Why should everyone in the group get the UBER hat? Your group should get one hat and they can then decide who gets it first. If they each want an UBER hat they need to play 100 hours each to much the effort put in by the solo player. No EAZY LOOTZ for them.
There's more than that to it. "Yay, I got my hat first... now I need to help others for 90 hours?! Fk that /leaves"
"Oh, he left. Now we have to look for replacement and get a hat for him too.."
At the same time in the solo-landia..; "Hey, I don't have to deal with that bs, I actually get more benefit from this than the groupers! Yay me!"
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
If I could choose to have a good community, I would go for that game.. but it's not something I get to decide. If the game is not group dependant, the community is not as good as it could be. That's why I think it should change. There is that something that isn't right about the communities of today's MMO's, and I want to make it right. I don't want to take away that choice, I want to split them up so that everyone will have a better experience. It's not just about me, do you realize? I want solo friendly game, group friendly game, a mix of the 2, as well as pure PvE, pure PvP, and a mix of the 2 For Everyone to be able to play just as they want, without having to deal with something they don't care about. I don't think it's too much asked, really. But yeah, I wonder if those fantastic people that solo and care about the community are in the majority or the minority... I don't know if you can grasp what I mean by 'community' if you haven't experienced it yourself- it goes far beyond what other MMO's tend to offer.
But you're simply pulling that out of your ass. Since there are no games out there that are group dependent, are you saying there are no games out there with good communities at all? I would beg to differ. The community has nothing whatsoever to do with forced grouping. In fact, people who enjoy grouping are no better community members, necessarily, than people who enjoy solo or some mix of the two. You get asshats who solo, asshats who group, asshats in the middle. How they play doesn't seem to make a difference.
And maybe you're using "community" differently than I do, maybe you ought to describe it.
Yes, all the communities in todays games suck and it is largely the fault of solo-friendly gameplay in my opinion. When you are an asshat who groups, guess what, you don't get into groups. Asshats can solo all day long and it doesn't bother anyone. When players are forced to group up, the asshats are found and called out = better community.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Yes, all the communities in todays games suck and it is largely the fault of solo-friendly gameplay in my opinion. When you are an asshat who groups, guess what, you don't get into groups. Asshats can solo all day long and it doesn't bother anyone. When players are forced to group up, the asshats are found and called out = better community.
I saw some correlation to this when FFXI got changed to a more 'casual/solo friendly' game, too. Suddenly tons of noobs around near level cap, and not just elitists anymore but complete idiots who couldn't find their way outside the town, or had the english skills of a baboon. I don't want to encourage that kind of players getting to level cap.
And even then the community was light years ahead of anything that came out to MMO market since 2004.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Why should everyone in the group get the UBER hat? Your group should get one hat and they can then decide who gets it first. If they each want an UBER hat they need to play 100 hours each to much the effort put in by the solo player. No EAZY LOOTZ for them.
There's more than that to it. "Yay, I got my hat first... now I need to help others for 90 hours?! Fk that /leaves"
"Oh, he left. Now we have to look for replacement and get a hat for him too.."
At the same time in the solo-landia..; "Hey, I don't have to deal with that bs, I actually get more benefit from this than the groupers! Yay me!"
Exactly. This design encourages solo play.
Why am I going to stand around LFG, when I can just solo for 100 hours and get the hat?
That game is EAZY LOOTZ fro solo players, not worth it for group players.
If you're designing a solo game, this would be it.
"The consumer CHOSE a team based game and then complains that it's team based."
I don't remember reading on ANY MMOG box that I purchased the statement: "Players must group or else they will not be able to achieve the best rewards." or "Player must be able to devote 4-10 hours at a sitting several times a week to participate in the best content."
How exactly are new players supposed to "assume" that ANY GAME WHATSOEVER is going to make such a qualification for achieving top game content? I wouldn't have even imagined such a thing prior to purchasing a game.
Again, it is possible to make a game that caters to both playstyles.
And yes, besides those who want to group, there also needs to be a reason to group.
It seems to me that game developers really don't have great imaginations when one comes down to it.
So I will again go to Vanguard. I realize I've been touting that game quite a bit lately but it really does a variety of things very well. One of the things it does well is that there are areas that you need a group. Period. There are also areas one can solo.
So all game developers have to do is to include different reward for different areas/quests. Doesn't have to be the same reward. Heck, they can even include unique rewards for raiders but rewards that are of equal value when used in non-raid situations.
The problem in balancing both is when you have quests that are usually solo and then suddenly bam! you need a group. There needs to be some separation. Reason being, you get the LOTRO syndrome where people are soloing, they run into the group quest, they get a group, do the quest and then disperse. I strongly suspect that this is not what group oriented players had in mind.
There needs to be a variety of things to do. Such as my previous example of a dungeon where the starting areas can be soloed but in order to get to the difficult areas one must use a group (or stealth which I find an interesting mechanic that doesn't seem to be used very well i these games).
They can also make the same storyline group and solo centric by choosing one or the other option but offering vastly different rewards. Using instances can help with this if they want to make a dynamic encounter for all involved.
Also, to address a previously made comment about soloers don't want groupers to group or some such thing. Nothing can be further from the truth. We just don't care.
All a more solo oriented player wants to do is to get in game and have fun. They don't want to deal with the myriad personalites that are usually forced upon them until they can find like minded people so they seek activities that they can solo until they do find grouping buddies.
in addtion, it's also painfully obvious that game companies are catering to solo players because of another obvious thing. If a game is not solo friendly they just don't play. I know in LOTRO, at one point most of the game had group quests. So I didn't come to the forums and complain and cry or make some sort of manifesto about why I was quitting.
I simply discontinued my account. sometimes it's just that easy.
However, it seems that Turbine felt that other players were also canceling their accounts and also felt that they needed those dollars. I strongly suspect that players who solo might outnumber the players who want or even better said "need" to group.
So they just make the games a bit two dimensional. This is not the way it should be done. These games need to be designed from the ground up with solo/group content in mind. Or like DDO, make hard modes that require a group, might be more involved and offer different rewards that only grouping can get.
Not rewards that will minimalize solo players so that they can never group. Remember... you WANT people to group with you so giving them sub par gear only creates a larger gap so that they will never be able to group with you. Again, it's not like solo players don't want to group. They just don't want to spend innordinate amounts of time looking for a group or hearing you talk about your life. Or whatever it is people want to go on about. They want t play the game. So if, in the end, i know when you lost your virginity, what your sexual preference is, know that this saturday you are taking the car in for maintenance and I also know all the things wrong with it, plus I know about every trip to the hospital that you took this month, then I strongly suspect that players are not playiing the game.
I also suggest that if this is the case, real life friends may be the answer. They like you, care, are there for you and will listen to all of it.
But when I'm in game I want to play.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
So, we soloers are never suppose to have a single MMO that treats us like top dogs, it's always going to be groupers and raiders? Bullshit. You're so worried about your play style being ruined, but never give a damn about other play styles getting the crappy end of the stick. Every frigging MMO out there gives groupers and raiders the best content and rewards, bar none. It's about frakking time we soloers get one that truly caters to us.
Respectfully, I prefer to solo...but in an MMOG (Massively Multiplayer Online Game), I recognize that it would be very foolish of me to demand that solo play have anything that "caters" to me.
There are many games that cater to solo players, but not one of them is a Massively Multiplayer Online game - those are designed purposely and specifically to cater to those who enjoy grouping. It is right in the name of the genre. Those of us who like to solo either accept that, in a Massively Multiplayer Online game, the rules of the game encourage and reward grouping (and we adjust accordingly and ask for help from our guilds or join a PUG when necessary)...or we go find a game that is designed to accomodate our needs, wants, and desires as solo players.
No, "Grouping" and "Raiding" is **not** "right there in the name". All MMOG means is there are a lot of other players in the game with you. It doesn't mean "you have to group up and raid in order to achieve top quality or end-game rewards".
It's not a problem with me that MMOGs requires grouping and raiding end-game rewards; my problem is that virtually ALL MMOGs are fundamentally structured the exact same way. (1) character advancement is directly predicated on how much time one has to play, and (2) grouping and raiding always deliver the best content and rewards. However, there is no limitation in coding, or in the technology, that requires either of those things ... but MMOG developers keep producing essentially the same game over and over.
When you structure a game along those two fundamental paradigms, you generate a certain kind of game, and attract certain players, every time. It doesn't matter if you can multiclass, or if it's a sci fi or a fantasy game, or if it has really pretty graphics, or if it is free to play or a subscription; it doesn't matter how good your crafting systems is or how great the voice acting or music is; it doesn't matter what your death penalty is .... because you've created the same game, with the same fundamental dynamic that funnels in hardcore raiders, provides them with a sense of accomplishment and superiority, and leaves the rest having to find some other way of enjoying the game besides what is obviously the end-game top rewards. That makes them 2nd class citizens in the game, paying the same amount but only getting to serve as the "scrubs" that the hardcore power-raiders get to show their shiny stuff off to and kill in PvP.
Also, it makes the developers **have to** scramble to provide new content for the hardcore powergamers, because they consume all the content the fastest ... while the casuals can play the original content for a year or more and **never** get to the end. This means that casual players will be funding new content they will never see to keep the least profitable players happy.
Nothing wrong with that .. other than ALL MMOGs are designed that way (except maybe EVE). In the above system, since there is such a disparity cause by how much time players have to be online playing, all sorts of exploits are possible, such as botting.
I often wonder if the reason that developers refuse to get away from that mold is because that model offers so much room for exploiting, abuse, and profiteering. If a game had a 24/7 advancement system for all players (including gathering gold), players wouldn't find the need to buy gold, or bot their character, just to keep up with guilds or fanatical players that play their chracters 24/7. If soloers had access to the same end-game rewards, then "forced grouping" wouldn't be necessary, and more casual, or nicer groups could then form.
With all the chat channels and guild/family/RP opportunities possible in such games, "socializing" doesn't have to mean spending hours looking for groups or raids, then being checked out to see if your specs or ability meets their needs, then entering an area and shouting "camp check" , then being entirely focused on fulfilling your class role in the group as min-maxers push the group/raid to maximum efficiency. Really? That's socializing to you?
The only time I have ever been able to socialize is through the chat channels to other players who are casually soloing or doing other things; when you have a limited amount of time to do anything with your character, you like to do things to advance them, not spend too much time "socializing"; with a 24/7 advancement system, all players are freed up to socialize more - real socialization, real talking, without the pressure or sense that you're "wasting precious time", or holding up a group or a raid. Who knows? It might even bring real RP back into a game where people don't have to make a choice between efficient advancement and RPing their character.
Massively Multiplayer socializing doens't necessarily mean "grouping" or "raiding"; it only means that now because the fundamental structure of MMOGs - almost every one of them - requires grouping, raiding, min-maxing and efficient use of one's time to advance their characters. Change the fundamental philosophy of the game, and you'll find an entirely different kind of socializing that isn't min-max efficiency "what are your specs?" based. In a different system, what your specs are are not nearly as important as what your character is, or if you have a good sense of humor, or can RP well.
Great post. I never really thought of it that way, but you speak the truth. Socializing is only really enjoyable for me if we are joking around or talking about strategy or something. I absolutely hate talking about gear, especially people bragging about it, and the whole min/max thing.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
"The consumer CHOSE a team based game and then complains that it's team based." I don't remember reading on ANY MMOG box that I purchased the statement: "Players must group or else they will not be able to achieve the best rewards." or "Player must be able to devote 4-10 hours at a sitting several times a week to participate in the best content." How exactly are new players supposed to "assume" that ANY GAME WHATSOEVER is going to make such a qualification for achieving top game content? I wouldn't have even imagined such a thing prior to purchasing a game.
Who are the intelligent individuals who buy 50+ $ games without even knowing anything about it (p/reviews, general info..)?
The <12 years old I guess, too bad for them .
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
The consumer CHOSE a team based game and then complains that it's team based. I don't remember reading on ANY MMOG box that I purchased the statement: "Players must group or else they will not be able to achieve the best rewards." or "Player must be able to devote 4-10 hours at a sitting several times a week to participate in the best content." How exactly are new players supposed to "assume" that ANY GAME WHATSOEVER is going to make such a qualification for achieving any game content?
There is of course no reason you must include BOTH features in the same game.
I think it would be perfectly fine to break up quests in one hour chunks.
So, yes you must group to make the best progress, but no you do not have to play 4-10 hours to complete a task.
For example, the quest is go to the bottom of the Dark Dungeon, collect crystal from boss mob on each level, defeat Uber Mob Boss at the bottom and get the uber crystal, take back all 10 crystals, get uber reward.
Dark Dungeon has 10 levels, each level takes about an hour to do with a decent group.
Crystals are 1-10.
LFG, need crystal 3. find group, take about an hour to get crystal 3, done.
The hard core gamer can do all 10 levels in one sitting of 10 hours straight. You can do it one hour a day if you want.
So, we soloers are never suppose to have a single MMO that treats us like top dogs, it's always going to be groupers and raiders? Bullshit. You're so worried about your play style being ruined, but never give a damn about other play styles getting the crappy end of the stick. Every frigging MMO out there gives groupers and raiders the best content and rewards, bar none. It's about frakking time we soloers get one that truly caters to us.
Respectfully, I prefer to solo...but in an MMOG (Massively Multiplayer Online Game), I recognize that it would be very foolish of me to demand that solo play have anything that "caters" to me.
There are many games that cater to solo players, but not one of them is a Massively Multiplayer Online game - those are designed purposely and specifically to cater to those who enjoy grouping. It is right in the name of the genre. Those of us who like to solo either accept that, in a Massively Multiplayer Online game, the rules of the game encourage and reward grouping (and we adjust accordingly and ask for help from our guilds or join a PUG when necessary)...or we go find a game that is designed to accomodate our needs, wants, and desires as solo players.
No, "Grouping" and "Raiding" is **not** "right there in the name". All MMOG means is there are a lot of other players in the game with you. It doesn't mean "you have to group up and raid in order to achieve top quality or end-game rewards".
It's not a problem with me that MMOGs requires grouping and raiding end-game rewards; my problem is that virtually ALL MMOGs are fundamentally structured the exact same way. (1) character advancement is directly predicated on how much time one has to play, and (2) grouping and raiding always deliver the best content and rewards. However, there is no limitation in coding, or in the technology, that requires either of those things ... but MMOG developers keep producing essentially the same game over and over.
When you structure a game along those two fundamental paradigms, you generate a certain kind of game, and attract certain players, every time. It doesn't matter if you can multiclass, or if it's a sci fi or a fantasy game, or if it has really pretty graphics, or if it is free to play or a subscription; it doesn't matter how good your crafting systems is or how great the voice acting or music is; it doesn't matter what your death penalty is .... because you've created the same game, with the same fundamental dynamic that funnels in hardcore raiders, provides them with a sense of accomplishment and superiority, and leaves the rest having to find some other way of enjoying the game besides what is obviously the end-game top rewards. That makes them 2nd class citizens in the game, paying the same amount but only getting to serve as the "scrubs" that the hardcore power-raiders get to show their shiny stuff off to and kill in PvP.
Also, it makes the developers **have to** scramble to provide new content for the hardcore powergamers, because they consume all the content the fastest ... while the casuals can play the original content for a year or more and **never** get to the end. This means that casual players will be funding new content they will never see to keep the least profitable players happy.
Nothing wrong with that .. other than ALL MMOGs are designed that way (except maybe EVE). In the above system, since there is such a disparity cause by how much time players have to be online playing, all sorts of exploits are possible, such as botting.
I often wonder if the reason that developers refuse to get away from that mold is because that model offers so much room for exploiting, abuse, and profiteering. If a game had a 24/7 advancement system for all players (including gathering gold), players wouldn't find the need to buy gold, or bot their character, just to keep up with guilds or fanatical players that play their chracters 24/7. If soloers had access to the same end-game rewards, then "forced grouping" wouldn't be necessary, and more casual, or nicer groups could then form.
With all the chat channels and guild/family/RP opportunities possible in such games, "socializing" doesn't have to mean spending hours looking for groups or raids, then being checked out to see if your specs or ability meets their needs, then entering an area and shouting "camp check" , then being entirely focused on fulfilling your class role in the group as min-maxers push the group/raid to maximum efficiency. Really? That's socializing to you?
The only time I have ever been able to socialize is through the chat channels to other players who are casually soloing or doing other things; when you have a limited amount of time to do anything with your character, you like to do things to advance them, not spend too much time "socializing"; with a 24/7 advancement system, all players are freed up to socialize more - real socialization, real talking, without the pressure or sense that you're "wasting precious time", or holding up a group or a raid. Who knows? It might even bring real RP back into a game where people don't have to make a choice between efficient advancement and RPing their character.
Massively Multiplayer socializing doens't necessarily mean "grouping" or "raiding"; it only means that now because the fundamental structure of MMOGs - almost every one of them - requires grouping, raiding, min-maxing and efficient use of one's time to advance their characters. Change the fundamental philosophy of the game, and you'll find an entirely different kind of socializing that isn't min-max efficiency "what are your specs?" based. In a different system, what your specs are are not nearly as important as what your character is, or if you have a good sense of humor, or can RP well.
Great post. I never really thought of it that way, but you speak the truth. Socializing is only really enjoyable for me if we are joking around or talking about strategy or something. I absolutely hate talking about gear, especially people bragging about it, and the whole min/max thing.
I like group based games for the game mechanics, especially combat.
I've had groups that work well as a team, but don't talk.
For me, that's still quite fun. It's not necessarily the chat that makes the game fun, as mentioned you can do that on a global channel with people you aren't grouped with.
It's the combat dymanic of team work that makes the game fun, in a way that a single player game is not.
Without a need for the team work, it is pointless, and therefore not a fun or useful game mechanic.
There is of course no reason you must include BOTH features in the same game. I think it would be perfectly fine to break up quests in one hour chunks. So, yes you must group to make the best progress, but no you do not have to play 4-10 hours to complete a task. For example, the quest is go to the bottom of the Dark Dungeon, collect crystal from boss mob on each level, defeat Uber Mob Boss at the bottom and get the uber crystal, take back all 10 crystals, get uber reward. Dark Dungeon has 10 levels, each level takes about an hour to do with a decent group. Crystals are 1-10. LFG, need crystal 3. find group, take about an hour to get crystal 3, done. The hard core gamer can do all 10 levels in one sitting of 10 hours straight. You can do it one hour a day if you want.
Ahha, this is what FFXI did with one of it's events.
There's a tower with 100 floors... each time you enter the tower you have 30mins to clear 5 or more floors, and your progress is saved. The floors are randomly generated to make the event more diverse.. Rewards include new gears from bosses that appear every 20th floor, as well as new 'ability' for every class depending on your floor progress (takes long time to acquire at floor 20....takes like an hour to acquire at floor 100).
You can do 1 per day or up to 5, depending on your playtimes.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
"The consumer CHOSE a team based game and then complains that it's team based." I don't remember reading on ANY MMOG box that I purchased the statement: "Players must group or else they will not be able to achieve the best rewards." or "Player must be able to devote 4-10 hours at a sitting several times a week to participate in the best content." How exactly are new players supposed to "assume" that ANY GAME WHATSOEVER is going to make such a qualification for achieving top game content? I wouldn't have even imagined such a thing prior to purchasing a game.
Who are the intelligent individuals who buy 50+ $ games without even knowing anything about it (p/reviews, general info..)?
The <12 years old I guess, too bad for them .
Have you ever read a review of an MMOG that said: "you cannot get the top rewards or experience the best content unless you group and/or are prepared to spend 4-10 hrs a day several days a week in groups and raids"?
Nope. Why not? Because inside the community, it is a GIVEN that this is the case, and it's not even mentioned in any reviews. Newcomers to the genre, even if they perform due diligence (what, people can't buy games on impulse??) have no means by which to even imagine that this will be the case once they start playing; it's only the people that have been involved in the genre that **assume** every new MMOG is going to require that kind of insanity; they don't even realize that such a set of requirements would even seem odd or inappropriate to those who haven't become accustomed to it.
Have you ever read a review of an MMOG that said: "you cannot get the top rewards or experience the best content unless you group and/or are prepared to spend 4-10 hrs a day several days a week in groups and raids"? Nope. Why not? Because inside the community, it is a GIVEN that this is the case, and it's not even mentioned in any reviews. Newcomers to the genre, even if they perform due diligence (what, people can't buy games on impulse??) have no means by which to even imagine that this will be the case once they start playing; it's only the people that have been involved in the genre that **assume** every new MMOG is going to require that kind of insanity; they don't even realize that such a set of requirements would even seem odd or inappropriate to those who haven't become accustomed to it.
Oh, I've never read such a review. I've read reviews that state "This is a team based game" though, wink wink. Can we draw conclusions from this statement?
Of course not, it could mean "This is a team based game up to level cap, then you no longer need to team up to get best rewards!" and poor readers will be confused and buy the game anyway and be shocked when zomg, you still need team at the level cap!
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
"The consumer CHOSE a team based game and then complains that it's team based." I don't remember reading on ANY MMOG box that I purchased the statement: "Players must group or else they will not be able to achieve the best rewards." or "Player must be able to devote 4-10 hours at a sitting several times a week to participate in the best content." How exactly are new players supposed to "assume" that ANY GAME WHATSOEVER is going to make such a qualification for achieving top game content? I wouldn't have even imagined such a thing prior to purchasing a game.
Who are the intelligent individuals who buy 50+ $ games without even knowing anything about it (p/reviews, general info..)?
The <12 years old I guess, too bad for them .
Have you ever read a review of an MMOG that said: "you cannot get the top rewards or experience the best content unless you group and/or are prepared to spend 4-10 hrs a day several days a week in groups and raids"?
Nope. Why not? Because inside the community, it is a GIVEN that this is the case, and it's not even mentioned in any reviews. Newcomers to the genre, even if they perform due diligence (what, people can't buy games on impulse??) have no means by which to even imagine that this will be the case once they start playing; it's only the people that have been involved in the genre that **assume** every new MMOG is going to require that kind of insanity; they don't even realize that such a set of requirements would even seem odd or inappropriate to those who haven't become accustomed to it.
I think you have to break up the discussion between leveling nad end game.
You example only applies to the end game where there is raiding.
I like end game RvR, not really into the raiding thing. If that's all there is left to do, raid, and I'm bored with making alts, then the game is pretty much over for me and I'm playing something else.
But so what? By then, I"ve certainly gotten my money's worth from the 50 dollar box and the 14.95 a month fees during the time I've played.
Why should everyone in the group get the UBER hat? Your group should get one hat and they can then decide who gets it first. If they each want an UBER hat they need to play 100 hours each to much the effort put in by the solo player. No EAZY LOOTZ for them.
There's more than that to it. "Yay, I got my hat first... now I need to help others for 90 hours?! Fk that /leaves"
"Oh, he left. Now we have to look for replacement and get a hat for him too.."
At the same time in the solo-landia..; "Hey, I don't have to deal with that bs, I actually get more benefit from this than the groupers! Yay me!"
Exactly. This design encourages solo play.
Why am I going to stand around LFG, when I can just solo for 100 hours and get the hat?
That game is EAZY LOOTZ fro solo players, not worth it for group players.
If you're designing a solo game, this would be it.
I really do not see why the soloer should be penalized for the grouper's personal failure in finding teammates who are not leeches. While the soloer is putting in all that effort doing content the groupers are just standing around doing nothing because they are too lazy to find the right people to group with.
Heck, an easy solution to this is that the group gets a UBER TOKEN per 10 hours and they can trae 10 UBER TOKENS for 1 UBER HAT. So now they can have to put in the same effort of 100 hours as the soloer to get the hat.
Why should everyone in the group get the UBER hat? Your group should get one hat and they can then decide who gets it first. If they each want an UBER hat they need to play 100 hours each to much the effort put in by the solo player. No EAZY LOOTZ for them.
There's more than that to it. "Yay, I got my hat first... now I need to help others for 90 hours?! Fk that /leaves"
"Oh, he left. Now we have to look for replacement and get a hat for him too.."
At the same time in the solo-landia..; "Hey, I don't have to deal with that bs, I actually get more benefit from this than the groupers! Yay me!"
Exactly. This design encourages solo play.
Why am I going to stand around LFG, when I can just solo for 100 hours and get the hat?
That game is EAZY LOOTZ fro solo players, not worth it for group players.
If you're designing a solo game, this would be it.
I really do not see why the soloer should be penalized for the grouper's personal failure in finding teammates who are not leeches. While the soloer is putting in all that effort doing content the groupers are just standing around doing nothing because they are too lazy to find the right people to group with.
Heck, an easy solution to this is that the group gets a UBER TOKEN per 10 hours and they can trae 10 UBER TOKENS for 1 UBER HAT. So now they can have to put in the same effort of 100 hours as the soloer to get the hat.
IMO, your post makes no sense.
This is the reality of grouping and solo play.
Solo player. Logs on, immediately wacks mobs, immediatly makes XP.
Grouper: Would you like to join my group?
Party: Maybe, what level are you what quest are you doing, where are you going, etc?
Grouper: Ok, we're going to group, I'll wait for you, can you instantly teleport to me in 1 second? No? Ok, I'll wait here.
Party: Ok, we have wacked many mobs, I have to take a bio break.
Grouper: Ok, we have wacked many mobs, I have to get a soda.
This takes time.
The solo'er does not take this time.
How is that time to group personal failure? It's personal failure because I'm in Zone A, and you're in Zone B, and we ahve to travel to meet one another? It's a great accomplishment for teh solo'er that he didn't have to walk anywhere and meet anyone, so he could make XP immediately?
Honestly, I think there should be a mix of both types of gameplay. There are just times where you just can't get a group and if there was no solo play then there would be nothing for me to do except twiddle my thumbs waiting. I do not think anyone likes that. At the same time I do no think that a game should be so solo friendly that everyone can do everything alone. Let's face it, a large precentage of people would just solo it... heck I would.
I like both to a certain extent and I think both should be available to fit the circumstances.
Now to try and solve the problem of soloers wanting to do everything including group content.
Devs make group and/or raid content for that play-style and in my opinion should only be for that playstyle.
Well....
Since devs already make content meant for grouping and raiding, why don't they make content exclusive for solo play?
Like some cave of trials or something that tests an individuals personal skill and then give them a reward that is "leet" but only benefits them in solo play. And I mean REALLY test them. If the point of grouping (on a purely achievement sense) is to spread out the work load and have others make up for your shortcomings, then solo-play should not have that luxury and test the limits of that player's abilities. Nothing so hard that you can only finish it 1 out of 100 attempts but maybe something like 1 out of 15 or 20 attempts lol.
At the same time raiding and grouping can remain the same except the stuff obtained from that activity should only really benefits that play-style, like how the solo gear only benefits solo play.
Basically make 2 separate paths of content that cater to a certain play-style. Now solo people have no reason to groan about not progressing anymore since now they have an alternate route to take that caters to their play-style.
Now granted with something like this you miss some content if you play one type exclusively but, in all fairness, a lot of games have the "raid or die" setup so why not give other people something to do?
people who only ever group cannot imagine why people would solo - they consider them inferior socially and ability wise. You will not break through to them, they cannot understand that solo play is a challenge, and that some people like challenges. They like to say we are casual players - but many of us solo players log as many or more hours/day/week as them.
Group play is not challenging, eh?
depends on the group - sometimes with certain players it is a challenge to stay alive.
Honestly, I think there should be a mix of both types of gameplay. There are just times where you just can't get a group and if there was no solo play then there would be nothing for me to do except twiddle my thumbs waiting. I do not think anyone likes that. At the same time I do no think that a game should be so solo friendly that everyone can do everything alone. Let's face it, a large precentage of people would just solo it... heck I would. I like both to a certain extent and I think both should be available to fit the circumstances. Now to try and solve the problem of soloers wanting to do everything including group content. Devs make group and/or raid content for that play-style and in my opinion should only be for that playstyle. Well.... Since devs already make content meant for grouping and raiding, why don't they make content exclusive for solo play? Like some cave of trials or something that tests an individuals personal skill and then give them a reward that is "leet" but only benefits them in solo play. And I mean REALLY test them. If the point of grouping (on a purely achievement sense) is to spread out the work load and have others make up for your shortcomings, then solo-play should not have that luxury and test the limits of that player's abilities. Nothing so hard that you can only finish it 1 out of 100 attempts but maybe something like 1 out of 15 or 20 attempts lol. At the same time raiding and grouping can remain the same except the stuff obtained from that activity should only really benefits that play-style, like how the solo gear only benefits solo play. Basically make 2 separate paths of content that cater to a certain play-style. Now solo people have no reason to groan about not progressing anymore since now they have an alternate route to take that caters to their play-style. Now granted with something like this you miss some content if you play one type exclusively but, in all fairness, a lot of games have the "raid or die" setup so why not give other people something to do?
That would be a solo game.
I don't have any obstacles to defeat in a group, because I can just solo my way to the top.
Why group?
You mean you have to have "solo gear" to be solo mobs, and "group gear" to beat group mobs?
Why would I ever fight group mobs if I don't have to?
Why should everyone in the group get the UBER hat? Your group should get one hat and they can then decide who gets it first. If they each want an UBER hat they need to play 100 hours each to much the effort put in by the solo player. No EAZY LOOTZ for them.
There's more than that to it. "Yay, I got my hat first... now I need to help others for 90 hours?! Fk that /leaves"
"Oh, he left. Now we have to look for replacement and get a hat for him too.."
At the same time in the solo-landia..; "Hey, I don't have to deal with that bs, I actually get more benefit from this than the groupers! Yay me!"
Exactly. This design encourages solo play.
Why am I going to stand around LFG, when I can just solo for 100 hours and get the hat?
That game is EAZY LOOTZ fro solo players, not worth it for group players.
If you're designing a solo game, this would be it.
I really do not see why the soloer should be penalized for the grouper's personal failure in finding teammates who are not leeches. While the soloer is putting in all that effort doing content the groupers are just standing around doing nothing because they are too lazy to find the right people to group with.
Heck, an easy solution to this is that the group gets a UBER TOKEN per 10 hours and they can trae 10 UBER TOKENS for 1 UBER HAT. So now they can have to put in the same effort of 100 hours as the soloer to get the hat.
IMO, your post makes no sense.
This is the reality of grouping and solo play.
Solo player. Logs on, immediately wacks mobs, immediatly makes XP.
Grouper: Would you like to join my group?
Party: Maybe, what level are you what quest are you doing, where are you going, etc?
Grouper: Ok, we're going to group, I'll wait for you, can you instantly teleport to me in 1 second? No? Ok, I'll wait here.
Party: Ok, we have wacked many mobs, I have to take a bio break.
Grouper: Ok, we have wacked many mobs, I have to get a soda.
This takes time.
The solo'er does not take this time.
How is that time to group personal failure? It's personal failure because I'm in Zone A, and you're in Zone B, and we ahve to travel to meet one another? It's a great accomplishment for teh solo'er that he didn't have to walk anywhere and meet anyone, so he could make XP immediately?
Really?
The solo'r has to pick his/her fights and some time is spent doing that. Also many times the solo'r pulls more mobs then he/she can handle which results in running away or dying - which takes time(dying = time spent coming back to the area where the quest is). The eprson who solo's can always join a group to get that hard little quest out of the way, the player that only groups has to wait and also time his game time for when more people are on. The solo'r has to wait for groups to go by killing everything whther they need it or not and then wait for the respawn. The group just kills it's way through.
Please don't try to sell solo'ing as casual play - it takes much more patience and a good knowledge of what your character/class can or cannot handle. It also means you will be getting many random group invites from people who do not know you because they cannot fill the last slot in the group and who will flame you - sometimes for many minutes for not joining their group.
Solo'ing is not for everyone but a good game includes content for it, a good game also includes content for groupers. As far as the rewards go - I don't care if the groupers get better rewards - usually not everyone in a group gets anything depending on how the loot is set up. The solo'r kills the mobs, completes the quests, collects whatever loot drops and moves on. Meanwhile the group is still trying to fill the slot of their healer who finished his quest before anyone else and immediately dropped out of the group. I prefer solo play, and group where I have to, Solo play means learning your class very quickly, group play you learn your role in the group - this may mean that certain skills of your class do not get used much.
In LOTRO I have a high lvl Captain - he has many skills of which he uses most solo'ing. In a group he is usually forced to abandon his melee and use his buffs and heals - he plays only a secondary role. It is a class that has group purposes but is really better at solo'ing or teaming with a friend. That is the type of class content I like.
I see where your logic lies. You believe that as long as there is a solo path to a reward no one will group to get to the same reward. By that logic no one actually prefers grouping over solo play which means devs should just make solo only games. Wow I thought I had it bad with my turn based strategy games being killed by RTS.
We will have to agree to disagree.
I think solo and group play deserve equal rewards for time in. I believe that setting up the group and the inherent delays of group play are part of that time in. The current MMOs have problems getting groups organized which makes them quite pointless. Throw in the fact that people that don't want to group are being forced to for gear and it makes a pretty sucky environment. Once you have good tools to group and proper balance of content/rewards then both side will be happy in the same game.
This is the reality of grouping and solo play. wrong again Solo player. Logs on, immediately wacks mobs, immediatly makes XP. Grouper: Would you like to join my group? Party: Maybe, what level are you what quest are you doing, where are you going, etc? Grouper: Ok, we're going to group, I'll wait for you, can you instantly teleport to me in 1 second? No? Ok, I'll wait here. Party: Ok, we have wacked many mobs, I have to take a bio break. Grouper: Ok, we have wacked many mobs, I have to get a soda. This takes time. The solo'er does not take this time. How is that time to group personal failure? It's personal failure because I'm in Zone A, and you're in Zone B, and we ahve to travel to meet one another? It's a great accomplishment for teh solo'er that he didn't have to walk anywhere and meet anyone, so he could make XP immediately? Really?
This is why grouping in any smart MMORPG gives better loot, better XP over time, better money, etc. This is whay in any smart MMORPG there are means in which to travel and meet up with your party quickly.
Another reason WoW was so successful? Instanced dungeons with quests leading into them and Summoning Stones outside of every instance.
Solo player is led into grouping naturally, fun instanced dungeons for them and their new friends, easy ways to meet up with them and start adventuring together.
WoW may have not been the first to have summoning stones and instanced dungeons with quests and such, but it certainly made them the standard and brought millions of players, even solo ones, into this social online group based game.
It's all about how you approach it. When leveling up if I get a good group going I always suggest after a dungeon is cleared to reset it and do it again. Great XP, great loot, more fun then grinding quests IMO.
If you are talking about solo versus group loot, why do you think WoW uses a token system for their dungeons and raids now? It's for people to play catch up. The avid groupers and dungeon runners/raiders will always get the loot faster because they run the content more, but the more casual player who only pugs from time to time will get the loot eventually.
It's genius.
One of the most incompetent things they did was make crafting require loot from dungeons/raids. Crafting should be the solo players way to "keep up" with the group guys/gals. More time to collect resources and manufacture stuff then if you just ran an instance or whatever, but a definite way to "catch up."
Crafted gear should be on par with looted stuff, in terms of PvE gear anyway, and should be able to be aquired by solo players. Instead crafting gear is very limited, only a few patterns at high levels and it's replaced so quickly in dungeons/raids by better gear it's rarely worth making.
IMO there should be just as many pieces of loot that can be crafted as you can get as a drop in a dungeon/raid, and the stats should be comparable but use the model of time = reward rather then skill = reward.
I.e. running a dungeon or raid with a group requires some skill, as it requires a party, and there is some element of luck involved due to randomness of drops, but the loot is garaunteed in a MUCH short period of time.
Where as crafting should be able to be done entirely solo, just take a bit longer.
What about the "hardcore" you say?
They can do both. Spend their solo time getting the crafted stuff made, use their group time to get the other peices and combine it all to make a full set.
And you can mix/match pieces. Set pieces for both sets only involve a few pieces and make them comparable too, so you could run 5/5 dungeon for 2 and 4 piece bonus, or 5/5 crafted for 2 and 4 piece bonus, or 2/5 and 3/5 etc. for the same 2 and 4 piece bonuses and such.
So why would this work?
Everyone would NOT just solo craft to get the pieces because it'd be faster to group with others and get the pieces as loot, but if you don't or can't group, eventually you can get the pieces anyway... and if have time/effort to do both you can get it all ever faster.
Honestly, I think there should be a mix of both types of gameplay. There are just times where you just can't get a group and if there was no solo play then there would be nothing for me to do except twiddle my thumbs waiting. I do not think anyone likes that. At the same time I do no think that a game should be so solo friendly that everyone can do everything alone. Let's face it, a large precentage of people would just solo it... heck I would. I like both to a certain extent and I think both should be available to fit the circumstances. Now to try and solve the problem of soloers wanting to do everything including group content. Devs make group and/or raid content for that play-style and in my opinion should only be for that playstyle. Well.... Since devs already make content meant for grouping and raiding, why don't they make content exclusive for solo play? Like some cave of trials or something that tests an individuals personal skill and then give them a reward that is "leet" but only benefits them in solo play. And I mean REALLY test them. If the point of grouping (on a purely achievement sense) is to spread out the work load and have others make up for your shortcomings, then solo-play should not have that luxury and test the limits of that player's abilities. Nothing so hard that you can only finish it 1 out of 100 attempts but maybe something like 1 out of 15 or 20 attempts lol. At the same time raiding and grouping can remain the same except the stuff obtained from that activity should only really benefits that play-style, like how the solo gear only benefits solo play. Basically make 2 separate paths of content that cater to a certain play-style. Now solo people have no reason to groan about not progressing anymore since now they have an alternate route to take that caters to their play-style. Now granted with something like this you miss some content if you play one type exclusively but, in all fairness, a lot of games have the "raid or die" setup so why not give other people something to do?
That would be a solo game.
I don't have any obstacles to defeat in a group, because I can just solo my way to the top.
Why group?
You mean you have to have "solo gear" to be solo mobs, and "group gear" to beat group mobs?
Why would I ever fight group mobs if I don't have to?
No....
I'm proposing something like an epic instance that allows only 1 player to complete.
Where as you are raiding, in a raid instance, the soloer is doing his/her epic instance.
The rewards and content for both are specialized, separate and different.
Meaning the soloer's armor gets a mild boost when they solo (although PVP becomes a problem then) and raiders get a boost when they are grouping from their armor. Also these boosts would be things pertaining to your playstyle like a random 30 hp self-heal for the solo and something like a +30 heal to the grouper.
Also when did I say anything about specific mobs?
Lastly, yes its solo content injected into an MMO.... it was meant to be content for solo people to do while you do raid content.
People that want to do raid stuff probably wont do the solo stuff because the stuff obtained from that will not help progress them in the raid content and vice versa for the solo people.
What's the point? City of Heroes was a solo game, where lots of people grouped. It's still not a satisfying group game, because the grouping is largely unnecessary. Just because you CAN group and sometimes do, doesn't mean it's a good grouping game.
See, the problem is that you're defining any game where you even have the ability to solo as a solo game and then dismissing it as a bad game, while in any game that you're forced, either by mechanics or design, to be in a group all the time, is a group game.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of games out there are *BOTH* and you don't want to sully your precious "grouping games" by actually sharing.
That's your right, I suppose. I just find it pathetic that you have to control what everyone else does in order to feel good about your style of play.
Comments
There's more than that to it. "Yay, I got my hat first... now I need to help others for 90 hours?! Fk that /leaves"
"Oh, he left. Now we have to look for replacement and get a hat for him too.."
At the same time in the solo-landia..; "Hey, I don't have to deal with that bs, I actually get more benefit from this than the groupers! Yay me!"
But you're simply pulling that out of your ass. Since there are no games out there that are group dependent, are you saying there are no games out there with good communities at all? I would beg to differ. The community has nothing whatsoever to do with forced grouping. In fact, people who enjoy grouping are no better community members, necessarily, than people who enjoy solo or some mix of the two. You get asshats who solo, asshats who group, asshats in the middle. How they play doesn't seem to make a difference.
And maybe you're using "community" differently than I do, maybe you ought to describe it.
Yes, all the communities in todays games suck and it is largely the fault of solo-friendly gameplay in my opinion. When you are an asshat who groups, guess what, you don't get into groups. Asshats can solo all day long and it doesn't bother anyone. When players are forced to group up, the asshats are found and called out = better community.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I saw some correlation to this when FFXI got changed to a more 'casual/solo friendly' game, too. Suddenly tons of noobs around near level cap, and not just elitists anymore but complete idiots who couldn't find their way outside the town, or had the english skills of a baboon. I don't want to encourage that kind of players getting to level cap.
And even then the community was light years ahead of anything that came out to MMO market since 2004.
There's more than that to it. "Yay, I got my hat first... now I need to help others for 90 hours?! Fk that /leaves"
"Oh, he left. Now we have to look for replacement and get a hat for him too.."
At the same time in the solo-landia..; "Hey, I don't have to deal with that bs, I actually get more benefit from this than the groupers! Yay me!"
Exactly. This design encourages solo play.
Why am I going to stand around LFG, when I can just solo for 100 hours and get the hat?
That game is EAZY LOOTZ fro solo players, not worth it for group players.
If you're designing a solo game, this would be it.
"The consumer CHOSE a team based game and then complains that it's team based."
I don't remember reading on ANY MMOG box that I purchased the statement: "Players must group or else they will not be able to achieve the best rewards." or "Player must be able to devote 4-10 hours at a sitting several times a week to participate in the best content."
How exactly are new players supposed to "assume" that ANY GAME WHATSOEVER is going to make such a qualification for achieving top game content? I wouldn't have even imagined such a thing prior to purchasing a game.
Again, it is possible to make a game that caters to both playstyles.
And yes, besides those who want to group, there also needs to be a reason to group.
It seems to me that game developers really don't have great imaginations when one comes down to it.
So I will again go to Vanguard. I realize I've been touting that game quite a bit lately but it really does a variety of things very well. One of the things it does well is that there are areas that you need a group. Period. There are also areas one can solo.
So all game developers have to do is to include different reward for different areas/quests. Doesn't have to be the same reward. Heck, they can even include unique rewards for raiders but rewards that are of equal value when used in non-raid situations.
The problem in balancing both is when you have quests that are usually solo and then suddenly bam! you need a group. There needs to be some separation. Reason being, you get the LOTRO syndrome where people are soloing, they run into the group quest, they get a group, do the quest and then disperse. I strongly suspect that this is not what group oriented players had in mind.
There needs to be a variety of things to do. Such as my previous example of a dungeon where the starting areas can be soloed but in order to get to the difficult areas one must use a group (or stealth which I find an interesting mechanic that doesn't seem to be used very well i these games).
They can also make the same storyline group and solo centric by choosing one or the other option but offering vastly different rewards. Using instances can help with this if they want to make a dynamic encounter for all involved.
Also, to address a previously made comment about soloers don't want groupers to group or some such thing. Nothing can be further from the truth. We just don't care.
All a more solo oriented player wants to do is to get in game and have fun. They don't want to deal with the myriad personalites that are usually forced upon them until they can find like minded people so they seek activities that they can solo until they do find grouping buddies.
in addtion, it's also painfully obvious that game companies are catering to solo players because of another obvious thing. If a game is not solo friendly they just don't play. I know in LOTRO, at one point most of the game had group quests. So I didn't come to the forums and complain and cry or make some sort of manifesto about why I was quitting.
I simply discontinued my account. sometimes it's just that easy.
However, it seems that Turbine felt that other players were also canceling their accounts and also felt that they needed those dollars. I strongly suspect that players who solo might outnumber the players who want or even better said "need" to group.
So they just make the games a bit two dimensional. This is not the way it should be done. These games need to be designed from the ground up with solo/group content in mind. Or like DDO, make hard modes that require a group, might be more involved and offer different rewards that only grouping can get.
Not rewards that will minimalize solo players so that they can never group. Remember... you WANT people to group with you so giving them sub par gear only creates a larger gap so that they will never be able to group with you. Again, it's not like solo players don't want to group. They just don't want to spend innordinate amounts of time looking for a group or hearing you talk about your life. Or whatever it is people want to go on about. They want t play the game. So if, in the end, i know when you lost your virginity, what your sexual preference is, know that this saturday you are taking the car in for maintenance and I also know all the things wrong with it, plus I know about every trip to the hospital that you took this month, then I strongly suspect that players are not playiing the game.
I also suggest that if this is the case, real life friends may be the answer. They like you, care, are there for you and will listen to all of it.
But when I'm in game I want to play.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Respectfully, I prefer to solo...but in an MMOG (Massively Multiplayer Online Game), I recognize that it would be very foolish of me to demand that solo play have anything that "caters" to me.
There are many games that cater to solo players, but not one of them is a Massively Multiplayer Online game - those are designed purposely and specifically to cater to those who enjoy grouping. It is right in the name of the genre. Those of us who like to solo either accept that, in a Massively Multiplayer Online game, the rules of the game encourage and reward grouping (and we adjust accordingly and ask for help from our guilds or join a PUG when necessary)...or we go find a game that is designed to accomodate our needs, wants, and desires as solo players.
No, "Grouping" and "Raiding" is **not** "right there in the name". All MMOG means is there are a lot of other players in the game with you. It doesn't mean "you have to group up and raid in order to achieve top quality or end-game rewards".
It's not a problem with me that MMOGs requires grouping and raiding end-game rewards; my problem is that virtually ALL MMOGs are fundamentally structured the exact same way. (1) character advancement is directly predicated on how much time one has to play, and (2) grouping and raiding always deliver the best content and rewards. However, there is no limitation in coding, or in the technology, that requires either of those things ... but MMOG developers keep producing essentially the same game over and over.
When you structure a game along those two fundamental paradigms, you generate a certain kind of game, and attract certain players, every time. It doesn't matter if you can multiclass, or if it's a sci fi or a fantasy game, or if it has really pretty graphics, or if it is free to play or a subscription; it doesn't matter how good your crafting systems is or how great the voice acting or music is; it doesn't matter what your death penalty is .... because you've created the same game, with the same fundamental dynamic that funnels in hardcore raiders, provides them with a sense of accomplishment and superiority, and leaves the rest having to find some other way of enjoying the game besides what is obviously the end-game top rewards. That makes them 2nd class citizens in the game, paying the same amount but only getting to serve as the "scrubs" that the hardcore power-raiders get to show their shiny stuff off to and kill in PvP.
Also, it makes the developers **have to** scramble to provide new content for the hardcore powergamers, because they consume all the content the fastest ... while the casuals can play the original content for a year or more and **never** get to the end. This means that casual players will be funding new content they will never see to keep the least profitable players happy.
Nothing wrong with that .. other than ALL MMOGs are designed that way (except maybe EVE). In the above system, since there is such a disparity cause by how much time players have to be online playing, all sorts of exploits are possible, such as botting.
I often wonder if the reason that developers refuse to get away from that mold is because that model offers so much room for exploiting, abuse, and profiteering. If a game had a 24/7 advancement system for all players (including gathering gold), players wouldn't find the need to buy gold, or bot their character, just to keep up with guilds or fanatical players that play their chracters 24/7. If soloers had access to the same end-game rewards, then "forced grouping" wouldn't be necessary, and more casual, or nicer groups could then form.
With all the chat channels and guild/family/RP opportunities possible in such games, "socializing" doesn't have to mean spending hours looking for groups or raids, then being checked out to see if your specs or ability meets their needs, then entering an area and shouting "camp check" , then being entirely focused on fulfilling your class role in the group as min-maxers push the group/raid to maximum efficiency. Really? That's socializing to you?
The only time I have ever been able to socialize is through the chat channels to other players who are casually soloing or doing other things; when you have a limited amount of time to do anything with your character, you like to do things to advance them, not spend too much time "socializing"; with a 24/7 advancement system, all players are freed up to socialize more - real socialization, real talking, without the pressure or sense that you're "wasting precious time", or holding up a group or a raid. Who knows? It might even bring real RP back into a game where people don't have to make a choice between efficient advancement and RPing their character.
Massively Multiplayer socializing doens't necessarily mean "grouping" or "raiding"; it only means that now because the fundamental structure of MMOGs - almost every one of them - requires grouping, raiding, min-maxing and efficient use of one's time to advance their characters. Change the fundamental philosophy of the game, and you'll find an entirely different kind of socializing that isn't min-max efficiency "what are your specs?" based. In a different system, what your specs are are not nearly as important as what your character is, or if you have a good sense of humor, or can RP well.
Great post. I never really thought of it that way, but you speak the truth. Socializing is only really enjoyable for me if we are joking around or talking about strategy or something. I absolutely hate talking about gear, especially people bragging about it, and the whole min/max thing.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Who are the intelligent individuals who buy 50+ $ games without even knowing anything about it (p/reviews, general info..)?
The <12 years old I guess, too bad for them
.
There is of course no reason you must include BOTH features in the same game.
I think it would be perfectly fine to break up quests in one hour chunks.
So, yes you must group to make the best progress, but no you do not have to play 4-10 hours to complete a task.
For example, the quest is go to the bottom of the Dark Dungeon, collect crystal from boss mob on each level, defeat Uber Mob Boss at the bottom and get the uber crystal, take back all 10 crystals, get uber reward.
Dark Dungeon has 10 levels, each level takes about an hour to do with a decent group.
Crystals are 1-10.
LFG, need crystal 3. find group, take about an hour to get crystal 3, done.
The hard core gamer can do all 10 levels in one sitting of 10 hours straight. You can do it one hour a day if you want.
Respectfully, I prefer to solo...but in an MMOG (Massively Multiplayer Online Game), I recognize that it would be very foolish of me to demand that solo play have anything that "caters" to me.
There are many games that cater to solo players, but not one of them is a Massively Multiplayer Online game - those are designed purposely and specifically to cater to those who enjoy grouping. It is right in the name of the genre. Those of us who like to solo either accept that, in a Massively Multiplayer Online game, the rules of the game encourage and reward grouping (and we adjust accordingly and ask for help from our guilds or join a PUG when necessary)...or we go find a game that is designed to accomodate our needs, wants, and desires as solo players.
No, "Grouping" and "Raiding" is **not** "right there in the name". All MMOG means is there are a lot of other players in the game with you. It doesn't mean "you have to group up and raid in order to achieve top quality or end-game rewards".
It's not a problem with me that MMOGs requires grouping and raiding end-game rewards; my problem is that virtually ALL MMOGs are fundamentally structured the exact same way. (1) character advancement is directly predicated on how much time one has to play, and (2) grouping and raiding always deliver the best content and rewards. However, there is no limitation in coding, or in the technology, that requires either of those things ... but MMOG developers keep producing essentially the same game over and over.
When you structure a game along those two fundamental paradigms, you generate a certain kind of game, and attract certain players, every time. It doesn't matter if you can multiclass, or if it's a sci fi or a fantasy game, or if it has really pretty graphics, or if it is free to play or a subscription; it doesn't matter how good your crafting systems is or how great the voice acting or music is; it doesn't matter what your death penalty is .... because you've created the same game, with the same fundamental dynamic that funnels in hardcore raiders, provides them with a sense of accomplishment and superiority, and leaves the rest having to find some other way of enjoying the game besides what is obviously the end-game top rewards. That makes them 2nd class citizens in the game, paying the same amount but only getting to serve as the "scrubs" that the hardcore power-raiders get to show their shiny stuff off to and kill in PvP.
Also, it makes the developers **have to** scramble to provide new content for the hardcore powergamers, because they consume all the content the fastest ... while the casuals can play the original content for a year or more and **never** get to the end. This means that casual players will be funding new content they will never see to keep the least profitable players happy.
Nothing wrong with that .. other than ALL MMOGs are designed that way (except maybe EVE). In the above system, since there is such a disparity cause by how much time players have to be online playing, all sorts of exploits are possible, such as botting.
I often wonder if the reason that developers refuse to get away from that mold is because that model offers so much room for exploiting, abuse, and profiteering. If a game had a 24/7 advancement system for all players (including gathering gold), players wouldn't find the need to buy gold, or bot their character, just to keep up with guilds or fanatical players that play their chracters 24/7. If soloers had access to the same end-game rewards, then "forced grouping" wouldn't be necessary, and more casual, or nicer groups could then form.
With all the chat channels and guild/family/RP opportunities possible in such games, "socializing" doesn't have to mean spending hours looking for groups or raids, then being checked out to see if your specs or ability meets their needs, then entering an area and shouting "camp check" , then being entirely focused on fulfilling your class role in the group as min-maxers push the group/raid to maximum efficiency. Really? That's socializing to you?
The only time I have ever been able to socialize is through the chat channels to other players who are casually soloing or doing other things; when you have a limited amount of time to do anything with your character, you like to do things to advance them, not spend too much time "socializing"; with a 24/7 advancement system, all players are freed up to socialize more - real socialization, real talking, without the pressure or sense that you're "wasting precious time", or holding up a group or a raid. Who knows? It might even bring real RP back into a game where people don't have to make a choice between efficient advancement and RPing their character.
Massively Multiplayer socializing doens't necessarily mean "grouping" or "raiding"; it only means that now because the fundamental structure of MMOGs - almost every one of them - requires grouping, raiding, min-maxing and efficient use of one's time to advance their characters. Change the fundamental philosophy of the game, and you'll find an entirely different kind of socializing that isn't min-max efficiency "what are your specs?" based. In a different system, what your specs are are not nearly as important as what your character is, or if you have a good sense of humor, or can RP well.
Great post. I never really thought of it that way, but you speak the truth. Socializing is only really enjoyable for me if we are joking around or talking about strategy or something. I absolutely hate talking about gear, especially people bragging about it, and the whole min/max thing.
I like group based games for the game mechanics, especially combat.
I've had groups that work well as a team, but don't talk.
For me, that's still quite fun. It's not necessarily the chat that makes the game fun, as mentioned you can do that on a global channel with people you aren't grouped with.
It's the combat dymanic of team work that makes the game fun, in a way that a single player game is not.
Without a need for the team work, it is pointless, and therefore not a fun or useful game mechanic.
Ahha, this is what FFXI did with one of it's events.
There's a tower with 100 floors... each time you enter the tower you have 30mins to clear 5 or more floors, and your progress is saved. The floors are randomly generated to make the event more diverse.. Rewards include new gears from bosses that appear every 20th floor, as well as new 'ability' for every class depending on your floor progress (takes long time to acquire at floor 20....takes like an hour to acquire at floor 100).
You can do 1 per day or up to 5, depending on your playtimes.
Who are the intelligent individuals who buy 50+ $ games without even knowing anything about it (p/reviews, general info..)?
The <12 years old I guess, too bad for them
.
Have you ever read a review of an MMOG that said: "you cannot get the top rewards or experience the best content unless you group and/or are prepared to spend 4-10 hrs a day several days a week in groups and raids"?
Nope. Why not? Because inside the community, it is a GIVEN that this is the case, and it's not even mentioned in any reviews. Newcomers to the genre, even if they perform due diligence (what, people can't buy games on impulse??) have no means by which to even imagine that this will be the case once they start playing; it's only the people that have been involved in the genre that **assume** every new MMOG is going to require that kind of insanity; they don't even realize that such a set of requirements would even seem odd or inappropriate to those who haven't become accustomed to it.
Oh, I've never read such a review. I've read reviews that state "This is a team based game" though, wink wink. Can we draw conclusions from this statement?
Of course not, it could mean "This is a team based game up to level cap, then you no longer need to team up to get best rewards!" and poor readers will be confused and buy the game anyway and be shocked when zomg, you still need team at the level cap!
Who are the intelligent individuals who buy 50+ $ games without even knowing anything about it (p/reviews, general info..)?
The <12 years old I guess, too bad for them
.
Have you ever read a review of an MMOG that said: "you cannot get the top rewards or experience the best content unless you group and/or are prepared to spend 4-10 hrs a day several days a week in groups and raids"?
Nope. Why not? Because inside the community, it is a GIVEN that this is the case, and it's not even mentioned in any reviews. Newcomers to the genre, even if they perform due diligence (what, people can't buy games on impulse??) have no means by which to even imagine that this will be the case once they start playing; it's only the people that have been involved in the genre that **assume** every new MMOG is going to require that kind of insanity; they don't even realize that such a set of requirements would even seem odd or inappropriate to those who haven't become accustomed to it.
I think you have to break up the discussion between leveling nad end game.
You example only applies to the end game where there is raiding.
I like end game RvR, not really into the raiding thing. If that's all there is left to do, raid, and I'm bored with making alts, then the game is pretty much over for me and I'm playing something else.
But so what? By then, I"ve certainly gotten my money's worth from the 50 dollar box and the 14.95 a month fees during the time I've played.
There's more than that to it. "Yay, I got my hat first... now I need to help others for 90 hours?! Fk that /leaves"
"Oh, he left. Now we have to look for replacement and get a hat for him too.."
At the same time in the solo-landia..; "Hey, I don't have to deal with that bs, I actually get more benefit from this than the groupers! Yay me!"
Exactly. This design encourages solo play.
Why am I going to stand around LFG, when I can just solo for 100 hours and get the hat?
That game is EAZY LOOTZ fro solo players, not worth it for group players.
If you're designing a solo game, this would be it.
I really do not see why the soloer should be penalized for the grouper's personal failure in finding teammates who are not leeches. While the soloer is putting in all that effort doing content the groupers are just standing around doing nothing because they are too lazy to find the right people to group with.
Heck, an easy solution to this is that the group gets a UBER TOKEN per 10 hours and they can trae 10 UBER TOKENS for 1 UBER HAT. So now they can have to put in the same effort of 100 hours as the soloer to get the hat.
There's more than that to it. "Yay, I got my hat first... now I need to help others for 90 hours?! Fk that /leaves"
"Oh, he left. Now we have to look for replacement and get a hat for him too.."
At the same time in the solo-landia..; "Hey, I don't have to deal with that bs, I actually get more benefit from this than the groupers! Yay me!"
Exactly. This design encourages solo play.
Why am I going to stand around LFG, when I can just solo for 100 hours and get the hat?
That game is EAZY LOOTZ fro solo players, not worth it for group players.
If you're designing a solo game, this would be it.
I really do not see why the soloer should be penalized for the grouper's personal failure in finding teammates who are not leeches. While the soloer is putting in all that effort doing content the groupers are just standing around doing nothing because they are too lazy to find the right people to group with.
Heck, an easy solution to this is that the group gets a UBER TOKEN per 10 hours and they can trae 10 UBER TOKENS for 1 UBER HAT. So now they can have to put in the same effort of 100 hours as the soloer to get the hat.
IMO, your post makes no sense.
This is the reality of grouping and solo play.
Solo player. Logs on, immediately wacks mobs, immediatly makes XP.
Grouper: Would you like to join my group?
Party: Maybe, what level are you what quest are you doing, where are you going, etc?
Grouper: Ok, we're going to group, I'll wait for you, can you instantly teleport to me in 1 second? No? Ok, I'll wait here.
Party: Ok, we have wacked many mobs, I have to take a bio break.
Grouper: Ok, we have wacked many mobs, I have to get a soda.
This takes time.
The solo'er does not take this time.
How is that time to group personal failure? It's personal failure because I'm in Zone A, and you're in Zone B, and we ahve to travel to meet one another? It's a great accomplishment for teh solo'er that he didn't have to walk anywhere and meet anyone, so he could make XP immediately?
Really?
Honestly, I think there should be a mix of both types of gameplay. There are just times where you just can't get a group and if there was no solo play then there would be nothing for me to do except twiddle my thumbs waiting. I do not think anyone likes that. At the same time I do no think that a game should be so solo friendly that everyone can do everything alone. Let's face it, a large precentage of people would just solo it... heck I would.
I like both to a certain extent and I think both should be available to fit the circumstances.
Now to try and solve the problem of soloers wanting to do everything including group content.
Devs make group and/or raid content for that play-style and in my opinion should only be for that playstyle.
Well....
Since devs already make content meant for grouping and raiding, why don't they make content exclusive for solo play?
Like some cave of trials or something that tests an individuals personal skill and then give them a reward that is "leet" but only benefits them in solo play. And I mean REALLY test them. If the point of grouping (on a purely achievement sense) is to spread out the work load and have others make up for your shortcomings, then solo-play should not have that luxury and test the limits of that player's abilities. Nothing so hard that you can only finish it 1 out of 100 attempts but maybe something like 1 out of 15 or 20 attempts lol.
At the same time raiding and grouping can remain the same except the stuff obtained from that activity should only really benefits that play-style, like how the solo gear only benefits solo play.
Basically make 2 separate paths of content that cater to a certain play-style. Now solo people have no reason to groan about not progressing anymore since now they have an alternate route to take that caters to their play-style.
Now granted with something like this you miss some content if you play one type exclusively but, in all fairness, a lot of games have the "raid or die" setup so why not give other people something to do?
Group play is not challenging, eh?
depends on the group - sometimes with certain players it is a challenge to stay alive.
That would be a solo game.
I don't have any obstacles to defeat in a group, because I can just solo my way to the top.
Why group?
You mean you have to have "solo gear" to be solo mobs, and "group gear" to beat group mobs?
Why would I ever fight group mobs if I don't have to?
There's more than that to it. "Yay, I got my hat first... now I need to help others for 90 hours?! Fk that /leaves"
"Oh, he left. Now we have to look for replacement and get a hat for him too.."
At the same time in the solo-landia..; "Hey, I don't have to deal with that bs, I actually get more benefit from this than the groupers! Yay me!"
Exactly. This design encourages solo play.
Why am I going to stand around LFG, when I can just solo for 100 hours and get the hat?
That game is EAZY LOOTZ fro solo players, not worth it for group players.
If you're designing a solo game, this would be it.
I really do not see why the soloer should be penalized for the grouper's personal failure in finding teammates who are not leeches. While the soloer is putting in all that effort doing content the groupers are just standing around doing nothing because they are too lazy to find the right people to group with.
Heck, an easy solution to this is that the group gets a UBER TOKEN per 10 hours and they can trae 10 UBER TOKENS for 1 UBER HAT. So now they can have to put in the same effort of 100 hours as the soloer to get the hat.
IMO, your post makes no sense.
This is the reality of grouping and solo play.
Solo player. Logs on, immediately wacks mobs, immediatly makes XP.
Grouper: Would you like to join my group?
Party: Maybe, what level are you what quest are you doing, where are you going, etc?
Grouper: Ok, we're going to group, I'll wait for you, can you instantly teleport to me in 1 second? No? Ok, I'll wait here.
Party: Ok, we have wacked many mobs, I have to take a bio break.
Grouper: Ok, we have wacked many mobs, I have to get a soda.
This takes time.
The solo'er does not take this time.
How is that time to group personal failure? It's personal failure because I'm in Zone A, and you're in Zone B, and we ahve to travel to meet one another? It's a great accomplishment for teh solo'er that he didn't have to walk anywhere and meet anyone, so he could make XP immediately?
Really?
The solo'r has to pick his/her fights and some time is spent doing that. Also many times the solo'r pulls more mobs then he/she can handle which results in running away or dying - which takes time(dying = time spent coming back to the area where the quest is). The eprson who solo's can always join a group to get that hard little quest out of the way, the player that only groups has to wait and also time his game time for when more people are on. The solo'r has to wait for groups to go by killing everything whther they need it or not and then wait for the respawn. The group just kills it's way through.
Please don't try to sell solo'ing as casual play - it takes much more patience and a good knowledge of what your character/class can or cannot handle. It also means you will be getting many random group invites from people who do not know you because they cannot fill the last slot in the group and who will flame you - sometimes for many minutes for not joining their group.
Solo'ing is not for everyone but a good game includes content for it, a good game also includes content for groupers. As far as the rewards go - I don't care if the groupers get better rewards - usually not everyone in a group gets anything depending on how the loot is set up. The solo'r kills the mobs, completes the quests, collects whatever loot drops and moves on. Meanwhile the group is still trying to fill the slot of their healer who finished his quest before anyone else and immediately dropped out of the group. I prefer solo play, and group where I have to, Solo play means learning your class very quickly, group play you learn your role in the group - this may mean that certain skills of your class do not get used much.
In LOTRO I have a high lvl Captain - he has many skills of which he uses most solo'ing. In a group he is usually forced to abandon his melee and use his buffs and heals - he plays only a secondary role. It is a class that has group purposes but is really better at solo'ing or teaming with a friend. That is the type of class content I like.
I see where your logic lies. You believe that as long as there is a solo path to a reward no one will group to get to the same reward. By that logic no one actually prefers grouping over solo play which means devs should just make solo only games. Wow I thought I had it bad with my turn based strategy games being killed by RTS.
We will have to agree to disagree.
I think solo and group play deserve equal rewards for time in. I believe that setting up the group and the inherent delays of group play are part of that time in. The current MMOs have problems getting groups organized which makes them quite pointless. Throw in the fact that people that don't want to group are being forced to for gear and it makes a pretty sucky environment. Once you have good tools to group and proper balance of content/rewards then both side will be happy in the same game.
This is why grouping in any smart MMORPG gives better loot, better XP over time, better money, etc. This is whay in any smart MMORPG there are means in which to travel and meet up with your party quickly.
Another reason WoW was so successful? Instanced dungeons with quests leading into them and Summoning Stones outside of every instance.
Solo player is led into grouping naturally, fun instanced dungeons for them and their new friends, easy ways to meet up with them and start adventuring together.
WoW may have not been the first to have summoning stones and instanced dungeons with quests and such, but it certainly made them the standard and brought millions of players, even solo ones, into this social online group based game.
It's all about how you approach it. When leveling up if I get a good group going I always suggest after a dungeon is cleared to reset it and do it again. Great XP, great loot, more fun then grinding quests IMO.
If you are talking about solo versus group loot, why do you think WoW uses a token system for their dungeons and raids now? It's for people to play catch up. The avid groupers and dungeon runners/raiders will always get the loot faster because they run the content more, but the more casual player who only pugs from time to time will get the loot eventually.
It's genius.
One of the most incompetent things they did was make crafting require loot from dungeons/raids. Crafting should be the solo players way to "keep up" with the group guys/gals. More time to collect resources and manufacture stuff then if you just ran an instance or whatever, but a definite way to "catch up."
Crafted gear should be on par with looted stuff, in terms of PvE gear anyway, and should be able to be aquired by solo players. Instead crafting gear is very limited, only a few patterns at high levels and it's replaced so quickly in dungeons/raids by better gear it's rarely worth making.
IMO there should be just as many pieces of loot that can be crafted as you can get as a drop in a dungeon/raid, and the stats should be comparable but use the model of time = reward rather then skill = reward.
I.e. running a dungeon or raid with a group requires some skill, as it requires a party, and there is some element of luck involved due to randomness of drops, but the loot is garaunteed in a MUCH short period of time.
Where as crafting should be able to be done entirely solo, just take a bit longer.
What about the "hardcore" you say?
They can do both. Spend their solo time getting the crafted stuff made, use their group time to get the other peices and combine it all to make a full set.
It has to be comparable.
Dungeon/Raid Set #1 = Crafted Set #1
And you can mix/match pieces. Set pieces for both sets only involve a few pieces and make them comparable too, so you could run 5/5 dungeon for 2 and 4 piece bonus, or 5/5 crafted for 2 and 4 piece bonus, or 2/5 and 3/5 etc. for the same 2 and 4 piece bonuses and such.
So why would this work?
Everyone would NOT just solo craft to get the pieces because it'd be faster to group with others and get the pieces as loot, but if you don't or can't group, eventually you can get the pieces anyway... and if have time/effort to do both you can get it all ever faster.
Seems pretty fair and balanced to me right?
its dang near imposable to please both crowds ><
That would be a solo game.
I don't have any obstacles to defeat in a group, because I can just solo my way to the top.
Why group?
You mean you have to have "solo gear" to be solo mobs, and "group gear" to beat group mobs?
Why would I ever fight group mobs if I don't have to?
No....
I'm proposing something like an epic instance that allows only 1 player to complete.
Where as you are raiding, in a raid instance, the soloer is doing his/her epic instance.
The rewards and content for both are specialized, separate and different.
Meaning the soloer's armor gets a mild boost when they solo (although PVP becomes a problem then) and raiders get a boost when they are grouping from their armor. Also these boosts would be things pertaining to your playstyle like a random 30 hp self-heal for the solo and something like a +30 heal to the grouper.
Also when did I say anything about specific mobs?
Lastly, yes its solo content injected into an MMO.... it was meant to be content for solo people to do while you do raid content.
People that want to do raid stuff probably wont do the solo stuff because the stuff obtained from that will not help progress them in the raid content and vice versa for the solo people.
See, the problem is that you're defining any game where you even have the ability to solo as a solo game and then dismissing it as a bad game, while in any game that you're forced, either by mechanics or design, to be in a group all the time, is a group game.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of games out there are *BOTH* and you don't want to sully your precious "grouping games" by actually sharing.
That's your right, I suppose. I just find it pathetic that you have to control what everyone else does in order to feel good about your style of play.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None