Massively Single-player Offline Role Playing Game. MSORPG?
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
- You can play a MMORPG offline if your pc is fast enough to handle both client and server software. This can be done with vanilla WoW. It basically means you are the only player on a server. Client and server is just software, it has nothing to do with hardware.
- An offline option for a MMORPG client, makes no sense. A MMORPG client needs a server (that handles the world) to connect to. If you understand the first point, you should realise that the client in that scenario, does not need an offline option for the player to run its own world.
- Games like Conan Exiles, or any survival game ala Minecraft (it is the principle they are based on) are designed from the ground up to have both server and client software within the same package.
- You can't just turn a MMORPG client into this without a lot of work. It would make more sense to ask the MMORPG devs for a dedicated server. Which they will never release because of their business model.
Indeed. Apparently, we are discussing if a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game. MMO. Should also include the exact opposite. Singleplayer in offline mode. And that this is supposed to be something "old school" players would embrace.
I have seen plenty of strange threads. I may have started a few myself. But this one just makes me want to take a brick and hit myself in the head until I pass out.
I can see the follow-up thread already: Can a game really be considered an MMO if it only has Massively Multiplayer Online gameplay, or is offline single player a necessary component to be a true MMO...
Just to remind posters this is a thread about one possible direction MMOs could taken, not a meeting of the top ten MMORPG companies about their design strategy over the next ten years. So we have not "devolved" yet. Put that brick back in the wall, have a swift double and calm down.:)
The reason old school players think this could be a good idea is they think that in effect it is where we are now in MMO design. If you have half the players in a MMO only playing solo and never interacting with anyone in effect we already have a solo mode, it is only massively multiplayer for those who want to group and so on.
Now I see this new design of MMO which can actually be played as a solo game and multiplayer having all sorts of issues which is why I was hoping someone who plays SotA of ED could give us a heads up on how it works there.
Indeed. Apparently, we are discussing if a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game. MMO. Should also include the exact opposite. Singleplayer in offline mode. And that this is supposed to be something "old school" players would embrace.
I have seen plenty of strange threads. I may have started a few myself. But this one just makes me want to take a brick and hit myself in the head until I pass out.
I can see the follow-up thread already: Can a game really be considered an MMO if it only has Massively Multiplayer Online gameplay, or is offline single player a necessary component to be a true MMO...
Just to remind posters this is a thread about one possible direction MMOs could taken, not a meeting of the top ten MMORPG companies about their design strategy over the next ten years. So we have not "devolved" yet. Put that brick back in the wall, have a swift double and calm down.:)
The reason old school players think this could be a good idea is they think that in effect it is where we are now in MMO design. If you have half the players in a MMO only playing solo and never interacting with anyone in effect we already have a solo mode, it is only massively multiplayer for those who want to group and so on.
Now I see this new design of MMO which can actually be played as a solo game and multiplayer having all sorts of issues which is why I was hoping someone who plays SotA of ED could give us a heads up on how it works there.
We have in fact "devolved" by the mere fact that we entertain such rubbish by discussing it. Simply looking at the very term MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE should be enough to end the conversation.
I hate to break it to you, but every single "solo" player is, in fact, interacting with the rest of us. Even if it's just providing background actors who walk through our scene or populate the store I enter.
It's one thing for people to argue that an MMO only requires X number of people to be a "true" MMO. It's beyond silly to discuss solo - massively multiplayer games or offline - online games.
So thank you for the offer but I will keep my brick. I'm not quite numb enough yet.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
And here is the description of SotA as an MMO and the "solo" concept from the MMORPG.COM review:
So, in many respects, Shroud of the Avatar does qualify as an MMO; it’s even tagged as such on the game’s own Steam page. However, that’s not to say there’s no drawbacks. Each town, adventuring area and dungeon exists as its own ‘Scene’, carving out a small part of the world and with a small-ish number of players. Stringing these together is an overworld map, where it’s still possible to spot others out travelling. But the result is a feeling of lots of ‘pockets’ of world, rather than one cohesive experience.
Adding to the confusion is a planned single-player offline mode. Proposed since the early days of SotA’s development, this option would allow players to experience the story without any of the multiplayer featured getting in the way. Although, at this point, you have to wonder why anyone would want to.
this is one of the most retarded things iv ever read. the Answer is no becouse it already exists there called RPG games like witcher and shit like that. survial games and instanced based games and even FPS like battle field are getting classed as MMO's these days. stop shitting on the genre with your half cocked stupid ideas, its been years since a good one has come out and you want to fuck it up even more.. Just stop
slapshot1188. dont even bother bro it aint worth the waste of brain cells
Indeed. Apparently, we are discussing if a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game. MMO. Should also include the exact opposite. Singleplayer in offline mode. And that this is supposed to be something "old school" players would embrace.
I have seen plenty of strange threads. I may have started a few myself. But this one just makes me want to take a brick and hit myself in the head until I pass out.
I can see the follow-up thread already: Can a game really be considered an MMO if it only has Massively Multiplayer Online gameplay, or is offline single player a necessary component to be a true MMO...
The reason old school players think this could be a good idea is they think that in effect it is where we are now in MMO design. If you have half the players in a MMO only playing solo and never interacting with anyone in effect we already have a solo mode, it is only massively multiplayer for those who want to group and so on.
It might be a little presumptuous to suggest that old school players, as some kind of unified group, would prefer soloers to disappear from their game in lieu of other alternatives.
Indeed. Apparently, we are discussing if a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game. MMO. Should also include the exact opposite. Singleplayer in offline mode. And that this is supposed to be something "old school" players would embrace.
I have seen plenty of strange threads. I may have started a few myself. But this one just makes me want to take a brick and hit myself in the head until I pass out.
I can see the follow-up thread already: Can a game really be considered an MMO if it only has Massively Multiplayer Online gameplay, or is offline single player a necessary component to be a true MMO...
The reason old school players think this could be a good idea is they think that in effect it is where we are now in MMO design. If you have half the players in a MMO only playing solo and never interacting with anyone in effect we already have a solo mode, it is only massively multiplayer for those who want to group and so on.
It might be a little presumptuous to suggest that old school players, as some kind of unified group, would prefer soloers to disappear from their game in lieu of other alternatives.
Indeed, the phraseology was borrowed, not mine. But the idea that MMOs became games where we were swimming in a sea of solo players does go back to those times.
Indeed. Apparently, we are discussing if a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game. MMO. Should also include the exact opposite. Singleplayer in offline mode. And that this is supposed to be something "old school" players would embrace.
I have seen plenty of strange threads. I may have started a few myself. But this one just makes me want to take a brick and hit myself in the head until I pass out.
I can see the follow-up thread already: Can a game really be considered an MMO if it only has Massively Multiplayer Online gameplay, or is offline single player a necessary component to be a true MMO...
Just to remind posters this is a thread about one possible direction MMOs could taken, not a meeting of the top ten MMORPG companies about their design strategy over the next ten years. So we have not "devolved" yet. Put that brick back in the wall, have a swift double and calm down.:)
The reason old school players think this could be a good idea is they think that in effect it is where we are now in MMO design. If you have half the players in a MMO only playing solo and never interacting with anyone in effect we already have a solo mode, it is only massively multiplayer for those who want to group and so on.
Now I see this new design of MMO which can actually be played as a solo game and multiplayer having all sorts of issues which is why I was hoping someone who plays SotA of ED could give us a heads up on how it works there.
We have in fact "devolved" by the mere fact that we entertain such rubbish by discussing it. Simply looking at the very term MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE should be enough to end the conversation.
I hate to break it to you, but every single "solo" player is, in fact, interacting with the rest of us. Even if it's just providing background actors who walk through our scene or populate the store I enter.
It's one thing for people to argue that an MMO only requires X number of people to be a "true" MMO. It's beyond silly to discuss solo - massively multiplayer games or offline - online games.
So thank you for the offer but I will keep my brick. I'm not quite numb enough yet.
Come now, it is just a discussion. If you think players are interacting with others when they are effectively scenery I have to part with you there.
What you note about SotA is partly why I have some real concerns this could ever work, but if you think like I do there is not enough interaction in MMOs you will look for solutions to that issue. ButI still think done well this could be a runner, as always it would be in the implementation.
This is weird -- steam makes it so solo games have to be played with an open internet connection and people are considering MMOs without an open internet connection. What world have I woken up into?
Many MMOs would work fine in single player mode with a little tweaking. They're a kind of 3D ARPG with the heavy focus on combat and lootchase.
It would probably have ruffled feathers less if the OP would have requested respins of classic MMOs in a single player ARPG format. MMOs are the massively multiplayer versions, dumbed down, of RPGs, ARPGs/Action RPGs.
Define "work fine". They would not be Massively Multiplayer. And if they were offline they obviously would not be Online...
If I take "Chicken Soup" and cook it without all the chicken and the broth, what I have may still be edible but it would not be "Chicken Soup".
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Many MMOs would work fine in single player mode with a little tweaking. They're a kind of 3D ARPG with the heavy focus on combat and lootchase.
It would probably have ruffled feathers less if the OP would have requested respins of classic MMOs in a single player ARPG format. MMOs are the massively multiplayer versions, dumbed down, of RPGs, ARPGs/Action RPGs.
Define "work fine". They would not be Massively Multiplayer. And if they were offline they obviously would not be Online...
If I take "Chicken Soup" and cook it without all the chicken and the broth, what I have may still be edible but it would not be "Chicken Soup".
So they are not MMOs. Pretty obvious answer.
Exactly. End of discusssion.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Come now, it is just a discussion. If you think players are interacting with others when they are effectively scenery I have to part with you there.
What you note about SotA is partly why I have some real concerns this could ever work, but if you think like I do there is not enough interaction in MMOs you will look for solutions to that issue. ButI still think done well this could be a runner, as always it would be in the implementation.
In fact many players do not interact with each other even when they are in party. It is completely possible in such game to play solo in party.
I think no, offline playing is a bit boring, in terms of MMO. These games are designed to be played online. You must play together, die and live together with your team.
I think no, offline playing is a bit boring, in terms of MMO. These games are designed to be played online. You must play together, die and live together with your team.
Those raids are just a mob attacking a boss. You might get a few heals in your group, that's about it, a decent raid requires cooperation.
Come now, it is just a discussion. If you think players are interacting with others when they are effectively scenery I have to part with you there.
What you note about SotA is partly why I have some real concerns this could ever work, but if you think like I do there is not enough interaction in MMOs you will look for solutions to that issue. ButI still think done well this could be a runner, as always it would be in the implementation.
In fact many players do not interact with each other even when they are in party. It is completely possible in such game to play solo in party.
He is joking right? Sometimes I am not so sure.
Let say you are in a party in BDO for a raid boss. How do you cooperate exactly? Or the world bosses in GW2. You can see that behavior even in LoL. A player who plays completely solo. Very often random teams lose cause of such players. To be in party is not enough, you actually have to cooperate with the other players, but not just to hit solo.
First, we have some equivocation of "solo" going on here. Simply by the fact that people are playing in a game world other people means that they aren't solo in the purist sense of the word. I think what you're saying is that a player could engage in crappy interaction, crappy communication, crappy cooperation, and generally avoid doing anything remotely involving group or community participation of any kind.
Second, these folks still choose to participate in an MMORPG instead of a single player game, and as many covered in the "MMOs don't need a good story" thread, a lot of people aren't playing MMORPGs because of the outstanding story. What keeps this sort of player in an MMORPG when their are plenty of other games that provide a better single player experience?
Maybe it's the potential to interact with others if they want to or the potential to interact with others on their own terms. Maybe it's because playing in an MMO means your participation could have some sort of consequence on living world. Who knows? However, I would venture forth that the vast majority of these types of players still prefer to be in a particular game's massively multiplayer world versus being in that same game as a single player. Otherwise, why would they be there in the first place?
If I were a dev, I would look for ways to engage solo-minded folks and make a space for them in a fashion similar to what organizations do for extrovert-tendency and introvert-tendency people. Certainly that's not wasting resources on a single player version that would get little to no traction. Instead, I would look for opportunities to get introverts to engage and participate comfortably on their own terms. Judging by this thread, maybe that's already happening.
I like your points Rhoms, but I do have a follow up question: how do you address the path of least resistance effect on player habits?
Soloing is hugely popular, in no small part, because players don't have to depend upon another player to progress. It takes the guesswork out. It takes the logistics out. It means more time farming loot and XP and less looking for folks.
Maybe there are introverts who want to only play with others sparingly on their own terms. I think that's as likely a true statement as any made in the thread. I have a feeling, though, that just as many do it because it's the easiest and most reliable way to progress, because we haven't seen any dip in player population for strictly multiplayer games, like Fortnite. How do you convince those players to put down the sure thing for something with unknowns (other people)? In competitive multiplayer games, it's easy: human opponents who outnumber you will almost always end you. Chances of success goes up exponentially when they join a team (or the game finds them one, in the case of most competitive multiplayer games). Progress and success is directly linked to working in a team. In PvE, it's not as easy. Mobs aren't unknowns like humans are. Even if progression is modestly faster once you get a group going, there's still the unknown of if you will get a successful group going and when. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
How do we address that issue? The obvious is to make grouping pretty much required for success or allow grouping to significantly expedite the progression. But that makes the game comparatively harder to get into than the current crop of "solo til endgame, then solo some more" MMORPGs on the market. Obviously, devs and publishers don't like the idea of their title being objectively harder to get into than others. Is there a better way to encourage players to take a chance on the unknown?
I like your points Rhoms, but I do have a follow up question: how do you address the path of least resistance effect on player habits?
Soloing is hugely popular, in no small part, because players don't have to depend upon another player to progress. It takes the guesswork out. It takes the logistics out. It means more time farming loot and XP and less looking for folks.
Maybe there are introverts who want to only play with others sparingly on their own terms. I think that's as likely a true statement as any made in the thread. I have a feeling, though, that just as many do it because it's the easiest and most reliable way to progress, because we haven't seen any dip in player population for strictly multiplayer games, like Fortnite. How do you convince those players to put down the sure thing for something with unknowns (other people)? In competitive multiplayer games, it's easy: human opponents who outnumber you will almost always end you. Chances of success goes up exponentially when they join a team (or the game finds them one, in the case of most competitive multiplayer games). Progress and success is directly linked to working in a team. In PvE, it's not as easy. Mobs aren't unknowns like humans are. Even if progression is modestly faster once you get a group going, there's still the unknown of if you will get a successful group going and when. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
How do we address that issue? The obvious is to make grouping pretty much required for success or allow grouping to significantly expedite the progression. But that makes the game comparatively harder to get into than the current crop of "solo til endgame, then solo some more" MMORPGs on the market. Obviously, devs and publishers don't like the idea of their title being objectively harder to get into than others. Is there a better way to encourage players to take a chance on the unknown?
You ask really good questions. The more this thread goes on, the more I wonder whether we've been asking the right questions.
1) Should we build a single player experience out of an MMORPG? Probably not, but respect to the OP for being brave enough to post a question that has received a lot of good comments but also some consternation.
2) If we don't want MMORPGs to have a single player offline experience (and/or soloers have no desire to play single-player Eve/ESO/WoW etc.), what do we do with soloers in MMORPGs? How do we integrate them into the larger community experience when that's not necessarily their thing? The more I think about this topic, the more I wonder why we should even care. People have different play styles.
To foster more interaction, perhaps games can provide incentives for grouping. Maybe the best content that leads to the best rewards requires a group, or grouping leads to more experience versus going solo. In Eve, it's very hard to succeed in the most dangerous areas of the game without a group. The thing is, I think games already do a pretty good job of providing decent group/community-play incentives. So, I guess I go back to wondering why people that prefer less interaction in MMORPGs are a bad thing. Maybe we should look at more opportunities for interactive players to have more groupiness.
To be more clear, I don't want to equate introverts with soloers, but I think the solutions between working with soloers in an MMORPG and working with introverts on the job might be somewhat sort of similar. Generally speaking, I think both prefer to do stuff on more their own.
I personally would be intrigued by a 'game' that you can play in the open world solo/offline... but if you wanted to partake in public events, dungeons, trading, guild activities, pvp, etc...login.
I personally am not sure Id do the offline mode. I play solo but I like seeing people running around adventuring and doing their thing. Makes it feel alive and I dont feel so lonely lol.
Elite dangerous does this though...offline and online modes.
I'll never understand people that think like this. You want to play a single player rpg game(because that's what "offline mmo" is) then go fucking play one. There are countless classics and must buys for your perusal.
Stop trying to make mmo's into rpgs. Stop trying to make mmo's into moba's. If you wanna play an rpg, go play one. Want to play a moba? Go play one.
If you go to a restaurant and ordered a steak and when it comes to you, you go "oh, there's meat in this? can i have the steak without the meat?". Do you not see how ludicrous that is?
I wouldn't say that they should, but I'm not opposed to it being on offer, especially in games that may have an uncertain online future but that I still personally enjoy.
One of the reasons I bought into Shadow of the Avatar was that I knew I could still play the game offline if it should happen to end out closing online.
As far as the issue of internet access being a problem, I can afford to maintain that but occasionally the service goes down. Games with an offline mode provide another option for entertainment in that circumstance.
Can you explain how this works in SotA? So what can you do, make, earn and achieve that translates to the multiplayer version?
You can't transfer anything to the multiplayer version from offline play. In the offline mode it operates exactly as though it was a single player game.
First, we have some equivocation of "solo" going on here. Simply by the fact that people are playing in a game world other people means that they aren't solo in the purist sense of the word. I think what you're saying is that a player could engage in crappy interaction, crappy communication, crappy cooperation, and generally avoid doing anything remotely involving group or community participation of any kind.
This is exactly solo, in fact singleplayer - you play as there are not other people - and that solo behavior is provided and supported by the rules, the features and the mechanisms of the gameplay.
The fact you live in a world with 8 billions other persons does not mean you cannot be alone. So stop with that BS - if you do not compete or cooperate, where you play does not matter, it is singleplayer. The label MMO does not make any game real MMO.
I was pointing out the equivocation because some people in this thread think it's flat out ridiculous to claim that one can solo in a party. I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. First, I don't think the distinction between soloer and grouper is either/or. I imagine most people fall within a continuum of varying degrees of preference between solo and group/community play depending on how much time they have, convenience, and general play style. So the first task is to define where on the continuum you find your problematic group.
Once defined, the second question is what do we do with this problematic group? If their actions are a problem in MMORPGs, how do you solve it?
Third, if I'm understanding your point correctly, games that permit some form of individual/non-group/non-community play shouldn't be called MMOs. If being in a massively multiplayer online world with opportunities to interact with other players in a meaningful way isn't sufficient, what would need to happen to make an MMO an MMO? Do you have a good example that's already on the market as a reference?
The more this thread goes on, the less I care about peoples' solo or grouped play tendencies. Different strokes for different folks, and if someone leans more heavily toward solo play, I'd still rather have them in my game than not.
I wouldn't say that they should, but I'm not opposed to it being on offer, especially in games that may have an uncertain online future but that I still personally enjoy.
One of the reasons I bought into Shadow of the Avatar was that I knew I could still play the game offline if it should happen to end out closing online.
As far as the issue of internet access being a problem, I can afford to maintain that but occasionally the service goes down. Games with an offline mode provide another option for entertainment in that circumstance.
Can you explain how this works in SotA? So what can you do, make, earn and achieve that translates to the multiplayer version?
You can't transfer anything to the multiplayer version from offline play. In the offline mode it operates exactly as though it was a single player game.
That's one way of doing it but I don't think that would solve the issue of interactive as opposed to soloing players. If the solo players only end game was to transfer to the multiplayer keeping say their level and little else, that might work better.
This is an option I'd really like for games that are shutting down. Even if they leave everything exactly as it is and I've be able to redo raid content. At least I'd still be able to play. I don't know how much the longevity would last, but I'm sure a few people would enjoy it.
The game I most easily see this transition for is SWOTOR. They already have companions to help you battle, and so much of the content is based around your journey.
Comments
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
The reason old school players think this could be a good idea is they think that in effect it is where we are now in MMO design. If you have half the players in a MMO only playing solo and never interacting with anyone in effect we already have a solo mode, it is only massively multiplayer for those who want to group and so on.
Now I see this new design of MMO which can actually be played as a solo game and multiplayer having all sorts of issues which is why I was hoping someone who plays SotA of ED could give us a heads up on how it works there.
I hate to break it to you, but every single "solo" player is, in fact, interacting with the rest of us. Even if it's just providing background actors who walk through our scene or populate the store I enter.
It's one thing for people to argue that an MMO only requires X number of people to be a "true" MMO. It's beyond silly to discuss solo - massively multiplayer games or offline - online games.
So thank you for the offer but I will keep my brick. I'm not quite numb enough yet.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
So, in many respects, Shroud of the Avatar does qualify as an MMO; it’s even tagged as such on the game’s own Steam page. However, that’s not to say there’s no drawbacks. Each town, adventuring area and dungeon exists as its own ‘Scene’, carving out a small part of the world and with a small-ish number of players. Stringing these together is an overworld map, where it’s still possible to spot others out travelling. But the result is a feeling of lots of ‘pockets’ of world, rather than one cohesive experience.
Adding to the confusion is a planned single-player offline mode. Proposed since the early days of SotA’s development, this option would allow players to experience the story without any of the multiplayer featured getting in the way. Although, at this point, you have to wonder why anyone would want to.
Read more at https://www.mmorpg.com/shroud-of-the-avatar/reviews/does-classic-charm-make-for-an-mmo-worth-playing-1000000500#Iv1TWzErtjmU4XLB.99
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
slapshot1188. dont even bother bro it aint worth the waste of brain cells
Current game: Pillars of Eternity
Played: UO, AC, Eve, Fallen Earth, Aion, GW, GW2
Tried: WOW, Rift, SWTOR, ESO
Future: Camelot Unchained? Crowfall? Bless?
Come now, it is just a discussion. If you think players are interacting with others when they are effectively scenery I have to part with you there.
What you note about SotA is partly why I have some real concerns this could ever work, but if you think like I do there is not enough interaction in MMOs you will look for solutions to that issue. ButI still think done well this could be a runner, as always it would be in the implementation.
If I take "Chicken Soup" and cook it without all the chicken and the broth, what I have may still be edible but it would not be "Chicken Soup".
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Second, these folks still choose to participate in an MMORPG instead of a single player game, and as many covered in the "MMOs don't need a good story" thread, a lot of people aren't playing MMORPGs because of the outstanding story. What keeps this sort of player in an MMORPG when their are plenty of other games that provide a better single player experience?
Maybe it's the potential to interact with others if they want to or the potential to interact with others on their own terms. Maybe it's because playing in an MMO means your participation could have some sort of consequence on living world. Who knows? However, I would venture forth that the vast majority of these types of players still prefer to be in a particular game's massively multiplayer world versus being in that same game as a single player. Otherwise, why would they be there in the first place?
If I were a dev, I would look for ways to engage solo-minded folks and make a space for them in a fashion similar to what organizations do for extrovert-tendency and introvert-tendency people. Certainly that's not wasting resources on a single player version that would get little to no traction. Instead, I would look for opportunities to get introverts to engage and participate comfortably on their own terms. Judging by this thread, maybe that's already happening.
Current game: Pillars of Eternity
Played: UO, AC, Eve, Fallen Earth, Aion, GW, GW2
Tried: WOW, Rift, SWTOR, ESO
Future: Camelot Unchained? Crowfall? Bless?
Soloing is hugely popular, in no small part, because players don't have to depend upon another player to progress. It takes the guesswork out. It takes the logistics out. It means more time farming loot and XP and less looking for folks.
Maybe there are introverts who want to only play with others sparingly on their own terms. I think that's as likely a true statement as any made in the thread. I have a feeling, though, that just as many do it because it's the easiest and most reliable way to progress, because we haven't seen any dip in player population for strictly multiplayer games, like Fortnite. How do you convince those players to put down the sure thing for something with unknowns (other people)? In competitive multiplayer games, it's easy: human opponents who outnumber you will almost always end you. Chances of success goes up exponentially when they join a team (or the game finds them one, in the case of most competitive multiplayer games). Progress and success is directly linked to working in a team. In PvE, it's not as easy. Mobs aren't unknowns like humans are. Even if progression is modestly faster once you get a group going, there's still the unknown of if you will get a successful group going and when. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
How do we address that issue? The obvious is to make grouping pretty much required for success or allow grouping to significantly expedite the progression. But that makes the game comparatively harder to get into than the current crop of "solo til endgame, then solo some more" MMORPGs on the market. Obviously, devs and publishers don't like the idea of their title being objectively harder to get into than others. Is there a better way to encourage players to take a chance on the unknown?
1) Should we build a single player experience out of an MMORPG? Probably not, but respect to the OP for being brave enough to post a question that has received a lot of good comments but also some consternation.
2) If we don't want MMORPGs to have a single player offline experience (and/or soloers have no desire to play single-player Eve/ESO/WoW etc.), what do we do with soloers in MMORPGs? How do we integrate them into the larger community experience when that's not necessarily their thing? The more I think about this topic, the more I wonder why we should even care. People have different play styles.
To foster more interaction, perhaps games can provide incentives for grouping. Maybe the best content that leads to the best rewards requires a group, or grouping leads to more experience versus going solo. In Eve, it's very hard to succeed in the most dangerous areas of the game without a group. The thing is, I think games already do a pretty good job of providing decent group/community-play incentives. So, I guess I go back to wondering why people that prefer less interaction in MMORPGs are a bad thing. Maybe we should look at more opportunities for interactive players to have more groupiness.
To be more clear, I don't want to equate introverts with soloers, but I think the solutions between working with soloers in an MMORPG and working with introverts on the job might be somewhat sort of similar. Generally speaking, I think both prefer to do stuff on more their own.
Current game: Pillars of Eternity
Played: UO, AC, Eve, Fallen Earth, Aion, GW, GW2
Tried: WOW, Rift, SWTOR, ESO
Future: Camelot Unchained? Crowfall? Bless?
I personally am not sure Id do the offline mode. I play solo but I like seeing people running around adventuring and doing their thing. Makes it feel alive and I dont feel so lonely lol.
Elite dangerous does this though...offline and online modes.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Once defined, the second question is what do we do with this problematic group? If their actions are a problem in MMORPGs, how do you solve it?
Third, if I'm understanding your point correctly, games that permit some form of individual/non-group/non-community play shouldn't be called MMOs. If being in a massively multiplayer online world with opportunities to interact with other players in a meaningful way isn't sufficient, what would need to happen to make an MMO an MMO? Do you have a good example that's already on the market as a reference?
The more this thread goes on, the less I care about peoples' solo or grouped play tendencies. Different strokes for different folks, and if someone leans more heavily toward solo play, I'd still rather have them in my game than not.
Current game: Pillars of Eternity
Played: UO, AC, Eve, Fallen Earth, Aion, GW, GW2
Tried: WOW, Rift, SWTOR, ESO
Future: Camelot Unchained? Crowfall? Bless?
The game I most easily see this transition for is SWOTOR. They already have companions to help you battle, and so much of the content is based around your journey.