Thus supporting my contention of them being antisocial groupers.
nope .. it supports the contention of them being antisocial .. they can be antisocial soloers as well as antisocial groupers.
I think it supports the fact that MMO's simply aren't being made with the groupers in mind. The MMO's with the solo content are the most popular because.. well.. have you seen any grouping focused game? I think people chose Balanced for the same reason I did - they want to group but the games don't let them or don't allow them to often enough, so they end up with a forced balanced gameplay.
Yes, all MOBAs require playing in teams of 5?
Yes, because MOBA's are MMORPGs. Narius, you're killin me man, you're usually better than this...
And yet no one is talking about MMORPGs .. if you actually *read* the post I am responding to .. it said "MMO", not MMORPGs.
Am i mistaken in thinking people actually cares about definitions? Or may be you should read more carefully.
Balanced I guess. I think it depends mostly on the game and if my rl friends play it too. Playing with rl friends, we tend to pick up strays too I'm always active within the community though. If not through grouping, then at least through trade and chat.
Thus supporting my contention of them being antisocial groupers.
nope .. it supports the contention of them being antisocial .. they can be antisocial soloers as well as antisocial groupers.
I think it supports the fact that MMO's simply aren't being made with the groupers in mind. The MMO's with the solo content are the most popular because.. well.. have you seen any grouping focused game? I think people chose Balanced for the same reason I did - they want to group but the games don't let them or don't allow them to often enough, so they end up with a forced balanced gameplay.
Yes, all MOBAs require playing in teams of 5?
Yes, because MOBA's are MMORPGs. Narius, you're killin me man, you're usually better than this...
And yet no one is talking about MMORPGs .. if you actually *read* the post I am responding to .. it said "MMO", not MMORPGs.
Am i mistaken in thinking people actually cares about definitions? Or may be you should read more carefully.
Explain to me what is massive about 10 people in an instanced matching battling it out?
And please don't pull the "there are 600k other people doing it at the same time so thats massive" card. The core tenet of these games when they came out was to have hundreds if not thousands of people on the same server interacting together.
By your definition of massive we could have defined starcraft, quake, battlefield, call of duty, etc etc etc, as an MMO. Also, the term MMO has always been used as an abbreviation of MMORPG. It wasn't until spinsters and suits started trying to redefine the term so they could label their game an MMO in an ill fated attempt to generate more sales.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Explain to me what is massive about 10 people in an instanced matching battling it out?
Nothing .. MMOs have not been massive for a long time. Otherwise World of Tank would not have been called a MMO by so many reviewers.
Lemming Effect on full display.
Nothing to see here.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Yes, because MOBA's are MMORPGs. Narius, you're killin me man, you're usually better than this...
And yet no one is talking about MMORPGs .. if you actually *read* the post I am responding to .. it said "MMO", not MMORPGs.
Am i mistaken in thinking people actually cares about definitions? Or may be you should read more carefully.
I think we're all talking about MMORPG's, except for you. When I log on to a site called MMORPG.com I generally expect people to be talking about MMORPG's.
Oh no... you can't complete some of the Dynamics Events without a group? Now we have the other argument of being FORCED to group.
The whole 'forced to group' argument has arisen because of the massive ability to now solo in MMO's. I'm of the mindset that a multiplayer game is designed for people to play together, be it an FPS, a MOBA or Chess Online. You don't log in to a game like Team Fortress expecting to be able to solo a bunch of mobs for fun - no, you join it to fight with and against other players. Multi Player.
With the rise of soloing in MMORPG's, people now argue that their solo playstyle is the correct way and they don't want to be FORCED into grouping. But surely that's the whole point of making a multiplayer game in the first place, so people could get together to face challenges, etc. If you could solo the whole game why would the developers of that game bother making it online in the first place? It would work just as well as a single player game.
If you don't want a game that expects you to work with or against other players, don't buy a multiplayer game.
Yes, because MOBA's are MMORPGs. Narius, you're killin me man, you're usually better than this...
And yet no one is talking about MMORPGs .. if you actually *read* the post I am responding to .. it said "MMO", not MMORPGs.
Am i mistaken in thinking people actually cares about definitions? Or may be you should read more carefully.
I think we're all talking about MMORPG's, except for you. When I log on to a site called MMORPG.com I generally expect people to be talking about MMORPG's.
Not when the the post i am responding to say "MMO". Not when the game list on this site not only says "All MMO Games", but it clearly lists MMOs that are MOBAs, and instanced games.
Sure you can pretend to just talk about MMORPGs .. but let's face it .. are you serious telling me MOBAs, e-sports, Diablo, and other instanced games never come up in this forum .... aside from my posts of course?
Oh no... you can't complete some of the Dynamics Events without a group? Now we have the other argument of being FORCED to group.
The whole 'forced to group' argument has arisen because of the massive ability to now solo in MMO's. I'm of the mindset that a multiplayer game is designed for people to play together, be it an FPS, a MOBA or Chess Online. You don't log in to a game like Team Fortress expecting to be able to solo a bunch of mobs for fun - no, you join it to fight with and against other players. Multi Player.
With the rise of soloing in MMORPG's, people now argue that their solo playstyle is the correct way and they don't want to be FORCED into grouping. But surely that's the whole point of making a multiplayer game in the first place, so people could get together to face challenges, etc. If you could solo the whole game why would the developers of that game bother making it online in the first place? It would work just as well as a single player game.
If you don't want a game that expects you to work with or against other players, don't buy a multiplayer game.
Sigh...
no shit..
pretty aware of the cards being played here.
Maybe you should take the time to read some of the post by those who really enjoy the solo play in MMO's. Some folks made some great arguments.
Yes, because MOBA's are MMORPGs. Narius, you're killin me man, you're usually better than this...
And yet no one is talking about MMORPGs .. if you actually *read* the post I am responding to .. it said "MMO", not MMORPGs.
Am i mistaken in thinking people actually cares about definitions? Or may be you should read more carefully.
I think we're all talking about MMORPG's, except for you. When I log on to a site called MMORPG.com I generally expect people to be talking about MMORPG's.
Not when the the post i am responding to say "MMO". Not when the game list on this site not only says "All MMO Games", but it clearly lists MMOs that are MOBAs, and instanced games.
Sure you can pretend to just talk about MMORPGs .. but let's face it .. are you serious telling me MOBAs, e-sports, Diablo, and other instanced games never come up in this forum .... aside from my posts of course?
MMO covers all game styles. Unless there is an Unusalwiki that redefines what MMO means which happens a lot on these boards.
I'm in the first group. I think people should be able to play how they like.
In a perfect world. The problem is, if soloing is the order of the day for the majority of the playerbase, then people who enjoy grouping can't play how they like.
I'm in the first group. I think people should be able to play how they like.
In a perfect world. The problem is, if soloing is the order of the day for the majority of the playerbase, then people who enjoy grouping can't play how they like.
Why?
As long as there are enough people who can form one group (how many? 5, 25? ... that is a drop in the bucket in the millions and millions of players), they can play in a group.
Even 1% of the player base is a lot. Unless of course you mean they want to group with people who want to solo. And no, they cannot force their preferences on others ... and I do not see a compeling reason why they want to play with people who don't like to play with them.
I'm in the first group. I think people should be able to play how they like.
In a perfect world. The problem is, if soloing is the order of the day for the majority of the playerbase, then people who enjoy grouping can't play how they like.
Honestly, in most MMORPGs it's not an "either/or."
It's a "solo til cap, then group."
Endgame functions are, by and large, group events in MMORPGs. Hell, even the more general term "MMO." MOBAs are group PvP exclusively (save for practice modes, but those don't really count in the grand scheme of things).
Soloing through the level grind is the order of the day. Once endgame hits, grouping becomes the order of the day. And I don't really see a large enough segment of players complaining about it to think it will change significantly in the future. 40-man raids? Sure. They're unwieldy. Grouping content? Nah. It'll be the order of the day for endgame for a while yet.
In a perfect world. The problem is, if soloing is the order of the day for the majority of the playerbase, then people who enjoy grouping can't play how they like.
How is that? How is a demographic that wasn't involved in the grouping activity going to affect it. The pool of players available to group is 'x'. Soloers aren't in set x so it doesn't matter if they play or not.
By that logic we could say that having pve is harmful to pvp, but that assumes the pve exclusive player would ever play full on non-consensual pvp. That is unlikely. That doesn't mean there are any fewer people for pvp players to gank and own.
See the controlling group wants exclusive domain over the entertainment. If someone isn't going to play their way, by their rules, the way they think others should, then those people shouldn't be allowed to play at all. They don't really want that though because they, as a demographic, can't afford to subsidize the set of games they like. They just want them to shut up and do it their way.
As I said in another post, I chose Balanced because games don't allow me to be a grouper. Just having the ability to group isn't enough, I can gather 5 guys around to help me change a lightbulb but it doesn't make sense to do so. Same principle with current games, everything is so ridiculously easy to do solo it simply doesn't make sense to create a group.
The difference between pvp and pve is those two things can happen at the same time - you can continue levelling and doing quests or you can go to the pvp area and fight other players. Great. This doesn't happen with soloing and grouping, as both happen in the pve areas. If the vast majority of content is stupidly easy as a solo player then grouping simply doesn't happen, as much as people might want it to.
So people interested in grouping have to wait until the game lets them play their way, which certainly isn't often. Even when it does, those dungeons or raids are also timelocked, meaning they get to indulge their interest perhaps once per dungeon every few days.
Same principle with current games, everything is so ridiculously easy to do solo it simply doesn't make sense to create a group.
Obviously you have not played greater rifts in D3 ... because it is ridiculously hard .. and people have to synerize in high level group GR.
And before you say it is not a MMO .. close enough .. a 4-man instanced dungeon in D3 is very different from popular instanced dungeons in "true" MMORPGs.
Comments
And yet no one is talking about MMORPGs .. if you actually *read* the post I am responding to .. it said "MMO", not MMORPGs.
Am i mistaken in thinking people actually cares about definitions? Or may be you should read more carefully.
as much as yesterday, and the day before?
Without beating the dead horse, there will be little to do here.
Explain to me what is massive about 10 people in an instanced matching battling it out?
And please don't pull the "there are 600k other people doing it at the same time so thats massive" card. The core tenet of these games when they came out was to have hundreds if not thousands of people on the same server interacting together.
By your definition of massive we could have defined starcraft, quake, battlefield, call of duty, etc etc etc, as an MMO. Also, the term MMO has always been used as an abbreviation of MMORPG. It wasn't until spinsters and suits started trying to redefine the term so they could label their game an MMO in an ill fated attempt to generate more sales.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Nothing .. MMOs have not been massive for a long time. Otherwise World of Tank would not have been called a MMO by so many reviewers.
Lemming Effect on full display.
Nothing to see here.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I think we're all talking about MMORPG's, except for you. When I log on to a site called MMORPG.com I generally expect people to be talking about MMORPG's.
The whole 'forced to group' argument has arisen because of the massive ability to now solo in MMO's. I'm of the mindset that a multiplayer game is designed for people to play together, be it an FPS, a MOBA or Chess Online. You don't log in to a game like Team Fortress expecting to be able to solo a bunch of mobs for fun - no, you join it to fight with and against other players. Multi Player.
With the rise of soloing in MMORPG's, people now argue that their solo playstyle is the correct way and they don't want to be FORCED into grouping. But surely that's the whole point of making a multiplayer game in the first place, so people could get together to face challenges, etc. If you could solo the whole game why would the developers of that game bother making it online in the first place? It would work just as well as a single player game.
If you don't want a game that expects you to work with or against other players, don't buy a multiplayer game.
Not when the the post i am responding to say "MMO". Not when the game list on this site not only says "All MMO Games", but it clearly lists MMOs that are MOBAs, and instanced games.
Sure you can pretend to just talk about MMORPGs .. but let's face it .. are you serious telling me MOBAs, e-sports, Diablo, and other instanced games never come up in this forum .... aside from my posts of course?
Sigh...
no shit..
pretty aware of the cards being played here.
Maybe you should take the time to read some of the post by those who really enjoy the solo play in MMO's. Some folks made some great arguments.
MMO covers all game styles. Unless there is an Unusalwiki that redefines what MMO means which happens a lot on these boards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game
· 1 History
· 2 Virtual economies
· 3 Game types
In a perfect world. The problem is, if soloing is the order of the day for the majority of the playerbase, then people who enjoy grouping can't play how they like.
Why?
As long as there are enough people who can form one group (how many? 5, 25? ... that is a drop in the bucket in the millions and millions of players), they can play in a group.
Even 1% of the player base is a lot. Unless of course you mean they want to group with people who want to solo. And no, they cannot force their preferences on others ... and I do not see a compeling reason why they want to play with people who don't like to play with them.
Honestly, in most MMORPGs it's not an "either/or."
It's a "solo til cap, then group."
Endgame functions are, by and large, group events in MMORPGs. Hell, even the more general term "MMO." MOBAs are group PvP exclusively (save for practice modes, but those don't really count in the grand scheme of things).
Soloing through the level grind is the order of the day. Once endgame hits, grouping becomes the order of the day. And I don't really see a large enough segment of players complaining about it to think it will change significantly in the future. 40-man raids? Sure. They're unwieldy. Grouping content? Nah. It'll be the order of the day for endgame for a while yet.
As I said in another post, I chose Balanced because games don't allow me to be a grouper. Just having the ability to group isn't enough, I can gather 5 guys around to help me change a lightbulb but it doesn't make sense to do so. Same principle with current games, everything is so ridiculously easy to do solo it simply doesn't make sense to create a group.
The difference between pvp and pve is those two things can happen at the same time - you can continue levelling and doing quests or you can go to the pvp area and fight other players. Great. This doesn't happen with soloing and grouping, as both happen in the pve areas. If the vast majority of content is stupidly easy as a solo player then grouping simply doesn't happen, as much as people might want it to.
So people interested in grouping have to wait until the game lets them play their way, which certainly isn't often. Even when it does, those dungeons or raids are also timelocked, meaning they get to indulge their interest perhaps once per dungeon every few days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOS2Mfyfwhc
That reminds me of GW2's Breach event. It opens up when the event starts and everyone jumps in like that. lol.
Obviously you have not played greater rifts in D3 ... because it is ridiculously hard .. and people have to synerize in high level group GR.
And before you say it is not a MMO .. close enough .. a 4-man instanced dungeon in D3 is very different from popular instanced dungeons in "true" MMORPGs.