What level of forced interactions do you like?

Vermillion_Raventhal

Not just combat but in general.

1. Do you think players should be required to interact with required group activities everywhere?
2. Do you think players should be rewarded to interact like experience bonuses?
3. Do you think interaction should be encouraged to interact through loose interdependency?
4. Do you think everything should be able to do everything solo and don't need to interact on any level?

I think I am more in the number 3.  I think if you give players the means to interact and a good reason too they will do so on their own. For example if players can gift temporary bonuses to each other like speed or buffs they will.  

How do you lean?

Gorwe

Exactly zero, forced anything is bad. Let people choose to do what they want. But what the hell:

1. No, this sounds horrible and like it would kill a game on the spot. Something like WAR would be nice, where most things are possible solo, but they are easier / more comfortable in a group.

2. Yes, even though theoretically grouping should be its own reward, if playing in a group is less efficient, people will just avoid it. So, yes, more rewards for grouping.

3. Yes, but allow for solo too. No reason not to have both. But loose interdependance sounds very nice.

4. No, not everything. Some things, especially those more rewarding ones, should be group only. Now, maybe it don't need to be 6man, maybe 3man, but group definitely.

5. Extra. Concerning gear, crafting should be universal, but other activities should reward equipment suited to that activity. So, solo gear from solo, pvp gear from pvp, group gear from group instances. Absolutely NO "interbreeding"(=PvE gear from PvP and the like), except from vendors or crafters(ie: universal sources).

cameltosis

I don't think anyone should be forced

I think there should be a lot more group content in MMORPGs

I think progression needs to be de-coupled from specific content

I think enjoyment (fun) of the content should be the primary motivation

The main problem we have these days is that progression is tied to very specific pieces of content, so if you want to progress, you have to do that content exactly the way the devs intended. If you are a solo player but come against group content that you have to complete before you can progress, then you feel like you're being forced. Likewise, if you're a group player but need to do some solo content to progress, you feel like you're being forced.

So, de-couple content and progress and leave it up to the players. Choice is king.

This is what I loved so much about SWG. You could progress however the hell you liked. Some people played solo. Some people grouped with mates. Some grouped with randoms. Some went for big groups. Your choice never got in the way of progression, the only thing that would change is the time it took and the amount of money your earned doing it.

Rungar

Number 3 would be the closest for me. I would like there to be many scenarios in the game where you can do it yourself but its more efficient to get help to encourage interaction. 

I would also like to redesign raid content to be a community based event system and i would redesign group content to offer more room for different kinds of teamwork through global mechanics. ( this would take its own thread!)

 

Iselin

If you're going to ask people what level of forced interaction they like (and god only knows why someone would "like" any forcing) and give them 4 choices to pick from, shouldn't all the choices be some forced interaction instead of just the 1st one?

Wizardry

Well i often lean on the fence of everything being soloable but it isn't the best option to making the best game.

The reason is that if you can solo the combat is like very weak,ARPG style.

Combat should be back n forth intuitive and using player to player combos not solo combos.Now in saying that if you so choose to solo and not take advantage of any grouping perks fine knock yourself out.

However i point back to combat,if you can solo everything the enemies will have to be very weak and offer almsot no risk.

Within a good group architecture you might be fighting mobs that are NOT winnable solo so im that sense a VERY risky fight and yet much more satisfying than easily soloing something.Yo ualso remove the ROLE in role playing since you would be a jack of all trades which yet again makes for really bad customization and combat.

FFXI is the one game that did manage to pull it all off,well 98% solo until the game turned into the crappy instance item level crap.There were two reasons that you could solo group ready mobs in FFXI,great abilities via the sub class system and the use of the Beastmaster class design.

However who says we have to think shallow why not a group of 2 or 3 or 4?You see it all comes down to preference in which type of role you want to play but a group of only 3 Beastmaster could easily do what a full group of 6 could do.However as a BST you do not have the same DPS as a dps role would have and maybe that is your thing and you cannot be a support/healer as well as a Healer class so again maybe that is your thing.

MaDeuce

If you are playing a game amongst friends, all that is asked is to be present when immersed.   

Wizardry

I forgot to mention that FFXI also added QOL ideas like NPC's to form a group with so that allowed you to solo most of the game as well.
Point being that whole all the other developers were making cash shops and creating instances FFXi was actually doing something to allow players to play however they want solo or group.
You see the NPC idea is really good,many players LIKE talking with others in a group or being a part of the same guild and sometiems going out to farm or xp with a friend or two or 3 and sometimes players just want to do it alone at least FFXI gave both options and yet still maintained role of a group.

Mendel

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

Not just combat but in general.

1. Do you think players should be required to interact with required group activities everywhere?
2. Do you think players should be rewarded to interact like experience bonuses?
3. Do you think interaction should be encouraged to interact through loose interdependency?
4. Do you think everything should be able to do everything solo and don't need to interact on any level?

I think I am more in the number 3.  I think if you give players the means to interact and a good reason too they will do so on their own. For example if players can gift temporary bonuses to each other like speed or buffs they will.  

How do you lean?

Any form of forced grouping will eventually destroy a game.  A game may start requiring 100% full, balanced groups for survival, but eventually people will want 50% full, unbalanced groups, then duos, then solo.  The grouping game appears to be a diminishing product -- eventually the need and incentives to group just doesn't appeal to players, especially as a game ages.

Grouping also hurts players who have relatively unique (or highly erratic) play times.  In old games like EQ1, it is totally possible (and quite frequent) to find yourself the only player in a certain range at any given time.  So, if you want to create an alt, chances are most of that alt's life will be spent soloing.

Sovrath

The thing is, I think the whole idea of using the word "forced" is just way off the mark and just speaks to people playing the wrong game.

I also think that this word is used to detract from a game so one can leverage a completely different opinion against its design.

If a game has no combat and is completely about crafting (Tale in the Desert from what I understand) then is that really "forced crafting?"

If I'm playing something like planetscape then "yeah" there's going to be shooting and a lot of it.

So to the point, if I'm playing a game where you must group then I'm either in or out. Don't wreck other's fun if you don't like it. And if you can't play on a competitive level seek out people who run about your speed.

I think the game should be "what it is" and people who play should be aware if there's a lot of grouping or not.

I'm ok with solo games. I'm also ok with entirely group-based games. People should find what floats their boat accordingly. The game should just try to be good and it should be made toward the correct audience.

Rungar

In the end the game will decide how antisocial you will be. Players dont decide that. If the game is built for passive cooperation that will happen. If its built for dependancy, most players will move on. 

Vermillion_Raventhal

Sovrath said:

The thing is, I think the whole idea of using the word "forced" is just way off the mark and just speaks to people playing the wrong game.

I also think that this word is used to detract from a game so one can leverage a completely different opinion against its design.

If a game has no combat and is completely about crafting (Tale in the Desert from what I understand) then is that really "forced crafting?"

If I'm playing something like planetscape then "yeah" there's going to be shooting and a lot of it.

So to the point, if I'm playing a game where you must group then I'm either in or out. Don't wreck other's fun if you don't like it. And if you can't play on a competitive level seek out people who run about your speed.

I think the game should be "what it is" and people who play should be aware if there's a lot of grouping or not.

I'm ok with solo games. I'm also ok with entirely group-based games. People should find what floats their boat accordingly. The game should just try to be good and it should be made toward the correct audience.

MMORPG do force combat in most cases.  There are some games you could craft to max level or max crafting character.  

Gorwe

Sovrath said:

The thing is, I think the whole idea of using the word "forced" is just way off the mark and just speaks to people playing the wrong game.

I also think that this word is used to detract from a game so one can leverage a completely different opinion against its design.

If a game has no combat and is completely about crafting (Tale in the Desert from what I understand) then is that really "forced crafting?"

If I'm playing something like planetscape then "yeah" there's going to be shooting and a lot of it.

So to the point, if I'm playing a game where you must group then I'm either in or out. Don't wreck other's fun if you don't like it. And if you can't play on a competitive level seek out people who run about your speed.

I think the game should be "what it is" and people who play should be aware if there's a lot of grouping or not.

I'm ok with solo games. I'm also ok with entirely group-based games. People should find what floats their boat accordingly. The game should just try to be good and it should be made toward the correct audience.

While this might and probably is true, what about if a person doesn't have any other RPG in his beloved IP? What if he just don't feel like socializing? What if they just like the game, but don't necessarily want to socialize via gameplay? And so forth.

I would be extra careful with this...discreteness. While I do like neatly designed and purposefully produced products, I just can't shake the feeling of gatekeeping which in many cases will provide an anti effect of sorts.

Kyleran

Forced anything is pretty much like this for me these days.

iixviiiix

No  forced interactions is good interaction. Just don't punish player for group up with other.

Theocritus

I think the content should be difficult enough that we need to work with otehrs to get it done.....If I can kill everything by myself, then the game is too easy.

MaDeuce

By reputation, why would one want to do anything other than play as their Avatar? Reputation should be about AI and Community connection.. Wayfarer way indeed, just like the game I'm previously playing. Our Developers and community has done such a great job true and through in the game I'm currently Alpha/Beta Testing for. We just went "Closed Beta" and now along with celebration the progress is moving to the next phase.

delete5230

As always, refer to Vanilla or Classic World of Warcraft.

It's the perfect game !!!

You have everything, easy, hard, group... Do what ever you want... Why?... Because it's large spread out, and not all crammed into a small graphic intense game. 

It's like life, pick and choose the content. 


Example,
I  always played for Group dungeons. I lived for that !
Because of recent medical conditions I can no longer do that. I must play solo, because I can't be counted on for long play sessions, or intense boss fights. 

So.... I have a Rogue level 39 I've been playing.  Through herbalism and skinning, I have enough gold to buy my mount..... Soon I'll be in my 40's and will naturally be making LOTS of gold naturally.... I can buy my Dungeon blue items from the auction.

My life in game can be chatting with my Guild and helping others with shorter content that is to hard for one player.

PERFECT GAME !!!!

iixviiiix

Theocritus said:

I think the content should be difficult enough that we need to work with otehrs to get it done.....If I can kill everything by myself, then the game is too easy.

I think the game should allow you to kill everything by yourself , but less stressful when you do it with other.

A game where you can win again everything by yourself don't mean it's a easy game.

Vermillion_Raventhal

iixviiiix said:

Theocritus said:

I think the content should be difficult enough that we need to work with otehrs to get it done.....If I can kill everything by myself, then the game is too easy.

I think the game should allow you to kill everything by yourself , but less stressful when you do it with other.

A game where you can win again everything by yourself don't mean it's a easy game.

My principle for MMORPG is that you have horizontal progression and area's of difficulty.  If you want to explore the roughs that require groups for most players then do so.  I think it much more natural way of doing things.  Easy zones, medium zones, hard zones that you might want to group, probably need a group zones, must have a group zones, better be well prepared zones.  

Rungar

Your always going to be forced to do something with other players. Thats not going away unless your playing a single player game. There are other people that you will need to interact with or else you dont need to make a mmo at all.

There has not been a mmo where you didnt require a group for specific content. There never will be because it wont be a mmo. 

the real limit occurs when you cant do ANYTHING without other players. So the trick is to provide content where you can do alot of it yourself but its far more efficient to get help. That doesnt mean you can access and complete all the content by yourself. 

For me they get it right when the content is "barely soloable". This applies to things like open world. This means they got the difficulty threshold correct. You can do it yourself but its easier with others. 

Often games make the overworld far to easy and it causes problems because players often dont learn how to play the game. They didnt have to. 

Another factor in this is the environmental danger. Games usually fail in this feature. Aggro radius is usually very short in modern games. You have to go out of your way to engage. They also have no roamers/disruptors to look out for. 

so if you have the barely soloable and the dangerous world i think you will get the interaction you want but its not forced in any way.   

Kyleran

delete5230 said:

As always, refer to Vanilla or Classic World of Warcraft.

It's the perfect game !!!

You have everything, easy, hard, group... Do what ever you want... Why?... Because it's large spread out, and not all crammed into a small graphic intense game. 

It's like life, pick and choose the content. 


Example,
I  always played for Group dungeons. I lived for that !
Because of recent medical conditions I can no longer do that. I must play solo, because I can't be counted on for long play sessions, or intense boss fights. 

So.... I have a Rogue level 39 I've been playing.  Through herbalism and skinning, I have enough gold to buy my mount..... Soon I'll be in my 40's and will naturally be making LOTS of gold naturally.... I can buy my Dungeon blue items from the auction.

My life in game can be chatting with my Guild and helping others with shorter content that is to hard for one player.

PERFECT GAME !!!!

Which version of WOW are you paying Blizzard to play?

Or are you still playing on a free shard?

Scot

If I am playing in a gaming genre that is overwhelmingly aimed at soloing to top level, then I am forced to play solo even if it is technical possible to group. Oh right that would be the gaming genre of virtually all MMO's then.

Sovrath

Gorwe said:

Sovrath said:

The thing is, I think the whole idea of using the word "forced" is just way off the mark and just speaks to people playing the wrong game.

I also think that this word is used to detract from a game so one can leverage a completely different opinion against its design.

If a game has no combat and is completely about crafting (Tale in the Desert from what I understand) then is that really "forced crafting?"

If I'm playing something like planetscape then "yeah" there's going to be shooting and a lot of it.

So to the point, if I'm playing a game where you must group then I'm either in or out. Don't wreck other's fun if you don't like it. And if you can't play on a competitive level seek out people who run about your speed.

I think the game should be "what it is" and people who play should be aware if there's a lot of grouping or not.

I'm ok with solo games. I'm also ok with entirely group-based games. People should find what floats their boat accordingly. The game should just try to be good and it should be made toward the correct audience.

While this might and probably is true, what about if a person doesn't have any other RPG in his beloved IP? What if he just don't feel like socializing? What if they just like the game, but don't necessarily want to socialize via gameplay? And so forth.

I would be extra careful with this...discreteness. While I do like neatly designed and purposefully produced products, I just can't shake the feeling of gatekeeping which in many cases will provide an anti effect of sorts.

life isn't perfect so what can I say? You don't play the game. 

That's the other problem with the genre, everyone seems to think that every game should cater to them. That's silly.

And I don't even know what you mean by "gatekeeping." Look, the games "are the games." play them or don't. If they are set in an IP you like but the gameplay isn't what you are looking for it's not the game for you. Simple as that.

Look, I like brunettes. But just because I see a cute brunette doesn't mean I want to date them if our lives aren't compatible. 

delete5230

Kyleran said:

delete5230 said:

As always, refer to Vanilla or Classic World of Warcraft.

It's the perfect game !!!

You have everything, easy, hard, group... Do what ever you want... Why?... Because it's large spread out, and not all crammed into a small graphic intense game. 

It's like life, pick and choose the content. 


Example,
I  always played for Group dungeons. I lived for that !
Because of recent medical conditions I can no longer do that. I must play solo, because I can't be counted on for long play sessions, or intense boss fights. 

So.... I have a Rogue level 39 I've been playing.  Through herbalism and skinning, I have enough gold to buy my mount..... Soon I'll be in my 40's and will naturally be making LOTS of gold naturally.... I can buy my Dungeon blue items from the auction.

My life in game can be chatting with my Guild and helping others with shorter content that is to hard for one player.

PERFECT GAME !!!!

Which version of WOW are you paying Blizzard to play?

Or are you still playing on a free shard?

Not sure if this is some kind of trick question but I'll answer anyway.... Free. 
I have no problem paying anything, but have been playing them for years when had no other choices.

Have about 5 alts, but unless strapped for gold, I play each one on their own merits for gold.



Besides its packed with people day and night for many years.... And contrary to others beliefs their VERY close to bug free. like in as about 5 bugs total, and know every square inch of the world, except I don't Raid so can't say on that.

Totally reliable and never shut down. The only one that ever shut down is the one that sold out their player base to work for Blizzard. 


The one I'm on is the best I think, the rest are medium player base, from the little I played around with them.

Sovrath

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

Sovrath said:

The thing is, I think the whole idea of using the word "forced" is just way off the mark and just speaks to people playing the wrong game.

I also think that this word is used to detract from a game so one can leverage a completely different opinion against its design.

If a game has no combat and is completely about crafting (Tale in the Desert from what I understand) then is that really "forced crafting?"

If I'm playing something like planetscape then "yeah" there's going to be shooting and a lot of it.

So to the point, if I'm playing a game where you must group then I'm either in or out. Don't wreck other's fun if you don't like it. And if you can't play on a competitive level seek out people who run about your speed.

I think the game should be "what it is" and people who play should be aware if there's a lot of grouping or not.

I'm ok with solo games. I'm also ok with entirely group-based games. People should find what floats their boat accordingly. The game should just try to be good and it should be made toward the correct audience.

MMORPG do force combat in most cases.  There are some games you could craft to max level or max crafting character.  

There is no forced anything. There is only "we have combat!"

Great I love combat I'm in!

nah, hate combat so I'll pass or maybe put up with it.

Unless someone is holding a gun to you and making you buy the game and play then there is no forced.

And that would also be pretty weird.