It's not about wanting to solo, it's about wanting to have the power to solo. Games of forced grouping have a way of making your character feel the same as everything else. MMOS have yet to tackle how they can make individuals feel powerful in a sea of others just like them.
Because that's not coexisting, that's separating. That's like saying "why couldn't blacks and whites coexist peacefully, just use different bathrooms and drinking fountains?" The reality is, forced grouping isn't financially viable, period. There will never be a major game which caters to people who want everyone to group all the time. It just won't happen, no matter how much you might dream it would. Therefore, you're going to have to deal with the reality that soloers are here to stay, represent the overwhelming majority of the gaming population and are going to get catered to because they have all the money. You're the one making it a battle. Stop fighting reality.
It already happened. And it was financially viable.
And I'm not fighting for some kind of equality issue here. I want there to be black and white people, as well as yellow and all the different variations. Now what you want (in your example) is to only have people that are the mix of all colors, not pale white or ebony blacks at all.
Except that it hasn't. There are no major games that are that way, the few that ever were are holdouts from the days when MMOs were made for the hardcore, before the genre went mainstream. It *WAS* financially viable. It's just not today, not if you have shareholders who want as much profit as you can give them.
Because that's not coexisting, that's separating. That's like saying "why couldn't blacks and whites coexist peacefully, just use different bathrooms and drinking fountains?" The reality is, forced grouping isn't financially viable, period. There will never be a major game which caters to people who want everyone to group all the time. It just won't happen, no matter how much you might dream it would. Therefore, you're going to have to deal with the reality that soloers are here to stay, represent the overwhelming majority of the gaming population and are going to get catered to because they have all the money. You're the one making it a battle. Stop fighting reality.
It already happened. And it was financially viable.
And I'm not fighting for some kind of equality issue here. I want there to be black and white people, as well as yellow and all the different variations. Now what you want (in your example) is to only have people that are the mix of all colors, not pale white or ebony blacks at all.
Except that it hasn't. There are no major games that are that way, the few that ever were are holdouts from the days when MMOs were made for the hardcore, before the genre went mainstream. It *WAS* financially viable. It's just not today, not if you have shareholders who want as much profit as you can give them.
This is what I think might happen. The genre becomes saturated with WoW clones. Themepark games like Aion, WoW, LOTRO, EQ2, all the F2P grinders, etc., etc.
All those games are competing for the same players, and eventually there's not enough players to go around for all the themepark solo games.
There are players on the sidelines, that won't pay 15 bucks a month for these mass appeal games.
Eventually, you get to the point where developing a mass appeal game won't necessarily get you a bunch of players because you're competing with so many other mass appeal games.
however, you CAN appeal to a niche that is not being catered to, and get enough players to make a profit. This would be the sandbox players, FFA PvP, and group players, etc.
Those markets could become very attractive, if the choices are throwing your mass appeal themepark wow clone in with all the rest, or catering to a specific audience that's willing to throw money at you for a good game.
At some point making a "niche" game becomes less of a gamble than going for the big hit that competes for WoW players.
DArkfall should show that better than anything else. It's a crappy game, and they still got a goood many players (enough to make a decent profit if you keep development costs low) because those players don't have a lot of choices in the market place.
Imagine if you made a really goood FFA game, or a really good grouping game. Sure, you don't compete with WoW, but you have a player base that's looking for a game like that.
Since it seems like a lot of people like to compare the realms/worlds to a basketball court, I will weigh in with my opinion on that: namely, it is a flawed analogy. A basketball court has two goals. Bigger basketball courts might have a few more, but basically it boils down to two goals. MMORPG has 100's if not thousands of goals.
I don't want to play on the court and ruin the fast break, but until I can get a team together, I shouldn't be shut out of playing a few baskets by myself. I might even choose not play on a team, and just practice my lay ups. Or my free throws. And maybe if the team that is playing says they need me, maybe I will join in. But if I choose not to join, I shouldn't be restricted from having a good time. I am paying just as much to play on that gym floor.
And maybe, because I am playing by myself, my skill levels don't rise as fast, and maybe my playing style will seem silly should I ever play for team, but I am getting enjoyment out of playing solitaire horse. Why is it so important that I must team up? Why is it that everyone tells me that's the way it is, if you don't like it, log off and find a game that allows solo play?
Silly groupers. I really think that most people that insist on always grouping are less talented then those of us solo hunter/killers.
Except that it hasn't. There are no major games that are that way, the few that ever were are holdouts from the days when MMOs were made for the hardcore, before the genre went mainstream. It *WAS* financially viable. It's just not today, not if you have shareholders who want as much profit as you can give them.
Except you have no proof that it wouldn't be financially viable today. Only fact here is that it was financially viable in the HC times, and as long as nobody makes a <casual> forced grouping MMO we'll never find out.
So, greed rules the industry eh? I'm happy to tell you there are still innovative game companies out there, that understand that doing things the same way as before ain't gonna make much profit these days.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Most soloers are just terrible players. They prefer to solo so that they cant be yelled at by more advanced players. A good frined of mine was the same way, he didnt want to take the time to learn the intrinsics of his character and was thusly ridiculed by those who teamed up with him. His feelings were hurt so he cried alone in his solo game. This is the same for many of the solo/casual crowd, of course no one would ever admit that but its far too true.
And conversely, we could turn that around and say that most groupers (to use a word) are horrible players because they rely upon others to make up for their shortcomings.
meh, it doesn't sound right either way. So I will assume that neither is true.
Yet the grouper knows the value of team work and social skills. Groupers relying on others? Well I'd imagine so considering a mob that a group would go after would be specifically balanced for groups.
No your right, soloers are AAA gamers, the best of the best, it's why soloers get sponsered by gaming compan...oh wait they dont. But yeah especially around here all soloers (in this thread particularly are all gods among gamers) are the best.
Since it seems like a lot of people like to compare the realms/worlds to a basketball court, I will weigh in with my opinion on that: namely, it is a flawed analogy. A basketball court has two goals. Bigger basketball courts might have a few more, but basically it boils down to two goals. MMORPG has 100's if not thousands of goals. I don't want to play on the court and ruin the fast break, but until I can get a team together, I shouldn't be shut out of playing a few baskets by myself. I might even choose not play on a team, and just practice my lay ups. Or my free throws. And maybe if the team that is playing says they need me, maybe I will join in. But if I choose not to join, I shouldn't be restricted from having a good time. I am paying just as much to play on that gym floor. And maybe, because I am playing by myself, my skill levels don't rise as fast, and maybe my playing style will seem silly should I ever play for team, but I am getting enjoyment out of playing solitaire horse. Why is it so important that I must team up? Why is it that everyone tells me that's the way it is, if you don't like it, log off and find a game that allows solo play? Silly groupers. I really think that most people that insist on always grouping are less talented then those of us solo hunter/killers.
Here's what you are missing in your analysis.
The most important thing about any game, the thing that makes it a game. RULES.
The fact that you're not running in the middle of the team game doesn't matter, because you're asking that the team be subject to the same RULES as you, playing solo.
If you change the RULES for the team, that is what ruins the team game, not the fact that you run out on the court in front of the team while they are playing.
Imagine going to a Basketball game, and someone is on another court, half way around the world, by themselves, and they are scoring points in that game, even though they are nto on the same court, because you've changed the RULES to make it more solo friendly.
It would sort of change the game, don't you think?
Or are you saying that somehow different rules apply to each person ? The person playing in the group cannot go off and solo because they rules apply differently to him? I've never seen a game like that.
In this analogy the points you are scoring are xp, loot, levels and skill levels.
So the LA Lakers are on the Court playing the Chicago Bulls. They worked hard on their team play. And then you inform them that you're also in the same game, but you don't think it's fair for you to have to work with a team, so you're gooing to be shooting baskets on another court by yourself, but you'll earn points in the same game as they are playing.
And this doesn't change the game of basketball just because you're not running out on the same court they are playing on? I think it does.
Since it seems like a lot of people like to compare the realms/worlds to a basketball court, I will weigh in with my opinion on that: namely, it is a flawed analogy. A basketball court has two goals. Bigger basketball courts might have a few more, but basically it boils down to two goals. MMORPG has 100's if not thousands of goals. I don't want to play on the court and ruin the fast break, but until I can get a team together, I shouldn't be shut out of playing a few baskets by myself. I might even choose not play on a team, and just practice my lay ups. Or my free throws. And maybe if the team that is playing says they need me, maybe I will join in. But if I choose not to join, I shouldn't be restricted from having a good time. I am paying just as much to play on that gym floor. And maybe, because I am playing by myself, my skill levels don't rise as fast, and maybe my playing style will seem silly should I ever play for team, but I am getting enjoyment out of playing solitaire horse. Why is it so important that I must team up? Why is it that everyone tells me that's the way it is, if you don't like it, log off and find a game that allows solo play? Silly groupers. I really think that most people that insist on always grouping are less talented then those of us solo hunter/killers.
Here's what you are missing in your analysis.
The most important thing about any game, the thing that makes it a game. RULES.
The fact that you're not running in the middle of the team game doesn't matter, because you're asking that the team be subject to the same RULES as you, playing solo.
If you change the RULES for the team, that is what ruins the team game, not the fact that you run out on the court in front of the team while they are playing.
Imagine going to a Basketball game, and someone is on another court, half way around the world, by themselves, and they are scoring points in that game, even though they are nto on the same court, because you've changed the RULES to make it more solo friendly.
It would sort of change the game, don't you think?
Or are you saying that somehow different rules apply to each person ? The person playing in the group cannot go off and solo because they rules apply differently to him? I've never seen a game like that.
In this analogy the points you are scoring are xp, loot, levels and skill levels.
So the LA Lakers are on the Court playing the Chicago Bulls. They worked hard on their team play. And then you inform them that you're also in the same game, but you don't think it's fair for you to have to work with a team, so you're gooing to be shooting baskets on another court by yourself, but you'll earn points in the same game as they are playing.
And this doesn't change the game of basketball just because you're not running out on the same court they are playing on? I think it does.
It is the inability to think outside of the box that is generating nothing but clones of WoW. Here's where your "analogy" is flawed; nobody cares that there is a court (zone or instance) in the game where **only** teams are allowed to play. There can also be a court where **only** soloers are allowed to play (solo instances). The seperate courts and the sepearte rules for each court are housed within the giant "sports complex" that has many such courts and variations of courts that each have their own rulesets.
Now, let's look at pathways through the giant complex; if you want to run the solo difficult solo instances, then you have to prepare yourself with proper training (skills, talents, and attributes) that will help you be successful in solo instances; i.e., you have to develop a broader, more self-sustaining package of skills. This will take longer than 5 people taking more devoted pathways to create a balanced team.
If you want to succeed in the hard group content, then it's going to require teams of individuals that have sacrificed some of their soloability in order to fulfill a team role, which can make the team successful. Players train their characters for different playstyles, both of which are housed in the complex.
Now the question becomes one of reward; should the soloer earn as much reward from his solo instance as any particular member of the team from the team instance? Let's say the team instance produces **1** set of the reward each time it is defeated, and let's say the solo instances have a 20% chance of producing that same reward; the last person in the team instance is going to definitely get their item at latest on the 5th try; the soloer might not see his reward after 5, 6, or more tries, because he only has a 20% chance of getting the reward; a string of bad luck and it might take a very long time.
Any way you slice it, everyone on the team is likely to get their reward before the soloer, but the soloer can **eventually** get whatever they get. The only objection one can have to this setup (as far as I can see) is if they just don't want soloers to have access at all to equal content - eventually.
Since it seems like a lot of people like to compare the realms/worlds to a basketball court, I will weigh in with my opinion on that: namely, it is a flawed analogy. A basketball court has two goals. Bigger basketball courts might have a few more, but basically it boils down to two goals. MMORPG has 100's if not thousands of goals. I don't want to play on the court and ruin the fast break, but until I can get a team together, I shouldn't be shut out of playing a few baskets by myself. I might even choose not play on a team, and just practice my lay ups. Or my free throws. And maybe if the team that is playing says they need me, maybe I will join in. But if I choose not to join, I shouldn't be restricted from having a good time. I am paying just as much to play on that gym floor. And maybe, because I am playing by myself, my skill levels don't rise as fast, and maybe my playing style will seem silly should I ever play for team, but I am getting enjoyment out of playing solitaire horse. Why is it so important that I must team up? Why is it that everyone tells me that's the way it is, if you don't like it, log off and find a game that allows solo play? Silly groupers. I really think that most people that insist on always grouping are less talented then those of us solo hunter/killers.
Here's what you are missing in your analysis.
The most important thing about any game, the thing that makes it a game. RULES.
The fact that you're not running in the middle of the team game doesn't matter, because you're asking that the team be subject to the same RULES as you, playing solo.
If you change the RULES for the team, that is what ruins the team game, not the fact that you run out on the court in front of the team while they are playing.
Imagine going to a Basketball game, and someone is on another court, half way around the world, by themselves, and they are scoring points in that game, even though they are nto on the same court, because you've changed the RULES to make it more solo friendly.
It would sort of change the game, don't you think?
Or are you saying that somehow different rules apply to each person ? The person playing in the group cannot go off and solo because they rules apply differently to him? I've never seen a game like that.
In this analogy the points you are scoring are xp, loot, levels and skill levels.
So the LA Lakers are on the Court playing the Chicago Bulls. They worked hard on their team play. And then you inform them that you're also in the same game, but you don't think it's fair for you to have to work with a team, so you're gooing to be shooting baskets on another court by yourself, but you'll earn points in the same game as they are playing.
And this doesn't change the game of basketball just because you're not running out on the same court they are playing on? I think it does.
It is the inability to think outside of the box that is generating nothing but clones of WoW. Here's where your "analogy" is flawed; nobody cares that there is a court (zone or instance) in the game where **only** teams are allowed to play. There can also be a court where **only** soloers are allowed to play (solo instances). The seperate courts and the sepearte rules for each court are housed within the giant "sports complex" that has many such courts and variations of courts that each have their own rulesets.
IMO this is fail in logic.
There is no separation in the "sports complex" because all are getting the same rewards.
It would only be separate rules, if I could not go to teh solo game, or you could not go to the grouping game inside the sports complex, and get the same "points" of loot, xp, gold, etc.
Again, to use the Baskeball analogy, The Chicago Bulls are playing the LA Lakers.
And now Bob in Ohio is also playing in the same game, but on a different court, so we can make the team game solo friendly.
Score:
Lakers 105
Bulls 97
Bob in Ohio: 214
Bob does not have to pass the ball (play on a team) he just stands there on teh empty court and shooots away.
That's a different game, because the rules are changed for everyone, so Bob can play solo. Why would I play on the Lakers or Bulls team? I can score a bunch more points in this game playing solo like Bob.
Only way the team game stays the same, is if Bob is on a differnt court, and scores ZERO in this team game. Otherwise the new rules have wrecked the team game.
In an MMORPG:
I spend two hours in addition to playing the game, getting together a group, and maintaining it. I go with that group into the Dungeon and get 100 xp, 100 gold, and 1 sword of crappiness.
You change the rules to make the "sports complex" (the MMORPG we are playing) solo friendly.
So now there is a solo dungeon. You spend zero time putting together a group and maintaining it, and go into the Dungeon and get 100 xp, 100 gold, and 1 sword of crappiness.
You have now changed the rules such that I just wasted 2 hours of time, making the group game pointless, since the rules apply to me as well. I can go to teh solo dungeon, and spend zero time ona group, and get the same rewards as you.
Unless you are saying the rules only apply to you, and not me somehow?
In games where soling is allowed, teaming is really poor, because most people just soloe. This is bad, because MMORPG is a social game. MMORPG withouth social interactions are a game of grinding for the sake of grinding.
There are singleplayer games for these that want to soloer. Online games sould be for the multiplayer aspect. If you want to play online a singleplayer game, I don't know, play Guild Wars or HellgateLondon, not a social MMO.
Again, your analogy fails. If I'm not playing "against" anyone (by doing solo content), then neither is your team, because in both cases we are playing against a computer generated opponent.
Each of our computer generated opponents can be tweaked to be about equally as hard. Let's say you have a team of 5 players. If your team wins and gets one "X' as a reward, then if my soloer wins his encounter he should get 20% of the X reward.
However, let's just cut to the chase; what you want is for group play to gain rewards that solo play cannot. That's fine with me. Virtually all MMOGs are like that now. I want a game where grouping doesn't get rewards soloers cannot get. It's fine if groupers get those rewards faster, but not exclusively. Soloers still play in games where grouping gains exclusively better rewards; I'm sure groupers will play in games where they don't get exclusively better rewards, but just get the rewards much faster than soloers can.
However, let's just cut to the chase; what you want is for group play gain rewards that solo play cannot. That's fine with me. Virtually all MMOGs are like that now. I want a game where grouping doesn't get rewards soloers cannot get. It's fine if groupers get those rewards faster, but not exclusively. Soloers still play in games where grouping gains exclusively better rewards; I'm sure groupers will play in games where they don't get exclusively better rewards, but just get the rewards much faster than soloers can.
Not enough incentive there. It's gotta be some damn drastical increase in time/reward ratio if it'd make players rather group up than solo. Then when a company can't just give out rewards too fast for groupers (especially if endgame progresses horizontally), think about what'd happen to soloers.. the time needed to get the reward would get out of hand very fast.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
However, let's just cut to the chase; what you want is for group play gain rewards that solo play cannot. That's fine with me. Virtually all MMOGs are like that now. I want a game where grouping doesn't get rewards soloers cannot get. It's fine if groupers get those rewards faster, but not exclusively. Soloers still play in games where grouping gains exclusively better rewards; I'm sure groupers will play in games where they don't get exclusively better rewards, but just get the rewards much faster than soloers can.
Not enough incentive there. It's gotta be some damn drastical increase in time/reward ratio if it'd make players rather group up than solo. Then when a company can't just give out rewards too fast for groupers (especially if endgame progresses horizontally), think about what'd happen to soloers.. the time needed to get the reward would get out of hand very fast.
Think about what you're saying; you're saying that even though soloers **cannot** ever get equal rewards, they **should** have enough incentive to play a game anyway; but in my imagined game, that the groupers get the rewards **faster** isn't even enough for them.
I guess it's a good thing I didn't suggest a game where soloing got exclusively better rewards, eh? I guess groupers, for the most part, only play games to get stuff that other players cannot get, but - strangely - expect those other people to play the game anyway, whereas the groupers would refuse to even play such a game.
Kind of a hypocritical double-standard, don't you think?
So it appears that after all this debate, what it all comes down to is this. Developers can chose to focus on a solo friendly game, or a group friendly game and make a certain segment of the market happy. But as soon as they try to make a single game which appeals to both camps, then no one ends up really happy. CoX probably came the closest to resolving the conflict, perhaps more games need to look into that model. Better tools to make grouping more effcient and fun wouldn't hurt either.
I don't think that's true at all; I think that the ONLY group that will end up unahppy are those who **require** that the game offer groupers exclusive, superior rewards. I think there are plenty of people that would enjoy grouping even if it just means getting to a reward **faster** than if they soloed.
I mean, soloers aren't even asking for an MMOG that exclusively rewards their playstyle above that of groupers; why shouldn't there be such a game? By what right do groupers claim that they are entitled to exclusive, superior rewards in every MMOG?
Think about what you're saying; you're saying that even though soloers **cannot** ever get equal rewards, they **should** have enough incentive to play a game anyway; but in my imagined game, that the groupers get the rewards **faster** isn't even enough for them. I guess it's a good thing I didn't suggest a game where soloing got exclusively better rewards, eh? I guess groupers, for the most part, only play games to get stuff that other players cannot get, but - strangely - expect those other people to play the game anyway.
Yeah I guess it's a difference in my views about what MMO's are like. To me, casual means soloer.
And a casual shouldn't get access (and shouldn't even imagine about getting access) to gain the best rewards alone.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
I think the trouble with games designed for solo play is the dungeons are very dull. They're mostly set up so there's one mob every 30 feet and you go along having the same solo fight 20 times to get to the bottom of the dungeon for a quest and then the same solo fight another 20 times fighting your way out.
I like soloing but I preferred it in EQ1 dungeons that were designed for a mixture of group and solo players as you had to be a lot more careful soloing in those as everything was much more dangerous and chaotic.
That's what I'd like - a mixture of solo and group content in the same place so you can choose depending on your mood.
I also agree that you should be able to do most the group content solo if you do it at a higher level - so if you're a 100% soloer but particularly want to get a boss NPC then you can, you just have to wait a few levels more than groupers.
Think about what you're saying; you're saying that even though soloers **cannot** ever get equal rewards, they **should** have enough incentive to play a game anyway; but in my imagined game, that the groupers get the rewards **faster** isn't even enough for them. I guess it's a good thing I didn't suggest a game where soloing got exclusively better rewards, eh? I guess groupers, for the most part, only play games to get stuff that other players cannot get, but - strangely - expect those other people to play the game anyway.
Yeah I guess it's a difference in my views about what MMO's are like. To me, casual means soloer.
And a casual shouldn't get access (and shouldn't even imagine about getting access) to gain the best rewards alone.
That is elitist BS. What rewards you get should be based on the effort you put into the game.
The problem is that the current crop of MMOs puts a ridiculously high weight ont he effort of raiders/groupers. A casual/soloer can put a lot of effort into the game but it is discounted so much in favour of what the groupers do that they are made to look like lazy bums. It completely skews the metric. Once you recognize that what the groupers do is nothing special, the metric shifts to a more realistic position.
Think about what you're saying; you're saying that even though soloers **cannot** ever get equal rewards, they **should** have enough incentive to play a game anyway; but in my imagined game, that the groupers get the rewards **faster** isn't even enough for them. I guess it's a good thing I didn't suggest a game where soloing got exclusively better rewards, eh? I guess groupers, for the most part, only play games to get stuff that other players cannot get, but - strangely - expect those other people to play the game anyway.
Yeah I guess it's a difference in my views about what MMO's are like. To me, casual means soloer.
And a casual shouldn't get access (and shouldn't even imagine about getting access) to gain the best rewards alone.
That is elitist BS. What rewards you get should be based on the effort you put into the game.
The problem is that the current crop of MMOs puts a ridiculously high weight ont he effort of raiders/groupers. A casual/soloer can put a lot of effort into the game but it is discounted so much in favour of what the groupers do that they are made to look like lazy bums. It completely skews the metric. Once you recognize that what the groupers do is nothing special, the metric shifts to a more realistic position.
And then there is the fact that a solo'er is not always a casual gamer. I put 40 hours/week into a game I like. I prefer to do as much as I can soloing or with perhaps 1 friend. At 40 hours a week you cannot say I am a "Casual" player, I play just as much as a "hardcore" player. I prefer to avoid groups because I find too many people who do not know anything about TEAMWORK in them. I hate joining a group and finding I am in what I call a "legion of Doom" where I will usually die often because the tank or the healer doesn't know whats expected of them... or someone goes off and triggers more mobs then we, as a group, can handle.
There are many different types of game play and a Game should be designed to give all of them a good time, otherwise those who feel left out will take their money elsewhere. Believe me - the money is what the People who put out games care about.
That is elitist BS. What rewards you get should be based on the effort you put into the game. The problem is that the current crop of MMOs puts a ridiculously high weight ont he effort of raiders/groupers. A casual/soloer can put a lot of effort into the game but it is discounted so much in favour of what the groupers do that they are made to look like lazy bums. It completely skews the metric. Once you recognize that what the groupers do is nothing special, the metric shifts to a more realistic position.
Yeah, but how big % of HC players mind grouping up in the first place? Most of the soloers are casual, most of the groupers are not (as casual).
And casual doesn't put as much effort to the game as HC does. If he did, he'd become a HC too. Endgame shouldn't be something a casual/soloer can't do, but to each their own. Casual/soloers get their own challenges, and HC/groupers get their own. If casuals want to come behind the HC but get the same gain as they do, they better come behind by a wide margin (or everyone would solo, making grouping pointless).
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
That is elitist BS. What rewards you get should be based on the effort you put into the game. The problem is that the current crop of MMOs puts a ridiculously high weight ont he effort of raiders/groupers. A casual/soloer can put a lot of effort into the game but it is discounted so much in favour of what the groupers do that they are made to look like lazy bums. It completely skews the metric. Once you recognize that what the groupers do is nothing special, the metric shifts to a more realistic position.
Yeah, but how big % of HC players mind grouping up in the first place? Most of the soloers are casual, most of the groupers are not (as casual).
And casual doesn't put as much effort to the game as HC does. If he did, he'd become a HC too. Endgame shouldn't be something a casual/soloer can't do, but to each their own. Casual/soloers get their own challenges, and HC/groupers get their own. If casuals want to come behind the HC but get the same gain as they do, they better come behind by a wide margin (or everyone would solo, making grouping pointless).
your theory is flawed - most of the casual players I know join groups. A solo'er often puts more work into the game - notice I said solo'er not casual. Casual players join groups so they can put less work into the game. In essence Casual play and group play are linked according to my experience.
And then there is the fact that a solo'er is not always a casual gamer. I put 40 hours/week into a game I like. I prefer to do as much as I can soloing or with perhaps 1 friend. At 40 hours a week you cannot say I am a "Casual" player, I play just as much as a "hardcore" player. I prefer to avoid groups because I find too many people who do not know anything about TEAMWORK in them. I hate joining a group and finding I am in what I call a "legion of Doom" where I will usually die often because the tank or the healer doesn't know whats expected of them... or someone goes off and triggers more mobs then we, as a group, can handle. There are many different types of game play and a Game should be designed to give all of them a good time, otherwise those who feel left out will take their money elsewhere. Believe me - the money is what the People who put out games care about.
That is just you being stubborn. You can group, but you choose not to? Well then, don't be all whiny when you can't access everything the game has to offer if you choose not to play by it's rules in the first place.
And guess what could be the reason they don't know about teamwork... is it because they have soloed most of their time and don't know how group functions? It's more likely than you think. Soloers are what kills your teamwork experience, sadly (the casual kind).
I don't agree about your last paragraph either, but meh..
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
your theory is flawed - most of the casual players I know join groups. A solo'er often puts more work into the game - notice I said solo'er not casual. Casual players join groups so they can put less work into the game. In essence Casual play and group play are linked according to my experience.
Which one is easier, going out to solo without having to deal with making groups, or making a group, dealing with replacements, lfging for long periods of time... Those 'casuals' weren't maybe as casual as you thought (if they have time for such things)
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
That is elitist BS. What rewards you get should be based on the effort you put into the game. The problem is that the current crop of MMOs puts a ridiculously high weight ont he effort of raiders/groupers. A casual/soloer can put a lot of effort into the game but it is discounted so much in favour of what the groupers do that they are made to look like lazy bums. It completely skews the metric. Once you recognize that what the groupers do is nothing special, the metric shifts to a more realistic position.
I think I'll start calling them "group entitlement whores" .. people that think that just because they play in groups, they are entitled to exclusively superior rewards. I'll throw them in with "powergamer entitlement whores" .. players that think that just because they have more free time and a willingness to sacrifice their real life for a video game, they should get exclusively superior rewards.
Comments
Play KOTOR, or Oblivion. You will be the Hero.
It already happened. And it was financially viable.
And I'm not fighting for some kind of equality issue here. I want there to be black and white people, as well as yellow and all the different variations. Now what you want (in your example) is to only have people that are the mix of all colors, not pale white or ebony blacks at all.
Except that it hasn't. There are no major games that are that way, the few that ever were are holdouts from the days when MMOs were made for the hardcore, before the genre went mainstream. It *WAS* financially viable. It's just not today, not if you have shareholders who want as much profit as you can give them.
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
It already happened. And it was financially viable.
And I'm not fighting for some kind of equality issue here. I want there to be black and white people, as well as yellow and all the different variations. Now what you want (in your example) is to only have people that are the mix of all colors, not pale white or ebony blacks at all.
Except that it hasn't. There are no major games that are that way, the few that ever were are holdouts from the days when MMOs were made for the hardcore, before the genre went mainstream. It *WAS* financially viable. It's just not today, not if you have shareholders who want as much profit as you can give them.
This is what I think might happen. The genre becomes saturated with WoW clones. Themepark games like Aion, WoW, LOTRO, EQ2, all the F2P grinders, etc., etc.
All those games are competing for the same players, and eventually there's not enough players to go around for all the themepark solo games.
There are players on the sidelines, that won't pay 15 bucks a month for these mass appeal games.
Eventually, you get to the point where developing a mass appeal game won't necessarily get you a bunch of players because you're competing with so many other mass appeal games.
however, you CAN appeal to a niche that is not being catered to, and get enough players to make a profit. This would be the sandbox players, FFA PvP, and group players, etc.
Those markets could become very attractive, if the choices are throwing your mass appeal themepark wow clone in with all the rest, or catering to a specific audience that's willing to throw money at you for a good game.
At some point making a "niche" game becomes less of a gamble than going for the big hit that competes for WoW players.
DArkfall should show that better than anything else. It's a crappy game, and they still got a goood many players (enough to make a decent profit if you keep development costs low) because those players don't have a lot of choices in the market place.
Imagine if you made a really goood FFA game, or a really good grouping game. Sure, you don't compete with WoW, but you have a player base that's looking for a game like that.
Since it seems like a lot of people like to compare the realms/worlds to a basketball court, I will weigh in with my opinion on that: namely, it is a flawed analogy. A basketball court has two goals. Bigger basketball courts might have a few more, but basically it boils down to two goals. MMORPG has 100's if not thousands of goals.
I don't want to play on the court and ruin the fast break, but until I can get a team together, I shouldn't be shut out of playing a few baskets by myself. I might even choose not play on a team, and just practice my lay ups. Or my free throws. And maybe if the team that is playing says they need me, maybe I will join in. But if I choose not to join, I shouldn't be restricted from having a good time. I am paying just as much to play on that gym floor.
And maybe, because I am playing by myself, my skill levels don't rise as fast, and maybe my playing style will seem silly should I ever play for team, but I am getting enjoyment out of playing solitaire horse. Why is it so important that I must team up? Why is it that everyone tells me that's the way it is, if you don't like it, log off and find a game that allows solo play?
Silly groupers. I really think that most people that insist on always grouping are less talented then those of us solo hunter/killers.
Except you have no proof that it wouldn't be financially viable today. Only fact here is that it was financially viable in the HC times, and as long as nobody makes a <casual> forced grouping MMO we'll never find out.
So, greed rules the industry eh? I'm happy to tell you there are still innovative game companies out there, that understand that doing things the same way as before ain't gonna make much profit these days.
reposted a thought from yesterday please disregard.
And conversely, we could turn that around and say that most groupers (to use a word) are horrible players because they rely upon others to make up for their shortcomings.
meh, it doesn't sound right either way. So I will assume that neither is true.
Yet the grouper knows the value of team work and social skills. Groupers relying on others? Well I'd imagine so considering a mob that a group would go after would be specifically balanced for groups.
No your right, soloers are AAA gamers, the best of the best, it's why soloers get sponsered by gaming compan...oh wait they dont. But yeah especially around here all soloers (in this thread particularly are all gods among gamers) are the best.
Here's what you are missing in your analysis.
The most important thing about any game, the thing that makes it a game. RULES.
The fact that you're not running in the middle of the team game doesn't matter, because you're asking that the team be subject to the same RULES as you, playing solo.
If you change the RULES for the team, that is what ruins the team game, not the fact that you run out on the court in front of the team while they are playing.
Imagine going to a Basketball game, and someone is on another court, half way around the world, by themselves, and they are scoring points in that game, even though they are nto on the same court, because you've changed the RULES to make it more solo friendly.
It would sort of change the game, don't you think?
Or are you saying that somehow different rules apply to each person ? The person playing in the group cannot go off and solo because they rules apply differently to him? I've never seen a game like that.
In this analogy the points you are scoring are xp, loot, levels and skill levels.
So the LA Lakers are on the Court playing the Chicago Bulls. They worked hard on their team play. And then you inform them that you're also in the same game, but you don't think it's fair for you to have to work with a team, so you're gooing to be shooting baskets on another court by yourself, but you'll earn points in the same game as they are playing.
And this doesn't change the game of basketball just because you're not running out on the same court they are playing on? I think it does.
Here's what you are missing in your analysis.
The most important thing about any game, the thing that makes it a game. RULES.
The fact that you're not running in the middle of the team game doesn't matter, because you're asking that the team be subject to the same RULES as you, playing solo.
If you change the RULES for the team, that is what ruins the team game, not the fact that you run out on the court in front of the team while they are playing.
Imagine going to a Basketball game, and someone is on another court, half way around the world, by themselves, and they are scoring points in that game, even though they are nto on the same court, because you've changed the RULES to make it more solo friendly.
It would sort of change the game, don't you think?
Or are you saying that somehow different rules apply to each person ? The person playing in the group cannot go off and solo because they rules apply differently to him? I've never seen a game like that.
In this analogy the points you are scoring are xp, loot, levels and skill levels.
So the LA Lakers are on the Court playing the Chicago Bulls. They worked hard on their team play. And then you inform them that you're also in the same game, but you don't think it's fair for you to have to work with a team, so you're gooing to be shooting baskets on another court by yourself, but you'll earn points in the same game as they are playing.
And this doesn't change the game of basketball just because you're not running out on the same court they are playing on? I think it does.
It is the inability to think outside of the box that is generating nothing but clones of WoW. Here's where your "analogy" is flawed; nobody cares that there is a court (zone or instance) in the game where **only** teams are allowed to play. There can also be a court where **only** soloers are allowed to play (solo instances). The seperate courts and the sepearte rules for each court are housed within the giant "sports complex" that has many such courts and variations of courts that each have their own rulesets.
Now, let's look at pathways through the giant complex; if you want to run the solo difficult solo instances, then you have to prepare yourself with proper training (skills, talents, and attributes) that will help you be successful in solo instances; i.e., you have to develop a broader, more self-sustaining package of skills. This will take longer than 5 people taking more devoted pathways to create a balanced team.
If you want to succeed in the hard group content, then it's going to require teams of individuals that have sacrificed some of their soloability in order to fulfill a team role, which can make the team successful. Players train their characters for different playstyles, both of which are housed in the complex.
Now the question becomes one of reward; should the soloer earn as much reward from his solo instance as any particular member of the team from the team instance? Let's say the team instance produces **1** set of the reward each time it is defeated, and let's say the solo instances have a 20% chance of producing that same reward; the last person in the team instance is going to definitely get their item at latest on the 5th try; the soloer might not see his reward after 5, 6, or more tries, because he only has a 20% chance of getting the reward; a string of bad luck and it might take a very long time.
Any way you slice it, everyone on the team is likely to get their reward before the soloer, but the soloer can **eventually** get whatever they get. The only objection one can have to this setup (as far as I can see) is if they just don't want soloers to have access at all to equal content - eventually.
Here's what you are missing in your analysis.
The most important thing about any game, the thing that makes it a game. RULES.
The fact that you're not running in the middle of the team game doesn't matter, because you're asking that the team be subject to the same RULES as you, playing solo.
If you change the RULES for the team, that is what ruins the team game, not the fact that you run out on the court in front of the team while they are playing.
Imagine going to a Basketball game, and someone is on another court, half way around the world, by themselves, and they are scoring points in that game, even though they are nto on the same court, because you've changed the RULES to make it more solo friendly.
It would sort of change the game, don't you think?
Or are you saying that somehow different rules apply to each person ? The person playing in the group cannot go off and solo because they rules apply differently to him? I've never seen a game like that.
In this analogy the points you are scoring are xp, loot, levels and skill levels.
So the LA Lakers are on the Court playing the Chicago Bulls. They worked hard on their team play. And then you inform them that you're also in the same game, but you don't think it's fair for you to have to work with a team, so you're gooing to be shooting baskets on another court by yourself, but you'll earn points in the same game as they are playing.
And this doesn't change the game of basketball just because you're not running out on the same court they are playing on? I think it does.
It is the inability to think outside of the box that is generating nothing but clones of WoW. Here's where your "analogy" is flawed; nobody cares that there is a court (zone or instance) in the game where **only** teams are allowed to play. There can also be a court where **only** soloers are allowed to play (solo instances). The seperate courts and the sepearte rules for each court are housed within the giant "sports complex" that has many such courts and variations of courts that each have their own rulesets.
IMO this is fail in logic.
There is no separation in the "sports complex" because all are getting the same rewards.
It would only be separate rules, if I could not go to teh solo game, or you could not go to the grouping game inside the sports complex, and get the same "points" of loot, xp, gold, etc.
Again, to use the Baskeball analogy, The Chicago Bulls are playing the LA Lakers.
And now Bob in Ohio is also playing in the same game, but on a different court, so we can make the team game solo friendly.
Score:
Lakers 105
Bulls 97
Bob in Ohio: 214
Bob does not have to pass the ball (play on a team) he just stands there on teh empty court and shooots away.
That's a different game, because the rules are changed for everyone, so Bob can play solo. Why would I play on the Lakers or Bulls team? I can score a bunch more points in this game playing solo like Bob.
Only way the team game stays the same, is if Bob is on a differnt court, and scores ZERO in this team game. Otherwise the new rules have wrecked the team game.
In an MMORPG:
I spend two hours in addition to playing the game, getting together a group, and maintaining it. I go with that group into the Dungeon and get 100 xp, 100 gold, and 1 sword of crappiness.
You change the rules to make the "sports complex" (the MMORPG we are playing) solo friendly.
So now there is a solo dungeon. You spend zero time putting together a group and maintaining it, and go into the Dungeon and get 100 xp, 100 gold, and 1 sword of crappiness.
You have now changed the rules such that I just wasted 2 hours of time, making the group game pointless, since the rules apply to me as well. I can go to teh solo dungeon, and spend zero time ona group, and get the same rewards as you.
Unless you are saying the rules only apply to you, and not me somehow?
In games where soling is allowed, teaming is really poor, because most people just soloe. This is bad, because MMORPG is a social game. MMORPG withouth social interactions are a game of grinding for the sake of grinding.
There are singleplayer games for these that want to soloer. Online games sould be for the multiplayer aspect. If you want to play online a singleplayer game, I don't know, play Guild Wars or HellgateLondon, not a social MMO.
Imhotep:
Again, your analogy fails. If I'm not playing "against" anyone (by doing solo content), then neither is your team, because in both cases we are playing against a computer generated opponent.
Each of our computer generated opponents can be tweaked to be about equally as hard. Let's say you have a team of 5 players. If your team wins and gets one "X' as a reward, then if my soloer wins his encounter he should get 20% of the X reward.
However, let's just cut to the chase; what you want is for group play to gain rewards that solo play cannot. That's fine with me. Virtually all MMOGs are like that now. I want a game where grouping doesn't get rewards soloers cannot get. It's fine if groupers get those rewards faster, but not exclusively. Soloers still play in games where grouping gains exclusively better rewards; I'm sure groupers will play in games where they don't get exclusively better rewards, but just get the rewards much faster than soloers can.
Not enough incentive there. It's gotta be some damn drastical increase in time/reward ratio if it'd make players rather group up than solo. Then when a company can't just give out rewards too fast for groupers (especially if endgame progresses horizontally), think about what'd happen to soloers.. the time needed to get the reward would get out of hand very fast.
So it appears that after all this debate, what it all comes down to is this.
Developers can chose to focus on a solo friendly game, or a group friendly game and make a certain segment of the market happy.
But as soon as they try to make a single game which appeals to both camps, then no one ends up really happy.
CoX probably came the closest to resolving the conflict, perhaps more games need to look into that model.
Better tools to make grouping more effcient and fun wouldn't hurt either.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Not enough incentive there. It's gotta be some damn drastical increase in time/reward ratio if it'd make players rather group up than solo. Then when a company can't just give out rewards too fast for groupers (especially if endgame progresses horizontally), think about what'd happen to soloers.. the time needed to get the reward would get out of hand very fast.
Think about what you're saying; you're saying that even though soloers **cannot** ever get equal rewards, they **should** have enough incentive to play a game anyway; but in my imagined game, that the groupers get the rewards **faster** isn't even enough for them.
I guess it's a good thing I didn't suggest a game where soloing got exclusively better rewards, eh? I guess groupers, for the most part, only play games to get stuff that other players cannot get, but - strangely - expect those other people to play the game anyway, whereas the groupers would refuse to even play such a game.
Kind of a hypocritical double-standard, don't you think?
I don't think that's true at all; I think that the ONLY group that will end up unahppy are those who **require** that the game offer groupers exclusive, superior rewards. I think there are plenty of people that would enjoy grouping even if it just means getting to a reward **faster** than if they soloed.
I mean, soloers aren't even asking for an MMOG that exclusively rewards their playstyle above that of groupers; why shouldn't there be such a game? By what right do groupers claim that they are entitled to exclusive, superior rewards in every MMOG?
Yeah I guess it's a difference in my views about what MMO's are like. To me, casual means soloer.
And a casual shouldn't get access (and shouldn't even imagine about getting access) to gain the best rewards alone.
I think the trouble with games designed for solo play is the dungeons are very dull. They're mostly set up so there's one mob every 30 feet and you go along having the same solo fight 20 times to get to the bottom of the dungeon for a quest and then the same solo fight another 20 times fighting your way out.
I like soloing but I preferred it in EQ1 dungeons that were designed for a mixture of group and solo players as you had to be a lot more careful soloing in those as everything was much more dangerous and chaotic.
That's what I'd like - a mixture of solo and group content in the same place so you can choose depending on your mood.
I also agree that you should be able to do most the group content solo if you do it at a higher level - so if you're a 100% soloer but particularly want to get a boss NPC then you can, you just have to wait a few levels more than groupers.
Yeah I guess it's a difference in my views about what MMO's are like. To me, casual means soloer.
And a casual shouldn't get access (and shouldn't even imagine about getting access) to gain the best rewards alone.
That is elitist BS. What rewards you get should be based on the effort you put into the game.
The problem is that the current crop of MMOs puts a ridiculously high weight ont he effort of raiders/groupers. A casual/soloer can put a lot of effort into the game but it is discounted so much in favour of what the groupers do that they are made to look like lazy bums. It completely skews the metric. Once you recognize that what the groupers do is nothing special, the metric shifts to a more realistic position.
Yeah I guess it's a difference in my views about what MMO's are like. To me, casual means soloer.
And a casual shouldn't get access (and shouldn't even imagine about getting access) to gain the best rewards alone.
That is elitist BS. What rewards you get should be based on the effort you put into the game.
The problem is that the current crop of MMOs puts a ridiculously high weight ont he effort of raiders/groupers. A casual/soloer can put a lot of effort into the game but it is discounted so much in favour of what the groupers do that they are made to look like lazy bums. It completely skews the metric. Once you recognize that what the groupers do is nothing special, the metric shifts to a more realistic position.
And then there is the fact that a solo'er is not always a casual gamer. I put 40 hours/week into a game I like. I prefer to do as much as I can soloing or with perhaps 1 friend. At 40 hours a week you cannot say I am a "Casual" player, I play just as much as a "hardcore" player. I prefer to avoid groups because I find too many people who do not know anything about TEAMWORK in them. I hate joining a group and finding I am in what I call a "legion of Doom" where I will usually die often because the tank or the healer doesn't know whats expected of them... or someone goes off and triggers more mobs then we, as a group, can handle.
There are many different types of game play and a Game should be designed to give all of them a good time, otherwise those who feel left out will take their money elsewhere. Believe me - the money is what the People who put out games care about.
Yeah, but how big % of HC players mind grouping up in the first place? Most of the soloers are casual, most of the groupers are not (as casual).
And casual doesn't put as much effort to the game as HC does. If he did, he'd become a HC too. Endgame shouldn't be something a casual/soloer can't do, but to each their own. Casual/soloers get their own challenges, and HC/groupers get their own. If casuals want to come behind the HC but get the same gain as they do, they better come behind by a wide margin (or everyone would solo, making grouping pointless).
Yeah, but how big % of HC players mind grouping up in the first place? Most of the soloers are casual, most of the groupers are not (as casual).
And casual doesn't put as much effort to the game as HC does. If he did, he'd become a HC too. Endgame shouldn't be something a casual/soloer can't do, but to each their own. Casual/soloers get their own challenges, and HC/groupers get their own. If casuals want to come behind the HC but get the same gain as they do, they better come behind by a wide margin (or everyone would solo, making grouping pointless).
your theory is flawed - most of the casual players I know join groups. A solo'er often puts more work into the game - notice I said solo'er not casual. Casual players join groups so they can put less work into the game. In essence Casual play and group play are linked according to my experience.
That is just you being stubborn. You can group, but you choose not to? Well then, don't be all whiny when you can't access everything the game has to offer if you choose not to play by it's rules in the first place.
And guess what could be the reason they don't know about teamwork... is it because they have soloed most of their time and don't know how group functions? It's more likely than you think. Soloers are what kills your teamwork experience, sadly (the casual kind).
I don't agree about your last paragraph either, but meh..
Which one is easier, going out to solo without having to deal with making groups, or making a group, dealing with replacements, lfging for long periods of time... Those 'casuals' weren't maybe as casual as you thought (if they have time for such things)
I think I'll start calling them "group entitlement whores" .. people that think that just because they play in groups, they are entitled to exclusively superior rewards. I'll throw them in with "powergamer entitlement whores" .. players that think that just because they have more free time and a willingness to sacrifice their real life for a video game, they should get exclusively superior rewards.