dungeon is stupid and not enough content to level several jobs (unless you grind fates/leves wich i will never do).
Mmo's need some fresh air with a mix of themepark and sandbox, gw2 tried it but didn't do that well. I'm really hoping for something to revitalize the genre.
It's interesting that this solo vs group tension exists at all considering most games toss the former playstyle aside for any and all endgame content. In essence, once a player hits the cap, most meaningful forms of progression require them to be in a group.
Anyway, I vastly prefer doing group content with competent, friendly people but I've yet to play a game where grouping didn't also bring its own annoyances. Waiting for people to arrive, waiting for people to finish their smoke breaks, waiting for a replacement when someone drops, and on and on. Even the groupiest of groupers can start to feel they can get a lot more done by playing alone. Until devs figure out how to make grouping a mostly seamless and painless element of gameplay (in comparison to soloing) there's going to continue to be a need for Forever Alone content.
As I've said before, a lot of the people who suggest that grouping should be the one way to play are the same who spend a lot of time disparaging their fellow players-- the ones who'd they'd presumably be forced to group with in such a game. Makes little sense to me.
You know, I think one of the factors that really contributes to this trend is that MMO's, even ones that strongly feature "grouping" are all focused pretty much entirely on individual progression. It doesn't matter if the entire rest of the world is falling flat on thier faces....as long as I go out and slay the Bunny of Doom, I get my +5 sword of Uberness. Even with traditional grouping or raiding it's really about the shot of an individual reward or progression item. One of the biggest problems there, of course, is it takes just one bad apple to wreck other players experience and nullify thier work.
It would be interesting for an MMO to take on more of an "us vs them" or "Kingdom at War" model...this could even be done under PVE....where how the player base as a whole was doing presented new opportunities for each player....such as taking over a part of the world opening up new gear or training opportunities to players.... under such a scenario, you would actualy care about how your fellow players were doing and want to see them succeed....and because of scale, you really wouldn't have to worry about 1 bad player or 1 bad move wrecking everything.
FFXIV.
Get your group on.
Besides fates....
Other then that - you need groups, and communication!
PS - All mammals have nipples.
Get over it already.
So you're saying EQ content is hard because you have to grind for gear to advance?
That is because, in my opinion, this article is a thinly veiled troll post replete with the Trollface graphic. The tone is one of starting a flamewar and poorly labeling solo play.
I sitll missing Warhammer Online.
I like to play solo. There are too much kiddos and i have no patience with them. But sometimes make a groupa and run together or be part of a guild sounds cool.
Btw Star Wars is the worst MMO I've been played.
Go to hell!
*big grin* Sorry, I realize this is OT, but with all the "cute" games out there, I just had to laugh at "Bunny of Doom". An interesting visual.
Okay, now back on topic. Without player run factions and a game focusing on war between factions, I consider it extremely difficult for any MMORPG to have true Massively Multiplayer content given the restriction that the world remains static. I think this leaves players with only self-progression as the primary gameplay mechanic.
For players on a faction on a server (or players on a full server) to actually work together to achieve something, the world has to change when the achievement is complete. Without change, there is nothing achieved.
I've read that old EverQuest (era?) had such mechanics in place. On completion the world did change by opening up a new zone or making changes to the existing world.
In some ways I consider "Massively Multiplayer" to be a myth, in that it rarely happens and is not integral in design. Most (all?) MMORPGs that I've seen (outside of PVP oriented player faction games) are simply a mix of SP-RPG and COOP-RPG mechanics with minimal large scale multiplayer elements.
This and Suzie you are my favorite person today...
Unless Omeed announces that Landmark beta starts today.... you should be safe
I think a concept that is ignored in most MMOs is having group content along with solo in the open world. Aion gets it, EQ2 gets it, GW2 I think has some as well but by in large the group content is shoved into instances. Having solo content is a must, different people have different schedules and wants but I think group content in the open world is universally beneficial to an MMO.
This.
However I found my friends in Wurm. And EVE is still holding the banner (despite being weak in many ways).
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
The trouble with grouping in MMOs is that the landscape of the player base has shifted. More and more I find myself going it solo, solely because I know I can have fun that way.
Could you stand to be grouped for even 5 minutes with even half of the opinionated, "my way or the highway" jerks on this very forum? I know I couldn't.