Phew, okay. Let me see if I can get this right. The people who enjoy soloing want to be able to get the same kind of gear and accomplishments as the people who play with a group, right? Sorry guys, but if you take a second to step back, that doesn't make any sense at all. You wanna be able to take your one warrior and kill something it took five other people to kill successfully, then you wanna loot it all on your own? Eventually, sure. I don't think anyone's arguing that you ought to be able to do it at the same level as the team, but if that level 50 team killed the boss and you come back as a solo at level 80 and do it, what's the problem with that? And yes, if you do all the work, you deserve all the loot. But you didn't do all the work. You didn't work on creating the group. You didn't plan in advance coordinating many individuals to show up at the right time and place. You didn't do the work in holding the group together. You didn't use coordinated attack patterns with others of varying abilities. The truth is you don't want to do the work; you just want to get the loot. Of course you did all the work, you walked in, you fought the boss, you won. That's all the work there was to that encounter. The person on the team did all the extra work because they were unable to defeat the boss themselves, that's why they have to share the loot with all the people they took with them. And think about your lvl 50 team vs. 80 soloer - you can do that now for god's sake and no one is preventing you. Or did you mean to imply the Uber Sword of Destruction should scale with your lvl? Because logically, everyone would just wait to get the lvl 80 solo version instead of doing, yes - I said it - ALL THE HARD WORK at lvl 50 for a sword that would become obsolete vs. the uber lvl 80 solo version. Maybe so, maybe not. The point is, the pro-grouping people want to exclude soloers from *EVER* getting the sword, regardless of level, because if someone can solo for the sword at any level, somehow that makes getting it as part of a team less of an accomplishment. That's complete crap. Sorry, but that's what singleplayer games are for. Singleplayer games are *gasp* more geared towards soloing than games that obviously favor mutiplayer social interaction. Unplug the connection, get to Walmart, and get yourself some god-damn 1995 singleplayer game. Solo players pay the same subscription fee that team-players pay. Do try again, won't you? They can play however the hell they want to play and you have absolutely no say in it. That sort of explains why you're bitching about it on an MMO forum. And I could pay the same green fees at Pebble Beach as you, but I wouldn't use that as an excuse at the clubhouse when complaining that I brought my basketball so they owe me a team game instead of golf. You cannot enter a team game and complain that it isn't solo based. You can't bring your golf ball and clubs to the basketball court and expect it to be a solo game. You can pay the same green fees at Pebble Beach and play alone as the group of people who does it and plays as a team. It's your choice which way you play, the fact that I might play alone in no way affects your game with your team. That's the point. What difference does it make if someone decides to play alone, how does that demonstrably harm you? If it somehow hurts your feelings, then the problem is you, not the soloer. The problem isn't that you spend as much money, it's that you are spending your money on something you didn't want in the first place. That money excuse is so ridiculous. Did the publisher force you to open your wallet for a game you don't really want to play?.....I mean take some personal responsibility for your own choices.
Amazing how you think you can determine what people want and what they don't want. Didn't know you were so amazingly psychic. The publisher took my money and didn't bother to ask how I wanted to play, didn't care how I wanted to play. In fact, the only people who seem to care how soloers play are people for whom it's none of their goddamn business.
Originally posted by DubaVampe Who said that? I just said you enjoy playing with yourself more than playing with others. That's true, isnt it? You do want the same gear and content as people who play in groups without having to deal with the group aspect, right?
My comment had nothing to do with that, it had to do with the point made that the only reason to play an MMO is to show off your gear and get an ego boost. That's childish and immature and if that's the only reason someone plays a game, something tells me that individual ought to grow up.
As for why I enjoy playing alone, mostly because it's faster, easier and I get a lot more done alone than I could ever hope to as a group. I don't have to waste time sitting around trying to find a team, trying to get the team together, waiting for them to take bio breaks, waiting for them to get drinks, waiting, waiting, waiting. I actually get to play the game, which is why I'm paying for the damn thing in the first place.
And yes, in the long run, I want to have access to the same gear and content. I don't expect it to be as fast or as easy, but to exclude soloers simply because they solo is ludicrous. I'm perfectly willing to wait a couple of levels to get my whiz-bang sword of ass-kicking until I can solo it, so long as I'm not entirely excluded from ever having it. That's just stupid.
I'm done bickering on a forum, but I will leave with something. You obviously play World of Warcraft, as is easily seen by your references. Now, when you purchased that game, did that "10 million players!" label on the front scream to you that it was a solo game? How about the bit on the inside of the cover that mentioned the group play? And the bonuses for doing so?
I hope that wasn't directed at me because I wouldn't be caught dead on WoW. Played it for about 6 months with friends, abandoned it long ago, would never go back.
Guess you're not nearly as smart as you wish you were.
Because if a game is designed to be mostly soloed then it affects how the mobs and dungeons are designed. It's why you get all these games now where the PvE outdoors is pretty much a grid of static single spawn mobs that just stand around waiting to be hit. In dungeons you get one static mob every 30 feet down each tunnel - all seperate solo fights. There's no grouped mobs. There's no group mob AI. There's sometimes a few patrollers but not many or often. If mobs are standing around in a group you can single pull them without the others reacting. You can pull a mob right past another one and they don't react. All the cool stuff from earlier games that created a challenge has been cut out.
I've personally not seen that as an issue, there are plenty of dungeons that are rated, say, from level 50-70. A team is required to beat it at level 50. Anyone trying to solo, no matter how twinked, is just asking for death. However, at level 70, people can beat it solo and most of the team-only people have moved on to the next dungeon that is rated for levels 70-90. The soloer won't head to that dungeon until level 90.
But here's a suggestion. If you don't like a game... DON'T PLAY! Imagine that, you have a choice! Hell, there are lots of games I don't play, I just don't sit around on forums whining about it.
Ok, but what happens when you get to max level and you can't solo a dungeon because it was intended for a group of max lvl players? You see, this is what I'm talking about. I mean, no shit you could solo a lvl 50 dungeon when you're lvl 80 but what about a lvl 80 dungeon? lol I don't understand why you think people have a problem with you soloing a soloable dungeon in a game, even if you are 30 lvls higher than intended. So, you're way off-base there. Nobody cares! Solo that, I could care less. Then they don't. What business is it of yours? You're the one responding, what do you care what other people are doing? What's the difference between a soloer who needs an extra 10 levels to solo a dungeon and a gimped team who needs the same thing? Oh wait, they're a team... makes all the difference in the world, right?
Because if a game is designed to be mostly soloed then it affects how the mobs and dungeons are designed. It's why you get all these games now where the PvE outdoors is pretty much a grid of static single spawn mobs that just stand around waiting to be hit. In dungeons you get one static mob every 30 feet down each tunnel - all seperate solo fights. There's no grouped mobs. There's no group mob AI. There's sometimes a few patrollers but not many or often. If mobs are standing around in a group you can single pull them without the others reacting. You can pull a mob right past another one and they don't react. All the cool stuff from earlier games that created a challenge has been cut out.
I've personally not seen that as an issue, there are plenty of dungeons that are rated, say, from level 50-70. A team is required to beat it at level 50. Anyone trying to solo, no matter how twinked, is just asking for death. However, at level 70, people can beat it solo and most of the team-only people have moved on to the next dungeon that is rated for levels 70-90. The soloer won't head to that dungeon until level 90.
But here's a suggestion. If you don't like a game... DON'T PLAY! Imagine that, you have a choice! Hell, there are lots of games I don't play, I just don't sit around on forums whining about it.
Maybe you ought to give that a shot.
Seeing as you can't discuss this without being rude...
You don't see it as an issue because you like these games to be easy.
I don't play any of these games any more. The harder, older games got too old and the new games all got too easy to suit people like you. No doubt the people who want it to be easy are the majority and so it makes sense to design games for them. However there's probably "enough" people who'd want to play a more challenging game to make it profitable as long as the company involved wasn't aiming at a WoW level of success and only spent as much money as could be paid back by a level of subs lower than WoW numbers.
I usually only post about it on forums after trying a trial or two and giving up after seeing the same easy-mode gameplay all these games have now because people like you can't handle any kind of loss even if it's just pixels.
Zero risk even if it's just pixels.
(BTW I'm not saying all anti-groupers are the same - obviously there's a lot of practical issues with group-centric games as well. It's only some people who want the game to be as risk-free as possible.)
Well then, go ahead. Try and solo it. Fine, whatever. You go do that, and I'll be over here in my shiney new gear that you can't get, and you'll never get. For a pretty simple reason, actually, you're unwilling to play the game it was meant to play. Oh, sure, go ahead and give me that "I PAY MY SUBSCRIPTION I SHOULD BE ABLE TO PLAY HOWEVER I WANT BAWWWWWWWWW" bullcrap, but it doesn't matter. 95% (and yeah, that's made up, but it's gotta be pretty close) of the gamers who play, and I stress this again, MMORPGS are FINE with working with others to get to a common goal. If a bunch of whiney kids who don't play well with others think they're going to change an entire genre just to fit them, they're dead wrong.
And AGAIN: MMORPG stands for Massivly Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. Now, let's take a look at that. Massive, okay. Makes sense, large worlds. Multiplayer. Okay, here we go. MORE THAN ONE PLAYER. As in, more than one player is playing the game at any one time, and *gasp* god forbid, but there may be some social interaction there. Online. Well, On-line.. It's over the internet, so that it better connects it players so that they *gasp again* can play together. Role playing, because of it's roots, and game, because it isn't meant to be taken seriously. Whoops.
'Nuff said.
didn't let me post first time - so editing this now:
Multiplayer simply means that many people play the game at the same time - it doesn't infer they have to group. Solo players are not against social interaction and actually, since they are not concerned with grouping, they are generally more helpful. If I see some one in trouble - I help by healing or by helping kill the mob that is beating up on the other player. If some one says in chat that they are having a problem with a quest and if I am near them - I heelp them, even if the quest or the mobs are so low it will give me no xp or rewards.
Groupers seem to think that all social interaction is in the group and about playing as a group. This is not the case. while I am playing LOTRO I am usually in ventrilo talking to my Kin fellows about all sorts of things - the game, the weather outside, life problems, who is going to win the Stanley cup, etc. Playing parts of the game solo does not mean you are not being social at the same time
Phew, okay. Let me see if I can get this right. The people who enjoy soloing want to be able to get the same kind of gear and accomplishments as the people who play with a group, right? Sorry guys, but if you take a second to step back, that doesn't make any sense at all. You wanna be able to take your one warrior and kill something it took five other people to kill successfully, then you wanna loot it all on your own? Eventually, sure. I don't think anyone's arguing that you ought to be able to do it at the same level as the team, but if that level 50 team killed the boss and you come back as a solo at level 80 and do it, what's the problem with that? And yes, if you do all the work, you deserve all the loot. But you didn't do all the work. You didn't work on creating the group. You didn't plan in advance coordinating many individuals to show up at the right time and place. You didn't do the work in holding the group together. You didn't use coordinated attack patterns with others of varying abilities. The truth is you don't want to do the work; you just want to get the loot. Of course you did all the work, you walked in, you fought the boss, you won. That's all the work there was to that encounter. The person on the team did all the extra work because they were unable to defeat the boss themselves, that's why they have to share the loot with all the people they took with them. Ok, so here's the problem with that. ATM, you can't walk in fight the boss and win. The mob is too difficult. Your entire point is that you want them to make the harder targets easier so you can kill them by yourself. Why should you get just as good an item from killing an easier version of the mob I needed to group to take down? So not only did you skip the work I mentioned above, you also want the mob to be dumbed down but you want the rewards to be the same. Face the simple fact that you want better stuff for doing less. And think about your lvl 50 team vs. 80 soloer - you can do that now for god's sake and no one is preventing you. Or did you mean to imply the Uber Sword of Destruction should scale with your lvl? Because logically, everyone would just wait to get the lvl 80 solo version instead of doing, yes - I said it - ALL THE HARD WORK at lvl 50 for a sword that would become obsolete vs. the uber lvl 80 solo version. Maybe so, maybe not. The point is, the pro-grouping people want to exclude soloers from *EVER* getting the sword, regardless of level, because if someone can solo for the sword at any level, somehow that makes getting it as part of a team less of an accomplishment. That's complete crap. It isn't that I "want" to exclude soloers from the same loot as me; it's that it doesn't track with any since of reality. A difficult task that can only be accomplished by a team reaps better rewards than the same task dumbed down for a solo player. Again, you want to reap the same benefits for doing less; there is no way around it. You want devs to dumb down bosses so you can solo them and get the same loot as the version it took a coordinated team to take down. It is the entire premise of the post. And it is simply selfishness and unrealistic; and frankly a bit childish. That is what is complete crap. You want the fat loot? Get off your ass and learn to work with others. You don't want to work with others, stop playing team sports. Sorry, but that's what singleplayer games are for. Singleplayer games are *gasp* more geared towards soloing than games that obviously favor mutiplayer social interaction. Unplug the connection, get to Walmart, and get yourself some god-damn 1995 singleplayer game. Solo players pay the same subscription fee that team-players pay. Do try again, won't you? They can play however the hell they want to play and you have absolutely no say in it. That sort of explains why you're bitching about it on an MMO forum. And I could pay the same green fees at Pebble Beach as you, but I wouldn't use that as an excuse at the clubhouse when complaining that I brought my basketball so they owe me a team game instead of golf. You cannot enter a team game and complain that it isn't solo based. You can't bring your golf ball and clubs to the basketball court and expect it to be a solo game. You can pay the same green fees at Pebble Beach and play alone as the group of people who does it and plays as a team. It's your choice which way you play, the fact that I might play alone in no way affects your game with your team. That's the point. What difference does it make if someone decides to play alone, how does that demonstrably harm you? If it somehow hurts your feelings, then the problem is you, not the soloer. Apparently you don't understand golf at all. You play along side others; but you are playing a solo game. Your score is independent of those you are playing with; in a sense, you are playing 'against' those you are with if you are a gambler. Which is exactly what you want in an mmo. Problem is you want to play golf on the baseball field, while others are playing baseball. I'm starting to think you aren't very old. The problem isn't that you spend as much money, it's that you are spending your money on something you didn't want in the first place. That money excuse is so ridiculous. Did the publisher force you to open your wallet for a game you don't really want to play?.....I mean take some personal responsibility for your own choices.
Amazing how you think you can determine what people want and what they don't want. Didn't know you were so amazingly psychic. The publisher took my money and didn't bother to ask how I wanted to play, didn't care how I wanted to play. In fact, the only people who seem to care how soloers play are people for whom it's none of their goddamn business.
That would be you. Amazing how you think you can determine what people want and what they don't want. Didn't know you were so amazingly psychic. What if I were to tell you that I solo'd 90% of the time. What if I were to tell you I was primarily a soloer who actually understands that team work is more difficult to accomplish and more difficult to execute than soloing which is why, as a mature adult, I accept that my soloing will not reap the same rewards as team play. What if you knew that as a soloer, I am not so selfish and material driven to want more for less? You are right, I don't know you any more than you know me. But I do know, based on your own written words, that you want to get the same rewards without going to all the effort. I know because it is what you said. I also know that's selfish and childish and misguided. You may not be, but certainly that aspect of you is. And what do you know of me now? That I solo most of the time and still understand and accept that my solo rewards will logically be less than my team rewards. So what we are really learning is that you are the one without a clear grasp of what 'soloer's' want. Your last statement is ridiculous. If how you want to solo is none of my business, then how we team is none of yours. So stop trying to change my team based game to your solo version game; because under your own logic, it isn't any of your goddamn business. And as for the money; the publisher didn't TAKE your money. The publisher offered you a team game. You GAVE him your money for it. And now you complained that you were offered a TEAM game. Again, the moment you start taking the responsibility for your own choices the closer to adulthood you will get. My God I hope you are under 25 or else this is just pathetic. /thread
Because if a game is designed to be mostly soloed then it affects how the mobs and dungeons are designed. It's why you get all these games now where the PvE outdoors is pretty much a grid of static single spawn mobs that just stand around waiting to be hit. In dungeons you get one static mob every 30 feet down each tunnel - all seperate solo fights. There's no grouped mobs. There's no group mob AI. There's sometimes a few patrollers but not many or often. If mobs are standing around in a group you can single pull them without the others reacting. You can pull a mob right past another one and they don't react. All the cool stuff from earlier games that created a challenge has been cut out.
I've personally not seen that as an issue, there are plenty of dungeons that are rated, say, from level 50-70. A team is required to beat it at level 50. Anyone trying to solo, no matter how twinked, is just asking for death. However, at level 70, people can beat it solo and most of the team-only people have moved on to the next dungeon that is rated for levels 70-90. The soloer won't head to that dungeon until level 90.
But here's a suggestion. If you don't like a game... DON'T PLAY! Imagine that, you have a choice! Hell, there are lots of games I don't play, I just don't sit around on forums whining about it.
Maybe you ought to give that a shot.
Seeing as you can't discuss this without being rude...
You don't see it as an issue because you like these games to be easy.
I don't play any of these games any more. The harder, older games got too old and the new games all got too easy to suit people like you. No doubt the people who want it to be easy are the majority and so it makes sense to design games for them. However there's probably "enough" people who'd want to play a more challenging game to make it profitable as long as the company involved wasn't aiming at a WoW level of success and only spent as much money as could be paid back by a level of subs lower than WoW numbers.
I usually only post about it on forums after trying a trial or two and giving up after seeing the same easy-mode gameplay all these games have now because people like you can't handle any kind of loss even if it's just pixels.
Zero risk even if it's just pixels.
(BTW I'm not saying all anti-groupers are the same - obviously there's a lot of practical issues with group-centric games as well. It's only some people who want the game to be as risk-free as possible.)
I like solo play and I do not like the game to be risk free nor am I am asking for it to be made easier. I like the CHALLENGE.. To me it is the groupers who like things risk free, that is why they do every thing in a group, safety in numbers.
I like solo play and I do not like the game to be risk free nor am I am asking for it to be made easier. I like the CHALLENGE.. To me it is the groupers who like things risk free, that is why they do every thing in a group, safety in numbers.
Or because they like the cooperative aspect?
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
I like solo play and I do not like the game to be risk free nor am I am asking for it to be made easier. I like the CHALLENGE.. To me it is the groupers who like things risk free, that is why they do every thing in a group, safety in numbers.
Or because they like the cooperative aspect?
I have not seen too many random(non-guild) groups where there was much in the way of co-operation.
I like solo play and I do not like the game to be risk free nor am I am asking for it to be made easier. I like the CHALLENGE.. To me it is the groupers who like things risk free, that is why they do every thing in a group, safety in numbers.
I like solo play and I do not like the game to be risk free nor am I am asking for it to be made easier. I like the CHALLENGE.. To me it is the groupers who like things risk free, that is why they do every thing in a group, safety in numbers.
Or because they like the cooperative aspect?
Good Morning Hyanmen
Lolz good day =P
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
My biggest gripe with grouping - and what made me go SOLO to begin with - is that my past experience was with people who advertise for group members for a quest and then when we get to the quest they take all of the goodies and when they achieve their goals they just bail out and leave me in the midst of deep S**T.
Exactly. As I've pointed out before, the group dynamic in just about every MMO exists for using others for your own ends. Every member of the group is after their own XP, their own loot, their own uber-gear, they're just using the other group members to have a better chance at getting it faster and easier. There's no commitment to the group itself, only to your own wants and desires, when you stop getting what you want, what's the point of sticking around to help others?
It wasn't always like that though. I think the soloer mentality really brought that whole attitude you just described to the forefront. Players used to be fine having to group to get levels because that was the only way they could level. If you were a jerk or a loot whore, you didn't get groups and you didnt level, because attitude and reputation meant everything. In todays solo-infested games, the only thing that matters is gear, and you can be a complete idiot and asshole and still get in groups, because it seems like most players are the same way; selfish, ignorant assholes who would rather play by themselves, and only play an MMO so they can show off their gear.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
My biggest gripe with grouping - and what made me go SOLO to begin with - is that my past experience was with people who advertise for group members for a quest and then when we get to the quest they take all of the goodies and when they achieve their goals they just bail out and leave me in the midst of deep S**T.
Exactly. As I've pointed out before, the group dynamic in just about every MMO exists for using others for your own ends. Every member of the group is after their own XP, their own loot, their own uber-gear, they're just using the other group members to have a better chance at getting it faster and easier. There's no commitment to the group itself, only to your own wants and desires, when you stop getting what you want, what's the point of sticking around to help others?
It wasn't always like that though. I think the soloer mentality really brought that whole attitude you just described to the forefront. Players used to be fine having to group to get levels because that was the only way they could level. If you were a jerk or a loot whore, you didn't get groups and you didnt level, because attitude and reputation meant everything. In todays solo-infested games, the only thing that matters is gear, and you can be a complete idiot and asshole and still get in groups, because it seems like most players are the same way; selfish, ignorant assholes who would rather play by themselves, and only play an MMO so they can show off their gear.
Blaming the gear problem on solo players is wrong. It is those who like the end game raids that need the gear not solo style players. LOL where'd you come up with the gear problem is the fault of the Solo players?
So you are saying there are not a lot of groupers who are jerks and do the group thing to get what they want and then leave the group?
They get to endgame by soloing and then do that..
If grouping is encouraged from the first levels, those kind of jerks will be kicked out of groups sooner or later and can't progress further. Still, some idiots will get through the sieve, but there will be much less of those players around than usually.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
So you are saying there are not a lot of groupers who are jerks and do the group thing to get what they want and then leave the group?
They get to endgame by soloing and then do that..
If grouping is encouraged from the first levels, those kind of jerks will be kicked out of groups sooner or later and can't progress further. Still, some idiots will get through the sieve, but there will be much less of those players around than usually.
even jerks pay the sub and have a right to play, thus making yet more solo players. those who are jerks and no one groups with, and those who dislike groups because of all the jerks and prefer to do it their selves, and also me who likes the challenge of soloing. Forced grouping is pointless, balanced play is better. I am not saying that all gear/loot should be accesible to both styles - but if I can solo it(due to my skill at playing and my knowledge of my character's strengths and weaknesses) I should be able to. Note: I need a new keyboard, keys are sticking - please excuse my typos - the q key seems to show up when ever it pleases.
So you are saying there are not a lot of groupers who are jerks and do the group thing to get what they want and then leave the group?
They get to endgame by soloing and then do that..
If grouping is encouraged from the first levels, those kind of jerks will be kicked out of groups sooner or later and can't progress further. Still, some idiots will get through the sieve, but there will be much less of those players around than usually.
This is the real problem. It is true that almost all MMOs today have both soloing and group play. It's the bait and switch end-game that causes the problem. All along, soloers or groupers could make progress in both levels and gear. Yet, at the end, it's group or forget about improving your character, the solo game is useless for any real progression.
Yes, there is a logic that greater effort should yield greater reward. However, I think an MMO fails if it doesn't provide an alternate, longer, non-group method to get the same gear.
And here is where a lot of pro-groupers lose their cool. Many, not all, feel that offering any other method to get the loot they got by grouping is utterly unacceptable, and somehow diminishes their achievement. I've yet to see even the most die-hard soloer advocates scream for exclusivity of gear, but many pro-groupers do.
Soloers are not crying for an easy button, they are asking only for an alternate method to the same results. If you are a pro-grouper and resent another player from getting the same gear you did without grouping, even if it's a much longer way, ask yourself why.
even jerks pay the sub and have a right to play, thus making yet more solo players. those who are jerks and no one groups with, and those who dislike groups because of all the jerks and prefer to do it their selves, and also me who likes the challenge of soloing. Forced grouping is pointless, balanced play is better. I am not saying that all gear/loot should be accesible to both styles - but if I can solo it(due to my skill at playing and my knowledge of my character's strengths and weaknesses) I should be able to. Note: I need a new keyboard, keys are sticking - please excuse my typos - the q key seems to show up when ever it pleases.
Well, I thought MMO's were better when they didn't try to appeal to jerks... but hey, that's just my opinion!
Forced grouping doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able to solo- it might actually give a better challenge than solo game ever would. That kind of gameplay might actually suit your solo preferences better than the actual solo games do =D
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
CoX balances soloing and grouping very well. There are a few things you have to group for but all of those rewards can be traded for at the AC.
In WAR I can be grouped and soloed at the same time. With public groups. I just join a group and pretty much do my own thing. So I am simultaneously soloed and grouped. Same thing with scenarios, I just join up and I'm grouped but I can still play solo.
I also played a MUD with full looting where you could play ninja a class that had an assassin skill, chance for a one shot kill. And remember this is full looting. And there is gear you needed to be in a group to get. So as a ninja you could solo PK anyone and loot them.
So I just listed three different examples where soloing and grouping are balanced. And you people keep talking crap like it can't be done. Because you're really just thinking about WoW and raiding. Well not all games are WoW and not all games have raiding.
My biggest gripe with grouping - and what made me go SOLO to begin with - is that my past experience was with people who advertise for group members for a quest and then when we get to the quest they take all of the goodies and when they achieve their goals they just bail out and leave me in the midst of deep S**T.
Exactly. As I've pointed out before, the group dynamic in just about every MMO exists for using others for your own ends. Every member of the group is after their own XP, their own loot, their own uber-gear, they're just using the other group members to have a better chance at getting it faster and easier. There's no commitment to the group itself, only to your own wants and desires, when you stop getting what you want, what's the point of sticking around to help others?
It wasn't always like that though. I think the soloer mentality really brought that whole attitude you just described to the forefront. Players used to be fine having to group to get levels because that was the only way they could level. If you were a jerk or a loot whore, you didn't get groups and you didnt level, because attitude and reputation meant everything. In todays solo-infested games, the only thing that matters is gear, and you can be a complete idiot and asshole and still get in groups, because it seems like most players are the same way; selfish, ignorant assholes who would rather play by themselves, and only play an MMO so they can show off their gear.
Blaming the gear problem on solo players is wrong. It is those who like the end game raids that need the gear not solo style players. LOL where'd you come up with the gear problem is the fault of the Solo players?
It is a common complaint by many solo/casual players that they cannot attain the same gear/status as those who group. They feel they are forced to group in order to "keep up" with the more hardcore/group players. The reason I think solo mentality has contributed to the gear problem is because these players commonly exhibit selfish tendencies even when they group. They are after their own loot, their own xp, and they see group play only as a means to get that gear, rather than the main reason to play an online multiplayer game.
I'm not blaming solo player exclusively for the gear problem, as I believe you are correct that mostly the hardcore raiders are the ones whining that they need new upgrades every few weeks, thus widening the gap. But the group dynamics have changed alot since more and more games are solo friendly. The need to be friendly and competent has been largely removed because, well, if you can't get a group because nobody likes you, at least you can solo.
Honestly, I don't care about loot. I don't care if solo play yields better gear or rewards than group play. The only thing that concerns me is that I do like to group and it frustrates me to no end when I'm looking for a group and can't find one because everyone is off soloing. They may as well not even be playing on the same server, or even the same game as me if they refuse to interact with other players. I think players should be able to play however they want. We all pay the same fee, and I will admit there are times when I do enjoy soloing, but alot of times I'm actually forced to solo because nobody wants to group. At all (besides end-game raiding which I am not a big fan of either.)
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
So you are saying there are not a lot of groupers who are jerks and do the group thing to get what they want and then leave the group?
They get to endgame by soloing and then do that..
If grouping is encouraged from the first levels, those kind of jerks will be kicked out of groups sooner or later and can't progress further. Still, some idiots will get through the sieve, but there will be much less of those players around than usually.
even jerks pay the sub and have a right to play, thus making yet more solo players. those who are jerks and no one groups with, and those who dislike groups because of all the jerks and prefer to do it their selves, and also me who likes the challenge of soloing. Forced grouping is pointless, balanced play is better. I am not saying that all gear/loot should be accesible to both styles - but if I can solo it(due to my skill at playing and my knowledge of my character's strengths and weaknesses) I should be able to. Note: I need a new keyboard, keys are sticking - please excuse my typos - the q key seems to show up when ever it pleases.
But that's not balance, you're just asking for a solo game.
CoX balances soloing and grouping very well. There are a few things you have to group for but all of those rewards can be traded for at the AC. In WAR I can be grouped and soloed at the same time. With public groups. I just join a group and pretty much do my own thing. So I am simultaneously soloed and grouped. Same thing with scenarios, I just join up and I'm grouped but I can still play solo. I also played a MUD with full looting where you could play ninja a class that had an assassin skill, chance for a one shot kill. And remember this is full looting. And there is gear you needed to be in a group to get. So as a ninja you could solo PK anyone and loot them. So I just listed three different examples where soloing and grouping are balanced. And you people keep talking crap like it can't be done. Because you're really just thinking about WoW and raiding. Well not all games are WoW and not all games have raiding.
Personally, I thought those were solo games. The grouping was far from satisfying.
Sure, it was kinda fun to group in CoH, but pretty much pointless. That doesn't make for a great groupoing game.
Comments
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
My comment had nothing to do with that, it had to do with the point made that the only reason to play an MMO is to show off your gear and get an ego boost. That's childish and immature and if that's the only reason someone plays a game, something tells me that individual ought to grow up.
As for why I enjoy playing alone, mostly because it's faster, easier and I get a lot more done alone than I could ever hope to as a group. I don't have to waste time sitting around trying to find a team, trying to get the team together, waiting for them to take bio breaks, waiting for them to get drinks, waiting, waiting, waiting. I actually get to play the game, which is why I'm paying for the damn thing in the first place.
And yes, in the long run, I want to have access to the same gear and content. I don't expect it to be as fast or as easy, but to exclude soloers simply because they solo is ludicrous. I'm perfectly willing to wait a couple of levels to get my whiz-bang sword of ass-kicking until I can solo it, so long as I'm not entirely excluded from ever having it. That's just stupid.
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
I hope that wasn't directed at me because I wouldn't be caught dead on WoW. Played it for about 6 months with friends, abandoned it long ago, would never go back.
Guess you're not nearly as smart as you wish you were.
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
I've personally not seen that as an issue, there are plenty of dungeons that are rated, say, from level 50-70. A team is required to beat it at level 50. Anyone trying to solo, no matter how twinked, is just asking for death. However, at level 70, people can beat it solo and most of the team-only people have moved on to the next dungeon that is rated for levels 70-90. The soloer won't head to that dungeon until level 90.
But here's a suggestion. If you don't like a game... DON'T PLAY! Imagine that, you have a choice! Hell, there are lots of games I don't play, I just don't sit around on forums whining about it.
Maybe you ought to give that a shot.
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
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
I've personally not seen that as an issue, there are plenty of dungeons that are rated, say, from level 50-70. A team is required to beat it at level 50. Anyone trying to solo, no matter how twinked, is just asking for death. However, at level 70, people can beat it solo and most of the team-only people have moved on to the next dungeon that is rated for levels 70-90. The soloer won't head to that dungeon until level 90.
But here's a suggestion. If you don't like a game... DON'T PLAY! Imagine that, you have a choice! Hell, there are lots of games I don't play, I just don't sit around on forums whining about it.
Maybe you ought to give that a shot.
Seeing as you can't discuss this without being rude...
You don't see it as an issue because you like these games to be easy.
I don't play any of these games any more. The harder, older games got too old and the new games all got too easy to suit people like you. No doubt the people who want it to be easy are the majority and so it makes sense to design games for them. However there's probably "enough" people who'd want to play a more challenging game to make it profitable as long as the company involved wasn't aiming at a WoW level of success and only spent as much money as could be paid back by a level of subs lower than WoW numbers.
I usually only post about it on forums after trying a trial or two and giving up after seeing the same easy-mode gameplay all these games have now because people like you can't handle any kind of loss even if it's just pixels.
Zero risk even if it's just pixels.
(BTW I'm not saying all anti-groupers are the same - obviously there's a lot of practical issues with group-centric games as well. It's only some people who want the game to be as risk-free as possible.)
didn't let me post first time - so editing this now:
Multiplayer simply means that many people play the game at the same time - it doesn't infer they have to group. Solo players are not against social interaction and actually, since they are not concerned with grouping, they are generally more helpful. If I see some one in trouble - I help by healing or by helping kill the mob that is beating up on the other player. If some one says in chat that they are having a problem with a quest and if I am near them - I heelp them, even if the quest or the mobs are so low it will give me no xp or rewards.
Groupers seem to think that all social interaction is in the group and about playing as a group. This is not the case. while I am playing LOTRO I am usually in ventrilo talking to my Kin fellows about all sorts of things - the game, the weather outside, life problems, who is going to win the Stanley cup, etc. Playing parts of the game solo does not mean you are not being social at the same time
I've personally not seen that as an issue, there are plenty of dungeons that are rated, say, from level 50-70. A team is required to beat it at level 50. Anyone trying to solo, no matter how twinked, is just asking for death. However, at level 70, people can beat it solo and most of the team-only people have moved on to the next dungeon that is rated for levels 70-90. The soloer won't head to that dungeon until level 90.
But here's a suggestion. If you don't like a game... DON'T PLAY! Imagine that, you have a choice! Hell, there are lots of games I don't play, I just don't sit around on forums whining about it.
Maybe you ought to give that a shot.
Seeing as you can't discuss this without being rude...
You don't see it as an issue because you like these games to be easy.
I don't play any of these games any more. The harder, older games got too old and the new games all got too easy to suit people like you. No doubt the people who want it to be easy are the majority and so it makes sense to design games for them. However there's probably "enough" people who'd want to play a more challenging game to make it profitable as long as the company involved wasn't aiming at a WoW level of success and only spent as much money as could be paid back by a level of subs lower than WoW numbers.
I usually only post about it on forums after trying a trial or two and giving up after seeing the same easy-mode gameplay all these games have now because people like you can't handle any kind of loss even if it's just pixels.
Zero risk even if it's just pixels.
(BTW I'm not saying all anti-groupers are the same - obviously there's a lot of practical issues with group-centric games as well. It's only some people who want the game to be as risk-free as possible.)
I like solo play and I do not like the game to be risk free nor am I am asking for it to be made easier. I like the CHALLENGE.. To me it is the groupers who like things risk free, that is why they do every thing in a group, safety in numbers.
Or because they like the cooperative aspect?
Or because they like the cooperative aspect?
I have not seen too many random(non-guild) groups where there was much in the way of co-operation.
Or because they like the cooperative aspect?
Good Morning Hyanmen
Or because they like the cooperative aspect?
Good Morning Hyanmen
Lolz good day =P
Exactly. As I've pointed out before, the group dynamic in just about every MMO exists for using others for your own ends. Every member of the group is after their own XP, their own loot, their own uber-gear, they're just using the other group members to have a better chance at getting it faster and easier. There's no commitment to the group itself, only to your own wants and desires, when you stop getting what you want, what's the point of sticking around to help others?
It wasn't always like that though. I think the soloer mentality really brought that whole attitude you just described to the forefront. Players used to be fine having to group to get levels because that was the only way they could level. If you were a jerk or a loot whore, you didn't get groups and you didnt level, because attitude and reputation meant everything. In todays solo-infested games, the only thing that matters is gear, and you can be a complete idiot and asshole and still get in groups, because it seems like most players are the same way; selfish, ignorant assholes who would rather play by themselves, and only play an MMO so they can show off their gear.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Exactly. As I've pointed out before, the group dynamic in just about every MMO exists for using others for your own ends. Every member of the group is after their own XP, their own loot, their own uber-gear, they're just using the other group members to have a better chance at getting it faster and easier. There's no commitment to the group itself, only to your own wants and desires, when you stop getting what you want, what's the point of sticking around to help others?
It wasn't always like that though. I think the soloer mentality really brought that whole attitude you just described to the forefront. Players used to be fine having to group to get levels because that was the only way they could level. If you were a jerk or a loot whore, you didn't get groups and you didnt level, because attitude and reputation meant everything. In todays solo-infested games, the only thing that matters is gear, and you can be a complete idiot and asshole and still get in groups, because it seems like most players are the same way; selfish, ignorant assholes who would rather play by themselves, and only play an MMO so they can show off their gear.
Blaming the gear problem on solo players is wrong. It is those who like the end game raids that need the gear not solo style players. LOL where'd you come up with the gear problem is the fault of the Solo players?
On gear thing I don't agree, but everything else yeah. It is really easier to get away as a jerk in a solo friendly game.
So you are saying there are not a lot of groupers who are jerks and do the group thing to get what they want and then leave the group?
They get to endgame by soloing and then do that..
If grouping is encouraged from the first levels, those kind of jerks will be kicked out of groups sooner or later and can't progress further. Still, some idiots will get through the sieve, but there will be much less of those players around than usually.
They get to endgame by soloing and then do that..
If grouping is encouraged from the first levels, those kind of jerks will be kicked out of groups sooner or later and can't progress further. Still, some idiots will get through the sieve, but there will be much less of those players around than usually.
even jerks pay the sub and have a right to play, thus making yet more solo players. those who are jerks and no one groups with, and those who dislike groups because of all the jerks and prefer to do it their selves, and also me who likes the challenge of soloing. Forced grouping is pointless, balanced play is better. I am not saying that all gear/loot should be accesible to both styles - but if I can solo it(due to my skill at playing and my knowledge of my character's strengths and weaknesses) I should be able to. Note: I need a new keyboard, keys are sticking - please excuse my typos - the q key seems to show up when ever it pleases.
They get to endgame by soloing and then do that..
If grouping is encouraged from the first levels, those kind of jerks will be kicked out of groups sooner or later and can't progress further. Still, some idiots will get through the sieve, but there will be much less of those players around than usually.
This is the real problem. It is true that almost all MMOs today have both soloing and group play. It's the bait and switch end-game that causes the problem. All along, soloers or groupers could make progress in both levels and gear. Yet, at the end, it's group or forget about improving your character, the solo game is useless for any real progression.
Yes, there is a logic that greater effort should yield greater reward. However, I think an MMO fails if it doesn't provide an alternate, longer, non-group method to get the same gear.
And here is where a lot of pro-groupers lose their cool. Many, not all, feel that offering any other method to get the loot they got by grouping is utterly unacceptable, and somehow diminishes their achievement. I've yet to see even the most die-hard soloer advocates scream for exclusivity of gear, but many pro-groupers do.
Soloers are not crying for an easy button, they are asking only for an alternate method to the same results. If you are a pro-grouper and resent another player from getting the same gear you did without grouping, even if it's a much longer way, ask yourself why.
Well, I thought MMO's were better when they didn't try to appeal to jerks... but hey, that's just my opinion!
Forced grouping doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able to solo- it might actually give a better challenge than solo game ever would. That kind of gameplay might actually suit your solo preferences better than the actual solo games do =D
CoX balances soloing and grouping very well. There are a few things you have to group for but all of those rewards can be traded for at the AC.
In WAR I can be grouped and soloed at the same time. With public groups. I just join a group and pretty much do my own thing. So I am simultaneously soloed and grouped. Same thing with scenarios, I just join up and I'm grouped but I can still play solo.
I also played a MUD with full looting where you could play ninja a class that had an assassin skill, chance for a one shot kill. And remember this is full looting. And there is gear you needed to be in a group to get. So as a ninja you could solo PK anyone and loot them.
So I just listed three different examples where soloing and grouping are balanced. And you people keep talking crap like it can't be done. Because you're really just thinking about WoW and raiding. Well not all games are WoW and not all games have raiding.
Exactly. As I've pointed out before, the group dynamic in just about every MMO exists for using others for your own ends. Every member of the group is after their own XP, their own loot, their own uber-gear, they're just using the other group members to have a better chance at getting it faster and easier. There's no commitment to the group itself, only to your own wants and desires, when you stop getting what you want, what's the point of sticking around to help others?
It wasn't always like that though. I think the soloer mentality really brought that whole attitude you just described to the forefront. Players used to be fine having to group to get levels because that was the only way they could level. If you were a jerk or a loot whore, you didn't get groups and you didnt level, because attitude and reputation meant everything. In todays solo-infested games, the only thing that matters is gear, and you can be a complete idiot and asshole and still get in groups, because it seems like most players are the same way; selfish, ignorant assholes who would rather play by themselves, and only play an MMO so they can show off their gear.
Blaming the gear problem on solo players is wrong. It is those who like the end game raids that need the gear not solo style players. LOL where'd you come up with the gear problem is the fault of the Solo players?
It is a common complaint by many solo/casual players that they cannot attain the same gear/status as those who group. They feel they are forced to group in order to "keep up" with the more hardcore/group players. The reason I think solo mentality has contributed to the gear problem is because these players commonly exhibit selfish tendencies even when they group. They are after their own loot, their own xp, and they see group play only as a means to get that gear, rather than the main reason to play an online multiplayer game.
I'm not blaming solo player exclusively for the gear problem, as I believe you are correct that mostly the hardcore raiders are the ones whining that they need new upgrades every few weeks, thus widening the gap. But the group dynamics have changed alot since more and more games are solo friendly. The need to be friendly and competent has been largely removed because, well, if you can't get a group because nobody likes you, at least you can solo.
Honestly, I don't care about loot. I don't care if solo play yields better gear or rewards than group play. The only thing that concerns me is that I do like to group and it frustrates me to no end when I'm looking for a group and can't find one because everyone is off soloing. They may as well not even be playing on the same server, or even the same game as me if they refuse to interact with other players. I think players should be able to play however they want. We all pay the same fee, and I will admit there are times when I do enjoy soloing, but alot of times I'm actually forced to solo because nobody wants to group. At all (besides end-game raiding which I am not a big fan of either.)
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
They get to endgame by soloing and then do that..
If grouping is encouraged from the first levels, those kind of jerks will be kicked out of groups sooner or later and can't progress further. Still, some idiots will get through the sieve, but there will be much less of those players around than usually.
even jerks pay the sub and have a right to play, thus making yet more solo players. those who are jerks and no one groups with, and those who dislike groups because of all the jerks and prefer to do it their selves, and also me who likes the challenge of soloing. Forced grouping is pointless, balanced play is better. I am not saying that all gear/loot should be accesible to both styles - but if I can solo it(due to my skill at playing and my knowledge of my character's strengths and weaknesses) I should be able to. Note: I need a new keyboard, keys are sticking - please excuse my typos - the q key seems to show up when ever it pleases.
But that's not balance, you're just asking for a solo game.
Personally, I thought those were solo games. The grouping was far from satisfying.
Sure, it was kinda fun to group in CoH, but pretty much pointless. That doesn't make for a great groupoing game.