They both have a ton of group content to go along with it. I think the balance between solo and group content is decent for being themeparks. LOTRO is as much an MMO as any game out right now because it promotes community. You can't have a LOTR MMO and not feature story. And making story content group content is not going to work in any MMO because it would put a very low ceiling on how long that content would be relevant in the lifespan of the MMO. Imagine SWTOR quests being group right now....good luck in that 30 hour queue.
@ikcin Do you know what a "Megaserver" is? It is the use of multiple servers to handle the job of one.... it is about increasing the amount of concurrent players and splitting the load across multiple servers with transferring of data between them. So all players CAN play together. EVE was actually a pioneer in this area. Eve cannot handle a 20,000 person battle. Hell at 2000 they need notice and it needs to be scheduled so they can alot the resources to the server load for that area.
6-DVT was 4000 people in one system and was a slideshow. I know I was in TEST at the time and part of the battle.
Please just stop. Come back when you are more educated on both the tech and the concepts you are trying to argue. I am done speaking with you on this matter as you are obviously unwilling to budge on your ideas. Discussion is pointless with you.
Not again. Just because you like grouping doesn't mean everyone else does, or that they should be forced to do so. People play the way they play and it's up to them, that's the definition of choice which is what an MMO is supposed to be. You will just have to deal with it.
That's the thing, isn't it? MMOs are "Massively Multiplayer" games. The choice comes when one installs the "Massively Multiplayer" game on their "entertainment device" (PCs, consoles, mobiles).
Would you "expect" a wonderful single player experience in PUBG or Fortnite? There are tons of single player games (RPG, ARPG, FPS, TPS, RTS, TBS, etc) that do "single player" better than any multiplayer game ever will. Why? They're built that way from the very foundation.
It's tough for me to wrap my head around a player thinking, "I want to play a single player game." and then clicking that MMO launcher. I do understand that some IPs in the MMO genre are good, but many already have single player games available, too.
"The Choice" should come not within the game, but rather before the player clicks that launcher, right?
Now, to reiterate, I agree that solo activities should be available, but there is a difference between doing things solo while interacting with others and ignoring all the other players as if they don't exist. I think that all MMOs (I have not played them all) have grouping available, but some entice grouping better than others.
@TheScavenger has a good point that even within a group, the quest dialogue is about one player, not the group. That is a single player foundation, in my mind.
It's kind of sad that @Theocritus is right that WoW gives players what they want, and what that seems to be is a solo experience in an MMO, with the obvious exception of raids. Where is the logic here?
I'm not a proponent of "forced grouping" where a player must be in a group from when they set foot in the starting zone all the way through to the end game in order to survive, but isn't there a happy medium here? Players do not need to be in a group to interact with others. Sometimes, grouping can limit the interaction to 4 to 8 players only, shutting out all of the other players not in a specific group.
Maybe some "expectations" need to be adjusted? Single Player does not equate well to MMO, even though that seems to be what the majority of players desire. :shrug:
The trick is - when you play a singlelayer game, you cannot feel part of a community. The people are social animals. They need other people. But to feel part of a community and to be part of a community are two very different things.
Players play multiplayer games for that often delusional feeling. They imagine that the other players will appreciate their efforts, skills and achievements. In the most cases nobody cares. Even in games like LoL - which are not solo friendly.
It is a delusion. At the same time the solo players do not want to be in a group, to compete, to depend on the others, to cooperate, to be rushed, or even insulted. They like the illusion of a solo RPG, but placed into multiplayer world, where they could have the delusion of a community.
This is my explanation why people, who obviously do not want to play multiplayer go into MMOs. This is the main player base of WoW.
And it is very different in games like L2, where you are actually part of a community. Your guild is more important than you as a player. There your skills, efforts and achievements in the game are really appreciated by the other players, because what you do helps to the guild. And the main focus of the game is the guild vs guild competition and cooperation.
Forced grouping will make you social? Here's a hint... if people don't want to be social they won't be. You can't force anything because this is the real world and the players live in it. You can group but not say a word. Grouping doesn't make you social, using the chat channels makes you social, it just makes it an aggravating requirement that makes it difficult to play. Forced grouping just means that you are forced to do as the group does. In what world do people LIKE being forced to do anything? If people liked being forced to group, there'd be alot more grouping without being forced to group and this would be a nonexistent conversation.
How can the creator of the term MMORPG and his first game be solo combat centric? That is if MMORPG must be forced group combat. The only game that was really solo unfriendly was EQ.
@ikcin Do you know what a "Megaserver" is? It is the use of multiple servers to handle the job of one.... it is about increasing the amount of concurrent players and splitting the load across multiple servers with transferring of data between them. So all players CAN play together. EVE was actually a pioneer in this area. Eve cannot handle a 20,000 person battle. Hell at 2000 they need notice and it needs to be scheduled so they can alot the resources to the server load for that area.
6-DVT was 4000 people in one system and was a slideshow. I know I was in TEST at the time and part of the battle.
Please just stop. Come back when you are more educated on both the tech and the concepts you are trying to argue. I am done speaking with you on this matter as you are obviously unwilling to budge on your ideas. Discussion is pointless with you.
6-VDT? Please, that is so 2013..CCP has considerably ramped up their game since 2016.
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 think the fundamental flaw in most mmos is that, if you have a level 104 wolf and a level 104 drake, they are equally powerful. To create an immersive world and to let players choose whether they want to solo or not, this needs to change.
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
I think the fundamental flaw in most mmos is that, if you have a level 104 wolf and a level 104 drake, they are equally powerful. To create an immersive world and to let players choose whether they want to solo or not, this needs to change.
Indeed, and ESO changed that.
A level X wolf his for less and has less life than a level X mammoth, for instance.
Also, animals in ESO don't drop weapons and armor, just body parts (bones, guts, pelts, etc...).
The fundamental threshold for me is whether you can solo both of them or you can solo one of them but not the other. That's the point where mmos should expand imo.
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
I think the fundamental flaw in most mmos is that, if you have a level 104 wolf and a level 104 drake, they are equally powerful. To create an immersive world and to let players choose whether they want to solo or not, this needs to change.
Indeed, and ESO changed that.
A level X wolf his for less and has less life than a level X mammoth, for instance.
Also, animals in ESO don't drop weapons and armor, just body parts (bones, guts, pelts, etc...).
The fundamental threshold for me is whether you can solo both of them or you can solo one of them but not the other. That's the point where mmos should expand imo.
One reason I support horizontal progression. You tend to have to use challenge to differentiate NPCs.
If NPCs were just blocks you could probably not tell them apart in combat. Most NPCs require no different strategies. EQ did a good job of making sure some NPCs were just tough. Like a group with a healer sucked.
I think the fundamental flaw in most mmos is that, if you have a level 104 wolf and a level 104 drake, they are equally powerful. To create an immersive world and to let players choose whether they want to solo or not, this needs to change.
Indeed, and ESO changed that.
A level X wolf his for less and has less life than a level X mammoth, for instance.
Also, animals in ESO don't drop weapons and armor, just body parts (bones, guts, pelts, etc...).
The fundamental threshold for me is whether you can solo both of them or you can solo one of them but not the other. That's the point where mmos should expand imo.
One reason I support horizontal progression. You tend to have to use challenge to differentiate NPCs.
If NPCs were just blocks you could probably not tell them apart in combat. Most NPCs require no different strategies. EQ did a good job of making sure some NPCs were just tough. Like a group with a healer sucked.
I think the fundamental flaw in most mmos is that, if you have a level 104 wolf and a level 104 drake, they are equally powerful. To create an immersive world and to let players choose whether they want to solo or not, this needs to change.
Indeed, and ESO changed that.
A level X wolf his for less and has less life than a level X mammoth, for instance.
Also, animals in ESO don't drop weapons and armor, just body parts (bones, guts, pelts, etc...).
The fundamental threshold for me is whether you can solo both of them or you can solo one of them but not the other. That's the point where mmos should expand imo.
At low level, you'll be able to easily kill the standard wolf but you'll have trouble with the dire wolf boss where you will most likely need help. Then you gain abilities, better stats, the dire wolf becomes killable. And of course you have the many world bosses and events meant for groups.
Most World Bosses can be solo easily as well as 95% of the over world content , ESO scaling is terrible and has trivialized most of there own content
The best gear you can get in WoW is locked behind instantiated group content, I would not say that is a solo game.
If you are talking about the open world content then yes its a solo game.
Maybe its time to rethink why have a persistent world in modern themeparks, if the real deal happens inside instances, phase the open world and let me pick a difficult then.
I log into Discord and the game at the end of the night, after the famn damily are all in bed, and usually fall asleep (I refer to this phenomena as neck snapping) while trying to read quests, so it doesn't really matter to me if I'm in Skyrim or WoW.....
We can agree on what makes a game a "role playing game", we can agree what is defined as "online", what no one can seem to agree on is what is considered "Massively"
10 players?
100 players?
1000 players?
10,000+ players?
...and are the numbers overall on one server? across multiple servers? All in one area? or spread out through out the game? Honestly i think the phrase massively should just go away, there is no definition anyone can agree on.
Your argument is flawed. An MMO is an MMO if it allows a massive amount of players to play TOGETHER concurrently. If you don't like the style because people are playing together in a world, but not in groups, that is YOUR issue. The MMO portion is still working, and it creates a more living world.
Your logic is flawed. You are basically arguing that a car is no longer a car when it is in park.
The best gear you can get in WoW is locked behind instantiated group content, I would not say that is a solo game.
If you are talking about the open world content then yes its a solo game.
Maybe its time to rethink why have a persistent world in modern themeparks, if the real deal happens inside instances, phase the open world and let me pick a difficult then.
They want to limit MMO's to being those that require grouping to even level up.
We can agree on what makes a game a "role playing game", we can agree what is defined as "online", what no one can seem to agree on is what is considered "Massively"
10 players?
100 players?
1000 players?
10,000+ players?
...and are the numbers overall on one server? across multiple servers? All in one area? or spread out through out the game? Honestly i think the phrase massively should just go away, there is no definition anyone can agree on.
It would be nice to see a day the distinction is no longer needed at all. A day when even FPSs like CoD employ something like a seamless match transition that works to help keep fights from becoming zerging nade fests but still allows the players to move about freely in an open, interactive world that sees them joining firefights organically.
At that point, all multiplayer will have the potential to be "massive," and we won't even need an extra acronym or genre.
We can agree on what makes a game a "role playing game", we can agree what is defined as "online", what no one can seem to agree on is what is considered "Massively"
10 players?
100 players?
1000 players?
10,000+ players?
...and are the numbers overall on one server? across multiple servers? All in one area? or spread out through out the game? Honestly i think the phrase massively should just go away, there is no definition anyone can agree on.
No, roleplayers and immersion players have been a minority for years when it comes to the size of the player base. So hardly any left to argue the point about what an RPG is. Don't worry in the future there will be so few players who have played a Massive game that no one will be arguing the point on that one either.
10 Player will be Massively because that's all they have ever played.
We can agree on what makes a game a "role playing game", we can agree what is defined as "online", what no one can seem to agree on is what is considered "Massively"
10 players?
100 players?
1000 players?
10,000+ players?
...and are the numbers overall on one server? across multiple servers? All in one area? or spread out through out the game? Honestly i think the phrase massively should just go away, there is no definition anyone can agree on.
It would be nice to see a day the distinction is no longer needed at all. A day when even FPSs like CoD employ something like a seamless match transition that works to help keep fights from becoming zerging nade fests but still allows the players to move about freely in an open, interactive world that sees them joining firefights organically.
At that point, all multiplayer will have the potential to be "massive," and we won't even need an extra acronym or genre.
Indeed, if you say the current WoW is a MMO, so every multiplayer games is such. Only an OW game with multiplayer PvE or/and FFA PvP could be a MMO.
Thats in no way or shape what he is saying, but you already know that
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
lets go to the meat of the problem with that.you have to have someone on the same quests as YOU.for example in ffxiv.there is a room where a quest giver is,basically an instance.when it first came out that room was crowded as everyone has the same quest,if you were on a different,you had a different instance.now if you do the quest ,as i have with alts.no one is on the room.so you would constantly have to look for new people to do the quest.a nightmare.you view is 100% unworkable.
lets go to the meat of the problem with that.you have to have someone on the same quests as YOU.for example in ffxiv.there is a room where a quest giver is,basically an instance.when it first came out that room was crowded as everyone has the same quest,if you were on a different,you had a different instance.now if you do the quest ,as i have with alts.no one is on the room.so you would constantly have to look for new people to do the quest.a nightmare.you view is 100% unworkable.
Murdered by commas
They have an extension for browsers that works great, called Grammarly.
“The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
―
George Carlin
They are designed with a solo only player in mind. You do quests, and (if you read the quest text, but it even happens when its voiced) its almost always about YOU and not the group or multiple people. On top of that, as an example of another problem, in WoW there are many cutscenes that don't even involve the player despite that your character is supposed to be there right in the same room or area (anduin entering lordaeron throneroom for example and the burning of the world tree).
The narrative is designed with the player's character as the focus, but the game has plenty of group focus, which one can easily see if playing at or near the top levels where the majority of the population resides. Narrative focus doesn't define game focus, nor does it make a MMORPG a single player game.
They are designed with a solo only player in mind. You do quests, and (if you read the quest text, but it even happens when its voiced) its almost always about YOU and not the group or multiple people. On top of that, as an example of another problem, in WoW there are many cutscenes that don't even involve the player despite that your character is supposed to be there right in the same room or area (anduin entering lordaeron throneroom for example and the burning of the world tree).
The narrative is designed with the player's character as the focus, but the game has plenty of group focus, which one can easily see if playing at or near the top levels where the majority of the population resides. Narrative focus doesn't define game focus, nor does it make a MMORPG a single player game.
Sorry, but the existence of multiplayer parts does not make any game MMO. WoW is massive. WoW has multiplayer instances. But WoW is not massively multiplayer, so MMO. When the players do their singleplayer quest chains - this is not a multiplayer gameplay.
And back to acting it is, how disappointing. As if you really believe the rubbish you write... The whole world disagrees with you, literally, go check every article about WoW and what genre it belongs to. Wouldn't it be fun if you would try to correct them all on their stance of what an MMORPG really is and you would then post the feedback you would get here? I for one am really curious as to how industry professionals would respond to your reasoning and accompanying results.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
They are designed with a solo only player in mind. You do quests, and (if you read the quest text, but it even happens when its voiced) its almost always about YOU and not the group or multiple people. On top of that, as an example of another problem, in WoW there are many cutscenes that don't even involve the player despite that your character is supposed to be there right in the same room or area (anduin entering lordaeron throneroom for example and the burning of the world tree).
The narrative is designed with the player's character as the focus, but the game has plenty of group focus, which one can easily see if playing at or near the top levels where the majority of the population resides. Narrative focus doesn't define game focus, nor does it make a MMORPG a single player game.
Sorry, but the existence of multiplayer parts does not make any game MMO. WoW is massive. WoW has multiplayer instances. But WoW is not massively multiplayer, so MMO. When the players do their singleplayer quest chains - this is not a multiplayer gameplay.
And back to acting it is, how disappointing. As if you really believe the rubbish you write... The whole world disagrees with you, literally, go check every article about WoW and what genre it belongs to. Wouldn't it be fun if you would try to correct them all on their stance of what an MMORPG really is and you would then post the feedback you would get here? I for one am really curious as to how industry professionals would respond to your reasoning and accompanying results.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Industry professionals don't have time for this rubbish , even we don't have time for it. It is total rubbish but he goes on spouting it like it's the truth. Is it the disease of our times you think that you can go on saying something completely untrue enough times that you manage to convince yourself absolutely.
They are designed with a solo only player in mind. You do quests, and (if you read the quest text, but it even happens when its voiced) its almost always about YOU and not the group or multiple people. On top of that, as an example of another problem, in WoW there are many cutscenes that don't even involve the player despite that your character is supposed to be there right in the same room or area (anduin entering lordaeron throneroom for example and the burning of the world tree).
The narrative is designed with the player's character as the focus, but the game has plenty of group focus, which one can easily see if playing at or near the top levels where the majority of the population resides. Narrative focus doesn't define game focus, nor does it make a MMORPG a single player game.
Sorry, but the existence of multiplayer parts does not make any game MMO. WoW is massive. WoW has multiplayer instances. But WoW is not massively multiplayer, so MMO. When the players do their singleplayer quest chains - this is not a multiplayer gameplay.
And back to acting it is, how disappointing. As if you really believe the rubbish you write... The whole world disagrees with you, literally, go check every article about WoW and what genre it belongs to. Wouldn't it be fun if you would try to correct them all on their stance of what an MMORPG really is and you would then post the feedback you would get here? I for one am really curious as to how industry professionals would respond to your reasoning and accompanying results.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Industry professionals don't have time for this rubbish , even we don't have time for it. It is total rubbish but he goes on spouting it like it's the truth. Is it the disease of our times you think that you can go on saying something completely untrue enough times that you manage to convince yourself absolutely.
Falls into the same logic category as people who try to argue subscription only games are "P2W" because.....they require you to pay a sub in order to play at all.
Is OK, some folks truly believe the Earth is flat, even in this day and age, though I feel these contrarian attempts to redefine commonly accepted terms are the modern equivalent of George Orwell's "New Speak."
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
Comments
https://www.eveonline.com/article/tranquility-tech-3/
"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
If NPCs were just blocks you could probably not tell them apart in combat. Most NPCs require no different strategies. EQ did a good job of making sure some NPCs were just tough. Like a group with a healer sucked.
If you are talking about the open world content then yes its a solo game.
Maybe its time to rethink why have a persistent world in modern themeparks, if the real deal happens inside instances, phase the open world and let me pick a difficult then.
Gut Out!
What, me worry?
Your logic is flawed. You are basically arguing that a car is no longer a car when it is in park.
At that point, all multiplayer will have the potential to be "massive," and we won't even need an extra acronym or genre.
10 Player will be Massively because that's all they have ever played.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
― George Carlin
Gut Out!
What, me worry?
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Is OK, some folks truly believe the Earth is flat, even in this day and age, though I feel these contrarian attempts to redefine commonly accepted terms are the modern equivalent of George Orwell's "New Speak."
"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