Oh I don't think that way but I just don't see the point. But really the OP should try out FFXI if he wants a grouping game. The only problem then is that people can wiat for an hour or two to get into a group because everyone is looking for a group.
Originally posted by qombi 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. No way! This is not to do at all with whether a game has solo vs. group content. It has to do with the fact that a lot of players find healing and tanking boring, even if they're in a group of 5, 8, 10, whatever other players. I was there during EQ's popular days and I was still waiting on healers and tanks to log on to go do content. I also remember players whining about how dreadfully boring Warriors were to play. On the other hand, Monks were popular because they had cool abilities, like Feign Death. I remember this very very clearly. I've played games where tanks and healers solo very well, and they're *still* under-represented. Take for example Midgard in DAoC: one of the best classes was the main tank, the Warrior. It could solo well, was extremely powerful, and was always in demand. Yet it was one of the rarer classes played in the realm. Or take pre-SL AO, where both Enforcers and Doctors (tanks and healers respectively) were in high demand in what was originally a 95% team-oriented game, but Enforcers were one of the most popular professions, whereas Doctors were fairly rare. Both could solo too, with Doctors being even better then Enfo's. Solo content is not the cause of low numbers of tanks and healers. What has ruined tanks and healers is making them tedious to play in groups: hitting 1 and 2 constantly, over and over again. And quite simply, it's the attitude of the majority of players emphasising how great and important dps is that has ruined tanking and healing (as well as crowd control and debuffing). Back to AO, even in teamplay, people run damage dumps to assess 'contribution' to teams... they don't concentrate on who was the best healer or the best tank. They're only interested in who did the most dps.
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. If you have a pool of 100 players and 5 classes that they can play, you will not find 20 people playing each of the classes. There will always be under-represented classes, and there will always be over-represented classes. I guarantee you that. There will always be something attractive about certain classes that makes players play them rather than others. 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. Most of the tanks and healers in today's games are hybrids. Take WAR which is another grouping game. Yes, you can solo in PvE to an extent, but most of the game is about cooperative play with people on your own side. I played an Arch-Mage and a Zealot. It was up to me to decide I wanted my AM to be a debuffer, and my Zealot to be a healer. No one else can decide that for me. Both ways of playing were designed in these classes, therefore who's to say what the 'job' was of either one? Why would this be flawed? It's not flawed unless you're one of those people who can't stand the thought of giving players choices they make on their own characters and playstyles.
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. There already are primarily grouping games: FFXI as has been mentioned, DDO, EvE (though people try to solo in it, it's really a fleet/corporation game... you only experience a fraction of the game if you solo), WAR especially in oRvR which is its main goal, and probably others I can't even think of right now. I agree with you though... people shouldn't talk down to others because they have a different view.
I really don't think that making a 100% grouping game will solve any of the problems you mention...
Back in EvE. Started with BatMUD. Main MMOs have been EvE and DAoC.
I would like a grouping game with ZERO solo content. For players that like to solo, this game would simply not be for you. There would be no solo content, nothing for you to do. Even crafting would require grouping. Think of it like a multi player First Person Shooter, like Call of Duty, or Battlefield. Solo players complain sometimes that I don't have time to look for a group, I need to accomplish something. What could you accomplish on a Battlefield or Call of Duty server by yourself? Nothing. You'd just stand there with a gun and nothing to do. I'm not saying it has to be PvP, I'm just saying think of this differently than a typical MMORPG. The object of this game is to play with other people. The object of the game is not to level up your toon and collect gear. In other words, there's no point in playing by yourself without being in a group. If you couldnt' find a group, you wouldn't play the game, because the game would BE all about grouping. Saying you'd want to solo this game would be like saying you want to play poker by yourself. Poker is all about bluffing. You can't bluff a computer, so don't say you'd just play against a computer. Sure, you can play against a computer to learn the basics, but to really play poker you need other people. This game would include a tutorial stage for you to learn the GUI and basics, so when you get to the online portion, you already know how to play, so other people wouldn't have to wait on you to learn the controls. All mobs you could kill solo give no xp, all mobs that would give you xp would require at least one other person in your group, or they would kick your ass, and you would have no chance of killing them. All quests would require at LEAST two people. One to pull a lever while the other rushes through the door to complete the mission, and things like that.
Won't ever happen.. No money it it consider the majority want to be at least able to solo at any time especiall when no groups can be found.
Perhaps it could be achieved using an Award System based on player interaction. For simplicity sake, I'll call it Player Interaction Points or PIPs. PIPs would be intrinsic to all aspects of game play to be valueable to players' success. PIPs could be applied attributes, skills, items, spells, weapons, etc to increase power, effect, value, etc.
The tricky part is identifying and creating game mechanics that encourage players to work together or against each other, directly and indirectly. If it uses a class-based system such game mechanics would have to applicable to all classes. Even participation in chat and forums could be used to award PIPs.
A game that comes to mind is Army of Two. This game has very specific game mechanics that requires Two Players to assist each other in order to complete missions. For example, there are hard-to-reach areas that require players to lift and pull each other up. There are doors that require two people to activate.
A Grouping MMO how could it be done? Perhaps it could be achieved using an Award System based on player interaction. For simplicity sake, I'll call it Player Interaction Points or PIPs. PIPs would be intrinsic to all aspects of game play to be valueable to players' success. PIPs could be applied attributes, skills, items, spells, weapons, etc to increase power, effect, value, etc. The tricky part is identifying and creating game mechanics that encourage players to work together or against each other, directly and indirectly. If it uses a class-based system such game mechanics would have to applicable to all classes. Even participation in chat and forums could be used to award PIPs. A game that comes to mind is Army of Two. This game has very specific game mechanics that requires Two Players to assist each other in order to complete missions. For example, there are hard-to-reach areas that require players to lift and pull each other up. There are doors that require two people to activate.
Doesn't matter. Look at WOW, there are plenty of instances & raids that you need to group to even attempt. What happens? Sometimes it is impossible to find a PuG group even with all the tools because of time of the day or what-not.
In fact, i just spent the last 30 min to put a PUG raid together. If I only have 30 min, I wouldn't want to do that and would like some solo content instead.
Doesn't matter. Look at WOW, there are plenty of instances & raids that you need to group to even attempt. What happens? Sometimes it is impossible to find a PuG group even with all the tools because of time of the day or what-not. In fact, i just spent the last 30 min to put a PUG raid together. If I only have 30 min, I wouldn't want to do that and would like some solo content instead.
If you couldn't solo your way to LVL 80 in WoW maybe there would be more people grouping. When soloing with QuestHelper is the fastes way to level....yeah....the problem is right there.
In todays MMOs there is no longer a must group because the must group games are long lost in the past. Only a few are left in tack and most have added soloabliity. The reason is that most subscribing patrons are mons and pops now instead of teens and they want a few hours to escape reality and feel immersed in a world rather than sit on the couch with a beer in the left hand chips in the right and stare at the TV. The entertainment value of getting involved goes beyond just grouping up. Some players take interest in being a crafter, some want a instance and others want a group But all want to socialize and chat with one another so the developers make the masses happy.
MMOs that cover this broad range of player base will do extremely well in keeping content pumped into the game. If a game developer leaves out a great deal of the social content to keep the player socializing the player will go elsewhere. If they loose more than they gain the game itself stagnates and they loose the group centric because they don't have the income to make anything new.
Bottom line is a forced group game become boring even for those that insist on grouping because the subscription numbers can not support new added content. Only way I can see this to ever work in todays world would be for a game developer to charge 6 to 10 time normal fees to sustain the lost revenue and I doubt that go over well with their player base.
The OPs problems is that he has created a false dichotomy. This has actually been pointed out by multiple people.
He has simply been fooled into thinking there is an inherent conflcit that does not exist. The FPS example is a clear indication of this. Auto aim and manual aim are clearly in direct conflict. There is a real dichotomy here.
Solo play and group are not only not in direct conflict but they can actually help each other out. Just like having dedicated trading/crafting professions can help out combat oriented professions.
Solo play and group play can conflict in some games but that is because of other lower level design issues not the act of a person doing solo or group content. You can make a whole host of rfeatures conflict with group play. In fact most of these games have many features that conflict just as much with group play. The problem is that some games, especially forced grouping games, have inherent design conflicts between the two. One of the biggest being indentical playstyles and content. This is why City of Heroes is one of the few games that lacks most of these conflicts and is one of the ways to disprove this common fallacy. CoH alters its playstyle and content for solo versus group, it even alters it for large groups versus duos.
One biggest may of these games have is that playing in a group is often just plain inferior for fun and experiencing the game or a pain in the ass or both. So they beat and cajole people with punishing solo and better group rewards. Yet at the same time many types of content can be experience purely solo. In CoH I can run the same story arc solo or in a group. The story is the same the general outline is the same but the experience is not.
In DDO if I run a dungeon on a the "normal" difficulty its the same experience solo or in a group as far as how the dungeon is set up and how the mobs are setup. If I do it solo the only reason I do it in a group is because its faster or I just like to do it with people. The dungeon itself is the same. The content epxerience gets stepped on and thus a conflict appears.
In DDO if a "normal" dungeon could be run solo just as fast as a group then there is a problem. there are a few few that might work this way, but not too many for very many people. If all of them worked that way there might some issues though.
But this is not true in CoH, because either way I can get similar rewards. But doing something in a group offers me another choice in how to play. Which is good because soloing gets old and grouping gives a bit better xp or rewards and more stuff going on.
In DDO due to the fact that you are experience roughly the same thing either way you can and will get a conflict. This is not true of all games. Thus we are left with a false dichotomy that many people are convinced is universal even though that is provably false.
Arguing this false dichotomy is rather pointless. Unfortunately many people in the MMO world are convinced its real
The OPs problems is that he has created a false dichotomy. This has actually been pointed out by multiple people.
He has simply been fooled into thinking there is an inherent conflcit that does not exist. The FPS example is a clear indication of this. Auto aim and manual aim are clearly in direct conflict. There is a real dichotomy here. Solo play and group are not only not in direct conflict but they can actually help each other out. Just like having dedicated trading/crafting professions can help out combat oriented professions.
Solo play and group play can conflict in some games but that is because of other lower level design issues not the act of a person doing solo or group content. You can make a whole host of rfeatures conflict with group play. In fact most of these games have many features that conflict just as much with group play. The problem is that some games, especially forced grouping games, have inherent design conflicts between the two. One of the biggest being indentical playstyles and content. This is why City of Heroes is one of the few games that lacks most of these conflicts and is one of the ways to disprove this common fallacy. CoH alters its playstyle and content for solo versus group, it even alters it for large groups versus duos.
One biggest may of these games have is that playing in a group is often just plain inferior for fun and experiencing the game or a pain in the ass or both. So they beat and cajole people with punishing solo and better group rewards. Yet at the same time many types of content can be experience purely solo. In CoH I can run the same story arc solo or in a group. The story is the same the general outline is the same but the experience is not.
In DDO if I run a dungeon on a the "normal" difficulty its the same experience solo or in a group as far as how the dungeon is set up and how the mobs are setup. If I do it solo the only reason I do it in a group is because its faster or I just like to do it with people. The dungeon itself is the same. The content epxerience gets stepped on and thus a conflict appears.
In DDO if a "normal" dungeon could be run solo just as fast as a group then there is a problem. there are a few few that might work this way, but not too many for very many people. If all of them worked that way there might some issues though.
But this is not true in CoH, because either way I can get similar rewards. But doing something in a group offers me another choice in how to play. Which is good because soloing gets old and grouping gives a bit better xp or rewards and more stuff going on.
In DDO due to the fact that you are experience roughly the same thing either way you can and will get a conflict. This is not true of all games. Thus we are left with a false dichotomy that many people are convinced is universal even though that is provably false.
Arguing this false dichotomy is rather pointless. Unfortunately many people in the MMO world are convinced its real
I'm not trying to beat or cajole you into grouping. If you don't like this idea, I absolutely do not want you to play this game, and I have absolutely no problem with you playing some other solo friendly game. I may even play a solo friendly game with you at some point, although I doubt it since I find solo friendly games very boring, and not as fun as good grouping games.
I think your dichotomy argument is WAY off. I played City of Heroes. The thing I liked least about City of Heroes was that the dungeons scaled. This is my biggest complaint about this this game, the the thing that takes the MOST fun out of the game for me.
This is EXACTLY the sort of thing I DO NOT WANT in a game, scaling content. Yes, CoH was fun, but it lacked the depth I'm looking for in a game that doesn't have a "win" button.
Got a group? We will add big bad Mobs to yoru dungeon for you! Don't got a group? We will ad just enough Mobs to your dungeon so you can still Win! Great right?
Actually no, that's what takes the fun out fo the game for me.
So you see it's a REAL dichotomy, not a false one, and your example actually proves this.
It seems to me you're still missing the point. You're still worried about "the rewards" and worried you might not get rewarded when you play solo. In the game I'm describing the "reward" is grouping with other players. It's like paper and pencil Dungeons and Dragons. Levels, and loot are a way to measure out content, but the game was never about the levels or loot.
It really wouldn't matter what level you were, or what loot you had, the fun would be doing the content with other people, not collecting gear, not getting uber powers.
The funny part is so many people on these forums whining about wanting sandbox mmo's with freedom. Now you are saying grouping should be forced or what?
The funny part is so many people on these forums whining about wanting sandbox mmo's with freedom. Now you are saying grouping should be forced or what?
Well, it's seems like a difficult concept for people to follow, and perhaps I'm wrong, but my position is this.
No, if you like solo friendly games, I do not want you to be "forced" to solo in your solo friendly game. If for example, you like WoW, and you can solo all the way to the level cap solo, I am not saying I want to change WoW and force you to group in WoW.
If there is a game being designed right now that is trying to capture WoW type numbers of subscriptions and they are making a solo friendly game, like probably Champions Online will be, I am not saying to the Developers, please change yoru solo friendly design, and turn this into a forced grouping game.
I am saying I would enjoy a game where I cannot solo, and the only content available is for groups of at least two people, except possibly for crafting.
Think about it just a moment. There is no solo content. How could you be "forced" to group in this game? You would simply not play it if you liked solo content, becaue there would be no solo contenbt for you. EVERYONE playing this game would know right from the start there is no solo content, and there is only group content. If they STILL wanted to play the game, knowing it was group only, how could you say they were FORCED to group?
Wouldn't you say instead they WANTED to group since that's the only thing you could do in this game? If you didn't want to group, wouldn't you play something else? Or do you think players that loved to play solo would play this game, and complain about being "forced" to group? I don't think so.
IMO, saying this game was FORCED grouping, is like saying they FORCE you to use twitch skills in a First Person Shooter. Well, no, it's a first person shooter game. If you don't like an FPS because it uses twitch skills, you play something else. if you do play an FPS you know it will require twitch skills and no one is forcing you to play it.
This is a group game. If you don't like group games, you would play something else.
The funny part is so many people on these forums whining about wanting sandbox mmo's with freedom. Now you are saying grouping should be forced or what?
Well, it's seems like a difficult concept for people to follow, and perhaps I'm wrong, but my position is this.
It is not a difficult concept to follow. It is a concept that will most likely never work.
The majority of players do NOT want to be forced to do anythng which includes solo, group, craft or trade. Do a survey if you have doubt on this. The survey has been done many times by some major developers.
No, if you like solo friendly games, I do not want you to be "forced" to solo in your solo friendly game. If for example, you like WoW, and you can solo all the way to the level cap solo, I am not saying I want to change WoW and force you to group in WoW.
If there is a game being designed right now that is trying to capture WoW type numbers of subscriptions and they are making a solo friendly game, like probably Champions Online will be, I am not saying to the Developers, please change yoru solo friendly design, and turn this into a forced grouping game.
I am saying I would enjoy a game where I cannot solo, and the only content available is for groups of at least two people, except possibly for crafting.
Think about it just a moment. There is no solo content. How could you be "forced" to group in this game? You would simply not play it if you liked solo content, becaue there would be no solo contenbt for you. EVERYONE playing this game would know right from the start there is no solo content, and there is only group content. If they STILL wanted to play the game, knowing it was group only, how could you say they were FORCED to group?
Wouldn't you say instead they WANTED to group since that's the only thing you could do in this game? If you didn't want to group, wouldn't you play something else? Or do you think players that loved to play solo would play this game, and complain about being "forced" to group? I don't think so.
IMO, saying this game was FORCED grouping, is like saying they FORCE you to use twitch skills in a First Person Shooter. Well, no, it's a first person shooter game. If you don't like an FPS because it uses twitch skills, you play something else. if you do play an FPS you know it will require twitch skills and no one is forcing you to play it.
This is a group game. If you don't like group games, you would play something else.
You answered yourself. Most would go elsewhere.
Answer me this, why would a game developer invest 10 to 20 million dollars in a game that may return 1 to 2 million?
I would suggest Darkfall. One of the first MMORPGs in a long time were you must team up to do something.
*scratches Darkfall off list*
I don't like playing on someone else's schedule.
"AFK Phone" Oh no everyone take a 5 minute break.
"Uh oh someone's at the door." Uh oh, everyone take a 5 minute break.
"BRB, need to pee." Uh oh, everyone tkae a 5 minute break.
"Bye got to go." Uh oh, we need another group member.
Why is this a problem? When that happens you just chat with the other group members or talk about raids, or just have some fun.
Really, I am so sick of MMO where people just solo or group only in their guild. I want an MMO where solo is possible, BUT grouping should give you a lot more XP and loot, a lot. In today's MMO many players are much too anti-social for me, stuck in their guild, in their vent chat, in their guild, unwilling to group with strangers, unwilling to make theri own group.
Where have the good communities gone where you picked up the stranger you saw wandering around solo because pick up groups were fun.
Now it's like a race to see who can get max lvl in one day, it's pathetic.
The funny part is so many people on these forums whining about wanting sandbox mmo's with freedom. Now you are saying grouping should be forced or what?
Well, it's seems like a difficult concept for people to follow, and perhaps I'm wrong, but my position is this.
It is not a difficult concept to follow. It is a concept that will most likely never work.
The majority of players do NOT want to be forced to do anythng which includes solo, group, craft or trade. Do a survey if you have doubt on this. The survey has been done many times by some major developers.
No, if you like solo friendly games, I do not want you to be "forced" to solo in your solo friendly game. If for example, you like WoW, and you can solo all the way to the level cap solo, I am not saying I want to change WoW and force you to group in WoW.
If there is a game being designed right now that is trying to capture WoW type numbers of subscriptions and they are making a solo friendly game, like probably Champions Online will be, I am not saying to the Developers, please change yoru solo friendly design, and turn this into a forced grouping game.
I am saying I would enjoy a game where I cannot solo, and the only content available is for groups of at least two people, except possibly for crafting.
Think about it just a moment. There is no solo content. How could you be "forced" to group in this game? You would simply not play it if you liked solo content, becaue there would be no solo contenbt for you. EVERYONE playing this game would know right from the start there is no solo content, and there is only group content. If they STILL wanted to play the game, knowing it was group only, how could you say they were FORCED to group?
Wouldn't you say instead they WANTED to group since that's the only thing you could do in this game? If you didn't want to group, wouldn't you play something else? Or do you think players that loved to play solo would play this game, and complain about being "forced" to group? I don't think so.
IMO, saying this game was FORCED grouping, is like saying they FORCE you to use twitch skills in a First Person Shooter. Well, no, it's a first person shooter game. If you don't like an FPS because it uses twitch skills, you play something else. if you do play an FPS you know it will require twitch skills and no one is forcing you to play it.
This is a group game. If you don't like group games, you would play something else.
You answered yourself. Most would go elsewhere.
Answer me this, why would a game developer invest 10 to 20 million dollars in a game that may return 1 to 2 million?
No developer would intentionally lose 20 million dollars.
If you think no one would play a grouping game, then don't invest in one.
People have been saying the same sort of thing about any game that they don't personally like. That game will fail! I don't like those sorts of games, therefore it will never be popular, and no one should ever make a game like that!
No developer would intentionally lose 20 million dollars. If you think no one would play a grouping game, then don't invest in one. People have been saying the same sort of thing about any game that they don't personally like. That game will fail! I don't like those sorts of games, therefore it will never be popular, and no one should ever make a game like that! Maybe you're right. Maybe you aren't.
Maybe this will help see it from a different point of view. I said maybe but this is true of my gaming career over the last 9 years.
In the first couple of years I was the guy that grouped and only grouped. I had groups running all the time and never went solo. I had a blast and all that but as time progressed I started mature and want to see something besides the dungeon walls. I started wanting to enjoy a little of the quests and some role play. I no longer wanted to rush to be the biggest e-peen on the server nor have the best gear. I wanted to enjoy a little fluff outside killing other players and shit. in other words I wanted to immerse myself in the lore of the game.
Low and behold I get in a group that had jolly joe hackandslash with a team of screaming banshees and we hack and slash through the quest. "Hurry up man.","Why the fuck you reading the story line?", "come on we gotta make level before I log."
I got so tired of this that I quit the game for awhile and went to a single player game so I could enjoy a storyline. Bad thing about a single player game is nothing really changes and it stagnates quickly. Upon return to the game I told my friends I rather solo most of the time and maybe raid once or twice a week. A few understood since they had also matured a little and we did simple stuff together sometimes. However we also did the raids on weekends. If there would have been nothing to do solo I would have not stuck with the game for another 3 years.
Eventually I change games but over all I really missed my close friends but then they left to go to other games too. My new game was fun up to a point but I would get these blind invites and people pestering me to come 'run' through the quest. I started disabling invites in my game. I only group with players that are not interested in hurry up, willing to use 'walk' sometimes and willing to set a strategy I am not interested in weather I level or not and really don't care to rush. I am concerned with success of the quest which meant not getting killed. If they agreed to those terms I would team up. I found though that they still wanted to hurry up and run into combat which got us all killed. I started just not grouping at all. I did join a guild but told them up front I was a soloist I would help in other ways but don't expect me to group or raid.
By year six I discovered crafting and the whole thing changed again. I wanted to socialize and craft. I used my high level to gather materials and my low levels crafted. I could craft anything in the game. I even had a second account of crafters. I went all out on my new form of gaming. I had a nice market, a nice house and a nice horse. I started playing the market and amassed a small fortune. I was now having a blast in a new aspect. I had a mansion with all the crafting equipment I wanted. I had trophies from all over the game world. I was playing a new role and loving it. I wipe the account of chars awhile back and stopped playing but Aaddiction call me back.
See not everyone plays the same game so everyone has to be accommodated. If a game maker sets to a group centric then they loose customers. They loose the customers that are long term and have built a social community that does not deal with the rush to cap and quit mentality. The long term players are the key to a successful MMO.
A game like you describe does not fit the success ratio.
The funny part is so many people on these forums whining about wanting sandbox mmo's with freedom. Now you are saying grouping should be forced or what?
Well, it's seems like a difficult concept for people to follow, and perhaps I'm wrong, but my position is this.
It is not a difficult concept to follow. It is a concept that will most likely never work.
The majority of players do NOT want to be forced to do anythng which includes solo, group, craft or trade. Do a survey if you have doubt on this. The survey has been done many times by some major developers.
No, if you like solo friendly games, I do not want you to be "forced" to solo in your solo friendly game. If for example, you like WoW, and you can solo all the way to the level cap solo, I am not saying I want to change WoW and force you to group in WoW.
If there is a game being designed right now that is trying to capture WoW type numbers of subscriptions and they are making a solo friendly game, like probably Champions Online will be, I am not saying to the Developers, please change yoru solo friendly design, and turn this into a forced grouping game.
I am saying I would enjoy a game where I cannot solo, and the only content available is for groups of at least two people, except possibly for crafting.
Think about it just a moment. There is no solo content. How could you be "forced" to group in this game? You would simply not play it if you liked solo content, becaue there would be no solo contenbt for you. EVERYONE playing this game would know right from the start there is no solo content, and there is only group content. If they STILL wanted to play the game, knowing it was group only, how could you say they were FORCED to group?
Wouldn't you say instead they WANTED to group since that's the only thing you could do in this game? If you didn't want to group, wouldn't you play something else? Or do you think players that loved to play solo would play this game, and complain about being "forced" to group? I don't think so.
IMO, saying this game was FORCED grouping, is like saying they FORCE you to use twitch skills in a First Person Shooter. Well, no, it's a first person shooter game. If you don't like an FPS because it uses twitch skills, you play something else. if you do play an FPS you know it will require twitch skills and no one is forcing you to play it.
This is a group game. If you don't like group games, you would play something else.
You answered yourself. Most would go elsewhere.
Answer me this, why would a game developer invest 10 to 20 million dollars in a game that may return 1 to 2 million?
Don't state your estimations as facts. If there was a fun group centric game to be released .. no one knows how many subs it would get. You don't know how many people would play a group centric game. Don't just look at WoW and think that is the proof. COH came before WoW and yes it was very solo friendly .. did it have as many subs as EQ 1 at the time? No it did not. At that point any one could have used for their argument "See group centric games are more popular" look at EQ's numbers compared to COH.
That would be a flawed argument itself as well. I think it is difficult to sometimes pin point what made a game a success. What made EQ a success? Was it timing? Was it the immersion of the world, classes characters? Was it good advertisement? What made WoW a success? Company name? Game play? The world immersion etc etc etc?
Don't get me wrong I am being the devil's advocate here. I did enjoy the original WoW and I did enjoy EQ as well. You have to understand what is successful now may be for more reasons than just solo ... has a lot to do with timing, advertisement, and something I don't know if developers are able to pinpoint if a game is immersive or not. Lineage 1 & 2 were both very successful games and they were group games as well. What I will say though once a game does have a huge initial success at last in the mmo world is it is like a snowball effect, people go where people are and make the game even more successful.
It also effects the competition when people see a large population on other games, they think it must be fun so many are playing. They leave and try it. Something to think about.
See not everyone plays the same game so everyone has to be accommodated. If a game maker sets to a group centric then they loose customers. They loose the customers that are long term and have built a social community that does not deal with the rush to cap and quit mentality. The long term players are the key to a successful MMO. A game like you describe does not fit the success ratio.
True. We'll see
I don't play WoW and other games that are to solo friendly. The developers lose me as a customer. If you read this thread, you can see Im' not the only customer like this.
You're basically saying, I like solo friendly games, so developers should make games for me, not for you. Why not make games for both of us?
See not everyone plays the same game so everyone has to be accommodated. If a game maker sets to a group centric then they loose customers. They loose the customers that are long term and have built a social community that does not deal with the rush to cap and quit mentality. The long term players are the key to a successful MMO. A game like you describe does not fit the success ratio.
True. We'll see
I don't play WoW and other games that are to solo friendly. The developers lose me as a customer. If you read this thread, you can see Im' not the only customer like this.
You're basically saying, I like solo friendly games, so developers should make games for me, not for you. Why not make games for both of us?
Because there are a lot more of us (want solo-friendly content) than you (who want forced group). The success of WOW more or less shows that.
Developers are not going to spend millions to cater to a very small minorities.
Because there are a lot more of us (want solo-friendly content) than you (who want forced group). The success of WOW more or less shows that. Developers are not going to spend millions to cater to a very small minorities.
(I just posted this a few above, it explains why that logic is not correct.)
Don't state your estimations as facts. If there was a fun group centric game to be released .. no one knows how many subs it would get. You don't know how many people would play a group centric game. Don't just look at WoW and think that is the proof. COH came before WoW and yes it was very solo friendly .. did it have as many subs as EQ 1 at the time? No it did not. At that point any one could have used for their argument "See group centric games are more popular" look at EQ's numbers compared to COH.
That would be a flawed argument itself as well. I think it is difficult to sometimes pin point what made a game a success. What made EQ a success? Was it timing? Was it the immersion of the world, classes characters? Was it good advertisement? What made WoW a success? Company name? Game play? The world immersion etc etc etc?
Don't get me wrong I am being the devil's advocate here. I did enjoy the original WoW and I did enjoy EQ as well. You have to understand what is successful now may be for more reasons than just solo ... has a lot to do with timing, advertisement, and something I don't know if developers are able to pinpoint if a game is immersive or not. Lineage 1 & 2 were both very successful games and they were group games as well. What I will say though once a game does have a huge initial success at last in the mmo world is it is like a snowball effect, people go where people are and make the game even more successful.
It also effects the competition when people see a large population on other games, they think it must be fun so many are playing. They leave and try it. Something to think about.
See not everyone plays the same game so everyone has to be accommodated. If a game maker sets to a group centric then they loose customers. They loose the customers that are long term and have built a social community that does not deal with the rush to cap and quit mentality. The long term players are the key to a successful MMO. A game like you describe does not fit the success ratio.
True. We'll see
I don't play WoW and other games that are to solo friendly. The developers lose me as a customer. If you read this thread, you can see Im' not the only customer like this.
You're basically saying, I like solo friendly games, so developers should make games for me, not for you. Why not make games for both of us?
Because there are a lot more of us (want solo-friendly content) than you (who want forced group). The success of WOW more or less shows that.
Developers are not going to spend millions to cater to a very small minorities.
1. WAR, AOC, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, the list goes on, all solo friendly, no where near to WoW's numbers. So I don't think the "you gotta cater to the solo crowd if you want to be like WoW" works.
2. Developers ARE spending millions to cater to very small minorities. TAbula Rasa, for example, spent a 100 million dollars (yes 100 million) and catered to such a small minority it shut down. LOTRO is still going, but compared to WoW it caters to a very small minority, and the same could be said of EVE.
EVERY MMORPG is a small minority, compared to WoW:
You're not going to beat WoW trying to get the solo players. Might as well make a game for all the group players that don't like WoW. I think you'd have a shot at making a dollar if you made a good game. You're not going to steal the solo folks from WoW anyway.
I"m not going to beat a dead horse. My opinion is stated more than enough in this thread. Thanks for all that replied. I thought there were some great responses.
I would like a grouping game with ZERO solo content. For players that like to solo, this game would simply not be for you. There would be no solo content, nothing for you to do. Even crafting would require grouping. Think of it like a multi player First Person Shooter, like Call of Duty, or Battlefield. Solo players complain sometimes that I don't have time to look for a group, I need to accomplish something. What could you accomplish on a Battlefield or Call of Duty server by yourself? Nothing. You'd just stand there with a gun and nothing to do. I'm not saying it has to be PvP, I'm just saying think of this differently than a typical MMORPG. The object of this game is to play with other people. The object of the game is not to level up your toon and collect gear. In other words, there's no point in playing by yourself without being in a group. If you couldnt' find a group, you wouldn't play the game, because the game would BE all about grouping. Saying you'd want to solo this game would be like saying you want to play poker by yourself. Poker is all about bluffing. You can't bluff a computer, so don't say you'd just play against a computer. Sure, you can play against a computer to learn the basics, but to really play poker you need other people. This game would include a tutorial stage for you to learn the GUI and basics, so when you get to the online portion, you already know how to play, so other people wouldn't have to wait on you to learn the controls. All mobs you could kill solo give no xp, all mobs that would give you xp would require at least one other person in your group, or they would kick your ass, and you would have no chance of killing them. All quests would require at LEAST two people. One to pull a lever while the other rushes through the door to complete the mission, and things like that.
not gonna read every post here but like a few have already did mention
go for darkfall. even the devs mentioned there will be only 4 types of mobs that you might be able to solo everything else is group oriented. Infact a solo player will not survive in the enviorment that Darkfall has.
you may want to check that out.
Watching Fanbois drop their soap in a prison full of desperate men.
not gonna read every post here but like a few have already did mention go for darkfall. even the devs mentioned there will be only 4 types of mobs that you might be able to solo everything else is group oriented. Infact a solo player will not survive in the enviorment that Darkfall has. you may want to check that out.
You might want to take a look at the DF review by Dread OG, where he pretty much solos's the game both PvE and PvP, and uses macros to get his skills up:.
A number of playes who like forced grouping, have that oppinion because they want to meet new people. With grouping required, it is a lot easier to get random groups. This desire to be social while playing, especially to socialise with new people, really does not work in a PvP type game, where you really have to be careful what you do.
With EQ moveing further and further away from grouping required, there really is a void in the market. It is ver true that developers dont cater to small minorities. But in a growing market, it becomes more and more about finding niche to live in, and hopefully soon someone will make a group centric game again.
Comments
Oh I don't think that way but I just don't see the point. But really the OP should try out FFXI if he wants a grouping game. The only problem then is that people can wiat for an hour or two to get into a group because everyone is looking for a group.
I really don't think that making a 100% grouping game will solve any of the problems you mention...
Back in EvE. Started with BatMUD. Main MMOs have been EvE and DAoC.
I agree, 100% grouping would never work. People dont like to be depending on other players all the time.
Won't ever happen.. No money it it consider the majority want to be at least able to solo at any time especiall when no groups can be found.
A Grouping MMO how could it be done?
Perhaps it could be achieved using an Award System based on player interaction. For simplicity sake, I'll call it Player Interaction Points or PIPs. PIPs would be intrinsic to all aspects of game play to be valueable to players' success. PIPs could be applied attributes, skills, items, spells, weapons, etc to increase power, effect, value, etc.
The tricky part is identifying and creating game mechanics that encourage players to work together or against each other, directly and indirectly. If it uses a class-based system such game mechanics would have to applicable to all classes. Even participation in chat and forums could be used to award PIPs.
A game that comes to mind is Army of Two. This game has very specific game mechanics that requires Two Players to assist each other in order to complete missions. For example, there are hard-to-reach areas that require players to lift and pull each other up. There are doors that require two people to activate.
Doesn't matter. Look at WOW, there are plenty of instances & raids that you need to group to even attempt. What happens? Sometimes it is impossible to find a PuG group even with all the tools because of time of the day or what-not.
In fact, i just spent the last 30 min to put a PUG raid together. If I only have 30 min, I wouldn't want to do that and would like some solo content instead.
If you couldn't solo your way to LVL 80 in WoW maybe there would be more people grouping. When soloing with QuestHelper is the fastes way to level....yeah....the problem is right there.
In todays MMOs there is no longer a must group because the must group games are long lost in the past. Only a few are left in tack and most have added soloabliity. The reason is that most subscribing patrons are mons and pops now instead of teens and they want a few hours to escape reality and feel immersed in a world rather than sit on the couch with a beer in the left hand chips in the right and stare at the TV. The entertainment value of getting involved goes beyond just grouping up. Some players take interest in being a crafter, some want a instance and others want a group But all want to socialize and chat with one another so the developers make the masses happy.
MMOs that cover this broad range of player base will do extremely well in keeping content pumped into the game. If a game developer leaves out a great deal of the social content to keep the player socializing the player will go elsewhere. If they loose more than they gain the game itself stagnates and they loose the group centric because they don't have the income to make anything new.
Bottom line is a forced group game become boring even for those that insist on grouping because the subscription numbers can not support new added content. Only way I can see this to ever work in todays world would be for a game developer to charge 6 to 10 time normal fees to sustain the lost revenue and I doubt that go over well with their player base.
The OPs problems is that he has created a false dichotomy. This has actually been pointed out by multiple people.
He has simply been fooled into thinking there is an inherent conflcit that does not exist. The FPS example is a clear indication of this. Auto aim and manual aim are clearly in direct conflict. There is a real dichotomy here.
Solo play and group are not only not in direct conflict but they can actually help each other out. Just like having dedicated trading/crafting professions can help out combat oriented professions.
Solo play and group play can conflict in some games but that is because of other lower level design issues not the act of a person doing solo or group content. You can make a whole host of rfeatures conflict with group play. In fact most of these games have many features that conflict just as much with group play. The problem is that some games, especially forced grouping games, have inherent design conflicts between the two. One of the biggest being indentical playstyles and content. This is why City of Heroes is one of the few games that lacks most of these conflicts and is one of the ways to disprove this common fallacy. CoH alters its playstyle and content for solo versus group, it even alters it for large groups versus duos.
One biggest may of these games have is that playing in a group is often just plain inferior for fun and experiencing the game or a pain in the ass or both. So they beat and cajole people with punishing solo and better group rewards. Yet at the same time many types of content can be experience purely solo. In CoH I can run the same story arc solo or in a group. The story is the same the general outline is the same but the experience is not.
In DDO if I run a dungeon on a the "normal" difficulty its the same experience solo or in a group as far as how the dungeon is set up and how the mobs are setup. If I do it solo the only reason I do it in a group is because its faster or I just like to do it with people. The dungeon itself is the same. The content epxerience gets stepped on and thus a conflict appears.
In DDO if a "normal" dungeon could be run solo just as fast as a group then there is a problem. there are a few few that might work this way, but not too many for very many people. If all of them worked that way there might some issues though.
But this is not true in CoH, because either way I can get similar rewards. But doing something in a group offers me another choice in how to play. Which is good because soloing gets old and grouping gives a bit better xp or rewards and more stuff going on.
In DDO due to the fact that you are experience roughly the same thing either way you can and will get a conflict. This is not true of all games. Thus we are left with a false dichotomy that many people are convinced is universal even though that is provably false.
Arguing this false dichotomy is rather pointless. Unfortunately many people in the MMO world are convinced its real
I'm not trying to beat or cajole you into grouping. If you don't like this idea, I absolutely do not want you to play this game, and I have absolutely no problem with you playing some other solo friendly game. I may even play a solo friendly game with you at some point, although I doubt it since I find solo friendly games very boring, and not as fun as good grouping games.
I think your dichotomy argument is WAY off. I played City of Heroes. The thing I liked least about City of Heroes was that the dungeons scaled. This is my biggest complaint about this this game, the the thing that takes the MOST fun out of the game for me.
This is EXACTLY the sort of thing I DO NOT WANT in a game, scaling content. Yes, CoH was fun, but it lacked the depth I'm looking for in a game that doesn't have a "win" button.
Got a group? We will add big bad Mobs to yoru dungeon for you! Don't got a group? We will ad just enough Mobs to your dungeon so you can still Win! Great right?
Actually no, that's what takes the fun out fo the game for me.
So you see it's a REAL dichotomy, not a false one, and your example actually proves this.
It seems to me you're still missing the point. You're still worried about "the rewards" and worried you might not get rewarded when you play solo. In the game I'm describing the "reward" is grouping with other players. It's like paper and pencil Dungeons and Dragons. Levels, and loot are a way to measure out content, but the game was never about the levels or loot.
It really wouldn't matter what level you were, or what loot you had, the fun would be doing the content with other people, not collecting gear, not getting uber powers.
The funny part is so many people on these forums whining about wanting sandbox mmo's with freedom. Now you are saying grouping should be forced or what?
Well, it's seems like a difficult concept for people to follow, and perhaps I'm wrong, but my position is this.
No, if you like solo friendly games, I do not want you to be "forced" to solo in your solo friendly game. If for example, you like WoW, and you can solo all the way to the level cap solo, I am not saying I want to change WoW and force you to group in WoW.
If there is a game being designed right now that is trying to capture WoW type numbers of subscriptions and they are making a solo friendly game, like probably Champions Online will be, I am not saying to the Developers, please change yoru solo friendly design, and turn this into a forced grouping game.
I am saying I would enjoy a game where I cannot solo, and the only content available is for groups of at least two people, except possibly for crafting.
Think about it just a moment. There is no solo content. How could you be "forced" to group in this game? You would simply not play it if you liked solo content, becaue there would be no solo contenbt for you. EVERYONE playing this game would know right from the start there is no solo content, and there is only group content. If they STILL wanted to play the game, knowing it was group only, how could you say they were FORCED to group?
Wouldn't you say instead they WANTED to group since that's the only thing you could do in this game? If you didn't want to group, wouldn't you play something else? Or do you think players that loved to play solo would play this game, and complain about being "forced" to group? I don't think so.
IMO, saying this game was FORCED grouping, is like saying they FORCE you to use twitch skills in a First Person Shooter. Well, no, it's a first person shooter game. If you don't like an FPS because it uses twitch skills, you play something else. if you do play an FPS you know it will require twitch skills and no one is forcing you to play it.
This is a group game. If you don't like group games, you would play something else.
Well, it's seems like a difficult concept for people to follow, and perhaps I'm wrong, but my position is this.
It is not a difficult concept to follow. It is a concept that will most likely never work.
The majority of players do NOT want to be forced to do anythng which includes solo, group, craft or trade. Do a survey if you have doubt on this. The survey has been done many times by some major developers.
No, if you like solo friendly games, I do not want you to be "forced" to solo in your solo friendly game. If for example, you like WoW, and you can solo all the way to the level cap solo, I am not saying I want to change WoW and force you to group in WoW.
If there is a game being designed right now that is trying to capture WoW type numbers of subscriptions and they are making a solo friendly game, like probably Champions Online will be, I am not saying to the Developers, please change yoru solo friendly design, and turn this into a forced grouping game.
I am saying I would enjoy a game where I cannot solo, and the only content available is for groups of at least two people, except possibly for crafting.
Think about it just a moment. There is no solo content. How could you be "forced" to group in this game? You would simply not play it if you liked solo content, becaue there would be no solo contenbt for you. EVERYONE playing this game would know right from the start there is no solo content, and there is only group content. If they STILL wanted to play the game, knowing it was group only, how could you say they were FORCED to group?
Wouldn't you say instead they WANTED to group since that's the only thing you could do in this game? If you didn't want to group, wouldn't you play something else? Or do you think players that loved to play solo would play this game, and complain about being "forced" to group? I don't think so.
IMO, saying this game was FORCED grouping, is like saying they FORCE you to use twitch skills in a First Person Shooter. Well, no, it's a first person shooter game. If you don't like an FPS because it uses twitch skills, you play something else. if you do play an FPS you know it will require twitch skills and no one is forcing you to play it.
This is a group game. If you don't like group games, you would play something else.
You answered yourself. Most would go elsewhere.
Answer me this, why would a game developer invest 10 to 20 million dollars in a game that may return 1 to 2 million?
*scratches Darkfall off list*
I don't like playing on someone else's schedule.
"AFK Phone" Oh no everyone take a 5 minute break.
"Uh oh someone's at the door." Uh oh, everyone take a 5 minute break.
"BRB, need to pee." Uh oh, everyone tkae a 5 minute break.
"Bye got to go." Uh oh, we need another group member.
*scratches Darkfall off list*
I don't like playing on someone else's schedule.
"AFK Phone" Oh no everyone take a 5 minute break.
"Uh oh someone's at the door." Uh oh, everyone take a 5 minute break.
"BRB, need to pee." Uh oh, everyone tkae a 5 minute break.
"Bye got to go." Uh oh, we need another group member.
Why is this a problem? When that happens you just chat with the other group members or talk about raids, or just have some fun.
Really, I am so sick of MMO where people just solo or group only in their guild. I want an MMO where solo is possible, BUT grouping should give you a lot more XP and loot, a lot. In today's MMO many players are much too anti-social for me, stuck in their guild, in their vent chat, in their guild, unwilling to group with strangers, unwilling to make theri own group.
Where have the good communities gone where you picked up the stranger you saw wandering around solo because pick up groups were fun.
Now it's like a race to see who can get max lvl in one day, it's pathetic.
Well, it's seems like a difficult concept for people to follow, and perhaps I'm wrong, but my position is this.
It is not a difficult concept to follow. It is a concept that will most likely never work.
The majority of players do NOT want to be forced to do anythng which includes solo, group, craft or trade. Do a survey if you have doubt on this. The survey has been done many times by some major developers.
No, if you like solo friendly games, I do not want you to be "forced" to solo in your solo friendly game. If for example, you like WoW, and you can solo all the way to the level cap solo, I am not saying I want to change WoW and force you to group in WoW.
If there is a game being designed right now that is trying to capture WoW type numbers of subscriptions and they are making a solo friendly game, like probably Champions Online will be, I am not saying to the Developers, please change yoru solo friendly design, and turn this into a forced grouping game.
I am saying I would enjoy a game where I cannot solo, and the only content available is for groups of at least two people, except possibly for crafting.
Think about it just a moment. There is no solo content. How could you be "forced" to group in this game? You would simply not play it if you liked solo content, becaue there would be no solo contenbt for you. EVERYONE playing this game would know right from the start there is no solo content, and there is only group content. If they STILL wanted to play the game, knowing it was group only, how could you say they were FORCED to group?
Wouldn't you say instead they WANTED to group since that's the only thing you could do in this game? If you didn't want to group, wouldn't you play something else? Or do you think players that loved to play solo would play this game, and complain about being "forced" to group? I don't think so.
IMO, saying this game was FORCED grouping, is like saying they FORCE you to use twitch skills in a First Person Shooter. Well, no, it's a first person shooter game. If you don't like an FPS because it uses twitch skills, you play something else. if you do play an FPS you know it will require twitch skills and no one is forcing you to play it.
This is a group game. If you don't like group games, you would play something else.
You answered yourself. Most would go elsewhere.
Answer me this, why would a game developer invest 10 to 20 million dollars in a game that may return 1 to 2 million?
No developer would intentionally lose 20 million dollars.
If you think no one would play a grouping game, then don't invest in one.
People have been saying the same sort of thing about any game that they don't personally like. That game will fail! I don't like those sorts of games, therefore it will never be popular, and no one should ever make a game like that!
Maybe you're right. Maybe you aren't.
Maybe this will help see it from a different point of view. I said maybe but this is true of my gaming career over the last 9 years.
In the first couple of years I was the guy that grouped and only grouped. I had groups running all the time and never went solo. I had a blast and all that but as time progressed I started mature and want to see something besides the dungeon walls. I started wanting to enjoy a little of the quests and some role play. I no longer wanted to rush to be the biggest e-peen on the server nor have the best gear. I wanted to enjoy a little fluff outside killing other players and shit. in other words I wanted to immerse myself in the lore of the game.
Low and behold I get in a group that had jolly joe hackandslash with a team of screaming banshees and we hack and slash through the quest. "Hurry up man.","Why the fuck you reading the story line?", "come on we gotta make level before I log."
I got so tired of this that I quit the game for awhile and went to a single player game so I could enjoy a storyline. Bad thing about a single player game is nothing really changes and it stagnates quickly. Upon return to the game I told my friends I rather solo most of the time and maybe raid once or twice a week. A few understood since they had also matured a little and we did simple stuff together sometimes. However we also did the raids on weekends. If there would have been nothing to do solo I would have not stuck with the game for another 3 years.
Eventually I change games but over all I really missed my close friends but then they left to go to other games too. My new game was fun up to a point but I would get these blind invites and people pestering me to come 'run' through the quest. I started disabling invites in my game. I only group with players that are not interested in hurry up, willing to use 'walk' sometimes and willing to set a strategy I am not interested in weather I level or not and really don't care to rush. I am concerned with success of the quest which meant not getting killed. If they agreed to those terms I would team up. I found though that they still wanted to hurry up and run into combat which got us all killed. I started just not grouping at all. I did join a guild but told them up front I was a soloist I would help in other ways but don't expect me to group or raid.
By year six I discovered crafting and the whole thing changed again. I wanted to socialize and craft. I used my high level to gather materials and my low levels crafted. I could craft anything in the game. I even had a second account of crafters. I went all out on my new form of gaming. I had a nice market, a nice house and a nice horse. I started playing the market and amassed a small fortune. I was now having a blast in a new aspect. I had a mansion with all the crafting equipment I wanted. I had trophies from all over the game world. I was playing a new role and loving it. I wipe the account of chars awhile back and stopped playing but Aaddiction call me back.
See not everyone plays the same game so everyone has to be accommodated. If a game maker sets to a group centric then they loose customers. They loose the customers that are long term and have built a social community that does not deal with the rush to cap and quit mentality. The long term players are the key to a successful MMO.
A game like you describe does not fit the success ratio.
True. We'll see
Well, it's seems like a difficult concept for people to follow, and perhaps I'm wrong, but my position is this.
It is not a difficult concept to follow. It is a concept that will most likely never work.
The majority of players do NOT want to be forced to do anythng which includes solo, group, craft or trade. Do a survey if you have doubt on this. The survey has been done many times by some major developers.
No, if you like solo friendly games, I do not want you to be "forced" to solo in your solo friendly game. If for example, you like WoW, and you can solo all the way to the level cap solo, I am not saying I want to change WoW and force you to group in WoW.
If there is a game being designed right now that is trying to capture WoW type numbers of subscriptions and they are making a solo friendly game, like probably Champions Online will be, I am not saying to the Developers, please change yoru solo friendly design, and turn this into a forced grouping game.
I am saying I would enjoy a game where I cannot solo, and the only content available is for groups of at least two people, except possibly for crafting.
Think about it just a moment. There is no solo content. How could you be "forced" to group in this game? You would simply not play it if you liked solo content, becaue there would be no solo contenbt for you. EVERYONE playing this game would know right from the start there is no solo content, and there is only group content. If they STILL wanted to play the game, knowing it was group only, how could you say they were FORCED to group?
Wouldn't you say instead they WANTED to group since that's the only thing you could do in this game? If you didn't want to group, wouldn't you play something else? Or do you think players that loved to play solo would play this game, and complain about being "forced" to group? I don't think so.
IMO, saying this game was FORCED grouping, is like saying they FORCE you to use twitch skills in a First Person Shooter. Well, no, it's a first person shooter game. If you don't like an FPS because it uses twitch skills, you play something else. if you do play an FPS you know it will require twitch skills and no one is forcing you to play it.
This is a group game. If you don't like group games, you would play something else.
You answered yourself. Most would go elsewhere.
Answer me this, why would a game developer invest 10 to 20 million dollars in a game that may return 1 to 2 million?
Don't state your estimations as facts. If there was a fun group centric game to be released .. no one knows how many subs it would get. You don't know how many people would play a group centric game. Don't just look at WoW and think that is the proof. COH came before WoW and yes it was very solo friendly .. did it have as many subs as EQ 1 at the time? No it did not. At that point any one could have used for their argument "See group centric games are more popular" look at EQ's numbers compared to COH.
That would be a flawed argument itself as well. I think it is difficult to sometimes pin point what made a game a success. What made EQ a success? Was it timing? Was it the immersion of the world, classes characters? Was it good advertisement? What made WoW a success? Company name? Game play? The world immersion etc etc etc?
Don't get me wrong I am being the devil's advocate here. I did enjoy the original WoW and I did enjoy EQ as well. You have to understand what is successful now may be for more reasons than just solo ... has a lot to do with timing, advertisement, and something I don't know if developers are able to pinpoint if a game is immersive or not. Lineage 1 & 2 were both very successful games and they were group games as well. What I will say though once a game does have a huge initial success at last in the mmo world is it is like a snowball effect, people go where people are and make the game even more successful.
It also effects the competition when people see a large population on other games, they think it must be fun so many are playing. They leave and try it. Something to think about.
I don't play WoW and other games that are to solo friendly. The developers lose me as a customer. If you read this thread, you can see Im' not the only customer like this.
You're basically saying, I like solo friendly games, so developers should make games for me, not for you. Why not make games for both of us?
I don't play WoW and other games that are to solo friendly. The developers lose me as a customer. If you read this thread, you can see Im' not the only customer like this.
You're basically saying, I like solo friendly games, so developers should make games for me, not for you. Why not make games for both of us?
Because there are a lot more of us (want solo-friendly content) than you (who want forced group). The success of WOW more or less shows that.
Developers are not going to spend millions to cater to a very small minorities.
(I just posted this a few above, it explains why that logic is not correct.)
Don't state your estimations as facts. If there was a fun group centric game to be released .. no one knows how many subs it would get. You don't know how many people would play a group centric game. Don't just look at WoW and think that is the proof. COH came before WoW and yes it was very solo friendly .. did it have as many subs as EQ 1 at the time? No it did not. At that point any one could have used for their argument "See group centric games are more popular" look at EQ's numbers compared to COH.
That would be a flawed argument itself as well. I think it is difficult to sometimes pin point what made a game a success. What made EQ a success? Was it timing? Was it the immersion of the world, classes characters? Was it good advertisement? What made WoW a success? Company name? Game play? The world immersion etc etc etc?
Don't get me wrong I am being the devil's advocate here. I did enjoy the original WoW and I did enjoy EQ as well. You have to understand what is successful now may be for more reasons than just solo ... has a lot to do with timing, advertisement, and something I don't know if developers are able to pinpoint if a game is immersive or not. Lineage 1 & 2 were both very successful games and they were group games as well. What I will say though once a game does have a huge initial success at last in the mmo world is it is like a snowball effect, people go where people are and make the game even more successful.
It also effects the competition when people see a large population on other games, they think it must be fun so many are playing. They leave and try it. Something to think about.
I don't play WoW and other games that are to solo friendly. The developers lose me as a customer. If you read this thread, you can see Im' not the only customer like this.
You're basically saying, I like solo friendly games, so developers should make games for me, not for you. Why not make games for both of us?
Because there are a lot more of us (want solo-friendly content) than you (who want forced group). The success of WOW more or less shows that.
Developers are not going to spend millions to cater to a very small minorities.
1. WAR, AOC, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, the list goes on, all solo friendly, no where near to WoW's numbers. So I don't think the "you gotta cater to the solo crowd if you want to be like WoW" works.
2. Developers ARE spending millions to cater to very small minorities. TAbula Rasa, for example, spent a 100 million dollars (yes 100 million) and catered to such a small minority it shut down. LOTRO is still going, but compared to WoW it caters to a very small minority, and the same could be said of EVE.
EVERY MMORPG is a small minority, compared to WoW:
http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart5.htmlYou're not going to beat WoW trying to get the solo players. Might as well make a game for all the group players that don't like WoW. I think you'd have a shot at making a dollar if you made a good game. You're not going to steal the solo folks from WoW anyway.
I"m not going to beat a dead horse. My opinion is stated more than enough in this thread. Thanks for all that replied. I thought there were some great responses.
not gonna read every post here but like a few have already did mention
go for darkfall. even the devs mentioned there will be only 4 types of mobs that you might be able to solo everything else is group oriented. Infact a solo player will not survive in the enviorment that Darkfall has.
you may want to check that out.
Watching Fanbois drop their soap in a prison full of desperate men.
You might want to take a look at the DF review by Dread OG, where he pretty much solos's the game both PvE and PvP, and uses macros to get his skills up:.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Z2HUX9TEQ
A number of playes who like forced grouping, have that oppinion because they want to meet new people. With grouping required, it is a lot easier to get random groups. This desire to be social while playing, especially to socialise with new people, really does not work in a PvP type game, where you really have to be careful what you do.
With EQ moveing further and further away from grouping required, there really is a void in the market. It is ver true that developers dont cater to small minorities. But in a growing market, it becomes more and more about finding niche to live in, and hopefully soon someone will make a group centric game again.