Oh yes they are. Gouping by its very nature is a challenge all on its own. Putting up with jerks, bad players (usually the consistent soloers) , know-it-alls and pervs, etc etc. is a game all by its self. And this has been beaten to death but I'll repeat, if the SAME gear is attainable via soloing, no one would group. Tabula Rasa was like that. It's now defunct.
False as proven by CoH/CoV. A game that is solo-able, didn't even have gear, and yet most people grouped.
Which is why I play CoH/CoV for 5 years and I didn't play WoW.
Good for you.
I know several people that played COX, they said its fun for a bit then they left. Maybe thats the answer, make a bunch of solable COX like games for soloers where you can log in, solo a bit and get the best gear and be happy.
the true answer is for you group only people to get over yourselves.
"Group Only"? Didnt I just say that I solo alot. The REAL answer is for you LOOT ENVY people to get over your jealousy. Its a game, have fun. You dont need superior gear to play let alone solo. Phulese. this isnt the school yard and the bullies is not after you. Stop being jealous and crying like a baby. Plenty of solo fail games will be launched for your benefit, so go have fun.
Seeing as you can't discuss this without being rude... Ah yes, because I spend my days being told that if I ever solo, I should go away and play another game, the second I suggest the same sort of thing to a pro-grouper, I'm being rude. Cry me a river. You don't see it as an issue because you like these games to be easy. Easy? I'm soloing content that it takes you an entire group to complete! How is that easy? I've got to fulfill all of the functions of an entire group myself, I have to tank, I have to heal, I have to do it all. If anything, *YOU* are the one who is making it easy, not me. 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. Then if you're not playing, what do you care? I'm sorry that you equate solo with easy, it's just not so. It's much *HARDER* to solo than it is to drag along a whole team. Groupers are the ones who want the game to be risk free, that's why they've got an entire support team on their side!
"I'm soloing content that takes me an entire group"
You're easily soloing content designed to be easily soloed.
"Then if you're not playing, what do you care?"
I'll say this nice and slow for you... i'm not playing because the new games are too easy.
I occasionally post about it on forums just in case it helps spark a niche game that is harder.
"It's much *HARDER* to solo than it is to drag along a whole team."
For any level of difficulty it's "harder" to do solo but if the level of difficulty is designed around being easy to solo then it's still easy and that makes the group difficulty below easy i.e completely trivial.
It seems there's multiple arguments going on here - there's some kind of "endgame" feud about raiding and gear and all that c**p. Personally I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the 1-50 (or whatever level) game. I'm personally not talking about being casual or hardcore as I was always a "casual" EQ1 player. I'm also not personally interested in a group *only* game (e.g original EQ2 and their elite mobs) as I'm a casual soloer.
However the simple fact is that games designed around levelling theough solo quests are easy because they have to be - the quests have to be soloable by the least soloable class. WoW, Lotro, WAR (PvE bit) they all have the same problem - quest takes you into a dungeon and there is one static mob per 30 feet that is easily soloed. If a quest involves mobs outside then there's mostly a static grid of easily soloable mobs.
What I'm talking about really is the base level of difficulty - or more accurately the base level of threat from the mobs. If it's high then that naturally encourages grouping for protection and at the same time creates harder soloing. So all the people who say they like soloing because it's harder *should* want these games to be that way as long as it was done through mob group dynamics rather than just making individual mobs unsoloable.
Fairly obviously the new lower level of difficulty in the new games is more popular but surely there's enough people for a niche game that has a level of difficulty that doesn't send you to sleep.
Oh yes they are. Gouping by its very nature is a challenge all on its own. Putting up with jerks, bad players (usually the consistent soloers) , know-it-alls and pervs, etc etc. is a game all by its self. And this has been beaten to death but I'll repeat, if the SAME gear is attainable via soloing, no one would group. Tabula Rasa was like that. It's now defunct.
False as proven by CoH/CoV. A game that is solo-able, didn't even have gear, and yet most people grouped.
Which is why I play CoH/CoV for 5 years and I didn't play WoW.
Good for you.
I know several people that played COX, they said its fun for a bit then they left. Maybe thats the answer, make a bunch of solable COX like games for soloers where you can log in, solo a bit and get the best gear and be happy.
the true answer is for you group only people to get over yourselves.
"Group Only"? Didnt I just say that I solo alot. The REAL answer is for you LOOT ENVY people to get over your jealousy. Its a game, have fun. You dont need superior gear to play let alone solo. Phulese. this isnt the school yard and the bullies is not after you. Stop being jealous and crying like a baby. Plenty of solo fail games will be launched for your benefit, so go have fun.
read my posts in this thread - I don't play for the loot. I play for fun. Fun for me is a challenge and to be challenged. Loot is not the end-all of gaming, and I really do not give a flying f*ck about it. That is all, however, you hear the group only people rant about. nuff said.
Oh yes they are. Gouping by its very nature is a challenge all on its own. Putting up with jerks, bad players (usually the consistent soloers) , know-it-alls and pervs, etc etc. is a game all by its self. And this has been beaten to death but I'll repeat, if the SAME gear is attainable via soloing, no one would group. Tabula Rasa was like that. It's now defunct.
False as proven by CoH/CoV. A game that is solo-able, didn't even have gear, and yet most people grouped.
Which is why I play CoH/CoV for 5 years and I didn't play WoW.
Good for you.
I know several people that played COX, they said its fun for a bit then they left. Maybe thats the answer, make a bunch of solable COX like games for soloers where you can log in, solo a bit and get the best gear and be happy.
the true answer is for you group only people to get over yourselves.
"Group Only"? Didnt I just say that I solo alot. The REAL answer is for you LOOT ENVY people to get over your jealousy. Its a game, have fun. You dont need superior gear to play let alone solo. Phulese. this isnt the school yard and the bullies is not after you. Stop being jealous and crying like a baby. Plenty of solo fail games will be launched for your benefit, so go have fun.
read my posts in this thread - I don't play for the loot. I play for fun. Fun for me is a challenge and to be challenged. Loot is not the end-all of gaming, and I really do not give a flying f*ck about it. That is all, however, you hear the group only people rant about. nuff said.
Please. The major topic you soloers are crying about is the fact that you cant get the same loot as a grouper/raider. And that people that group /raid need to feel superior to others because they have some shiny pixels others don't. The whole argument is around loot and the fact that some you want an "I WIN" button to get the games top loot via soloing. We wouldnt be having this discussion if that werent the case. There is plenty of solo content in games....but not the type of solo content that rewards endgame gear. That was the OPs argument and that of several soloers in this thread (if not you specifically).
It is forced social interaction, but if you think that's the goal you are entirely missing the point.
No one wants to force you to interact with anyone. I certainly dont' want to force you to interact with me.
however, I do want a team game.
Imagine if you will, that there is a basketball game, and you want to play solo on the same court. That is going to seriously screw up my team based basket ball game.
And that's what you get when you change the rules on the server to accomomodate the solo players. You seriously screw up my grouping game.
It's nto that I want to MAKE or FORCE you to group. I seriously do not. I just want to play basket ball in teams, or in an MMORPG play the Tank, Nuke, Heal dynamic or something like.
There really is no way to make the game solo friendly without screwing it up for the groupers, or vice a versa. If you can solo, then guess what? I can solo, and my group game is now a piece of crap not worth playing.
It is exacly like chaning the NBA and saying that people can run onto the court and shoot baskets on their own during a game, it's now part of hte rules.
Best you can do, is different rules for different servers. Do I mind if you shoot baskets by yourself? Of course I do not. But that doesn't mean you get to change the rules of basketball to allow that during a team game. That messes up the team game if you're doing that on the court at the same time I'm trying to play a game.
Different courts would mean different servers.
Basically, people that like to solo call for "balance" and mean, give me a solo game.
You miss the point of the discussion....Switch Solo and Group in Your Post and the argument is the same in the other favor. Your point of wanting a totally Group game has been clear in all of your posts.
Thanks for the in put you have made your point very clear. You really don't need to keep responding to the posts that don't go with your perspective.........
No offense intended, it's just you keep responding with the same thing over and over, really we hear you.
Originally posted by Broomy Originally posted by GreenChaos
Originally posted by Broomy
Oh yes they are. Gouping by its very nature is a challenge all on its own. Putting up with jerks, bad players (usually the consistent soloers) , know-it-alls and pervs, etc etc. is a game all by its self. And this has been beaten to death but I'll repeat, if the SAME gear is attainable via soloing, no one would group. Tabula Rasa was like that. It's now defunct.
False as proven by CoH/CoV. A game that is solo-able, didn't even have gear, and yet most people grouped. Which is why I play CoH/CoV for 5 years and I didn't play WoW.
Good for you. I know several people that played COX, they said its fun for a bit then they left. Maybe thats the answer, make a bunch of solable COX like games for soloers where you can log in, solo a bit and get the best gear and be happy.
COX's solo vs. group balance is definitely the answer for how games should approach the problem. If COX died out quick for players, it wasn't due to the solo vs. grouping balance, but rather for the game's other shortcomings.
Applying COX's balance to WOW would be: if WOW let you run a series of solo quests to earn the same gear you could get out of a 5-man, except that it took you 1.5 times as much playtime to get it solo as it took to get in in groups (factoring in the time to form group(s) to run the place enough time to earn the item.) So you could get everything solo, but grouping earns the items at a faster rate. The trick is ensuring that series of solo quests is interesting (because WOW has had lengthy solo progression before, and some of it hasn't been terribly fun.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
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.
Oh yes they are. Gouping by its very nature is a challenge all on its own. Putting up with jerks, bad players (usually the consistent soloers) , know-it-alls and pervs, etc etc. is a game all by its self. And this has been beaten to death but I'll repeat, if the SAME gear is attainable via soloing, no one would group. Tabula Rasa was like that. It's now defunct.
So you feel that no solo method, regardless if it took 10 or 100 times longer should yield the same piece of gear that can be acquired by a group? Do you really think if it took that much longer, no one would take the group method? Seriously?
Oh yes they are. Gouping by its very nature is a challenge all on its own. Putting up with jerks, bad players (usually the consistent soloers) , know-it-alls and pervs, etc etc. is a game all by its self. And this has been beaten to death but I'll repeat, if the SAME gear is attainable via soloing, no one would group. Tabula Rasa was like that. It's now defunct.
False as proven by CoH/CoV. A game that is solo-able, didn't even have gear, and yet most people grouped.
Which is why I play CoH/CoV for 5 years and I didn't play WoW.
Good for you.
I know several people that played COX, they said its fun for a bit then they left. Maybe thats the answer, make a bunch of solable COX like games for soloers where you can log in, solo a bit and get the best gear and be happy.
COX's solo vs. group balance is definitely the answer for how games should approach the problem. If COX died out quick for players, it wasn't due to the solo vs. grouping balance, but rather for the game's other shortcomings.
Applying COX's balance to WOW would be: if WOW let you run a series of solo quests to earn the same gear you could get out of a 5-man, except that it took you 1.5 times as much playtime to get it solo as it took to get in in groups (factoring in the time to form group(s) to run the place enough time to earn the item.) So you could get everything solo, but grouping earns the items at a faster rate. The trick is ensuring that series of solo quests is interesting (because WOW has had lengthy solo progression before, and some of it hasn't been terribly fun.)
For me this was why the game wasn't to deep, and not very fun after a short while.
Yes, you COULD group, and grouping was fun. However, you diidn't HAVE to group, which meant the grouping was rather shallow and unnecessary, therefore not very fullfilling or satisfying.
Fun yes, deep enough and satisfying enough to keep you around for more than a few months, no.
I expect to play Champions online the same way, because I expect like CoH you'll be able to solo, you will be able to group, and grouping will be fun, but not very satisfying since it's totally unnecessary. Play for a few months, then quit because the new game smell has worn off and really there's no challenge since the game can be solo'ed.
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.
Oh yes they are. Gouping by its very nature is a challenge all on its own. Putting up with jerks, bad players (usually the consistent soloers) , know-it-alls and pervs, etc etc. is a game all by its self. And this has been beaten to death but I'll repeat, if the SAME gear is attainable via soloing, no one would group. Tabula Rasa was like that. It's now defunct.
So you feel that no solo method, regardless if it took 10 or 100 times longer should yield the same piece of gear that can be acquired by a group? Do you really think if it took that much longer, no one would take the group method? Seriously?
I think 100 times longer to gain gear solo than grouping would be fair and balanced between group and solo play.
There was a time when these games were made for a small audience of hardcore players who lived on their computers, there were always lots of people around (lots being a relative term) and they were after a hardcore challenge. That part is fine, as far as it goes, but that tiny group of people who populated those games is now a minuscule part of the marketplace. Games no longer can survive catering to that particular mindset, they have to cater to a larger, more diverse, more casual set of gamers who don't always have the time to find a group, don't always have the time to commit to a group, they want content that they can get on, play through and get off. That's the reality whether you like it or not. There was a point in time, way back when, that computer users had to huddle together in user groups to have any hope of figuring out their computers because they were difficult to use and you needed to share information between people. Today, computers are almost idiot proof out of the box. Times change. Maybe it's time you did too.
I dont think anyones disagreeing with the fact that times have changed and game devs need to develop methods and means for casual players. I think what people are saying is that it isnt feasible or wise to enable soloers/casuals to obtain the SAME gear as those that devote more time and effort in groups/raids. If everyone can get the top gear via soloing, EVERYONE would do it. The game would then lose the portion of players that prefer grouping/raiding.
You just contradicted yourself. You just said everyone would solo the content if they could. Why would they leave? I you gave them the option of soloing it, or grouping it, and they would rather solo it, why should they leave? They're doing what they would prefer doing to get the same content.
All you, and those like you, are doing is trying to justify the fact that you want people to be forced to group if they want to achieve exclusively superior rewards. It doesn't matter if it takes the soloer a longer time than the accumlated hours of everyone involved in a raid, or if their solo-tuned content is actually harder, or if it would take the casual player 2 years of real time to get an equal reward that you got in 2 months, you don't want them to **ever** get it. It's not about how easy or hard it is, nor is it about how much time it takes; it's actually about getting the EXCLUSIVITY of the superior reward. If you can't have something that **most** other players don't have and cannot get, you don't enjoy the game.
The sad, hypocritical part of this is that without that ocean of soloers and casual groupers and occasional groupers and non-raiders and non-powergamers, you don't have anyone to feel superior to, which is why you argue and rant against developers even MAKING a game that caters to casuals and solers - that ocean of players would abandon your self-serving caste-system MMOGs in droves and head over to where they aren't coded in as the scrubs and red-headed stepchildren.
You EXPECT them to play and play in huge numbers in your game, financing your self-serving expansions and "end-game" content, where if you had to switch positions with them and settle for 3rd rate common rewards you wouldn't even play, and you have the nerve to tell them that THEY are greedy loot-whores because they aren't satisfied being your peasants and commoners.
For many of us, it has NOTHING to do with gear. It has to do with wanting to play games with other people and not being able to because everyone is soloing. If I wanted to just play a game solo, I would play a single player game and I sure as hell wouldn't pay a subscription fee. And that's fine if other players do that, but what about the players who play mutliplayer games to actually play with other players? They get the shaft when everyone is out soloing.
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.
There was a time when these games were made for a small audience of hardcore players who lived on their computers, there were always lots of people around (lots being a relative term) and they were after a hardcore challenge. That part is fine, as far as it goes, but that tiny group of people who populated those games is now a minuscule part of the marketplace. Games no longer can survive catering to that particular mindset, they have to cater to a larger, more diverse, more casual set of gamers who don't always have the time to find a group, don't always have the time to commit to a group, they want content that they can get on, play through and get off. That's the reality whether you like it or not.
There was a point in time, way back when, that computer users had to huddle together in user groups to have any hope of figuring out their computers because they were difficult to use and you needed to share information between people. Today, computers are almost idiot proof out of the box. Times change. Maybe it's time you did too.
So in time, we have gone from an MMORPG to an ORGP and you think this is good why?
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Originally posted by Ihmotepp For me this was why the game wasn't to deep, and not very fun after a short while. Yes, you COULD group, and grouping was fun. However, you diidn't HAVE to group, which meant the grouping was rather shallow and unnecessary, therefore not very fullfilling or satisfying.
I'd say you're in the vast minority if that mechanic was the reason you left. If you left because they didn't vary the gameplay pattern enough (because all you do is run missions) I might agree with you. But because solo and grouping were both effective gameplay styles? That's a silly reason to leave...
You didn't have to group, but grouping was almost always superior to soloing. So yes: nothing forced you to group, but soloing all the time was going to make things take much longer than necessary (and be less fun imo.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I've noticed, that if I don't <have> to group in a game, I won't do it. That doesn't mean I enjoy soloing, but it's the mindset of the game that makes me like that. I usually quit a while after because yeah, it's just not as fun alone. When I do have to group, it becomes less of a 'chore' and I don't mind it as much. That's how the game works, and I'll play like they want me to, which in the long run brings me more enjoyment, although to some it may feel 'forced'.
If the game is intended to able to be soloed, yeah you bet I'll do it like that.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
There was a time when these games were made for a small audience of hardcore players who lived on their computers, there were always lots of people around (lots being a relative term) and they were after a hardcore challenge. That part is fine, as far as it goes, but that tiny group of people who populated those games is now a minuscule part of the marketplace. Games no longer can survive catering to that particular mindset, they have to cater to a larger, more diverse, more casual set of gamers who don't always have the time to find a group, don't always have the time to commit to a group, they want content that they can get on, play through and get off. That's the reality whether you like it or not. There was a point in time, way back when, that computer users had to huddle together in user groups to have any hope of figuring out their computers because they were difficult to use and you needed to share information between people. Today, computers are almost idiot proof out of the box. Times change. Maybe it's time you did too.
I dont think anyones disagreeing with the fact that times have changed and game devs need to develop methods and means for casual players. I think what people are saying is that it isnt feasible or wise to enable soloers/casuals to obtain the SAME gear as those that devote more time and effort in groups/raids. If everyone can get the top gear via soloing, EVERYONE would do it. The game would then lose the portion of players that prefer grouping/raiding.
Considering the portion of players who want to group almost exclusively is a minuscule number, that may or may nor mean much in the big picture, but I agree, devs ought to cater to everyone. The problem comes in when that minuscule number starts demanding special treatment, or in extreme cases, that they be the only game in town.
I don't think you'll find anyone who is saying that a level 10 soloer ought to be able to get the same uber gear as a whole team of level 10 groupers. At least I don't remember ever seeing anyone say that. But a level 15 soloer certainly ought to be able to get the gear that the groupers got at level 10. That's really the difference, the groupers want special treatment, special gear that can only be gotten by playing their way. That's where the conflict comes in. It's not that people want it at the same level, they just want it eventually.
It's utterly absurd to suggest that the people who sit around for hours trying to make a team somehow deserve things that people who are actually playing the game the whole time do not.
There is no point in arguing. Groupers have an agenda and soloers have an agenda. Groupers have always had the upper hand when it comes to a game's reward system and they can't stand the thought of sharing. The very definition of greed and entitlement. I can hear the school yard bully from my past......my play style is better than yours noob.........
The problem is, I don't think soloers have an agenda. I have yet to see a single soloer suggest that people ought not be able to group. Soloers don't attempt to force groupers to give up their groups and play solo. Groupers, at least the extreme fringe, have said that they want people to give up soloing and be forced to play in groups.
In the end, the only reason to play anything is to have fun. Soloers can have fun without caring what anyone else does. Apparently, groupers can only have fun if they make everyone else play their way.
I don't have to point out how shallow and pathetic that is.
The problem is, I don't think soloers have an agenda. I have yet to see a single soloer suggest that people ought not be able to group. Soloers don't attempt to force groupers to give up their groups and play solo. Groupers, at least the extreme fringe, have said that they want people to give up soloing and be forced to play in groups. In the end, the only reason to play anything is to have fun. Soloers can have fun without caring what anyone else does. Apparently, groupers can only have fun if they make everyone else play their way. I don't have to point out how shallow and pathetic that is.
Because whether people group or not doesnt affect soloers -in any way-, unlike soloers affect grouping in a negative way.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
"I'm soloing content that takes me an entire group" You're easily soloing content designed to be easily soloed. Not hardly, I'm soloing content because I've made my character strong enough to be able to do it. Properly rounded and twinked characters *CAN* do more than untwinked characters, but they are almost always superior to team-built characters. Sure, your tank might have a ton of HP and deal a lot of damage, but without a healer backing them up, they die. Your healer might be able to heal up a storm, but they have virtually no combat skills and without a team, they're useless. A properly rounded character, like I run, may not have the HP of your tank or the healing skills of your healer, but he can deal a lot of damage and self-heal and can kill things that are near what your entire team can take out. And you're mad at that. "Then if you're not playing, what do you care?" I'll say this nice and slow for you... i'm not playing because the new games are too easy. Then go do something else. Or do you get off whining on an MMO forum? I occasionally post about it on forums just in case it helps spark a niche game that is harder. I don't really think any of the devs seriously read these forums and even if they do, the people who hire them to make games and pay their bills certainly don't. If you want to waste your time, feel free though. "It's much *HARDER* to solo than it is to drag along a whole team." For any level of difficulty it's "harder" to do solo but if the level of difficulty is designed around being easy to solo then it's still easy and that makes the group difficulty below easy i.e completely trivial. There was a time when I'd die if I tried to take on high-end mobs. I had to be in a team. Those mobs were designed to be taken on in a group. Now... I can wipe the walls with them any time I want, I remember trying to purposely die so I'd respawn somewhere far away, I walked into one of those formerly deadly mobs, unbuffed, not using any special attacks and I almost killed them before they managed to wear me down. It seems there's multiple arguments going on here - there's some kind of "endgame" feud about raiding and gear and all that c**p. Personally I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the 1-50 (or whatever level) game. I'm personally not talking about being casual or hardcore as I was always a "casual" EQ1 player. I'm also not personally interested in a group *only* game (e.g original EQ2 and their elite mobs) as I'm a casual soloer. I think endgame is crap anyhow so I'm not going to argue that. I'm only talking, as you are, about the leveling portion of the game. However the simple fact is that games designed around levelling theough solo quests are easy because they have to be - the quests have to be soloable by the least soloable class. WoW, Lotro, WAR (PvE bit) they all have the same problem - quest takes you into a dungeon and there is one static mob per 30 feet that is easily soloed. If a quest involves mobs outside then there's mostly a static grid of easily soloable mobs. The problem is, they're not designed around it, they give people a choice. Take Anarchy Online as an example. If you want to go on solo quests, you can. If you want to go on group quests, you can. The group quests give you more loot, more XP and as a group, you can take on harder quests. No one is arguing there's a problem with that. The pro-groupers, however, are arguing that the ability of someone to do solo quests *AT ALL* harms their fun. That's what everyone is disagreeing with. What I'm talking about really is the base level of difficulty - or more accurately the base level of threat from the mobs. If it's high then that naturally encourages grouping for protection and at the same time creates harder soloing. So all the people who say they like soloing because it's harder *should* want these games to be that way as long as it was done through mob group dynamics rather than just making individual mobs unsoloable. But games are already that way. If you want to take on a harder dungeon solo, go find a harder dungeon. Depending on your class, mob group dynamics are entirely irrelevant. Again, referring to Anarchy Online, if I'm a fixer or a bureaucrat, I can root or charm mobs and pick them off one at a time no matter how many there are. Stick 20 agroed mobs in a room, I'm still only going to fight one where a similar team might get dogpiled and barely win. I will probably win the battle easier, with less damage and get all the loot rather than having to share, but that's a function of the build of my character, not my playstyle. Fairly obviously the new lower level of difficulty in the new games is more popular but surely there's enough people for a niche game that has a level of difficulty that doesn't send you to sleep. I've yet to fall asleep playing any of the games I play. Granted, I don't play anything as mindlessly simple as WoW, specifically because it is mindlessly simple. I choose games that I enjoy playing and ignore the rest. If there are no games that I enjoy playing... I DON'T PLAY!
I think 100 times longer to gain gear solo than grouping would be fair and balanced between group and solo play.
Only because you're trying to make solo play so utterly unattractive that everyone will give up and play your way.
No thanks.
I might go as high as 10 times as long, if done at the same level, it's easier to just make the mobs too difficult to beat solo (for a typical character) and therefore solo characters cannot get the loot until a later level.
So in time, we have gone from an MMORPG to an ORGP and you think this is good why?
Funny, I see tons of other people around, seems massively multi-player to me. You just seem to be confusing "massively multi-player" with "massively grouping". These aren't MGORPGs, no matter how much you might wish they were.
I've noticed, that if I don't <have> to group in a game, I won't do it. That doesn't mean I enjoy soloing, but it's the mindset of the game that makes me like that. I usually quit a while after because yeah, it's just not as fun alone. When I do have to group, it becomes less of a 'chore' and I don't mind it as much. That's how the game works, and I'll play like they want me to, which in the long run brings me more enjoyment, although to some it may feel 'forced'. If the game is intended to able to be soloed, yeah you bet I'll do it like that.
Don't blame us or a game for your character faults. If the fun of grouping itself isn't incentive enough, then the issue is with the player, not the game and certainly not soloers. If grouping is such a wonderful social tool as you guys are always claiming, then people would embrace it.
What I find really interesting is that despite the extreme efforts of other players and developers to push grouping on us by making things un-soloable and by giving all of the good rewards to groupers and raiders, you still have people demanding solo content and solo rewards. What does that say about grouping in general?
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Don't blame us or a game for your character faults.
Miss the point-day today it seems.
People would embrace it if they could. The thing is, it's up to the devs to make it more like RL is, and not some half-assed copy that's only a half of what it is.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
The problem is, I don't think soloers have an agenda. I have yet to see a single soloer suggest that people ought not be able to group. Soloers don't attempt to force groupers to give up their groups and play solo. Groupers, at least the extreme fringe, have said that they want people to give up soloing and be forced to play in groups. In the end, the only reason to play anything is to have fun. Soloers can have fun without caring what anyone else does. Apparently, groupers can only have fun if they make everyone else play their way. I don't have to point out how shallow and pathetic that is.
Because whether people group or not doesnt affect soloers -in any way-, unlike soloers affect grouping in a negative way.
Not really. When I look into possibly playing a new MMO, the very first thing I want to find out is how viable soloing is. If it's mostly forced grouping, I won't try it. However, if a game offers both, I will and will sometimes group.
Here is my thoughts on this idea. Soloers should not play in mmorpgs (except ones that involve the idea of "instancing"), they should have their own genre, perhaps SORPG (Solo Online Role Playing Game). The thing is, it's really hard and controversial to involve soloing in games that are group-based. In the old game I used to play, Silkroad Online, you could techincally solo if you wanted. But it was difficult to do so, especially if you didn't have cleric-like abilities (or in general any abilities that helped you survive). And it was way too easy to be killed by groups (considering they're your level or higher). If you want to solo, then play games based on that or instancing, stay out of group-based gaming. So, groupies stick with group-based gaming, and soloers stick with solo-based games and instancing games. What's hard about that?
"I'm soloing content that takes me an entire group" You're easily soloing content designed to be easily soloed. Not hardly, I'm soloing content because I've made my character strong enough to be able to do it. Properly rounded and twinked characters *CAN* do more than untwinked characters, but they are almost always superior to team-built characters. Sure, your tank might have a ton of HP and deal a lot of damage, but without a healer backing them up, they die. Your healer might be able to heal up a storm, but they have virtually no combat skills and without a team, they're useless. A properly rounded character, like I run, may not have the HP of your tank or the healing skills of your healer, but he can deal a lot of damage and self-heal and can kill things that are near what your entire team can take out. And you're mad at that. "Then if you're not playing, what do you care?" I'll say this nice and slow for you... i'm not playing because the new games are too easy. Then go do something else. Or do you get off whining on an MMO forum? I occasionally post about it on forums just in case it helps spark a niche game that is harder. I don't really think any of the devs seriously read these forums and even if they do, the people who hire them to make games and pay their bills certainly don't. If you want to waste your time, feel free though. "It's much *HARDER* to solo than it is to drag along a whole team." For any level of difficulty it's "harder" to do solo but if the level of difficulty is designed around being easy to solo then it's still easy and that makes the group difficulty below easy i.e completely trivial. There was a time when I'd die if I tried to take on high-end mobs. I had to be in a team. Those mobs were designed to be taken on in a group. Now... I can wipe the walls with them any time I want, I remember trying to purposely die so I'd respawn somewhere far away, I walked into one of those formerly deadly mobs, unbuffed, not using any special attacks and I almost killed them before they managed to wear me down. It seems there's multiple arguments going on here - there's some kind of "endgame" feud about raiding and gear and all that c**p. Personally I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the 1-50 (or whatever level) game. I'm personally not talking about being casual or hardcore as I was always a "casual" EQ1 player. I'm also not personally interested in a group *only* game (e.g original EQ2 and their elite mobs) as I'm a casual soloer. I think endgame is crap anyhow so I'm not going to argue that. I'm only talking, as you are, about the leveling portion of the game. However the simple fact is that games designed around levelling theough solo quests are easy because they have to be - the quests have to be soloable by the least soloable class. WoW, Lotro, WAR (PvE bit) they all have the same problem - quest takes you into a dungeon and there is one static mob per 30 feet that is easily soloed. If a quest involves mobs outside then there's mostly a static grid of easily soloable mobs. The problem is, they're not designed around it, they give people a choice. Take Anarchy Online as an example. If you want to go on solo quests, you can. If you want to go on group quests, you can. The group quests give you more loot, more XP and as a group, you can take on harder quests. No one is arguing there's a problem with that. The pro-groupers, however, are arguing that the ability of someone to do solo quests *AT ALL* harms their fun. That's what everyone is disagreeing with. What I'm talking about really is the base level of difficulty - or more accurately the base level of threat from the mobs. If it's high then that naturally encourages grouping for protection and at the same time creates harder soloing. So all the people who say they like soloing because it's harder *should* want these games to be that way as long as it was done through mob group dynamics rather than just making individual mobs unsoloable. But games are already that way. If you want to take on a harder dungeon solo, go find a harder dungeon. Depending on your class, mob group dynamics are entirely irrelevant. Again, referring to Anarchy Online, if I'm a fixer or a bureaucrat, I can root or charm mobs and pick them off one at a time no matter how many there are. Stick 20 agroed mobs in a room, I'm still only going to fight one where a similar team might get dogpiled and barely win. I will probably win the battle easier, with less damage and get all the loot rather than having to share, but that's a function of the build of my character, not my playstyle. Fairly obviously the new lower level of difficulty in the new games is more popular but surely there's enough people for a niche game that has a level of difficulty that doesn't send you to sleep. I've yet to fall asleep playing any of the games I play. Granted, I don't play anything as mindlessly simple as WoW, specifically because it is mindlessly simple. I choose games that I enjoy playing and ignore the rest. If there are no games that I enjoy playing... I DON'T PLAY!
Seems pretty simple to me.
"The pro-groupers, however, are arguing that the ability of someone to do solo quests *AT ALL* harms their fun. That's what everyone is disagreeing with."
If you exclude all the people on both sides having their obsessive endgame gear feuds there are some pro-groupers saying that due to (imo) not fully understanding the problem e.g EQ1 had lots of people grouping and lots of people soloing so it's perfectly possible to have both (except at endgame).
However what i am saying is that it is self-evidently true that if a game has almost no people grouping (except max level raiding) then it means the game is easy because if a game is designed to be hard then lots of people will automatically start to group for safety in numbers because that is how people behave - they form groups when they feel threatened. They do it n real-life and they do it in games. In a well-populated RvR game people automatically group up because the threat level is high. In a combat orientated MMORPG if there are no groups it means the level of threat is too low to make people want to be in a group.
I currently play LOTRO and while it is a stunning game one can expierence only a portion of it without being in a group.And getting a group together on the server I play on is rather hard since people are not on the same portion of the quest as you or there is some prerequisite quest that you have to do. Another hard thing to do is keeping a group together beyond the one quest without people dropping out.
EQ 2 had one of the best ideas concerning solo/group play when it came out with The Splitpaw Saga. It was a dungeon that scaled with the size of your group. The more people you had in your group the harder the mobs were.Some of the benefits of it was that along with the higher risk one could get higher rewards to drop. And you could complete your solo quests while being grouped. I really don't see why more developers would pass up on a system like this.
I feel that if there was such a system you would see more people grouping, helping out even though they don't have the quest or have already completed it just because the chance at some loot or more coin could drop. Grouping requires an incentive. Not merely for the sake of completing a quest. With out incentive there is really no reason for grouping.
Comments
Oh yes they are. Gouping by its very nature is a challenge all on its own. Putting up with jerks, bad players (usually the consistent soloers) , know-it-alls and pervs, etc etc. is a game all by its self. And this has been beaten to death but I'll repeat, if the SAME gear is attainable via soloing, no one would group. Tabula Rasa was like that. It's now defunct.
False as proven by CoH/CoV. A game that is solo-able, didn't even have gear, and yet most people grouped.
Which is why I play CoH/CoV for 5 years and I didn't play WoW.
Good for you.
I know several people that played COX, they said its fun for a bit then they left. Maybe thats the answer, make a bunch of solable COX like games for soloers where you can log in, solo a bit and get the best gear and be happy.
the true answer is for you group only people to get over yourselves.
"Group Only"? Didnt I just say that I solo alot. The REAL answer is for you LOOT ENVY people to get over your jealousy. Its a game, have fun. You dont need superior gear to play let alone solo. Phulese. this isnt the school yard and the bullies is not after you. Stop being jealous and crying like a baby. Plenty of solo fail games will be launched for your benefit, so go have fun.
Current Games: WOW, EVE Online
"I'm soloing content that takes me an entire group"
You're easily soloing content designed to be easily soloed.
"Then if you're not playing, what do you care?"
I'll say this nice and slow for you... i'm not playing because the new games are too easy.
I occasionally post about it on forums just in case it helps spark a niche game that is harder.
"It's much *HARDER* to solo than it is to drag along a whole team."
For any level of difficulty it's "harder" to do solo but if the level of difficulty is designed around being easy to solo then it's still easy and that makes the group difficulty below easy i.e completely trivial.
It seems there's multiple arguments going on here - there's some kind of "endgame" feud about raiding and gear and all that c**p. Personally I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the 1-50 (or whatever level) game. I'm personally not talking about being casual or hardcore as I was always a "casual" EQ1 player. I'm also not personally interested in a group *only* game (e.g original EQ2 and their elite mobs) as I'm a casual soloer.
However the simple fact is that games designed around levelling theough solo quests are easy because they have to be - the quests have to be soloable by the least soloable class. WoW, Lotro, WAR (PvE bit) they all have the same problem - quest takes you into a dungeon and there is one static mob per 30 feet that is easily soloed. If a quest involves mobs outside then there's mostly a static grid of easily soloable mobs.
What I'm talking about really is the base level of difficulty - or more accurately the base level of threat from the mobs. If it's high then that naturally encourages grouping for protection and at the same time creates harder soloing. So all the people who say they like soloing because it's harder *should* want these games to be that way as long as it was done through mob group dynamics rather than just making individual mobs unsoloable.
Fairly obviously the new lower level of difficulty in the new games is more popular but surely there's enough people for a niche game that has a level of difficulty that doesn't send you to sleep.
Oh yes they are. Gouping by its very nature is a challenge all on its own. Putting up with jerks, bad players (usually the consistent soloers) , know-it-alls and pervs, etc etc. is a game all by its self. And this has been beaten to death but I'll repeat, if the SAME gear is attainable via soloing, no one would group. Tabula Rasa was like that. It's now defunct.
False as proven by CoH/CoV. A game that is solo-able, didn't even have gear, and yet most people grouped.
Which is why I play CoH/CoV for 5 years and I didn't play WoW.
Good for you.
I know several people that played COX, they said its fun for a bit then they left. Maybe thats the answer, make a bunch of solable COX like games for soloers where you can log in, solo a bit and get the best gear and be happy.
the true answer is for you group only people to get over yourselves.
"Group Only"? Didnt I just say that I solo alot. The REAL answer is for you LOOT ENVY people to get over your jealousy. Its a game, have fun. You dont need superior gear to play let alone solo. Phulese. this isnt the school yard and the bullies is not after you. Stop being jealous and crying like a baby. Plenty of solo fail games will be launched for your benefit, so go have fun.
read my posts in this thread - I don't play for the loot. I play for fun. Fun for me is a challenge and to be challenged. Loot is not the end-all of gaming, and I really do not give a flying f*ck about it. That is all, however, you hear the group only people rant about. nuff said.
Oh yes they are. Gouping by its very nature is a challenge all on its own. Putting up with jerks, bad players (usually the consistent soloers) , know-it-alls and pervs, etc etc. is a game all by its self. And this has been beaten to death but I'll repeat, if the SAME gear is attainable via soloing, no one would group. Tabula Rasa was like that. It's now defunct.
False as proven by CoH/CoV. A game that is solo-able, didn't even have gear, and yet most people grouped.
Which is why I play CoH/CoV for 5 years and I didn't play WoW.
Good for you.
I know several people that played COX, they said its fun for a bit then they left. Maybe thats the answer, make a bunch of solable COX like games for soloers where you can log in, solo a bit and get the best gear and be happy.
the true answer is for you group only people to get over yourselves.
"Group Only"? Didnt I just say that I solo alot. The REAL answer is for you LOOT ENVY people to get over your jealousy. Its a game, have fun. You dont need superior gear to play let alone solo. Phulese. this isnt the school yard and the bullies is not after you. Stop being jealous and crying like a baby. Plenty of solo fail games will be launched for your benefit, so go have fun.
read my posts in this thread - I don't play for the loot. I play for fun. Fun for me is a challenge and to be challenged. Loot is not the end-all of gaming, and I really do not give a flying f*ck about it. That is all, however, you hear the group only people rant about. nuff said.
Please. The major topic you soloers are crying about is the fact that you cant get the same loot as a grouper/raider. And that people that group /raid need to feel superior to others because they have some shiny pixels others don't. The whole argument is around loot and the fact that some you want an "I WIN" button to get the games top loot via soloing. We wouldnt be having this discussion if that werent the case. There is plenty of solo content in games....but not the type of solo content that rewards endgame gear. That was the OPs argument and that of several soloers in this thread (if not you specifically).
Current Games: WOW, EVE Online
It is forced social interaction, but if you think that's the goal you are entirely missing the point.
No one wants to force you to interact with anyone. I certainly dont' want to force you to interact with me.
however, I do want a team game.
Imagine if you will, that there is a basketball game, and you want to play solo on the same court. That is going to seriously screw up my team based basket ball game.
And that's what you get when you change the rules on the server to accomomodate the solo players. You seriously screw up my grouping game.
It's nto that I want to MAKE or FORCE you to group. I seriously do not. I just want to play basket ball in teams, or in an MMORPG play the Tank, Nuke, Heal dynamic or something like.
There really is no way to make the game solo friendly without screwing it up for the groupers, or vice a versa. If you can solo, then guess what? I can solo, and my group game is now a piece of crap not worth playing.
It is exacly like chaning the NBA and saying that people can run onto the court and shoot baskets on their own during a game, it's now part of hte rules.
Best you can do, is different rules for different servers. Do I mind if you shoot baskets by yourself? Of course I do not. But that doesn't mean you get to change the rules of basketball to allow that during a team game. That messes up the team game if you're doing that on the court at the same time I'm trying to play a game.
Different courts would mean different servers.
Basically, people that like to solo call for "balance" and mean, give me a solo game.
You miss the point of the discussion....Switch Solo and Group in Your Post and the argument is the same in the other favor. Your point of wanting a totally Group game has been clear in all of your posts.
Thanks for the in put you have made your point very clear. You really don't need to keep responding to the posts that don't go with your perspective.........
No offense intended, it's just you keep responding with the same thing over and over, really we hear you.
False as proven by CoH/CoV. A game that is solo-able, didn't even have gear, and yet most people grouped.
Which is why I play CoH/CoV for 5 years and I didn't play WoW.
Good for you.
I know several people that played COX, they said its fun for a bit then they left. Maybe thats the answer, make a bunch of solable COX like games for soloers where you can log in, solo a bit and get the best gear and be happy.
COX's solo vs. group balance is definitely the answer for how games should approach the problem. If COX died out quick for players, it wasn't due to the solo vs. grouping balance, but rather for the game's other shortcomings.
Applying COX's balance to WOW would be: if WOW let you run a series of solo quests to earn the same gear you could get out of a 5-man, except that it took you 1.5 times as much playtime to get it solo as it took to get in in groups (factoring in the time to form group(s) to run the place enough time to earn the item.) So you could get everything solo, but grouping earns the items at a faster rate. The trick is ensuring that series of solo quests is interesting (because WOW has had lengthy solo progression before, and some of it hasn't been terribly fun.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Oh yes they are. Gouping by its very nature is a challenge all on its own. Putting up with jerks, bad players (usually the consistent soloers) , know-it-alls and pervs, etc etc. is a game all by its self. And this has been beaten to death but I'll repeat, if the SAME gear is attainable via soloing, no one would group. Tabula Rasa was like that. It's now defunct.
So you feel that no solo method, regardless if it took 10 or 100 times longer should yield the same piece of gear that can be acquired by a group? Do you really think if it took that much longer, no one would take the group method? Seriously?
False as proven by CoH/CoV. A game that is solo-able, didn't even have gear, and yet most people grouped.
Which is why I play CoH/CoV for 5 years and I didn't play WoW.
Good for you.
I know several people that played COX, they said its fun for a bit then they left. Maybe thats the answer, make a bunch of solable COX like games for soloers where you can log in, solo a bit and get the best gear and be happy.
COX's solo vs. group balance is definitely the answer for how games should approach the problem. If COX died out quick for players, it wasn't due to the solo vs. grouping balance, but rather for the game's other shortcomings.
Applying COX's balance to WOW would be: if WOW let you run a series of solo quests to earn the same gear you could get out of a 5-man, except that it took you 1.5 times as much playtime to get it solo as it took to get in in groups (factoring in the time to form group(s) to run the place enough time to earn the item.) So you could get everything solo, but grouping earns the items at a faster rate. The trick is ensuring that series of solo quests is interesting (because WOW has had lengthy solo progression before, and some of it hasn't been terribly fun.)
For me this was why the game wasn't to deep, and not very fun after a short while.
Yes, you COULD group, and grouping was fun. However, you diidn't HAVE to group, which meant the grouping was rather shallow and unnecessary, therefore not very fullfilling or satisfying.
Fun yes, deep enough and satisfying enough to keep you around for more than a few months, no.
I expect to play Champions online the same way, because I expect like CoH you'll be able to solo, you will be able to group, and grouping will be fun, but not very satisfying since it's totally unnecessary. Play for a few months, then quit because the new game smell has worn off and really there's no challenge since the game can be solo'ed.
Oh yes they are. Gouping by its very nature is a challenge all on its own. Putting up with jerks, bad players (usually the consistent soloers) , know-it-alls and pervs, etc etc. is a game all by its self. And this has been beaten to death but I'll repeat, if the SAME gear is attainable via soloing, no one would group. Tabula Rasa was like that. It's now defunct.
So you feel that no solo method, regardless if it took 10 or 100 times longer should yield the same piece of gear that can be acquired by a group? Do you really think if it took that much longer, no one would take the group method? Seriously?
I think 100 times longer to gain gear solo than grouping would be fair and balanced between group and solo play.
I dont think anyones disagreeing with the fact that times have changed and game devs need to develop methods and means for casual players. I think what people are saying is that it isnt feasible or wise to enable soloers/casuals to obtain the SAME gear as those that devote more time and effort in groups/raids. If everyone can get the top gear via soloing, EVERYONE would do it. The game would then lose the portion of players that prefer grouping/raiding.
You just contradicted yourself. You just said everyone would solo the content if they could. Why would they leave? I you gave them the option of soloing it, or grouping it, and they would rather solo it, why should they leave? They're doing what they would prefer doing to get the same content.
All you, and those like you, are doing is trying to justify the fact that you want people to be forced to group if they want to achieve exclusively superior rewards. It doesn't matter if it takes the soloer a longer time than the accumlated hours of everyone involved in a raid, or if their solo-tuned content is actually harder, or if it would take the casual player 2 years of real time to get an equal reward that you got in 2 months, you don't want them to **ever** get it. It's not about how easy or hard it is, nor is it about how much time it takes; it's actually about getting the EXCLUSIVITY of the superior reward. If you can't have something that **most** other players don't have and cannot get, you don't enjoy the game.
The sad, hypocritical part of this is that without that ocean of soloers and casual groupers and occasional groupers and non-raiders and non-powergamers, you don't have anyone to feel superior to, which is why you argue and rant against developers even MAKING a game that caters to casuals and solers - that ocean of players would abandon your self-serving caste-system MMOGs in droves and head over to where they aren't coded in as the scrubs and red-headed stepchildren.
You EXPECT them to play and play in huge numbers in your game, financing your self-serving expansions and "end-game" content, where if you had to switch positions with them and settle for 3rd rate common rewards you wouldn't even play, and you have the nerve to tell them that THEY are greedy loot-whores because they aren't satisfied being your peasants and commoners.
For many of us, it has NOTHING to do with gear. It has to do with wanting to play games with other people and not being able to because everyone is soloing. If I wanted to just play a game solo, I would play a single player game and I sure as hell wouldn't pay a subscription fee. And that's fine if other players do that, but what about the players who play mutliplayer games to actually play with other players? They get the shaft when everyone is out soloing.
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.
There was a time when these games were made for a small audience of hardcore players who lived on their computers, there were always lots of people around (lots being a relative term) and they were after a hardcore challenge. That part is fine, as far as it goes, but that tiny group of people who populated those games is now a minuscule part of the marketplace. Games no longer can survive catering to that particular mindset, they have to cater to a larger, more diverse, more casual set of gamers who don't always have the time to find a group, don't always have the time to commit to a group, they want content that they can get on, play through and get off. That's the reality whether you like it or not.
There was a point in time, way back when, that computer users had to huddle together in user groups to have any hope of figuring out their computers because they were difficult to use and you needed to share information between people. Today, computers are almost idiot proof out of the box. Times change. Maybe it's time you did too.
So in time, we have gone from an MMORPG to an ORGP and you think this is good why?
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I'd say you're in the vast minority if that mechanic was the reason you left. If you left because they didn't vary the gameplay pattern enough (because all you do is run missions) I might agree with you. But because solo and grouping were both effective gameplay styles? That's a silly reason to leave...
You didn't have to group, but grouping was almost always superior to soloing. So yes: nothing forced you to group, but soloing all the time was going to make things take much longer than necessary (and be less fun imo.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I've noticed, that if I don't <have> to group in a game, I won't do it. That doesn't mean I enjoy soloing, but it's the mindset of the game that makes me like that. I usually quit a while after because yeah, it's just not as fun alone. When I do have to group, it becomes less of a 'chore' and I don't mind it as much. That's how the game works, and I'll play like they want me to, which in the long run brings me more enjoyment, although to some it may feel 'forced'.
If the game is intended to able to be soloed, yeah you bet I'll do it like that.
I dont think anyones disagreeing with the fact that times have changed and game devs need to develop methods and means for casual players. I think what people are saying is that it isnt feasible or wise to enable soloers/casuals to obtain the SAME gear as those that devote more time and effort in groups/raids. If everyone can get the top gear via soloing, EVERYONE would do it. The game would then lose the portion of players that prefer grouping/raiding.
Considering the portion of players who want to group almost exclusively is a minuscule number, that may or may nor mean much in the big picture, but I agree, devs ought to cater to everyone. The problem comes in when that minuscule number starts demanding special treatment, or in extreme cases, that they be the only game in town.
I don't think you'll find anyone who is saying that a level 10 soloer ought to be able to get the same uber gear as a whole team of level 10 groupers. At least I don't remember ever seeing anyone say that. But a level 15 soloer certainly ought to be able to get the gear that the groupers got at level 10. That's really the difference, the groupers want special treatment, special gear that can only be gotten by playing their way. That's where the conflict comes in. It's not that people want it at the same level, they just want it eventually.
It's utterly absurd to suggest that the people who sit around for hours trying to make a team somehow deserve things that people who are actually playing the game the whole time do not.
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
The problem is, I don't think soloers have an agenda. I have yet to see a single soloer suggest that people ought not be able to group. Soloers don't attempt to force groupers to give up their groups and play solo. Groupers, at least the extreme fringe, have said that they want people to give up soloing and be forced to play in groups.
In the end, the only reason to play anything is to have fun. Soloers can have fun without caring what anyone else does. Apparently, groupers can only have fun if they make everyone else play their way.
I don't have to point out how shallow and pathetic that is.
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
Because whether people group or not doesnt affect soloers -in any way-, unlike soloers affect grouping in a negative way.
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
Only because you're trying to make solo play so utterly unattractive that everyone will give up and play your way.
No thanks.
I might go as high as 10 times as long, if done at the same level, it's easier to just make the mobs too difficult to beat solo (for a typical character) and therefore solo characters cannot get the loot until a later level.
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
Funny, I see tons of other people around, seems massively multi-player to me. You just seem to be confusing "massively multi-player" with "massively grouping". These aren't MGORPGs, no matter how much you might wish they 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
Don't blame us or a game for your character faults. If the fun of grouping itself isn't incentive enough, then the issue is with the player, not the game and certainly not soloers. If grouping is such a wonderful social tool as you guys are always claiming, then people would embrace it.
What I find really interesting is that despite the extreme efforts of other players and developers to push grouping on us by making things un-soloable and by giving all of the good rewards to groupers and raiders, you still have people demanding solo content and solo rewards. What does that say about grouping in general?
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Miss the point-day today it seems.
People would embrace it if they could. The thing is, it's up to the devs to make it more like RL is, and not some half-assed copy that's only a half of what it is.
Because whether people group or not doesnt affect soloers -in any way-, unlike soloers affect grouping in a negative way.
Not really. When I look into possibly playing a new MMO, the very first thing I want to find out is how viable soloing is. If it's mostly forced grouping, I won't try it. However, if a game offers both, I will and will sometimes group.
Here is my thoughts on this idea. Soloers should not play in mmorpgs (except ones that involve the idea of "instancing"), they should have their own genre, perhaps SORPG (Solo Online Role Playing Game). The thing is, it's really hard and controversial to involve soloing in games that are group-based. In the old game I used to play, Silkroad Online, you could techincally solo if you wanted. But it was difficult to do so, especially if you didn't have cleric-like abilities (or in general any abilities that helped you survive). And it was way too easy to be killed by groups (considering they're your level or higher). If you want to solo, then play games based on that or instancing, stay out of group-based gaming. So, groupies stick with group-based gaming, and soloers stick with solo-based games and instancing games. What's hard about that?
"The pro-groupers, however, are arguing that the ability of someone to do solo quests *AT ALL* harms their fun. That's what everyone is disagreeing with."
If you exclude all the people on both sides having their obsessive endgame gear feuds there are some pro-groupers saying that due to (imo) not fully understanding the problem e.g EQ1 had lots of people grouping and lots of people soloing so it's perfectly possible to have both (except at endgame).
However what i am saying is that it is self-evidently true that if a game has almost no people grouping (except max level raiding) then it means the game is easy because if a game is designed to be hard then lots of people will automatically start to group for safety in numbers because that is how people behave - they form groups when they feel threatened. They do it n real-life and they do it in games. In a well-populated RvR game people automatically group up because the threat level is high. In a combat orientated MMORPG if there are no groups it means the level of threat is too low to make people want to be in a group.
It's self-evident and obviously true.
I currently play LOTRO and while it is a stunning game one can expierence only a portion of it without being in a group.And getting a group together on the server I play on is rather hard since people are not on the same portion of the quest as you or there is some prerequisite quest that you have to do. Another hard thing to do is keeping a group together beyond the one quest without people dropping out.
EQ 2 had one of the best ideas concerning solo/group play when it came out with The Splitpaw Saga. It was a dungeon that scaled with the size of your group. The more people you had in your group the harder the mobs were.Some of the benefits of it was that along with the higher risk one could get higher rewards to drop. And you could complete your solo quests while being grouped. I really don't see why more developers would pass up on a system like this.
I feel that if there was such a system you would see more people grouping, helping out even though they don't have the quest or have already completed it just because the chance at some loot or more coin could drop. Grouping requires an incentive. Not merely for the sake of completing a quest. With out incentive there is really no reason for grouping.