How about the tanking/healing abilities that grouping requires. I haven't seen an MMO where those two abilities weren't the corner stone of grouping. Generally, people don't like to play tanks or healers and there will always be high demand for those two classes: higher demand than that can be met. So how does the OP explain overcoming that? A 100% grouping game will absolutely suck if people can't play due to one or both of those classes not being available. People will find it extremely unfun to have to wait around.
Back in EvE. Started with BatMUD. Main MMOs have been EvE and DAoC.
How about the tanking/healing abilities that grouping requires. I haven't seen an MMO where those two abilities weren't the corner stone of grouping. Generally, people don't like to play tanks or healers and there will always be high demand for those two classes: higher demand than that can be met. So how does the OP explain overcoming that? A 100% grouping game will absolutely suck if people can't play due to one or both of those classes not being available. People will find it extremely unfun to have to wait around.
I'd like to see something in the likes of everyone is able to heal and tank, that's right absolutely everyone. For healing there would be something akin to bandages (Not in the form we know it from WoW) or healing kits. Tanking would require you to switch to heavier armor that would slow your movement and attack speed or something other in the vicinity.
There would of course have to be a bit of balancing or everyone would both be tanking, healing and dealing damage at the same time, and then it's only matter of time before someone does it efficiently enough to solo.
This is but an idea that would make grouping much more bearable and make everyone viable in any spot, which in turn leads to much reduced lfg-time.
How about the tanking/healing abilities that grouping requires. I haven't seen an MMO where those two abilities weren't the corner stone of grouping. Generally, people don't like to play tanks or healers and there will always be high demand for those two classes: higher demand than that can be met. So how does the OP explain overcoming that? A 100% grouping game will absolutely suck if people can't play due to one or both of those classes not being available. People will find it extremely unfun to have to wait around.
I'd like to see something in the likes of everyone is able to heal and tank, that's right absolutely everyone. For healing there would be something akin to bandages (Not in the form we know it from WoW) or healing kits. Tanking would require you to switch to heavier armor that would slow your movement and attack speed or something other in the vicinity.
There would of course have to be a bit of balancing or everyone would both be tanking, healing and dealing damage at the same time, and then it's only matter of time before someone does it efficiently enough to solo.
This is but an idea that would make grouping much more bearable and make everyone viable in any spot, which in turn leads to much reduced lfg-time.
I think this design would work quite well in a group only game.
This has been proposed as a solution to the tank, nuke, healer problem before. Give everyone the ability to tank, nuke, and heal, then you won't have to worry about finding specific classes to group with.
The problem with this usually, is that if someone can tank, heal themselves, and nuke why would they ever bother to group?
But if you make the game such that grouping is required to survive, then sure why not give every player every ability?
When you get three players together, the most efficient thing they can do is get one person to tank, one person to heal, and one person to nuke. But all they have to do is decide which person does which job, since all of them can do all three. In fact, they could switch off. I'm tired of tanking, you tank and I'll nuke for a while, and things like that. Just make it so you can't use all abilities at once.
This just seems like a stupid idea, i mean why make a game 100% grouping? Do you dislike people who solo? Do you dislike the fact that people perfer to play the game differently then you? You sound more upset about the fact that people like to solo then i do about a game that doesnt offer choice.
Your "choice" takes the fun out of the game for me
you must not play many MMORPGs if you dont like games with choice.
I'll try again. What if someone liked playing say a First Person Shooter.
And you said, you know, not everyone is good at aiming with a mouse and key board. Let's make the First Person shooter a game with more choices, and give people the choice to use auto aim.
That way even people without good aim could play the game, and it would be a much better game, because there would be more choice!
Don't you think FPS fans would say, that "choice" kinda ruins the game for me?
Or let's take a gaem like WoW that had raiding. What if someone said, you know, I'm not really into raiding so much. The game should have more choices. How about I can just pay 15 bucks to get any raid item I want? The the game would be so much better, because there would be more choices! Right?
Your "choice" is to choose to make the game no fun for me. Why would I want to adovocate for that choice? You certainly wouldn't want me to "choose" to make your game no fun for you would you?
your examples are the worst i've ever seen. Auto aim isn't aloud in most FPSs, and if you dont like aiming with a mouse and keyboard you use a controller. If you dont like to raid you pvp, you dont pay money because that isnt a choice/option in WoW.
i dont see why both grouping and soloing content can exist. It does fine now. Asking for a 100% grouping or soloing game, implies that people who group or solo ruin the game for other people. Even in the FPSs you mention there is a solo option and a grouping/multiplayer option. This whole discussion is ridiculous.
I would like a game where I cannot solo. Tell me how you will make that game for me, and allow people to solo in it?
play any MMO on the market, and dont do ANYTHING without a group. Easy as that, if you choose to solo because its something easy, then thats your choice. If you want to group, then group. Who is holding you back?
It's like you're telling Michael Phelps if he wants a challenge tie one hand behind his back. He's not going to do that, he wants to swim as fast as he can using all the abilities available to him. I'm not going to deliberately gimp myself in a game. Taht would be retarded.
I want a game where I can't solo, and I'll do my best to complete all the content, which would be a lot of fun and a real challenge. Gimping myself just because? Seriously?
Make up your mind. Either you want to group or you don't.
I really doubt that people soloing are ruining your fun. How does that work? "Look at that bastard... Soloing... by himself... he's ruining the game!" The whole thing about soloing is that it doesn't affect anyone. It can't affect you whatsoever. This sounds like the people who blather on about how getting rid of "foreigners" in their country would remove all their problems.
How about the tanking/healing abilities that grouping requires. I haven't seen an MMO where those two abilities weren't the corner stone of grouping. Generally, people don't like to play tanks or healers and there will always be high demand for those two classes: higher demand than that can be met. So how does the OP explain overcoming that? A 100% grouping game will absolutely suck if people can't play due to one or both of those classes not being available. People will find it extremely unfun to have to wait around.
Actually if you played EQ in it's most popular days, no one had issues finding a healer and tank. What has made tanks and healers unpopular in current games IS solo. Tanks and healers just don't solo as well as the dps classes, if everyone is left to solo then tanks and healers have a slow boring time leveling up.
If they did make a group only game where tanks and healers are required as well as dps etc etc. Then since everyone will be looking for a group, there would be one giant pool to pull from. You only need outpost to meet up at. There would also be plenty of healers and tanks because if everyone is grouping their job translates to the WHOLE game not just the end of it and they are getting xp just as fast as everyone else.
I have always seen the flaw in solo and group in a game. Healers and tanks spend 99% of the game not doing what they were designed to do only to reach the top of the game 1% of it it do their job. Very flawed.
Also why do people have to call people stupid, idiots, ridiculous because they would like ONE game out there that caters to their playstyle. Would a bit of variety among MMORPGS be a bad thing? I would rather seen all kinds of MMORPGs exist for different people. This all in one for everyone is getting old. Swiss army knife of MMORPGs have a little of everything but do well at nothing.
DDO tried to be group only it failed. EQ2 tried that in the beginning, and they changed it to solo. EQ has lost tons of subscribers, and most people multibox(pretty much solo).
DDO tried to be group only it failed. EQ2 tried that in the beginning, and they changed it to solo. EQ has lost tons of subscribers, and most people multibox(pretty much solo). Do you see a pattern?
EQ lost a lot of subs after what SOE has did to that game. /shivers The game got old and it was badly expanded upon. It was the most successful Western MMO at one time. Lineage was one of the largest population based MMOs and it was group based .. the pattern only shows games get old and lose subs ..nothing more.
If a great group MMO came along that was fun and had a relatively smooth launch it could work as well. I have nothing wrong with solo based games but there is nothing wrong with group based ones either. I don't see why all the negativity towards the OP. Must every game conform to one model? I don't think everyone will enjoy every game so there should be variety.
If a great group MMO came along that was fun and had a relatively smooth launch it could work as well. I have nothing wrong with solo based games but there is nothing wrong with group based ones either. I don't see why all the negativity towards the OP. Must every game conform to one model? I don't think everyone will enjoy every game so there should be variety.
Except most of the players in the market want some solo options as shown in the success of the solo friendly game.
Sure, it may becmoe a niche success, but why cater to a small niche?
If a great group MMO came along that was fun and had a relatively smooth launch it could work as well. I have nothing wrong with solo based games but there is nothing wrong with group based ones either. I don't see why all the negativity towards the OP. Must every game conform to one model? I don't think everyone will enjoy every game so there should be variety.
Except most of the players in the market want some solo options as shown in the success of the solo friendly game.
Sure, it may becmoe a niche success, but why cater to a small niche?
I often think of it like money left on the table waiting for someone to pick it up.
I don't play WoW, and one of the main reasons is because it's too solo friendly. A solo friendly game isn't going to get my money.
But I've got money sitting on the table. I'll glady pay 14.95 for a good grouping game.
So, you're right. The majority wants the solo friendly game like WoW. But I've got 14.95 sitting on the table, and if you read this thread, I'im not alone.
Someone will eventually want to take that money since it's just sitting there and no one else wants it.
This is ridiculous. "I want a game where I can't solo" "Why don't you just do everything with a group?" "Why would I gimp myself?" Make up your mind. Either you want to group or you don't. I really doubt that people soloing are ruining your fun. How does that work? "Look at that bastard... Soloing... by himself... he's ruining the game!" The whole thing about soloing is that it doesn't affect anyone. It can't affect you whatsoever. This sounds like the people who blather on about how getting rid of "foreigners" in their country would remove all their problems.
If "that bastard" can solo, then I can solo. I want a game where I can't solo. That's how it affects me.
I'm sorry but I don't understand this at all. Why does it bother you if you have the ability to solo? I mean, I have the ability to drop my pants down to half of my ass, lose all my shirt, buy a cap and put it on backwards, listen to Soulja Boy, and then act like a wigger but I'm not going to.
Just don't do it if you don't want to.
Edit:
There really is a grouping game out there. Final Fantasy XI. There is only one class that can actually solo and even then they have a hard time with it.
If a great group MMO came along that was fun and had a relatively smooth launch it could work as well. I have nothing wrong with solo based games but there is nothing wrong with group based ones either. I don't see why all the negativity towards the OP. Must every game conform to one model? I don't think everyone will enjoy every game so there should be variety.
Except most of the players in the market want some solo options as shown in the success of the solo friendly game.
Sure, it may becmoe a niche success, but why cater to a small niche?
Because you can make a lot of money in a niche market. Take a look at the world it has very big organisations and co-existing alongside huge numbers of small enterprises catering to the tastes of the non masses. Why do they bother? Because those small enterprises make smaller groups of people a lot of money, they don't have the same costs, and more importantly the same number of backers wanting a slice of profit.
Try not to be blinkered by size being everything, it is often as important to be different, especially in a market that is over saturated with mass appeal goods.
I'm sorry but I don't understand this at all. Why does it bother you if you have the ability to solo? I mean, I have the ability to drop my pants down to half of my ass, lose all my shirt, buy a cap and put it on backwards, listen to Soulja Boy, and then act like a wigger but I'm not going to. Just don't do it if you don't want to. Edit: There really is a grouping game out there. Final Fantasy XI. There is only one class that can actually solo and even then they have a hard time with it.
Well, if you don't get it already I doubt you ever will, but I'll give it a shot.
How often would you play a game by your own made up rules just to make it harder for yourself, or more challenging, or more fun? In reality, the answer is almost never. How often would you play a game by the actual rules of the game? In reality, almost all the time.
For example, let's say someone is asking for a game with Perma Death. They COULD play WoW and delete thier character everytime they die. But they won't. They will just keep on playing the same toon, because they can, and they will still want a game with Perma Death where they cannot keep on playing and they die. They don't want the choice to delete their character. That is completely different from being careful because if you make a mistake you're dead, and there is no choice.
You're telling me the choice is just the same. you're telling me that a game with Perma Death is EXACTLY the same as if I played WoW and just chose to delete my character every time I died.
Do you see now, how what you're saying, and what I'm asking for are not the same thing?
So again, IT"S NOT ABOUT YOU. I don't care if you solo in a game all day long. That's great, hope you're having a blast doing it. I want a game where I, me, not you, cannot solo. Nothing to do with you, nothing to do with wanting you to group, forcing you to group, I absolutely don't care about YOU and what you are doing in the game. This is the hardest part for people to get for some reason.
Try D&D online 95% of the game is group only, from the beginning to end (especiallly the end). Turbine had to add some solo content becuase they were losing alot subs. The other 5% is running around buying stuff so you don't need a group to do that.
Try D&D online 95% of the game is group only, from the beginning to end (especiallly the end). Turbine had to add some solo content becuase they were losing alot subs. The other 5% is running around buying stuff so you don't need a group to do that.
DDO certainly showed that a group centric game is going to be niche, having said that its playerbase has been solid (with a bit of a surge since Turbine won a few awards), so there is a market (even if small) for group content. It also has twitch combat, complex character building and instancing which are also heavy like/dislike factors.
Try D&D online 95% of the game is group only, from the beginning to end (especiallly the end). Turbine had to add some solo content becuase they were losing alot subs. The other 5% is running around buying stuff so you don't need a group to do that.
DDO certainly showed that a group centric game is going to be niche, having said that its playerbase has been solid (with a bit of a surge since Turbine won a few awards), so there is a market (even if small) for group content. It also has twitch combat, complex character building and instancing which are also heavy like/dislike factors.
I did try DDO. I didn't like it very much. It was too unlike an MMORPG if you know what I mean. Way to isntance heavy. I did not like doing a dungeon on easy, medium, and hard. Same dungeon, different settings. You do it once on easy, then again on medium, then again on hard.
It kind of wrecks the persistence for me. I want a dungeon that is the dungeon. It's easy, or it's hard, and I will do it when I have a character and a group that's up for it. The dungeon doesn'nt change, my character and my group does. If I try the dungeon and it's to hard, I either level up, skill up, or go get help. If the dungeon is to easy, I have to go somewhere else.
If that makes sense, that's what I prefer in an MMORPG.
Try D&D online 95% of the game is group only, from the beginning to end (especiallly the end). Turbine had to add some solo content becuase they were losing alot subs. The other 5% is running around buying stuff so you don't need a group to do that.
DDO certainly showed that a group centric game is going to be niche, having said that its playerbase has been solid (with a bit of a surge since Turbine won a few awards), so there is a market (even if small) for group content. It also has twitch combat, complex character building and instancing which are also heavy like/dislike factors.
I did try DDO. I didn't like it very much. It was too unlike an MMORPG if you know what I mean. Way to isntance heavy. I did not like doing a dungeon on easy, medium, and hard. Same dungeon, different settings. You do it once on easy, then again on medium, then again on hard.
It kind of wrecks the persistence for me. I want a dungeon that is the dungeon. It's easy, or it's hard, and I will do it when I have a character and a group that's up for it. The dungeon doesn'nt change, my character and my group does. If I try the dungeon and it's to hard, I either level up, skill up, or go get help. If the dungeon is to easy, I have to go somewhere else.
If that makes sense, that's what I prefer in an MMORPG.
To me instancing and group content go together, the quest needs to be designed around the group, open zones wouldn't work. But they I expect my quests to be handcrafted and complex.
p.s. Elite is the only real setting for most quests, Normal and Hard I see as just very challenging solo content
Try D&D online 95% of the game is group only, from the beginning to end (especiallly the end). Turbine had to add some solo content becuase they were losing alot subs. The other 5% is running around buying stuff so you don't need a group to do that.
DDO certainly showed that a group centric game is going to be niche, having said that its playerbase has been solid (with a bit of a surge since Turbine won a few awards), so there is a market (even if small) for group content. It also has twitch combat, complex character building and instancing which are also heavy like/dislike factors.
I did try DDO. I didn't like it very much. It was too unlike an MMORPG if you know what I mean. Way to isntance heavy. I did not like doing a dungeon on easy, medium, and hard. Same dungeon, different settings. You do it once on easy, then again on medium, then again on hard.
It kind of wrecks the persistence for me. I want a dungeon that is the dungeon. It's easy, or it's hard, and I will do it when I have a character and a group that's up for it. The dungeon doesn'nt change, my character and my group does. If I try the dungeon and it's to hard, I either level up, skill up, or go get help. If the dungeon is to easy, I have to go somewhere else.
If that makes sense, that's what I prefer in an MMORPG.
To be instancing and group content go together, the quest needs to be designed around the group, open zones wouldn't work. But they I expect my quests to be handcrafted and complex.
p.s. Elite is the only real setting for most quests, Normal and Hard I see as just very challenging solo content
I much preferred the open world dungeons of DAoC and EQ2. I don't mind if you want to instance the Boss Mob so people don't have to wait in line to complete a quest.
It's not so much the instances I dislike as the change in settings. I didn't like this about CoH either.
I want the content to be static, not increase or decrease in difficulty depending on what I choose. It feels like clicking the "win" button. Like being on a golf course with a button that makes the hole near, far, and really far. Oh, today I'll choose near, I don't feel like trying for really far, maybe I'll do that tomorrow.
I want the course to be a set challenge to overcome.
Try D&D online 95% of the game is group only, from the beginning to end (especiallly the end). Turbine had to add some solo content becuase they were losing alot subs. The other 5% is running around buying stuff so you don't need a group to do that.
DDO certainly showed that a group centric game is going to be niche, having said that its playerbase has been solid (with a bit of a surge since Turbine won a few awards), so there is a market (even if small) for group content. It also has twitch combat, complex character building and instancing which are also heavy like/dislike factors.
I did try DDO. I didn't like it very much. It was too unlike an MMORPG if you know what I mean. Way to isntance heavy. I did not like doing a dungeon on easy, medium, and hard. Same dungeon, different settings. You do it once on easy, then again on medium, then again on hard.
It kind of wrecks the persistence for me. I want a dungeon that is the dungeon. It's easy, or it's hard, and I will do it when I have a character and a group that's up for it. The dungeon doesn'nt change, my character and my group does. If I try the dungeon and it's to hard, I either level up, skill up, or go get help. If the dungeon is to easy, I have to go somewhere else.
If that makes sense, that's what I prefer in an MMORPG.
To be instancing and group content go together, the quest needs to be designed around the group, open zones wouldn't work. But they I expect my quests to be handcrafted and complex.
p.s. Elite is the only real setting for most quests, Normal and Hard I see as just very challenging solo content
I much preferred the open world dungeons of DAoC and EQ2. I don't mind if you want to instance the Boss Mob so people don't have to wait in line to complete a quest.
It's not so much the instances I dislike as the change in settings. I didn't like this about CoH either.
I want the content to be static, not increase or decrease in difficulty depending on what I choose. It feels like clicking the "win" button. Like being on a golf course with a button that makes the hole near, far, and really far. Oh, today I'll choose near, I don't feel like trying for really far, maybe I'll do that tomorrow.
I want the course to be a set challenge to overcome.
We differ a lot, I totally hate the concept of queueing for a rare spawn, and the fact that a dungeon may already be partially completed ruins all immersion for me. I like my dungeons to have traps, secrets, ambushes no way that can be done in an open zone. For me totally unplayable open.
Your do it once and only at one difficulty is a little too limiting for me. I think you are in the realms of a niche of a niche game.
If a great group MMO came along that was fun and had a relatively smooth launch it could work as well. I have nothing wrong with solo based games but there is nothing wrong with group based ones either. I don't see why all the negativity towards the OP. Must every game conform to one model? I don't think everyone will enjoy every game so there should be variety.
Except most of the players in the market want some solo options as shown in the success of the solo friendly game.
Sure, it may becmoe a niche success, but why cater to a small niche?
Because you can make a lot of money in a niche market. Take a look at the world it has very big organisations and co-existing alongside huge numbers of small enterprises catering to the tastes of the non masses. Why do they bother? Because those small enterprises make smaller groups of people a lot of money, they don't have the same costs, and more importantly the same number of backers wanting a slice of profit.
Try not to be blinkered by size being everything, it is often as important to be different, especially in a market that is over saturated with mass appeal goods.
That statement is obviously NOT true in general. It depends on how big the niche market is, and what is the minimum amount of investment to become successful.
BTW, MOST small enterprises are not successful.
And in this case, very few gamers would want NOT to have the choice to solo. The fact that almost all newer MMORPGs tout soloability as a feature tells us a lot. You think they will have done some market research before making that decision.
If a great group MMO came along that was fun and had a relatively smooth launch it could work as well. I have nothing wrong with solo based games but there is nothing wrong with group based ones either. I don't see why all the negativity towards the OP. Must every game conform to one model? I don't think everyone will enjoy every game so there should be variety.
Except most of the players in the market want some solo options as shown in the success of the solo friendly game.
Sure, it may becmoe a niche success, but why cater to a small niche?
Because you can make a lot of money in a niche market. Take a look at the world it has very big organisations and co-existing alongside huge numbers of small enterprises catering to the tastes of the non masses. Why do they bother? Because those small enterprises make smaller groups of people a lot of money, they don't have the same costs, and more importantly the same number of backers wanting a slice of profit.
Try not to be blinkered by size being everything, it is often as important to be different, especially in a market that is over saturated with mass appeal goods.
That statement is obviously NOT true in general. It depends on how big the niche market is, and what is the minimum amount of investment to become successful.
BTW, MOST small enterprises are not successful.
And in this case, very few gamers would want NOT to have the choice to solo. The fact that almost all newer MMORPGs tout soloability as a feature tells us a lot. You think they will have done some market research before making that decision.
Nobody is arguing whether soloing is more popular, it clearly is, my point is simply that you can still aim a business at a niche market and as long as you control your costs and don't have to share the profit too far, you can personally make a lot of money. It isn't without risks, but people do very well out of small businesses even though they are a fraction of the size of the competitors, as long as they have an angle. Going nose to nose with the same ot similar product is of course a dubious business model.
As for most small enterprises not being successful, guess I have been lucky to be involved with ones that were, which may indeed give me a rather positive view of it.
I'm sorry but I don't understand this at all. Why does it bother you if you have the ability to solo? I mean, I have the ability to drop my pants down to half of my ass, lose all my shirt, buy a cap and put it on backwards, listen to Soulja Boy, and then act like a wigger but I'm not going to. Just don't do it if you don't want to. Edit: There really is a grouping game out there. Final Fantasy XI. There is only one class that can actually solo and even then they have a hard time with it.
I think I know what the original poster is saying. He wants to play a game where grouping is the only option so he will be able to play with others of the same audience that will enjoy that type of game. You know it is always nice to get to mingle with like minded people. : )
I don't mind people having the ability to solo, but does it have to be like that in every single MMO in existence? I don't think so. I think one or two group only games could turn a profit. Also, why do you feel that every game in existence should cater to solo? Different types of games out there is a good thing.
Comments
How about the tanking/healing abilities that grouping requires. I haven't seen an MMO where those two abilities weren't the corner stone of grouping. Generally, people don't like to play tanks or healers and there will always be high demand for those two classes: higher demand than that can be met. So how does the OP explain overcoming that? A 100% grouping game will absolutely suck if people can't play due to one or both of those classes not being available. People will find it extremely unfun to have to wait around.
Back in EvE. Started with BatMUD. Main MMOs have been EvE and DAoC.
I'd like to see something in the likes of everyone is able to heal and tank, that's right absolutely everyone. For healing there would be something akin to bandages (Not in the form we know it from WoW) or healing kits. Tanking would require you to switch to heavier armor that would slow your movement and attack speed or something other in the vicinity.
There would of course have to be a bit of balancing or everyone would both be tanking, healing and dealing damage at the same time, and then it's only matter of time before someone does it efficiently enough to solo.
This is but an idea that would make grouping much more bearable and make everyone viable in any spot, which in turn leads to much reduced lfg-time.
I'd like to see something in the likes of everyone is able to heal and tank, that's right absolutely everyone. For healing there would be something akin to bandages (Not in the form we know it from WoW) or healing kits. Tanking would require you to switch to heavier armor that would slow your movement and attack speed or something other in the vicinity.
There would of course have to be a bit of balancing or everyone would both be tanking, healing and dealing damage at the same time, and then it's only matter of time before someone does it efficiently enough to solo.
This is but an idea that would make grouping much more bearable and make everyone viable in any spot, which in turn leads to much reduced lfg-time.
I think this design would work quite well in a group only game.
This has been proposed as a solution to the tank, nuke, healer problem before. Give everyone the ability to tank, nuke, and heal, then you won't have to worry about finding specific classes to group with.
The problem with this usually, is that if someone can tank, heal themselves, and nuke why would they ever bother to group?
But if you make the game such that grouping is required to survive, then sure why not give every player every ability?
When you get three players together, the most efficient thing they can do is get one person to tank, one person to heal, and one person to nuke. But all they have to do is decide which person does which job, since all of them can do all three. In fact, they could switch off. I'm tired of tanking, you tank and I'll nuke for a while, and things like that. Just make it so you can't use all abilities at once.
Sounds quite fun to me.
Your "choice" takes the fun out of the game for me
you must not play many MMORPGs if you dont like games with choice.
I'll try again. What if someone liked playing say a First Person Shooter.
And you said, you know, not everyone is good at aiming with a mouse and key board. Let's make the First Person shooter a game with more choices, and give people the choice to use auto aim.
That way even people without good aim could play the game, and it would be a much better game, because there would be more choice!
Don't you think FPS fans would say, that "choice" kinda ruins the game for me?
Or let's take a gaem like WoW that had raiding. What if someone said, you know, I'm not really into raiding so much. The game should have more choices. How about I can just pay 15 bucks to get any raid item I want? The the game would be so much better, because there would be more choices! Right?
Your "choice" is to choose to make the game no fun for me. Why would I want to adovocate for that choice? You certainly wouldn't want me to "choose" to make your game no fun for you would you?
your examples are the worst i've ever seen. Auto aim isn't aloud in most FPSs, and if you dont like aiming with a mouse and keyboard you use a controller. If you dont like to raid you pvp, you dont pay money because that isnt a choice/option in WoW.
i dont see why both grouping and soloing content can exist. It does fine now. Asking for a 100% grouping or soloing game, implies that people who group or solo ruin the game for other people. Even in the FPSs you mention there is a solo option and a grouping/multiplayer option. This whole discussion is ridiculous.
I would like a game where I cannot solo. Tell me how you will make that game for me, and allow people to solo in it?
play any MMO on the market, and dont do ANYTHING without a group. Easy as that, if you choose to solo because its something easy, then thats your choice. If you want to group, then group. Who is holding you back?
It's like you're telling Michael Phelps if he wants a challenge tie one hand behind his back. He's not going to do that, he wants to swim as fast as he can using all the abilities available to him. I'm not going to deliberately gimp myself in a game. Taht would be retarded.
I want a game where I can't solo, and I'll do my best to complete all the content, which would be a lot of fun and a real challenge. Gimping myself just because? Seriously?
team play?
DDO. check the forum for more details
This is ridiculous.
"I want a game where I can't solo"
"Why don't you just do everything with a group?"
"Why would I gimp myself?"
Make up your mind. Either you want to group or you don't.
I really doubt that people soloing are ruining your fun. How does that work? "Look at that bastard... Soloing... by himself... he's ruining the game!" The whole thing about soloing is that it doesn't affect anyone. It can't affect you whatsoever. This sounds like the people who blather on about how getting rid of "foreigners" in their country would remove all their problems.
It sounds to me like you can't resist the temptation to solo something if it is available and so you want to remove the temptation.
Actually if you played EQ in it's most popular days, no one had issues finding a healer and tank. What has made tanks and healers unpopular in current games IS solo. Tanks and healers just don't solo as well as the dps classes, if everyone is left to solo then tanks and healers have a slow boring time leveling up.
If they did make a group only game where tanks and healers are required as well as dps etc etc. Then since everyone will be looking for a group, there would be one giant pool to pull from. You only need outpost to meet up at. There would also be plenty of healers and tanks because if everyone is grouping their job translates to the WHOLE game not just the end of it and they are getting xp just as fast as everyone else.
I have always seen the flaw in solo and group in a game. Healers and tanks spend 99% of the game not doing what they were designed to do only to reach the top of the game 1% of it it do their job. Very flawed.
Also why do people have to call people stupid, idiots, ridiculous because they would like ONE game out there that caters to their playstyle. Would a bit of variety among MMORPGS be a bad thing? I would rather seen all kinds of MMORPGs exist for different people. This all in one for everyone is getting old. Swiss army knife of MMORPGs have a little of everything but do well at nothing.
DDO tried to be group only it failed. EQ2 tried that in the beginning, and they changed it to solo. EQ has lost tons of subscribers, and most people multibox(pretty much solo).
Do you see a pattern?
EQ lost a lot of subs after what SOE has did to that game. /shivers The game got old and it was badly expanded upon. It was the most successful Western MMO at one time. Lineage was one of the largest population based MMOs and it was group based .. the pattern only shows games get old and lose subs ..nothing more.
If a great group MMO came along that was fun and had a relatively smooth launch it could work as well. I have nothing wrong with solo based games but there is nothing wrong with group based ones either. I don't see why all the negativity towards the OP. Must every game conform to one model? I don't think everyone will enjoy every game so there should be variety.
Except most of the players in the market want some solo options as shown in the success of the solo friendly game.
Sure, it may becmoe a niche success, but why cater to a small niche?
Except most of the players in the market want some solo options as shown in the success of the solo friendly game.
Sure, it may becmoe a niche success, but why cater to a small niche?
I often think of it like money left on the table waiting for someone to pick it up.
I don't play WoW, and one of the main reasons is because it's too solo friendly. A solo friendly game isn't going to get my money.
But I've got money sitting on the table. I'll glady pay 14.95 for a good grouping game.
So, you're right. The majority wants the solo friendly game like WoW. But I've got 14.95 sitting on the table, and if you read this thread, I'im not alone.
Someone will eventually want to take that money since it's just sitting there and no one else wants it.
If "that bastard" can solo, then I can solo. I want a game where I can't solo. That's how it affects me.
I'm sorry but I don't understand this at all. Why does it bother you if you have the ability to solo? I mean, I have the ability to drop my pants down to half of my ass, lose all my shirt, buy a cap and put it on backwards, listen to Soulja Boy, and then act like a wigger but I'm not going to.
Just don't do it if you don't want to.
Edit:
There really is a grouping game out there. Final Fantasy XI. There is only one class that can actually solo and even then they have a hard time with it.
Except most of the players in the market want some solo options as shown in the success of the solo friendly game.
Sure, it may becmoe a niche success, but why cater to a small niche?
Because you can make a lot of money in a niche market. Take a look at the world it has very big organisations and co-existing alongside huge numbers of small enterprises catering to the tastes of the non masses. Why do they bother? Because those small enterprises make smaller groups of people a lot of money, they don't have the same costs, and more importantly the same number of backers wanting a slice of profit.
Try not to be blinkered by size being everything, it is often as important to be different, especially in a market that is over saturated with mass appeal goods.
Well, if you don't get it already I doubt you ever will, but I'll give it a shot.
How often would you play a game by your own made up rules just to make it harder for yourself, or more challenging, or more fun? In reality, the answer is almost never. How often would you play a game by the actual rules of the game? In reality, almost all the time.
For example, let's say someone is asking for a game with Perma Death. They COULD play WoW and delete thier character everytime they die. But they won't. They will just keep on playing the same toon, because they can, and they will still want a game with Perma Death where they cannot keep on playing and they die. They don't want the choice to delete their character. That is completely different from being careful because if you make a mistake you're dead, and there is no choice.
You're telling me the choice is just the same. you're telling me that a game with Perma Death is EXACTLY the same as if I played WoW and just chose to delete my character every time I died.
Do you see now, how what you're saying, and what I'm asking for are not the same thing?
So again, IT"S NOT ABOUT YOU. I don't care if you solo in a game all day long. That's great, hope you're having a blast doing it. I want a game where I, me, not you, cannot solo. Nothing to do with you, nothing to do with wanting you to group, forcing you to group, I absolutely don't care about YOU and what you are doing in the game. This is the hardest part for people to get for some reason.
Try D&D online 95% of the game is group only, from the beginning to end (especiallly the end). Turbine had to add some solo content becuase they were losing alot subs. The other 5% is running around buying stuff so you don't need a group to do that.
Collector of old minis.
Playing WAR:Age of Rekoning
www.oldtimersguild.com
DDO certainly showed that a group centric game is going to be niche, having said that its playerbase has been solid (with a bit of a surge since Turbine won a few awards), so there is a market (even if small) for group content. It also has twitch combat, complex character building and instancing which are also heavy like/dislike factors.
DDO certainly showed that a group centric game is going to be niche, having said that its playerbase has been solid (with a bit of a surge since Turbine won a few awards), so there is a market (even if small) for group content. It also has twitch combat, complex character building and instancing which are also heavy like/dislike factors.
I did try DDO. I didn't like it very much. It was too unlike an MMORPG if you know what I mean. Way to isntance heavy. I did not like doing a dungeon on easy, medium, and hard. Same dungeon, different settings. You do it once on easy, then again on medium, then again on hard.
It kind of wrecks the persistence for me. I want a dungeon that is the dungeon. It's easy, or it's hard, and I will do it when I have a character and a group that's up for it. The dungeon doesn'nt change, my character and my group does. If I try the dungeon and it's to hard, I either level up, skill up, or go get help. If the dungeon is to easy, I have to go somewhere else.
If that makes sense, that's what I prefer in an MMORPG.
DDO certainly showed that a group centric game is going to be niche, having said that its playerbase has been solid (with a bit of a surge since Turbine won a few awards), so there is a market (even if small) for group content. It also has twitch combat, complex character building and instancing which are also heavy like/dislike factors.
I did try DDO. I didn't like it very much. It was too unlike an MMORPG if you know what I mean. Way to isntance heavy. I did not like doing a dungeon on easy, medium, and hard. Same dungeon, different settings. You do it once on easy, then again on medium, then again on hard.
It kind of wrecks the persistence for me. I want a dungeon that is the dungeon. It's easy, or it's hard, and I will do it when I have a character and a group that's up for it. The dungeon doesn'nt change, my character and my group does. If I try the dungeon and it's to hard, I either level up, skill up, or go get help. If the dungeon is to easy, I have to go somewhere else.
If that makes sense, that's what I prefer in an MMORPG.
To me instancing and group content go together, the quest needs to be designed around the group, open zones wouldn't work. But they I expect my quests to be handcrafted and complex.
p.s. Elite is the only real setting for most quests, Normal and Hard I see as just very challenging solo content
DDO certainly showed that a group centric game is going to be niche, having said that its playerbase has been solid (with a bit of a surge since Turbine won a few awards), so there is a market (even if small) for group content. It also has twitch combat, complex character building and instancing which are also heavy like/dislike factors.
I did try DDO. I didn't like it very much. It was too unlike an MMORPG if you know what I mean. Way to isntance heavy. I did not like doing a dungeon on easy, medium, and hard. Same dungeon, different settings. You do it once on easy, then again on medium, then again on hard.
It kind of wrecks the persistence for me. I want a dungeon that is the dungeon. It's easy, or it's hard, and I will do it when I have a character and a group that's up for it. The dungeon doesn'nt change, my character and my group does. If I try the dungeon and it's to hard, I either level up, skill up, or go get help. If the dungeon is to easy, I have to go somewhere else.
If that makes sense, that's what I prefer in an MMORPG.
To be instancing and group content go together, the quest needs to be designed around the group, open zones wouldn't work. But they I expect my quests to be handcrafted and complex.
p.s. Elite is the only real setting for most quests, Normal and Hard I see as just very challenging solo content
I much preferred the open world dungeons of DAoC and EQ2. I don't mind if you want to instance the Boss Mob so people don't have to wait in line to complete a quest.
It's not so much the instances I dislike as the change in settings. I didn't like this about CoH either.
I want the content to be static, not increase or decrease in difficulty depending on what I choose. It feels like clicking the "win" button. Like being on a golf course with a button that makes the hole near, far, and really far. Oh, today I'll choose near, I don't feel like trying for really far, maybe I'll do that tomorrow.
I want the course to be a set challenge to overcome.
DDO certainly showed that a group centric game is going to be niche, having said that its playerbase has been solid (with a bit of a surge since Turbine won a few awards), so there is a market (even if small) for group content. It also has twitch combat, complex character building and instancing which are also heavy like/dislike factors.
I did try DDO. I didn't like it very much. It was too unlike an MMORPG if you know what I mean. Way to isntance heavy. I did not like doing a dungeon on easy, medium, and hard. Same dungeon, different settings. You do it once on easy, then again on medium, then again on hard.
It kind of wrecks the persistence for me. I want a dungeon that is the dungeon. It's easy, or it's hard, and I will do it when I have a character and a group that's up for it. The dungeon doesn'nt change, my character and my group does. If I try the dungeon and it's to hard, I either level up, skill up, or go get help. If the dungeon is to easy, I have to go somewhere else.
If that makes sense, that's what I prefer in an MMORPG.
To be instancing and group content go together, the quest needs to be designed around the group, open zones wouldn't work. But they I expect my quests to be handcrafted and complex.
p.s. Elite is the only real setting for most quests, Normal and Hard I see as just very challenging solo content
I much preferred the open world dungeons of DAoC and EQ2. I don't mind if you want to instance the Boss Mob so people don't have to wait in line to complete a quest.
It's not so much the instances I dislike as the change in settings. I didn't like this about CoH either.
I want the content to be static, not increase or decrease in difficulty depending on what I choose. It feels like clicking the "win" button. Like being on a golf course with a button that makes the hole near, far, and really far. Oh, today I'll choose near, I don't feel like trying for really far, maybe I'll do that tomorrow.
I want the course to be a set challenge to overcome.
We differ a lot, I totally hate the concept of queueing for a rare spawn, and the fact that a dungeon may already be partially completed ruins all immersion for me. I like my dungeons to have traps, secrets, ambushes no way that can be done in an open zone. For me totally unplayable open.
Your do it once and only at one difficulty is a little too limiting for me. I think you are in the realms of a niche of a niche game.
Except most of the players in the market want some solo options as shown in the success of the solo friendly game.
Sure, it may becmoe a niche success, but why cater to a small niche?
Because you can make a lot of money in a niche market. Take a look at the world it has very big organisations and co-existing alongside huge numbers of small enterprises catering to the tastes of the non masses. Why do they bother? Because those small enterprises make smaller groups of people a lot of money, they don't have the same costs, and more importantly the same number of backers wanting a slice of profit.
Try not to be blinkered by size being everything, it is often as important to be different, especially in a market that is over saturated with mass appeal goods.
That statement is obviously NOT true in general. It depends on how big the niche market is, and what is the minimum amount of investment to become successful.
BTW, MOST small enterprises are not successful.
And in this case, very few gamers would want NOT to have the choice to solo. The fact that almost all newer MMORPGs tout soloability as a feature tells us a lot. You think they will have done some market research before making that decision.
Except most of the players in the market want some solo options as shown in the success of the solo friendly game.
Sure, it may becmoe a niche success, but why cater to a small niche?
Because you can make a lot of money in a niche market. Take a look at the world it has very big organisations and co-existing alongside huge numbers of small enterprises catering to the tastes of the non masses. Why do they bother? Because those small enterprises make smaller groups of people a lot of money, they don't have the same costs, and more importantly the same number of backers wanting a slice of profit.
Try not to be blinkered by size being everything, it is often as important to be different, especially in a market that is over saturated with mass appeal goods.
That statement is obviously NOT true in general. It depends on how big the niche market is, and what is the minimum amount of investment to become successful.
BTW, MOST small enterprises are not successful.
And in this case, very few gamers would want NOT to have the choice to solo. The fact that almost all newer MMORPGs tout soloability as a feature tells us a lot. You think they will have done some market research before making that decision.
Nobody is arguing whether soloing is more popular, it clearly is, my point is simply that you can still aim a business at a niche market and as long as you control your costs and don't have to share the profit too far, you can personally make a lot of money. It isn't without risks, but people do very well out of small businesses even though they are a fraction of the size of the competitors, as long as they have an angle. Going nose to nose with the same ot similar product is of course a dubious business model.
As for most small enterprises not being successful, guess I have been lucky to be involved with ones that were, which may indeed give me a rather positive view of it.
I think I know what the original poster is saying. He wants to play a game where grouping is the only option so he will be able to play with others of the same audience that will enjoy that type of game. You know it is always nice to get to mingle with like minded people. : )
I don't mind people having the ability to solo, but does it have to be like that in every single MMO in existence? I don't think so. I think one or two group only games could turn a profit. Also, why do you feel that every game in existence should cater to solo? Different types of games out there is a good thing.