Convenience is the biggest casual factor in MMORPG. When you no longer have to interact with other players to do anything is what makes MMORPG community no longer exist. Excluding the outside factors such as VoIP.
Do you feel Asheron's Call, ATITD, Puzzle Pirates, and UO communities "didn't exist" or were "bad communities"?
Of the ones that I played, yes. Those games had interdependency though.
Yes .. and it looks like players like (or even love0 competitive gaming to the extent that they have no problem with toxic communities (or even like it).
That's an entirely different type of game and community from MMOs. Competitive, aggressive games have competitive, aggressive communities, which is fine, but the same attitude rapidly decays social and cooperative communities such as those in MMOs.
This!
When the sole objective of the game is to kill enemy players, a community that hates everyone outside of their group works. Just like in pvp when you /dance on the corpse of a slain enemy.
However, in forced-grouping games, you want friends and lots of them.
Forced grouping is one form of interdependency. Easy because most players come to games for combat. Troublesome when this activity is limited because of inability to find a group. If you make groups automated you defeat the purpose of forced grouping.
I'm always appalled by people who seem to need to be forced to interact with other players. A quite frequent trait of EQ players...
Exactly. Those games had fantastic communities and no forced grouping or forced interaction at all.
It's been said a dozen times but "forced grouping" is the best moniker for this. It's not that players in forced-grouping games are so against grouping that they must be forced. It's that to take down most content, and even to do daily activities, you need a group.
Seriously, noone would play a forced grouping game if they were against grouping and had to be forced.
"Required grouping" doesn't carry the meaning as well and "Suggested grouping" doesn't fit the bill.
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug. 12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
It's not that communities in older games had better player. It's the fact that they existed. Most games now there is no community because there is no interdependency. There have always been ass holes in MMORPG since I first started in the mid 90's.
Forced grouping is one form of interdependency. Easy because most players come to games for combat. Troublesome when this activity is limited because of inability to find a group. If you make groups automated you defeat the purpose of forced grouping.
I think SWG had it right when you had interdependency in trade, crafting, player towns and long term healing. Grouping to take down tougher foes. It's a more natural approach.
I agree with what you are saying however, you must admit there is a certain element who would scream that those situations where it takes grouping to confront tougher foes is "forced grouping".
I say there can be solo content for those who want to solo and group content for those tough encounters. Group content shouldn't be considered solo content by definition and thus shouldn't be called 'forced grouping'. If someone doesn't want to play group content, then they should simply ignore it.
If someone has a need to be a completionist then they must do group content rather than complain that it isn't solo content. They could also change their definition of complete.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I agree with what you are saying however, you must admit there is a certain element who would scream that those situations where it takes grouping to confront tougher foes is "forced grouping".
I would say .. ignore them. If they can't realize that they don't have to play a game if it is not fun, it is their problem, not ours.
There are some negative things that happen when grouping that will still make grouping a negative experience for some people. Personalities that don't play well with others, people with less then optimum builds getting kicked or causing the group to die, people who have to leave because the baby started crying, the group wanting to play for another two hours when you were ready to leave an hour ago, etc.
You want people in groups who like to group. Forced grouping means having people who are grouping mostly because they have to. Some people just like to play alone sometimes.
I seen most of this in past, even in ffxi. But eventually you just pick up a new member from group finder and get back to xping
Im 100% agree with OP, I really miss hours of open world xp parties.
Yes .. and it looks like players like (or even love0 competitive gaming to the extent that they have no problem with toxic communities (or even like it).
That's an entirely different type of game and community from MMOs. Competitive, aggressive games have competitive, aggressive communities, which is fine, but the same attitude rapidly decays social and cooperative communities such as those in MMOs.
Who says all MMOs need or have social & cooperative communities. World of Tank clearly does not. It is a competitive and some what aggressive game (although you do play in teams, but no different than LoL).
The problem with forced grouping is simply that you have to have certain roles in order in your group in order to progress. The issue is not with forced grouping but how the trinity gameplay and combat mechanics are used. The solution is to redefine the tank role and allow players to have other defensive means that would be acted as utility or support to help them you and your group alive. If you would like to check out the solution to forced grouping but still encourage grouping view my "Reinventing the Trinity Gameplay thread here: http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/442172/reinventing-the-trinity-gameplay#latest
The problem with forced grouping is simply that you have to have certain roles in order in your group in order to progress.
Not true for games like World of Tank. Everyone controls a tank. There is no other roles.
sigh, World of Tanks is not an MMORPG...it's an MMO for sure but not an MMORPG...I hope you can see the distinction.
Yes. So? We are talking about MMOs, not MMORPGs.
Let me quote the first sentence of the FIRST post in this topic:
"Do you think forced-grouping for decent experience-gain would be acceptable in a modern MMO if the game had a cross-server dungeon finder as a counter-balance to open-world parties*."
Games with "forced" grouping (like e.g. EQ1) will never work again since people now know better. It only worked back then because there was little alternative. With todays large choice of games, if people are forced to do something they don't enjoy, they will simply go play another game.
It will never work again for those who are are opposed to mandatory grouping to the point of crossing their particular threshold of participation. I don't think it can be claimed that all post eq1 players are players of a monolithic anti grouping mindset
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
The fact that people discussing massively multiplayer online games now refer to multiplayer gameplay and content as "forced grouping", is really indicative of exactly how far this genre has fallen.
The fact that people discussing massively multiplayer online games now refer to multiplayer gameplay and content as "forced grouping", is really indicative of exactly how far this genre has fallen.
The people have changed - look around you, people are glued to their smartphones, tablets etc... people text each other instead of talking even in the same room sometimes.
Games are a reflection of the current player, it's not the genere that had fallen, it's the players who have lost interest in interacting like they did 15 years ago.
Nope. Its just about chasing the almighty dollar. People have been emulating the game that made megabucks for a decade, and I can tell you people did not change that much between '98 and '04. There also hasn't been a new game resembling those of the first gen in over a decade.
Meanwhile, the games that have changed with the modern player are losing players faster than ever, so there goes that theory.
IMO if grouping is forced then the game was not meant to be group based.
Grouping should happen naturally in mmos, but the system should definitely be group friendly/focused.
^Pretty much this. Build the entire MMO around it, advertise it honestly for what it is, and the players who like that kind of stuff will play it.
Just don't expect to have a massive player base. It'd be more of a niche game.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
The fact that people discussing massively multiplayer online games now refer to multiplayer gameplay and content as "forced grouping", is really indicative of exactly how far this genre has fallen.
Er, the term came from the EQ message boards, you know. So did the idea that leveling should be considerably faster.
Exactly why Blizzard "won" in 2004. Their new game corrected or ameliorated many of the things Everquest players most commonly complained about.
The fact that people discussing massively multiplayer online games now refer to multiplayer gameplay and content as "forced grouping", is really indicative of exactly how far this genre has fallen.
You mean "risen beyond the shackles of the originally limited design"?
It is just a matter of perspective. If a lot of people don't like grouping, change it.
Plus, it is not monolithic. A lot of people like team e-sports .. that clearly requires group play.
The fact that people discussing massively multiplayer online games now refer to multiplayer gameplay and content as "forced grouping", is really indicative of exactly how far this genre has fallen.
Er, the term came from the EQ message boards, you know. So did the idea that leveling should be considerably faster.
Exactly why Blizzard "won" in 2004. Their new game corrected or ameliorated many of the things Everquest players most commonly complained about.
In the years I played EQ, I never heard anyone complain about group content or the inability to solo. Its like going to the beach and complaining about the sand.
I don't even care at this point that MMOs are designed around single player content. If there are people who enjoy that, good on them. What is troubling is the continual propagation of the lie that MMOs can't succeed when designed around multiplayer content and people citing WoW and all the games that emulated them to prove it.
Trends might change, but people don't. The genre simply adapted to make their games "more accessible" or to make more money. There is no reason to prove that "forced grouping can work if", because it has worked fine and will work again once good games actually start utilizing that design.
Again, modern games do not prove anyone has changed because they are floundering (outside of WoW, which is down to only a few million). Of course more people played mmos in 2005 than in 1999; In 1999, most people didn't even have an internet connection.
If you have to "force" your gameplay elements onto your playerbase even though they would rather play differently, it's time to go back to the drawingboard. You are either targeting the wrong audience or your game design is not up to par.
In any case, players will play in whatever way they feel like playing. If you take that possibility away from them, many of them will simply leave.
So the dicussion should rather be about encouraged grouping, where grouping is both fun and rewarding, but not mandatory. If you are making a grouping oriented game and targeting the right niche, the majority will want to group anyway. Thus no force needed in the first place.
Even with encouraging grouping people are not going to go out of their way to do it. I want to give a SWTOR example. If you are in a group doing the H2's and you complete the bonus mission that grants you 10k credits. When you complete it, you get 10k, when your party members complete it, you ALSO get 10k. so 4 party members complete the bonus mission you get 40k total.
It also worked with the EXP. If you earned 500 exp for the bonus, you got 500 for each person completing it also. This makes it so the bonus mission, in a 4 man group, was worth 2k exp. Odd, since most people race to the "finish line" in most MMO's why wouldn't they group, it is faster.
I pointed this out to the members in my guild. Most of them had no clue, so my wife and I invited two others to prove it to them. They were astounded that they never noticed that before.
Play what you Like. I like SWOTR, Have a referral to get you going! --> http://www.swtor.com/r/nBndbs <-- Several Unlocks and a few days game time to make the F2P considerably easier
@mrrshann618 Problem is people do difference quests and not same one . That's one part i dislike about quests as leveling tools. You can't group in those quests hub game without lost something . Grouping in those game like punishment than reward.
You ask why most people don't group in most new MMO ? Difference object (quests) Difference power (gears , level , skill) Difference real life time (login time)
It's hard to group with people you know , and it's impossible with people you meet one or 2 time.
Jean-Luc_Picard said: Proof being that all the games who attempted to emulate those old, tedious and boring mechanics since 2004 have all failed. Because players, even old timers like me and many others, know better now. And given the choice, which they didn't have back then, they will play a FUN game where they aren't forced into one specific play style.
It's good to talk about. It's even fun to relive for a while.
But those mechanics disappeared for good reasons. The 1999 servers would be sufficient, otherwise.
Why drink the third-generation watered down milk when you can still go back and eat the original cow?
There also hasn't been a new game resembling those of the first gen in over a decade.
Proof being that all the games who attempted to emulate those old, tedious and boring mechanics since 2004 have all failed. Because players, even old timers like me and many others, know better now. And given the choice, which they didn't have back then, they will play a FUN game where they aren't forced into one specific play style.
Arent you tired of throwing this strawman out and having it obliterated yet. There has been no games like EQ since EQ. Even Vanguard was drastically modernized after a horrific launch.
If you have to "force" your gameplay elements onto your playerbase even though they would rather play differently, it's time to go back to the drawingboard. You are either targeting the wrong audience or your game design is not up to par.
Absolutely .. is that try Trammel was created for UO? Or EQ2 so different from EQ?
Forced grouping will work, but only if there's enough people to support it.
It also depends on the content, such as groups, raids, open-world events, etc...
If it's open-world and questing, it usually doesn't work, because people do not want to waste time for trivial activities such as those, where the rewards are worse than instanced content.
Comments
When the sole objective of the game is to kill enemy players, a community that hates everyone outside of their group works. Just like in pvp when you /dance on the corpse of a slain enemy.
However, in forced-grouping games, you want friends and lots of them.
It's been said a dozen times but "forced grouping" is the best moniker for this. It's not that players in forced-grouping games are so against grouping that they must be forced. It's that to take down most content, and even to do daily activities, you need a group.
Seriously, noone would play a forced grouping game if they were against grouping and had to be forced.
"Required grouping" doesn't carry the meaning as well and "Suggested grouping" doesn't fit the bill.
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug.
12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
I agree with what you are saying however, you must admit there is a certain element who would scream that those situations where it takes grouping to confront tougher foes is "forced grouping".
I say there can be solo content for those who want to solo and group content for those tough encounters. Group content shouldn't be considered solo content by definition and thus shouldn't be called 'forced grouping'. If someone doesn't want to play group content, then they should simply ignore it.
If someone has a need to be a completionist then they must do group content rather than complain that it isn't solo content. They could also change their definition of complete.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Im 100% agree with OP, I really miss hours of open world xp parties.
Let me quote the first sentence of the FIRST post in this topic:
"Do you think forced-grouping for decent experience-gain would be acceptable in a modern MMO if the game had a cross-server dungeon finder as a counter-balance to open-world parties*."
The OP said "modern MMO", not "modern MMORPG".
Meanwhile, the games that have changed with the modern player are losing players faster than ever, so there goes that theory.
Just don't expect to have a massive player base. It'd be more of a niche game.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
Exactly why Blizzard "won" in 2004. Their new game corrected or ameliorated many of the things Everquest players most commonly complained about.
It is just a matter of perspective. If a lot of people don't like grouping, change it.
Plus, it is not monolithic. A lot of people like team e-sports .. that clearly requires group play.
I don't even care at this point that MMOs are designed around single player content. If there are people who enjoy that, good on them. What is troubling is the continual propagation of the lie that MMOs can't succeed when designed around multiplayer content and people citing WoW and all the games that emulated them to prove it.
Trends might change, but people don't. The genre simply adapted to make their games "more accessible" or to make more money. There is no reason to prove that "forced grouping can work if", because it has worked fine and will work again once good games actually start utilizing that design.
Again, modern games do not prove anyone has changed because they are floundering (outside of WoW, which is down to only a few million). Of course more people played mmos in 2005 than in 1999; In 1999, most people didn't even have an internet connection.
You are either targeting the wrong audience or your game design is not up to par.
In any case, players will play in whatever way they feel like playing. If you take that possibility away from them, many of them will simply leave.
So the dicussion should rather be about encouraged grouping, where grouping is both fun and rewarding, but not mandatory.
If you are making a grouping oriented game and targeting the right niche, the majority will want to group anyway. Thus no force needed in the first place.
It also worked with the EXP. If you earned 500 exp for the bonus, you got 500 for each person completing it also. This makes it so the bonus mission, in a 4 man group, was worth 2k exp. Odd, since most people race to the "finish line" in most MMO's why wouldn't they group, it is faster.
I pointed this out to the members in my guild. Most of them had no clue, so my wife and I invited two others to prove it to them. They were astounded that they never noticed that before.
--> http://www.swtor.com/r/nBndbs <--
Several Unlocks and a few days game time to make the F2P considerably easier
Problem is people do difference quests and not same one . That's one part i dislike about quests as leveling tools.
You can't group in those quests hub game without lost something . Grouping in those game like punishment than reward.
You ask why most people don't group in most new MMO ?
Difference object (quests)
Difference power (gears , level , skill)
Difference real life time (login time)
It's hard to group with people you know , and it's impossible with people you meet one or 2 time.
But those mechanics disappeared for good reasons. The 1999 servers would be sufficient, otherwise.
Why drink the third-generation watered down milk when you can still go back and eat the original cow?
"Trends might change, but (some) people don't."
None. Zero. Zilch.
It also depends on the content, such as groups, raids, open-world events, etc...
If it's open-world and questing, it usually doesn't work, because people do not want to waste time for trivial activities such as those, where the rewards are worse than instanced content.