Casuals and there solo attitudes has done unrepairable damage to the MMO genre ..
Casuals aren't the ones that adapted MMORPGs to suit solo play. That was done by those that provide them, and is where the blame belongs if anywhere.
Those that chose to solo before that did so without any accommodation and thus damaged nothing.
Someone has no idea how we got where we are
That would be the one believing those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them.
So you are saying that Devs have not changed there approach on how content is delivered to its consumer ..
History will disagree with as well as common sense ..
All of the MMOs that defined the genre had the VAst majority of there content made for groups ..
UO, AC AO , DAOC Wow , EQ , EQ2 .. . All were primarily built for groups .. it was not until after EQ2 launch and Wow , that you began to see the cries for solo content in MMOs..
And as devs at that point beginning with Wow began to track player data thru there games that they began to cater to the Solo experience ..
After the all games began to develop content and spend more resources on Solo content because of the community outcries for SOlo content and the data trackers in game ..
So yes "those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them."
IS exactly correct .. They do however control it thru there actions and how they spend there money .. common sense stuff here and just regular business..
But this is just smart business as at the same time the big money began to pay attention and jump into the MMO game and of course they all want to develop for and capture as much of the Solo demographic as they do the group/ raid community ..
The devs that provide the product were creating for a community that was screaming out for solo content and still do to this day, effecting the development of every game..
Never let facts and history get in the way of your perceived truth ...
Thats how we got where we are ..
At days end it is the developers and the people who pay them who make the decision to design their games to go after the more casual and solo player. (Or whatever demographic they wish to target)
The only real influence or choice a customer has is to vote with their wallet, which taken as a collective action is very powerful indeed.
As for the list of early MMORPGs which you claim were designed for grouping I'll dare say a good portion if not a majority of players did a substantial amount of soloing in them, regardless of their design.
Grouping was always just one possible game play loop which almost always could be avoided to greater or lesser extent, and I definitely avoided it in most when it suited me.
As in ALL business you produce what the consumer demand is .. True ..
Its just common sense .. it applies to all business
So now explain how the consumer has no control..
They have all the control .. or consumer will go to someone that is producing what they want ..Go ask the devs of Wildstar , how it worked out to make a group focused game , against advice ill add of what the market and Consumer DEMAND ..
The rest is semantics .. 6/10.. If you are saying that SOLO content was as available , and as accessible than what Devs today provide ...
.. You would be wrong
.. Of course you could try to solo and there was some stuff to solo back then ..
But as I said
"The content was built primarily for Groups" Are you saying thats not true ..
You would be wrong ..
The amount of development cycle and resources that Houses dedicate to Solo gameplay is Vastly more than it ever was back then ..
Early on Solo gameplay was a byproduct of group content and holes in that group content being made,and over land content ..
Today in some cases as much or more resources are spent devolopment towards solo content . Because of consumer DEMAND and CONTROL over development cycles .. . At least thats the case for houses that want to make money and survive in todays market .. or you cater to group content and become Carbine Studio ..
So , primarily thru Forum voices , then thru Blizz starting to track player Data and Actions during gameplay ( which all Devs adopted) Is what drove the market to a much more robust SOLO development cycle ..
so in the end
/players control development
Ill add Pantheon needs to be careful in this regard .. They are looking like Wildstar 2.0 at this point ..
On paper, this is sound. I'm noticing that many businesses are deciding to "cater to" what they believe is half their customers consumers. They believe that the loudest crowd is a majority when in fact a very small minority is. Wild Star demonstrated this well
As most are saying, there needs to be a good mix
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Casuals and there solo attitudes has done unrepairable damage to the MMO genre ..
Casuals aren't the ones that adapted MMORPGs to suit solo play. That was done by those that provide them, and is where the blame belongs if anywhere.
Those that chose to solo before that did so without any accommodation and thus damaged nothing.
Someone has no idea how we got where we are
That would be the one believing those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them.
So you are saying that Devs have not changed there approach on how content is delivered to its consumer ..
History will disagree with as well as common sense ..
All of the MMOs that defined the genre had the VAst majority of there content made for groups ..
UO, AC AO , DAOC Wow , EQ , EQ2 .. . All were primarily built for groups .. it was not until after EQ2 launch and Wow , that you began to see the cries for solo content in MMOs..
And as devs at that point beginning with Wow began to track player data thru there games that they began to cater to the Solo experience ..
After the all games began to develop content and spend more resources on Solo content because of the community outcries for SOlo content and the data trackers in game ..
So yes "those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them."
IS exactly correct .. They do however control it thru there actions and how they spend there money .. common sense stuff here and just regular business..
But this is just smart business as at the same time the big money began to pay attention and jump into the MMO game and of course they all want to develop for and capture as much of the Solo demographic as they do the group/ raid community ..
The devs that provide the product were creating for a community that was screaming out for solo content and still do to this day, effecting the development of every game..
Never let facts and history get in the way of your perceived truth ...
Thats how we got where we are ..
At days end it is the developers and the people who pay them who make the decision to design their games to go after the more casual and solo player. (Or whatever demographic they wish to target)
The only real influence or choice a customer has is to vote with their wallet, which taken as a collective action is very powerful indeed.
As for the list of early MMORPGs which you claim were designed for grouping I'll dare say a good portion if not a majority of players did a substantial amount of soloing in them, regardless of their design.
Grouping was always just one possible game play loop which almost always could be avoided to greater or lesser extent, and I definitely avoided it in most when it suited me.
As in ALL business you produce what the consumer demand is .. True ..
Its just common sense .. it applies to all business
So now explain how the consumer has no control..
They have all the control .. or consumer will go to someone that is producing what they want ..Go ask the devs of Wildstar , how it worked out to make a group focused game , against advice ill add of what the market and Consumer DEMAND ..
The rest is semantics .. 6/10.. If you are saying that SOLO content was as available , and as accessible than what Devs today provide ...
.. You would be wrong
.. Of course you could try to solo and there was some stuff to solo back then ..
But as I said
"The content was built primarily for Groups" Are you saying thats not true ..
You would be wrong ..
The amount of development cycle and resources that Houses dedicate to Solo gameplay is Vastly more than it ever was back then ..
Early on Solo gameplay was a byproduct of group content and holes in that group content being made,and over land content ..
Today in some cases as much or more resources are spent devolopment towards solo content . Because of consumer DEMAND and CONTROL over development cycles .. . At least thats the case for houses that want to make money and survive in todays market .. or you cater to group content and become Carbine Studio ..
So , primarily thru Forum voices , then thru Blizz starting to track player Data and Actions during gameplay ( which all Devs adopted) Is what drove the market to a much more robust SOLO development cycle ..
so in the end
/players control development
Ill add Pantheon needs to be careful in this regard .. They are looking like Wildstar 2.0 at this point ..
On paper, this is sound. I'm noticing that many businesses are deciding to "cater to" what they believe is half their customers consumers. They believe that the loudest crowd is a majority when in fact a very small minority is. Wild Star demonstrated this well
As most are saying, there needs to be a good mix
all I'm saying is that if you get the group size right, you don't have to choose. In eso people regularly solo/duo 4 man dungeons even the vet ones. 3 three man group is simply difficult content for a solo player in many cases. It might not be efficient but it can be done.
this also doesnt prevent you from having larger groups of 6 or 9 but they are still multiples of three for select content.
if you want the most bang for your buck in a largely casual environment, there is no other groupsize that will work as well.
Casuals and there solo attitudes has done unrepairable damage to the MMO genre ..
Casuals aren't the ones that adapted MMORPGs to suit solo play. That was done by those that provide them, and is where the blame belongs if anywhere.
Those that chose to solo before that did so without any accommodation and thus damaged nothing.
Someone has no idea how we got where we are
That would be the one believing those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them.
So you are saying that Devs have not changed there approach on how content is delivered to its consumer ..
History will disagree with as well as common sense ..
All of the MMOs that defined the genre had the VAst majority of there content made for groups ..
UO, AC AO , DAOC Wow , EQ , EQ2 .. . All were primarily built for groups .. it was not until after EQ2 launch and Wow , that you began to see the cries for solo content in MMOs..
And as devs at that point beginning with Wow began to track player data thru there games that they began to cater to the Solo experience ..
After the all games began to develop content and spend more resources on Solo content because of the community outcries for SOlo content and the data trackers in game ..
So yes "those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them."
IS exactly correct .. They do however control it thru there actions and how they spend there money .. common sense stuff here and just regular business..
But this is just smart business as at the same time the big money began to pay attention and jump into the MMO game and of course they all want to develop for and capture as much of the Solo demographic as they do the group/ raid community ..
The devs that provide the product were creating for a community that was screaming out for solo content and still do to this day, effecting the development of every game..
Never let facts and history get in the way of your perceived truth ...
Thats how we got where we are ..
I think you have to go one step farther, and ask *why* gamers want solo content.
Casuals and there solo attitudes has done unrepairable damage to the MMO genre ..
Casuals aren't the ones that adapted MMORPGs to suit solo play. That was done by those that provide them, and is where the blame belongs if anywhere.
Those that chose to solo before that did so without any accommodation and thus damaged nothing.
Someone has no idea how we got where we are
That would be the one believing those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them.
So you are saying that Devs have not changed there approach on how content is delivered to its consumer ..
History will disagree with as well as common sense ..
All of the MMOs that defined the genre had the VAst majority of there content made for groups ..
UO, AC AO , DAOC Wow , EQ , EQ2 .. . All were primarily built for groups .. it was not until after EQ2 launch and Wow , that you began to see the cries for solo content in MMOs..
And as devs at that point beginning with Wow began to track player data thru there games that they began to cater to the Solo experience ..
After the all games began to develop content and spend more resources on Solo content because of the community outcries for SOlo content and the data trackers in game ..
So yes "those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them."
IS exactly correct .. They do however control it thru there actions and how they spend there money .. common sense stuff here and just regular business..
But this is just smart business as at the same time the big money began to pay attention and jump into the MMO game and of course they all want to develop for and capture as much of the Solo demographic as they do the group/ raid community ..
The devs that provide the product were creating for a community that was screaming out for solo content and still do to this day, effecting the development of every game..
Never let facts and history get in the way of your perceived truth ...
Thats how we got where we are ..
I think you have to go one step farther, and ask *why* gamers want solo content.
That's the real problem.
Yea , it's a really strange thing to me , I am a group oriented player , i seek out players of like interest and goals and work towards them ..
I do not really get the mindset of a person wanting to enter an MMO and SOLO , its like they want a chat window while they game is all ..
But as someone that began investing in the Industry in the late 90s , and hold shares in near every major Pub today still... I understand how Dev/Pub chased the money and got here .. And it played out much as i described above .
A big part of the solo push came thru Wow , when it took off to mainstream and many ,primary console players began migrating to Wow and other MMOs , wanting to get in the craze but also wanting there Solo console experience it seems at the same time ..
The market flooded with players .. PC gaming as you know was rather niche till Wow pushed it over the edge ..
I still do not understand the Solo in an MMO mindset , but i certainly understand the financial success that the demographic delivers and could not be ignored..
Casuals and there solo attitudes has done unrepairable damage to the MMO genre ..
Casuals aren't the ones that adapted MMORPGs to suit solo play. That was done by those that provide them, and is where the blame belongs if anywhere.
Those that chose to solo before that did so without any accommodation and thus damaged nothing.
Someone has no idea how we got where we are
That would be the one believing those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them.
So you are saying that Devs have not changed there approach on how content is delivered to its consumer ..
History will disagree with as well as common sense ..
All of the MMOs that defined the genre had the VAst majority of there content made for groups ..
UO, AC AO , DAOC Wow , EQ , EQ2 .. . All were primarily built for groups .. it was not until after EQ2 launch and Wow , that you began to see the cries for solo content in MMOs..
And as devs at that point beginning with Wow began to track player data thru there games that they began to cater to the Solo experience ..
After the all games began to develop content and spend more resources on Solo content because of the community outcries for SOlo content and the data trackers in game ..
So yes "those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them."
IS exactly correct .. They do however control it thru there actions and how they spend there money .. common sense stuff here and just regular business..
But this is just smart business as at the same time the big money began to pay attention and jump into the MMO game and of course they all want to develop for and capture as much of the Solo demographic as they do the group/ raid community ..
The devs that provide the product were creating for a community that was screaming out for solo content and still do to this day, effecting the development of every game..
Never let facts and history get in the way of your perceived truth ...
Thats how we got where we are ..
I think you have to go one step farther, and ask *why* gamers want solo content.
That's the real problem.
Yea , it's a really strange thing to me , I am a group oriented player , i seek out players of like interest and goals and work towards them ..
I do not really get the mindset of a person wanting to enter an MMO and SOLO , its like they want a chat window while they game is all ..
But as someone that began investing in the Industry in the late 90s , and hold shares in near every major Pub today still... I understand how Dev/Pub chased the money and got here .. And it played out much as i described above .
A big part of the solo push came thru Wow , when it took off to mainstream and many ,primary console players began migrating to Wow and other MMOs , wanting to get in the craze but also wanting there Solo console experience it seems at the same time ..
The market flooded with players .. PC gaming as you know was rather niche till Wow pushed it over the edge ..
I still do not understand the Solo in an MMO mindset , but i certainly understand the financial success that the demographic delivers and could not be ignored..
Oh, that's an easy one to answer, most other people suck, especially in an anonymous setting, (hmm, sort of like here) which is why soloing is so popular.
In the real world people are almost always more polite, especially to me at least but then that's due to possible consequences.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Casuals and there solo attitudes has done unrepairable damage to the MMO genre ..
Casuals aren't the ones that adapted MMORPGs to suit solo play. That was done by those that provide them, and is where the blame belongs if anywhere.
Those that chose to solo before that did so without any accommodation and thus damaged nothing.
Someone has no idea how we got where we are
That would be the one believing those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them.
So you are saying that Devs have not changed there approach on how content is delivered to its consumer ..
History will disagree with as well as common sense ..
All of the MMOs that defined the genre had the VAst majority of there content made for groups ..
UO, AC AO , DAOC Wow , EQ , EQ2 .. . All were primarily built for groups .. it was not until after EQ2 launch and Wow , that you began to see the cries for solo content in MMOs..
And as devs at that point beginning with Wow began to track player data thru there games that they began to cater to the Solo experience ..
After the all games began to develop content and spend more resources on Solo content because of the community outcries for SOlo content and the data trackers in game ..
So yes "those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them."
IS exactly correct .. They do however control it thru there actions and how they spend there money .. common sense stuff here and just regular business..
But this is just smart business as at the same time the big money began to pay attention and jump into the MMO game and of course they all want to develop for and capture as much of the Solo demographic as they do the group/ raid community ..
The devs that provide the product were creating for a community that was screaming out for solo content and still do to this day, effecting the development of every game..
Never let facts and history get in the way of your perceived truth ...
Thats how we got where we are ..
I think you have to go one step farther, and ask *why* gamers want solo content.
That's the real problem.
Yea , it's a really strange thing to me , I am a group oriented player , i seek out players of like interest and goals and work towards them ..
I do not really get the mindset of a person wanting to enter an MMO and SOLO , its like they want a chat window while they game is all ..
But as someone that began investing in the Industry in the late 90s , and hold shares in near every major Pub today still... I understand how Dev/Pub chased the money and got here .. And it played out much as i described above .
A big part of the solo push came thru Wow , when it took off to mainstream and many ,primary console players began migrating to Wow and other MMOs , wanting to get in the craze but also wanting there Solo console experience it seems at the same time ..
The market flooded with players .. PC gaming as you know was rather niche till Wow pushed it over the edge ..
I still do not understand the Solo in an MMO mindset , but i certainly understand the financial success that the demographic delivers and could not be ignored..
Oh, that's an easy one to answer, most other people suck, especially in an anonymous setting, (hmm, sort of like here) which is why soloing is so popular.
In the real world people are almost always more polite, especially to me at least but then that's due to possible consequences.
Casuals and there solo attitudes has done unrepairable damage to the MMO genre ..
Casuals aren't the ones that adapted MMORPGs to suit solo play. That was done by those that provide them, and is where the blame belongs if anywhere.
Those that chose to solo before that did so without any accommodation and thus damaged nothing.
Someone has no idea how we got where we are
That would be the one believing those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them.
So you are saying that Devs have not changed there approach on how content is delivered to its consumer ..
History will disagree with as well as common sense ..
All of the MMOs that defined the genre had the VAst majority of there content made for groups ..
UO, AC AO , DAOC Wow , EQ , EQ2 .. . All were primarily built for groups .. it was not until after EQ2 launch and Wow , that you began to see the cries for solo content in MMOs..
And as devs at that point beginning with Wow began to track player data thru there games that they began to cater to the Solo experience ..
After the all games began to develop content and spend more resources on Solo content because of the community outcries for SOlo content and the data trackers in game ..
So yes "those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them."
IS exactly correct .. They do however control it thru there actions and how they spend there money .. common sense stuff here and just regular business..
But this is just smart business as at the same time the big money began to pay attention and jump into the MMO game and of course they all want to develop for and capture as much of the Solo demographic as they do the group/ raid community ..
The devs that provide the product were creating for a community that was screaming out for solo content and still do to this day, effecting the development of every game..
Never let facts and history get in the way of your perceived truth ...
Thats how we got where we are ..
I think you have to go one step farther, and ask *why* gamers want solo content.
That's the real problem.
Yea , it's a really strange thing to me , I am a group oriented player , i seek out players of like interest and goals and work towards them ..
I do not really get the mindset of a person wanting to enter an MMO and SOLO , its like they want a chat window while they game is all ..
But as someone that began investing in the Industry in the late 90s , and hold shares in near every major Pub today still... I understand how Dev/Pub chased the money and got here .. And it played out much as i described above .
A big part of the solo push came thru Wow , when it took off to mainstream and many ,primary console players began migrating to Wow and other MMOs , wanting to get in the craze but also wanting there Solo console experience it seems at the same time ..
The market flooded with players .. PC gaming as you know was rather niche till Wow pushed it over the edge ..
I still do not understand the Solo in an MMO mindset , but i certainly understand the financial success that the demographic delivers and could not be ignored..
Oh, that's an easy one to answer, most other people suck, especially in an anonymous setting, (hmm, sort of like here) which is why soloing is so popular.
In the real world people are almost always more polite, especially to me at least but then that's due to possible consequences.
People suck online when they don't know anything about each other. Which is usually the case.
This forum has been pretty good in the last year, but it's smaller and we've gotten to know each other to some degree. Hell, some of you even defended me when I got perma-banned a while ago. (Thank you.)
But look at the common MMORPG. Player group with players whose names they don't know. They know they'll likely not see them again. And players treat others, in this situation, like a set of statistics. Because that's all they are to them.
Casuals and there solo attitudes has done unrepairable damage to the MMO genre ..
Casuals aren't the ones that adapted MMORPGs to suit solo play. That was done by those that provide them, and is where the blame belongs if anywhere.
Those that chose to solo before that did so without any accommodation and thus damaged nothing.
Someone has no idea how we got where we are
That would be the one believing those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them.
So you are saying that Devs have not changed there approach on how content is delivered to its consumer ..
History will disagree with as well as common sense ..
All of the MMOs that defined the genre had the VAst majority of there content made for groups ..
UO, AC AO , DAOC Wow , EQ , EQ2 .. . All were primarily built for groups .. it was not until after EQ2 launch and Wow , that you began to see the cries for solo content in MMOs..
And as devs at that point beginning with Wow began to track player data thru there games that they began to cater to the Solo experience ..
After the all games began to develop content and spend more resources on Solo content because of the community outcries for SOlo content and the data trackers in game ..
So yes "those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them."
IS exactly correct .. They do however control it thru there actions and how they spend there money .. common sense stuff here and just regular business..
But this is just smart business as at the same time the big money began to pay attention and jump into the MMO game and of course they all want to develop for and capture as much of the Solo demographic as they do the group/ raid community ..
The devs that provide the product were creating for a community that was screaming out for solo content and still do to this day, effecting the development of every game..
Never let facts and history get in the way of your perceived truth ...
Thats how we got where we are ..
I think you have to go one step farther, and ask *why* gamers want solo content.
That's the real problem.
Yea , it's a really strange thing to me , I am a group oriented player , i seek out players of like interest and goals and work towards them ..
I do not really get the mindset of a person wanting to enter an MMO and SOLO , its like they want a chat window while they game is all ..
But as someone that began investing in the Industry in the late 90s , and hold shares in near every major Pub today still... I understand how Dev/Pub chased the money and got here .. And it played out much as i described above .
A big part of the solo push came thru Wow , when it took off to mainstream and many ,primary console players began migrating to Wow and other MMOs , wanting to get in the craze but also wanting there Solo console experience it seems at the same time ..
The market flooded with players .. PC gaming as you know was rather niche till Wow pushed it over the edge ..
I still do not understand the Solo in an MMO mindset , but i certainly understand the financial success that the demographic delivers and could not be ignored..
Oh, that's an easy one to answer, most other people suck, especially in an anonymous setting, (hmm, sort of like here) which is why soloing is so popular.
In the real world people are almost always more polite, especially to me at least but then that's due to possible consequences.
People suck online when they don't know anything about each other. Which is usually the case.
This forum has been pretty good in the last year, but it's smaller and we've gotten to know each other to some degree. Hell, some of you even defended me when I got perma-banned a while ago. (Thank you.)
But look at the common MMORPG. Player group with players whose names they don't know. They know they'll likely not see them again. And players treat others, in this situation, like a set of statistics. Because that's all they are to them.
And that's the real problem.
Then maybe this community should put some real effort into jumping into the next big MMORPG (*full*) release together and try to avoid experiencing it with randoms as much as possible?
Not chiding anyone, just airing a suggestion. It could help folks get more out of the experience.
On paper, this is sound. I'm noticing that many businesses are deciding to "cater to" what they believe is half their customers consumers. They believe that the loudest crowd is a majority when in fact a very small minority is. Wild Star demonstrated this well
As most are saying, there needs to be a good mix
all I'm saying is that if you get the group size right, you don't have to choose. In eso people regularly solo/duo 4 man dungeons even the vet ones. 3 three man group is simply difficult content for a solo player in many cases. It might not be efficient but it can be done.
this also doesnt prevent you from having larger groups of 6 or 9 but they are still multiples of three for select content.
if you want the most bang for your buck in a largely casual environment, there is no other groupsize that will work as well.
According to psychological theory, the perfect group size for MMORPGs is 5, not 3.
You've probably heard of Dunbar's number (148, often rounded up to 150)? This is the number of people that an individual can track the relationships of, or in other words, the size of an average friendship group for an individual.
The number pops up a lot in nature and history, including being roughly the average number of friends someone has on facebook, the average size of a village throughout history. I believe this number also comes up as the average guild size.
Well, Dunbar's number is just one in a sequence:
1 - yourself
2 - you and your best friend
5 - you and your closest friends (your clique....or click if ur american)
25 - you and your main circle of friends
150 - you, your friends and your acquaintances.
The sequence continues with larger numbers too, though I can never remember the larger values....except 50,000, which is the average size of a "state" i think.
You also see these numbers pop up a lot, typically in military structures. It has nothing to do with capabilities, role or functionality, it is purely down to the way the human brain has evolved to deal with personal relationships.
For my money, the main reason against a 3 man group size is simply player preference. Assuming you have combat roles - which i would hope you would if ur building an RPG - then there is zero chance that players will like each role equally.
If you've built a game based on the trinity, but only have 3 man groups, then you're asking 66% of your players to play roles that are usually unpopular. That'll never happen. If you go up to 4 man groups, then its only 50%, 5 man groups only 40%, 6 man groups only 33%.
Your options for making a 3 man group work is to either design entirely new combat roles which you hope would be liked equally - highly unlikely - or make the combat roles irrelevant, so that group composition doesn't matter. The second option has worked very well for online shooters, but it would mean your roleplaying game has less roleplaying in it, which is bad.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
It doesn't have anything to do with psychology but now I see where they go wrong over and over. Your trusting in some dudes shitty science and not your own common sense.
three is just more efficient.
1) three is easier to make a group than 5
2) a dungeon made for 5-6 people is most likely useless to a solo/duo player(s) as challenging content regardless of how skilled they are. Very inefficient content development.
3) i did make a new way to play to compensate. I call it situational mitigation where you role is dynamic based on what your fighting and centers around tanking, dps, and crowd control. Each player has all these things in different ways, but they don't always work depending on what your fighting.
this way you play all roles, just not at the same time, which is the trick to it. Sometimes youll have to dps, sometimes crowd control and sometimes tank. You don't have to change your character either, just change the enemy..
these problems dont go away by doing the same things over and over. Ask yourself this: Why is it that a fighter is better at tanking a magic user? Should common sense dictate that another magic user would be better equipped to defend against someone like themselves. The whole tank/dps/healer theme isn't even logical if you think about it.
The fighter should be the worst off against a magic user. In my model when you fight a wizard you send your wizard to keep them busy while the others slow him down and take him out.
Casuals and there solo attitudes has done unrepairable damage to the MMO genre ..
Casuals aren't the ones that adapted MMORPGs to suit solo play. That was done by those that provide them, and is where the blame belongs if anywhere.
Those that chose to solo before that did so without any accommodation and thus damaged nothing.
Someone has no idea how we got where we are
That would be the one believing those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them.
So you are saying that Devs have not changed there approach on how content is delivered to its consumer ..
History will disagree with as well as common sense ..
All of the MMOs that defined the genre had the VAst majority of there content made for groups ..
UO, AC AO , DAOC Wow , EQ , EQ2 .. . All were primarily built for groups .. it was not until after EQ2 launch and Wow , that you began to see the cries for solo content in MMOs..
And as devs at that point beginning with Wow began to track player data thru there games that they began to cater to the Solo experience ..
After the all games began to develop content and spend more resources on Solo content because of the community outcries for SOlo content and the data trackers in game ..
So yes "those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them."
IS exactly correct .. They do however control it thru there actions and how they spend there money .. common sense stuff here and just regular business..
But this is just smart business as at the same time the big money began to pay attention and jump into the MMO game and of course they all want to develop for and capture as much of the Solo demographic as they do the group/ raid community ..
The devs that provide the product were creating for a community that was screaming out for solo content and still do to this day, effecting the development of every game..
Never let facts and history get in the way of your perceived truth ...
Thats how we got where we are ..
I think you have to go one step farther, and ask *why* gamers want solo content.
That's the real problem.
Yea , it's a really strange thing to me , I am a group oriented player , i seek out players of like interest and goals and work towards them ..
I do not really get the mindset of a person wanting to enter an MMO and SOLO , its like they want a chat window while they game is all ..
But as someone that began investing in the Industry in the late 90s , and hold shares in near every major Pub today still... I understand how Dev/Pub chased the money and got here .. And it played out much as i described above .
A big part of the solo push came thru Wow , when it took off to mainstream and many ,primary console players began migrating to Wow and other MMOs , wanting to get in the craze but also wanting there Solo console experience it seems at the same time ..
The market flooded with players .. PC gaming as you know was rather niche till Wow pushed it over the edge ..
I still do not understand the Solo in an MMO mindset , but i certainly understand the financial success that the demographic delivers and could not be ignored..
Oh, that's an easy one to answer, most other people suck, especially in an anonymous setting, (hmm, sort of like here) which is why soloing is so popular.
In the real world people are almost always more polite, especially to me at least but then that's due to possible consequences.
People suck online when they don't know anything about each other. Which is usually the case.
This forum has been pretty good in the last year, but it's smaller and we've gotten to know each other to some degree. Hell, some of you even defended me when I got perma-banned a while ago. (Thank you.)
But look at the common MMORPG. Player group with players whose names they don't know. They know they'll likely not see them again. And players treat others, in this situation, like a set of statistics. Because that's all they are to them.
And that's the real problem.
Then maybe this community should put some real effort into jumping into the next big MMORPG (*full*) release together and try to avoid experiencing it with randoms as much as possible?
Not chiding anyone, just airing a suggestion. It could help folks get more out of the experience.
Sure, Have at it. And hopefully they'll all play about the same amount, so they can level up together.
You know what they say: "The family that levels together stays together."
It doesn't have anything to do with psychology but now I see where they go wrong over and over. Your trusting in some dudes shitty science and not your own common sense.
three is just more efficient.
1) three is easier to make a group than 5
2) a dungeon made for 5-6 people is most likely useless to a solo/duo player(s) as challenging content regardless of how skilled they are. Very inefficient content development.
3) i did make a new way to play to compensate. I call it situational mitigation where you role is dynamic based on what your fighting and centers around tanking, dps, and crowd control. Each player has all these things in different ways, but they don't always work depending on what your fighting.
this way you play all roles, just not at the same time, which is the trick to it. Sometimes youll have to dps, sometimes crowd control and sometimes tank. You don't have to change your character either, just change the enemy..
these problems dont go away by doing the same things over and over. Ask yourself this: Why is it that a fighter is better at tanking a magic user? Should common sense dictate that another magic user would be better equipped to defend against someone like themselves. The whole tank/dps/healer theme isn't even logical if you think about it.
The fighter should be the worst off against a magic user. In my model when you fight a wizard you send your wizard to keep them busy while the others slow him down and take him out.
That is logical.
As any parents out there would tell you, 3 is a terrible number, one child always ends up getting left out or ganged up on by the other 2.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It doesn't have anything to do with psychology but now I see where they go wrong over and over. Your trusting in some dudes shitty science and not your own common sense.
three is just more efficient.
1) three is easier to make a group than 5
2) a dungeon made for 5-6 people is most likely useless to a solo/duo player(s) as challenging content regardless of how skilled they are. Very inefficient content development.
3) i did make a new way to play to compensate. I call it situational mitigation where you role is dynamic based on what your fighting and centers around tanking, dps, and crowd control. Each player has all these things in different ways, but they don't always work depending on what your fighting.
this way you play all roles, just not at the same time, which is the trick to it. Sometimes youll have to dps, sometimes crowd control and sometimes tank. You don't have to change your character either, just change the enemy..
these problems dont go away by doing the same things over and over. Ask yourself this: Why is it that a fighter is better at tanking a magic user? Should common sense dictate that another magic user would be better equipped to defend against someone like themselves. The whole tank/dps/healer theme isn't even logical if you think about it.
The fighter should be the worst off against a magic user. In my model when you fight a wizard you send your wizard to keep them busy while the others slow him down and take him out.
That is logical.
As any parents out there would tell you, 3 is a terrible number, one child always ends up getting left out or ganged up on by the other 2.
they wouldn't be left out if they played this game since its a 3 man group. Instead they would learn to work together as a team. Then they could go harass and torment other children as a unit.
Nothing wrong with a three but it seems a bit limited? Three man dungeons in Lotro were good but limited for example.
Its only limited if you use the traditional trinity. I prefer a model where your role is variable and thus you are expected to do more with your character.
i.e you fight a mage and your mage has to tank, fighter and rogue dps/crowd control. fight a berserker and your fighter has to tank, rogue and and mage dps/crowd control.
you dont need as many people when you use this strategy which is naturally more complex and requires better group teamwork to pull off since you have to know when to do what more so than in traditional trinity games where you take your role for granted.
additionally we want to move the pvp aspect of "class balancing" away from player class x vs player class y and move it over to the enemies which can be adjusted on the fly and require no nerfing processes in most cases.
Nothing wrong with a three but it seems a bit limited? Three man dungeons in Lotro were good but limited for example.
Its only limited if you use the traditional trinity. I prefer a model where your role is variable and thus you are expected to do more with your character.
i.e you fight a mage and your mage has to tank, fighter and rogue dps/crowd control. fight a berserker and your fighter has to tank, rogue and and mage dps/crowd control.
you dont need as many people when you use this strategy which is naturally more complex and requires better group teamwork to pull off since you have to know when to do what more so than in traditional trinity games where you take your role for granted.
additionally we want to move the pvp aspect of "class balancing" away from player class x vs player class y and move it over to the enemies which can be adjusted on the fly and require no nerfing processes in most cases.
You are proposing a single omni-class design which would have advantages as you said, but disadvantages as well.
Many players do not welcome such complexity, preferring to specialize in only a few areas where they can excel.
People who compete and win Decathlons are truly great athletes, yet few of them would even place in the individual event competitions with most not even bothering to try.
Yes, it's possible to be a master level "Jack of all Trades" but it just isn't the best way to maximize human performance hence the specialization we see in every walk of work or life.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Nothing wrong with a three but it seems a bit limited? Three man dungeons in Lotro were good but limited for example.
Its only limited if you use the traditional trinity. I prefer a model where your role is variable and thus you are expected to do more with your character.
i.e you fight a mage and your mage has to tank, fighter and rogue dps/crowd control. fight a berserker and your fighter has to tank, rogue and and mage dps/crowd control.
you dont need as many people when you use this strategy which is naturally more complex and requires better group teamwork to pull off since you have to know when to do what more so than in traditional trinity games where you take your role for granted.
additionally we want to move the pvp aspect of "class balancing" away from player class x vs player class y and move it over to the enemies which can be adjusted on the fly and require no nerfing processes in most cases.
You are proposing a single omni-class design which would have advantages as you said, but disadvantages as well.
Many players do not welcome such complexity, preferring to specialize in only a few areas where they can excel.
People who compete and win Decathlons are truly great athletes, yet few of them would even place in the individual event competitions with most not even bothering to try.
Yes, it's possible to be a master level "Jack of all Trades" but it just isn't the best way to maximize human performance hence the specialization we see in every walk of work or life.
but the thing is that your just as specialized as with the other theme except now instead of being specialized for tank/dps/support you are now specialized in magic/physical/situational.
so its no different i just changed the focus. Your not a master of all things nor a jack of all trades. You just need to know your enemy now because like before your good at one thing and not so good at the others.
sometimes, depending on the enemy, your best suited to tank since maybe your defense is good but offense ineffective like a mage vs mage battle. Othertimes your defense is no good but your offense is good i.e mage vs fighter. And still other times neither your defense nor your offense is effective but your your support might be.
so you see you still specialize like before the only difference is when to deploy what. Smaller group is preferable in this regard because there is now alot to learn. You need to know your enemies strengths and weaknesses and that might be easy if your battling a wizard but what about creatures where its not so obvious or havent encountered before.
You will actually have to play the game, not mindlessly do one task and dodge when red circle comes.
Casuals and there solo attitudes has done unrepairable damage to the MMO genre ..
Casuals aren't the ones that adapted MMORPGs to suit solo play. That was done by those that provide them, and is where the blame belongs if anywhere.
Those that chose to solo before that did so without any accommodation and thus damaged nothing.
Someone has no idea how we got where we are
That would be the one believing those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them.
So you are saying that Devs have not changed there approach on how content is delivered to its consumer ..
History will disagree with as well as common sense ..
All of the MMOs that defined the genre had the VAst majority of there content made for groups ..
UO, AC AO , DAOC Wow , EQ , EQ2 .. . All were primarily built for groups .. it was not until after EQ2 launch and Wow , that you began to see the cries for solo content in MMOs..
And as devs at that point beginning with Wow began to track player data thru there games that they began to cater to the Solo experience ..
After the all games began to develop content and spend more resources on Solo content because of the community outcries for SOlo content and the data trackers in game ..
So yes "those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them."
IS exactly correct .. They do however control it thru there actions and how they spend there money .. common sense stuff here and just regular business..
But this is just smart business as at the same time the big money began to pay attention and jump into the MMO game and of course they all want to develop for and capture as much of the Solo demographic as they do the group/ raid community ..
The devs that provide the product were creating for a community that was screaming out for solo content and still do to this day, effecting the development of every game..
Never let facts and history get in the way of your perceived truth ...
Thats how we got where we are ..
I think you have to go one step farther, and ask *why* gamers want solo content.
That's the real problem.
There is "solo content" and "combat." I don't need others to craft, thank you very much. I don't need others to fish. I never want to be "with another" 100% of the time.
Combat is another can of worms. I want tough and challenging opponents that may require some help, but not every single encounter.
Remember, "playing with others" is NOT the same as "tied at the hip with others." I certainly don't need anyone to hold my hand 100% of my time online, even in a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.
You make it sound like a "sin" to NOT interact with every other player one comes into contact with. Is this your point?
Sorry if this sounds snippish.
I'm all for finding others naturally through social interaction through a game. I detest the practice of placing artificial barriers to herd me into any kind of activity. (Yea, I have a problem with authority lol)
Do you interact with everyone you meets in real life? I certainly don't, or even feel the need to. Maybe I'm the weird one? (DON'T answer that! )
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Casuals and there solo attitudes has done unrepairable damage to the MMO genre ..
Casuals aren't the ones that adapted MMORPGs to suit solo play. That was done by those that provide them, and is where the blame belongs if anywhere.
Those that chose to solo before that did so without any accommodation and thus damaged nothing.
Someone has no idea how we got where we are
That would be the one believing those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them.
So you are saying that Devs have not changed there approach on how content is delivered to its consumer ..
History will disagree with as well as common sense ..
All of the MMOs that defined the genre had the VAst majority of there content made for groups ..
UO, AC AO , DAOC Wow , EQ , EQ2 .. . All were primarily built for groups .. it was not until after EQ2 launch and Wow , that you began to see the cries for solo content in MMOs..
And as devs at that point beginning with Wow began to track player data thru there games that they began to cater to the Solo experience ..
After the all games began to develop content and spend more resources on Solo content because of the community outcries for SOlo content and the data trackers in game ..
So yes "those with no direct control over MMORPGs are the ones responsible for the state of them."
IS exactly correct .. They do however control it thru there actions and how they spend there money .. common sense stuff here and just regular business..
But this is just smart business as at the same time the big money began to pay attention and jump into the MMO game and of course they all want to develop for and capture as much of the Solo demographic as they do the group/ raid community ..
The devs that provide the product were creating for a community that was screaming out for solo content and still do to this day, effecting the development of every game..
Never let facts and history get in the way of your perceived truth ...
Thats how we got where we are ..
I think you have to go one step farther, and ask *why* gamers want solo content.
That's the real problem.
There is "solo content" and "combat." I don't need others to craft, thank you very much. I don't need others to fish. I never want to be "with another" 100% of the time.
Combat is another can of worms. I want tough and challenging opponents that may require some help, but not every single encounter.
Remember, "playing with others" is NOT the same as "tied at the hip with others." I certainly don't need anyone to hold my hand 100% of my time online, even in a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.
You make it sound like a "sin" to NOT interact with every other player one comes into contact with. Is this your point?
Sorry if this sounds snippish.
I'm all for finding others naturally through social interaction through a game. I detest the practice of placing artificial barriers to herd me into any kind of activity. (Yea, I have a problem with authority lol)
Do you interact with everyone you meets in real life? I certainly don't, or even feel the need to. Maybe I'm the weird one? (DON'T answer that! )
with a three man group configuration most/all content is theoretically soloable. Whether that is possible for an individual player would depend on skills and experience and likely easier to just get some help.
So your not forced to group in this model but you shouldn't expect it to be easy either should you choose to go it alone.
Some foes you can take down individually, some you need the help of an army.
My complaint is that mmorpg’s do not feel like worlds. They feel like juvenile playgrounds.
Imho
interestingly one of the best "worlds" ive played is Valheim. The procedural generation and biome/island system makes it feel like a world.
in most games that are handcrafted you dont really get the same feeling. I think a hybrid model might actually work best with procedural generation ( for a massive world) but handcrafted points of interest like cities etc.
Every server /world would be different but the same.
Some foes you can take down individually, some you need the help of an army.
My complaint is that mmorpg’s do not feel like worlds. They feel like juvenile playgrounds.
Imho
interestingly one of the best "worlds" ive played is Valheim. The procedural generation and biome/island system makes it feel like a world.
in most games that are handcrafted you dont really get the same feeling. I think a hybrid model might actually work best with procedural generation ( for a massive world) but handcrafted points of interest like cities etc.
Every server /world would be different but the same.
I agree
I think Developers are designing playgrounds and not worlds. That is what the market is demanding from them.
My complaint is that mmorpg’s do not feel like worlds. They feel like juvenile playgrounds.
Not all of them though. I have found enough that do (like EVE or Foxhole). The big themeparks don't.
Plus no matter how much I also personally claim that I want worlds, I did have lots of fun in GW2 which doesn't feel much like one. Variety is the spice of life and all that I guess.
I've played around with foxhole a little bit, love the premise. A problem I have with a lot of community games is that my playtime is erratic, it is very difficult for me to organize my personal time beyond a couple days
My complaint is that mmorpg’s do not feel like worlds. They feel like juvenile playgrounds.
Not all of them though. I have found enough that do (like EVE or Foxhole). The big themeparks don't.
Plus no matter how much I also personally claim that I want worlds, I did have lots of fun in GW2 which doesn't feel much like one. Variety is the spice of life and all that I guess.
I've played around with foxhole a little bit, love the premise. A problem I have with a lot of community games is that my playtime is erratic, it is very difficult for me to organize my personal time beyond a couple days
The good thing with Foxhole is that you can put in as much as you want in that game. You can be part of a squad that does big ops that span many hours or even days, or you can jump in jump out and still contribute and have a quick session of fun, by doing a little logi, or shooting in the frontline. And you can still watch from the sidelines even if you do not log in to get that feeling of the living war by watching https://www.foxholestats.com/. It's fun getting pinged by some of your squadmates while offline that you managed to cap that area that you were fighting on or you were defending a few hours back.
The info dump that happens in chat and on the map is so intense that you can find out within seconds where you can go and contribute. And the organic grouping up by just showing up is just brilliant.
I'm a fanboy.
that is the kind of endgame I would envision for casual pve fantasy mmos especially being able to "just drop in" and do things to help but in a more pve oriented way.
I find it funny that people in this thread cannot even decide about who the current games of the genre cater for. Half of them say that it is overrun by solos and casuals, the other half says that it has "forced grouping".
There's enough games and gameplay loops for both. My guess is that the representatives of both sides just want new games that cater to them in order to find a new home.
Take WoW for example.
All the strong power rewards are locked behind forced grouping activities(Or boosts if you are willing to spend enough gold to buy mythic raid carries)
Meanwhile all the "casual" and "solo" content gives worthless rewards that are not only 30 ilvls below max power, they were timegated for 3 months at launch because they were scared the elitists would moan about having to do casual content.
What matters is not if the modes exist, it is about being treated the same way, and you see that based on the rewards the content has.
If the best power rewards come solely from forced grouping content and casual solo rewards are trash in comparison, you have a game that mainly caters to forced grouping and considers other forms of play an afterthought and inferior.
i dont consider group finders to be a good idea
for mmos. They have huge unnecessary overhead on the server and they
are not generally conducive to making friends. Often they are terrible
at bringing the right people together
I completely agree, group finder does not help with making friends.
Thing is I dont give a damn about making friends, I want to do the content to get the reward.
The
other players are just a means to an end, stop imagining people want to
socialize and want to make friends as their main priority in an mmo,
that isnt why we play mmos
Comments
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
this also doesnt prevent you from having larger groups of 6 or 9 but they are still multiples of three for select content.
if you want the most bang for your buck in a largely casual environment, there is no other groupsize that will work as well.
That's the real problem.
Once upon a time....
In the real world people are almost always more polite, especially to me at least but then that's due to possible consequences.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
you may continue to Solo your See-Saw
This forum has been pretty good in the last year, but it's smaller and we've gotten to know each other to some degree.
Hell, some of you even defended me when I got perma-banned a while ago. (Thank you.)
But look at the common MMORPG. Player group with players whose names they don't know. They know they'll likely not see them again.
And players treat others, in this situation, like a set of statistics. Because that's all they are to them.
And that's the real problem.
Once upon a time....
Not chiding anyone, just airing a suggestion. It could help folks get more out of the experience.
three is just more efficient.
1) three is easier to make a group than 5
2) a dungeon made for 5-6 people is most likely useless to a solo/duo player(s) as challenging content regardless of how skilled they are. Very inefficient content development.
3) i did make a new way to play to compensate. I call it situational mitigation where you role is dynamic based on what your fighting and centers around tanking, dps, and crowd control. Each player has all these things in different ways, but they don't always work depending on what your fighting.
this way you play all roles, just not at the same time, which is the trick to it. Sometimes youll have to dps, sometimes crowd control and sometimes tank. You don't have to change your character either, just change the enemy..
these problems dont go away by doing the same things over and over. Ask yourself this: Why is it that a fighter is better at tanking a magic user? Should common sense dictate that another magic user would be better equipped to defend against someone like themselves. The whole tank/dps/healer theme isn't even logical if you think about it.
The fighter should be the worst off against a magic user. In my model when you fight a wizard you send your wizard to keep them busy while the others slow him down and take him out.
That is logical.
And hopefully they'll all play about the same amount, so they can level up together.
You know what they say:
"The family that levels together stays together."
Once upon a time....
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
i.e you fight a mage and your mage has to tank, fighter and rogue dps/crowd control. fight a berserker and your fighter has to tank, rogue and and mage dps/crowd control.
you dont need as many people when you use this strategy which is naturally more complex and requires better group teamwork to pull off since you have to know when to do what more so than in traditional trinity games where you take your role for granted.
additionally we want to move the pvp aspect of "class balancing" away from player class x vs player class y and move it over to the enemies which can be adjusted on the fly and require no nerfing processes in most cases.
Many players do not welcome such complexity, preferring to specialize in only a few areas where they can excel.
People who compete and win Decathlons are truly great athletes, yet few of them would even place in the individual event competitions with most not even bothering to try.
Yes, it's possible to be a master level "Jack of all Trades" but it just isn't the best way to maximize human performance hence the specialization we see in every walk of work or life.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
so its no different i just changed the focus. Your not a master of all things nor a jack of all trades. You just need to know your enemy now because like before your good at one thing and not so good at the others.
sometimes, depending on the enemy, your best suited to tank since maybe your defense is good but offense ineffective like a mage vs mage battle. Othertimes your defense is no good but your offense is good i.e mage vs fighter. And still other times neither your defense nor your offense is effective but your your support might be.
so you see you still specialize like before the only difference is when to deploy what. Smaller group is preferable in this regard because there is now alot to learn. You need to know your enemies strengths and weaknesses and that might be easy if your battling a wizard but what about creatures where its not so obvious or havent encountered before.
You will actually have to play the game, not mindlessly do one task and dodge when red circle comes.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
So your not forced to group in this model but you shouldn't expect it to be easy either should you choose to go it alone.
My complaint is that mmorpg’s do not feel like worlds. They feel like juvenile playgrounds.
Imho
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
in most games that are handcrafted you dont really get the same feeling. I think a hybrid model might actually work best with procedural generation ( for a massive world) but handcrafted points of interest like cities etc.
Every server /world would be different but the same.
I think Developers are designing playgrounds and not worlds. That is what the market is demanding from them.
Business supplies what the market demands.
Rivers find the easiest path to the ocean.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee