I got out of everquest when it became impossible to find groups and it was impossible to continue without grouping. The early levels, over course, you could solo easily. The higher levels you only needed one or two people. Then it became impossible without a full group. It seems like forced social interaction. Why can't they make it so that the bad guys recognize a group level and adjusts accordingly so that a solo player would have to work hard to be successful, but so would a group against that same boss? Surely it can't be that hard.
Bioware is doing this in TOR. They already used it in Neverwinter nights so it is possible and works. It is the loot that is the hard thing to balance because a group with 6 players should get more and better loot than a single player, at least the way I see it. The solution is to spawn more and tougher bosses with better loot to 6 pplayers thanto 1.
Also I still want some specific dungeons where you actually need a full group to complete it. Some scaling dungeons is not a bad idea, no, but it is more fun in a group and therefor at least some places should have forced grouping.
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..
1) did not whine about anything - I just objected to calling solo'ers casual.
2) Mostly people who do not know about team play were not taught it in real life.
3) Of course you didn't agree with my last paragraph - you want the games to be only as you like them and to Hell with anyone else.
4) I play games as I like, and have no problem letting people play as they like. I just object to people making flawed statements about all cases to support their theory that each game should address only their concerns and to be to their liking. When I need something you can only get from a group or a raid - better believe i join a group or a raid - however it is usually within the guild I belong to so that I know the players involved and we can discuss the tactics and strategy needed, not just some spur of the moment loose coalition of people who are looking out for themselves and not the other members of the group.
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..
Advocating for a game that is designed differently isn't "whining". You're free to advocate for the kind of game you want; stop whining when others advocate for the kind of game they want.
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)
neither is easier - and my experience - in non-guild groups - a good many members of a group quit the group as soon as their needs are met instead of staying and helping all members get the quest or whatever. What surprises me is that people on either side of the game do not seem to believe in a balanced game for everyone - they are happy only if their preferences are met. Myself I play games to have a good time and I usually help people who need help whether it meets my needs or not. Solo play does not mean being selfish as some think - it means being independent. The truly independent person also helps lower lvls and belongs to a guild and helps guild members. they are just not tied into always grouping. Always being in a group means to me that your self-sufficiency is low.
1) did not whine about anything - I just objected to calling solo'ers casual. 2) Mostly people who do not know about team play were not taught it in real life. 3) Of course you didn't agree with my last paragraph - you want the games to be only as you like them and to Hell with anyone else. 4) I play games as I like, and have no problem letting people play as they like. I just object to people making flawed statements about all cases to support their theory that each game should address only their concerns and to be to their liking. When I need something you can only get from a group or a raid - better believe i join a group or a raid - however it is usually within the guild I belong to so that I know the players involved and we can discuss the tactics and strategy needed, not just some spur of the moment loose coalition of people who are looking out for themselves and not the other members of the group.
Do you want to do the same things groupers do as a soloer? If so, that is what I meant by 'whining', although the term might not be the best to be used in this situation.
I was taught by in game about teamwork, really widened my perspective about it..
#3 seems to be a common misconception around here. Replace 'games' by a 'game'. I don't want everything to be changed to how I want them, all I need is one game. I also want to have a game which is opposite from what I want, for those who completely disagree with me. I also want to have a mix of the 2, but I don't want every game to be a mix. I think it is reasonable, because in the end I want every player to get a game tailored Just for them.
How about playing games you like, and I play games I like, that are different and do everything in the way we want them to do it? Instead of getting a 'well, something like that' version which we both play at the same time.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
neither is easier - and my experience - in non-guild groups - a good many members of a group quit the group as soon as their needs are met instead of staying and helping all members get the quest or whatever. What surprises me is that people on either side of the game do not seem to believe in a balanced game for everyone - they are happy only if their preferences are met. Myself I play games to have a good time and I usually help people who need help whether it meets my needs or not. Solo play does not mean being selfish as some think - it means being independent. The truly independent person also helps lower lvls and belongs to a guild and helps guild members. they are just not tied into always grouping. Always being in a group means to me that your self-sufficiency is low.
Okay, which one takes less time to set up? Casuals are often those without much time, or with unstable playtimes, thus soloing appeals more to them rather than those with much time (HC player, more often than not)
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
1) did not whine about anything - I just objected to calling solo'ers casual. 2) Mostly people who do not know about team play were not taught it in real life. 3) Of course you didn't agree with my last paragraph - you want the games to be only as you like them and to Hell with anyone else. 4) I play games as I like, and have no problem letting people play as they like. I just object to people making flawed statements about all cases to support their theory that each game should address only their concerns and to be to their liking. When I need something you can only get from a group or a raid - better believe i join a group or a raid - however it is usually within the guild I belong to so that I know the players involved and we can discuss the tactics and strategy needed, not just some spur of the moment loose coalition of people who are looking out for themselves and not the other members of the group.
Do you want to do the same things groupers do as a soloer? If so, that is what I meant by 'whining', although the term might not be the best to be used in this situation.
I was taught by in game about teamwork, really widened my perspective about it..
#3 seems to be a common misconception around here. Replace 'games' by a 'game'. I don't want everything to be changed to how I want them, all I need is one game. I also want to have a game which is opposite from what I want, for those who completely disagree with me. I also want to have a mix of the 2, but I don't want every game to be a mix. I think it is reasonable, because in the end I want every player to get a game tailored Just for them.
How about playing games you like, and I play games I like, that are different and do everything in the way we want them to do it? Instead of getting a 'well, something like that' version which we both play at the same time.
How about I can get something from any game I play, but apparently you cannot.
neither is easier - and my experience - in non-guild groups - a good many members of a group quit the group as soon as their needs are met instead of staying and helping all members get the quest or whatever. What surprises me is that people on either side of the game do not seem to believe in a balanced game for everyone - they are happy only if their preferences are met. Myself I play games to have a good time and I usually help people who need help whether it meets my needs or not. Solo play does not mean being selfish as some think - it means being independent. The truly independent person also helps lower lvls and belongs to a guild and helps guild members. they are just not tied into always grouping. Always being in a group means to me that your self-sufficiency is low.
Okay, which one takes less time to set up? Casuals are often those without much time, or with unstable playtimes, thus soloing appeals more to them rather than those with much time (HC player, more often than not)
That is not necessarily true... When I solo I do not go into a game for like 1/2 hours or so - it will take me longer to achieve my goals because I do not have backup. for instance I was just playing my Burglar solo on Lotro. My quest said kill 10 Goblins. Group form would be form a group and go kill the first 10 Goblins you see. Solo form is more like scout around, find a Goblin that is alone or maybe 2 that are off to a side - kill them, go heal. If too many appear run for your life. circle around find more stragglers, etc. Solo'ing can take much more effort and time.
How about I can get something from any game I play, but apparently you cannot.
Yeah that's nice and all but unlike in my suggestion only you are happy about the solution.
If a game came out and it actually did the things I wished for, and you'd have <1> less game to get something from, that'd be a disaster for sure. You actually think that I can't have only one game like described, everything should be like you described, and then turn it against me by saying that <I> want everything to be just like I want..
Just as planned.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Bioware is doing this in TOR. They already used it in Neverwinter nights so it is possible and works. It is the loot that is the hard thing to balance because a group with 6 players should get more and better loot than a single player, at least the way I see it. The solution is to spawn more and tougher bosses with better loot to 6 pplayers thanto 1. Also I still want some specific dungeons where you actually need a full group to complete it. Some scaling dungeons is not a bad idea, no, but it is more fun in a group and therefor at least some places should have forced grouping.
I think the thing about grouping is that it's both the most fun and the least fun depending on the group. So it's worth trying to encourage grouping but to do that you partly need to try and reduce the negative aspects.
I think a lot of the negatives around grouping revolves around loot so I think what should happen is if a group kills a mob they all get to loot the corpse - especially so if it's a boss mob.
That is not necessarily true... When I solo I do not go into a game for like 1/2 hours or so - it will take me longer to achieve my goals because I do not have backup. for instance I was just playing my Burglar solo on Lotro. My quest said kill 10 Goblins. Group form would be form a group and go kill the first 10 Goblins you see. Solo form is more like scout around, find a Goblin that is alone or maybe 2 that are off to a side - kill them, go heal. If too many appear run for your life. circle around find more stragglers, etc. Solo'ing can take much more effort and time.
Good point, but what if you had to leave in the middle of the quest? Your group surely wouldn't like that, but when you solo nobody cares.. which is what casuals like I guess.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
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.
Extremely unlikely since the business model of MMOs has fundamentally changed to go after only these huge crowds of people. You have to remember that niche gamers represent a minuscule percentage of the total marketplace and most of those gamers are still playing WoW clones while waiting for something better to appear on the horizon.
I honestly think you're seriously overestimate the number of people looking for a pure grouping game, if you got all the people in the world in one room who wanted a game where everyone is forced to group, you might still have room left over.
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.
The fact that it doesn't exist in the modern realm and no one we know of is working on one is pretty decent evidence though. Greed rules *EVERY* industry, all the innovative people in the world still need a paycheck, innovation never paid the bills.
That is not necessarily true... When I solo I do not go into a game for like 1/2 hours or so - it will take me longer to achieve my goals because I do not have backup. for instance I was just playing my Burglar solo on Lotro. My quest said kill 10 Goblins. Group form would be form a group and go kill the first 10 Goblins you see. Solo form is more like scout around, find a Goblin that is alone or maybe 2 that are off to a side - kill them, go heal. If too many appear run for your life. circle around find more stragglers, etc. Solo'ing can take much more effort and time.
Good point, but what if you had to leave in the middle of the quest? Your group surely wouldn't like that, but when you solo nobody cares.. which is what casuals like I guess.
Also a good point. However if you leave the quest in the middle as a solo you hurt your self, maybe. If you leave in the middle as part of the group - you affect everyone in the group because they have to either play 1 person short or waste time lloking for a replacement.
I honestly think you're seriously overestimate the number of people looking for a pure grouping game, if you got all the people in the world in one room who wanted a game where everyone is forced to group, you might still have room left over.
Only because very few have experienced it before, and 'forced' has unnecessarily bad vibe to it =/.
It's like hearing a name of a food/seeing a pic of it and thinking it must taste like crap, but when you actually taste it you find out it's not bad at all!
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
The fact that it doesn't exist in the modern realm and no one we know of is working on one is pretty decent evidence though. Greed rules *EVERY* industry, all the innovative people in the world still need a paycheck, innovation never paid the bills.
If devs are afraid of doing new things, that only means that it's risky thing to do, not that it won't be profitable =P
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
That is not necessarily true... When I solo I do not go into a game for like 1/2 hours or so - it will take me longer to achieve my goals because I do not have backup. for instance I was just playing my Burglar solo on Lotro. My quest said kill 10 Goblins. Group form would be form a group and go kill the first 10 Goblins you see. Solo form is more like scout around, find a Goblin that is alone or maybe 2 that are off to a side - kill them, go heal. If too many appear run for your life. circle around find more stragglers, etc. Solo'ing can take much more effort and time.
Good point, but what if you had to leave in the middle of the quest? Your group surely wouldn't like that, but when you solo nobody cares.. which is what casuals like I guess.
What, that "casuals" have lives? And you get upset about it?
That is not necessarily true... When I solo I do not go into a game for like 1/2 hours or so - it will take me longer to achieve my goals because I do not have backup. for instance I was just playing my Burglar solo on Lotro. My quest said kill 10 Goblins. Group form would be form a group and go kill the first 10 Goblins you see. Solo form is more like scout around, find a Goblin that is alone or maybe 2 that are off to a side - kill them, go heal. If too many appear run for your life. circle around find more stragglers, etc. Solo'ing can take much more effort and time.
Good point, but what if you had to leave in the middle of the quest? Your group surely wouldn't like that, but when you solo nobody cares.. which is what casuals like I guess.
edited a double post - didn't see that the first one took.
Also a good point. However if you leave the quest in the middle as a solo you hurt your self, maybe. If you leave in the middle as part of the group - you affect everyone in the group because they have to either play 1 person short or waste time lloking for a replacement.
Yep, that's how it is. Those short on time would definitely prefer to only hurt themselves and not others, aye?
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
What, that "casuals" have lives? And you get upset about it?
Do you even know what the argument is about? lol.
There are several arguments - one being that those who are casual should not expect to reap the same rewards as those who are hardcore.
another being the linkage of casual and solo play and hard core with group play. I am on this argument - I believe that there is no real linkage and, despite what you think, you cannot prove those relationships
Also a good point. However if you leave the quest in the middle as a solo you hurt your self, maybe. If you leave in the middle as part of the group - you affect everyone in the group because they have to either play 1 person short or waste time lloking for a replacement.
Yep, that's how it is. Those short on time would definitely prefer to only hurt themselves and not others, aye?
That is a simplification. As I have said - when i solo I do not do it when I am short on time. to me ittakes longer to complete quests solo - and is much more of a challenge. Of course not all quests can be done solo which makes leveling harder and more of a challenge. Actually I solo more for the challenge of it.
There are several arguments - one being that those who are casual should not expect to reap the same rewards as those who are hardcore. another being the linkage of casual and solo play and hard core with group play. I am on this argument - I believe that there is no real linkage and, despite what you think, you cannot prove those relationships
Well, in this specific argument that he/she quoted, I was mainly trying to prove that, at least the 'extreme' casuals prefer solo play to group play.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
That is a simplification. As I have said - when i solo I do not do it when I am short on time. to me ittakes longer to complete quests solo - and is much more of a challenge. Of course not all quests can be done solo which makes leveling harder and more of a challenge. Actually I solo more for the challenge of it.
Wouldn't soloing be even more of a challenge in a game created for group play? I mean, even in the most hc group games I know, soloing is still possible somehow (and it takes quite a bit of skill, even).
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
As an example - in LOTRO traits are important. To get a Trait sometimes involves 2 steps -kill x amount of a certain type of mob to get the title and then x more to get the trait. KMy burglar went in today to kill slugs in an easy zone. No one else wanted that trait. So I spent the time to kill 30 for the title and 60 more for the trait. I needed it to be competitive. It was easily done but it required time since slugs are passive - you have to attack each one to make defend. Wolves are easier - they will attack you if they see you, sometimes you can kill several at once. No need to have a team. Later in the game you might have to kill 60 to get the title and 120 to get the trait, and the mobs will be a lot more dangerous then 2 or more players might team together to do it.
You can however do it a little at a time without involving anyone else, by being self-sufficient.
Now. you're original argument was about needing groups to get better gear/drops/rewards. I have no problem with that. My problem was with your linking casual and solo play. I think that your preference to grouping has lead you to that belief, nothing else. Just as many casual players group as solo. I have seen people In lotro look for groups for quests that are easily done solo. They want a quick in and out get it done and advance. Many Solo players know that soloing will take them longer and require more patience and time than grouping.
Comments
Bioware is doing this in TOR. They already used it in Neverwinter nights so it is possible and works. It is the loot that is the hard thing to balance because a group with 6 players should get more and better loot than a single player, at least the way I see it. The solution is to spawn more and tougher bosses with better loot to 6 pplayers thanto 1.
Also I still want some specific dungeons where you actually need a full group to complete it. Some scaling dungeons is not a bad idea, no, but it is more fun in a group and therefor at least some places should have forced grouping.
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..
1) did not whine about anything - I just objected to calling solo'ers casual.
2) Mostly people who do not know about team play were not taught it in real life.
3) Of course you didn't agree with my last paragraph - you want the games to be only as you like them and to Hell with anyone else.
4) I play games as I like, and have no problem letting people play as they like. I just object to people making flawed statements about all cases to support their theory that each game should address only their concerns and to be to their liking. When I need something you can only get from a group or a raid - better believe i join a group or a raid - however it is usually within the guild I belong to so that I know the players involved and we can discuss the tactics and strategy needed, not just some spur of the moment loose coalition of people who are looking out for themselves and not the other members of the group.
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..
Advocating for a game that is designed differently isn't "whining". You're free to advocate for the kind of game you want; stop whining when others advocate for the kind of game they want.
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)
neither is easier - and my experience - in non-guild groups - a good many members of a group quit the group as soon as their needs are met instead of staying and helping all members get the quest or whatever. What surprises me is that people on either side of the game do not seem to believe in a balanced game for everyone - they are happy only if their preferences are met. Myself I play games to have a good time and I usually help people who need help whether it meets my needs or not. Solo play does not mean being selfish as some think - it means being independent. The truly independent person also helps lower lvls and belongs to a guild and helps guild members. they are just not tied into always grouping. Always being in a group means to me that your self-sufficiency is low.
Do you want to do the same things groupers do as a soloer? If so, that is what I meant by 'whining', although the term might not be the best to be used in this situation.
I was taught by in game about teamwork, really widened my perspective about it..
#3 seems to be a common misconception around here. Replace 'games' by a 'game'. I don't want everything to be changed to how I want them, all I need is one game. I also want to have a game which is opposite from what I want, for those who completely disagree with me. I also want to have a mix of the 2, but I don't want every game to be a mix. I think it is reasonable, because in the end I want every player to get a game tailored Just for them.
How about playing games you like, and I play games I like, that are different and do everything in the way we want them to do it? Instead of getting a 'well, something like that' version which we both play at the same time.
Okay, which one takes less time to set up? Casuals are often those without much time, or with unstable playtimes, thus soloing appeals more to them rather than those with much time (HC player, more often than not)
Do you want to do the same things groupers do as a soloer? If so, that is what I meant by 'whining', although the term might not be the best to be used in this situation.
I was taught by in game about teamwork, really widened my perspective about it..
#3 seems to be a common misconception around here. Replace 'games' by a 'game'. I don't want everything to be changed to how I want them, all I need is one game. I also want to have a game which is opposite from what I want, for those who completely disagree with me. I also want to have a mix of the 2, but I don't want every game to be a mix. I think it is reasonable, because in the end I want every player to get a game tailored Just for them.
How about playing games you like, and I play games I like, that are different and do everything in the way we want them to do it? Instead of getting a 'well, something like that' version which we both play at the same time.
How about I can get something from any game I play, but apparently you cannot.
Okay, which one takes less time to set up? Casuals are often those without much time, or with unstable playtimes, thus soloing appeals more to them rather than those with much time (HC player, more often than not)
That is not necessarily true... When I solo I do not go into a game for like 1/2 hours or so - it will take me longer to achieve my goals because I do not have backup. for instance I was just playing my Burglar solo on Lotro. My quest said kill 10 Goblins. Group form would be form a group and go kill the first 10 Goblins you see. Solo form is more like scout around, find a Goblin that is alone or maybe 2 that are off to a side - kill them, go heal. If too many appear run for your life. circle around find more stragglers, etc. Solo'ing can take much more effort and time.
Yeah that's nice and all but unlike in my suggestion only you are happy about the solution.
If a game came out and it actually did the things I wished for, and you'd have <1> less game to get something from, that'd be a disaster for sure. You actually think that I can't have only one game like described, everything should be like you described, and then turn it against me by saying that <I> want everything to be just like I want..
Just as planned.
I think the thing about grouping is that it's both the most fun and the least fun depending on the group. So it's worth trying to encourage grouping but to do that you partly need to try and reduce the negative aspects.
I think a lot of the negatives around grouping revolves around loot so I think what should happen is if a group kills a mob they all get to loot the corpse - especially so if it's a boss mob.
Good point, but what if you had to leave in the middle of the quest? Your group surely wouldn't like that, but when you solo nobody cares.. which is what casuals like I guess.
Extremely unlikely since the business model of MMOs has fundamentally changed to go after only these huge crowds of people. You have to remember that niche gamers represent a minuscule percentage of the total marketplace and most of those gamers are still playing WoW clones while waiting for something better to appear on the horizon.
I honestly think you're seriously overestimate the number of people looking for a pure grouping game, if you got all the people in the world in one room who wanted a game where everyone is forced to group, you might still have room left over.
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
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.
The fact that it doesn't exist in the modern realm and no one we know of is working on one is pretty decent evidence though. Greed rules *EVERY* industry, all the innovative people in the world still need a paycheck, innovation never paid the bills.
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
Good point, but what if you had to leave in the middle of the quest? Your group surely wouldn't like that, but when you solo nobody cares.. which is what casuals like I guess.
Also a good point. However if you leave the quest in the middle as a solo you hurt your self, maybe. If you leave in the middle as part of the group - you affect everyone in the group because they have to either play 1 person short or waste time lloking for a replacement.
Only because very few have experienced it before, and 'forced' has unnecessarily bad vibe to it =/.
It's like hearing a name of a food/seeing a pic of it and thinking it must taste like crap, but when you actually taste it you find out it's not bad at all!
If devs are afraid of doing new things, that only means that it's risky thing to do, not that it won't be profitable =P
Good point, but what if you had to leave in the middle of the quest? Your group surely wouldn't like that, but when you solo nobody cares.. which is what casuals like I guess.
What, that "casuals" have lives? And you get upset about it?
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
Good point, but what if you had to leave in the middle of the quest? Your group surely wouldn't like that, but when you solo nobody cares.. which is what casuals like I guess.
edited a double post - didn't see that the first one took.
Do you even know what the argument is about? lol.
Yep, that's how it is. Those short on time would definitely prefer to only hurt themselves and not others, aye?
Do you even know what the argument is about? lol.
There are several arguments - one being that those who are casual should not expect to reap the same rewards as those who are hardcore.
another being the linkage of casual and solo play and hard core with group play. I am on this argument - I believe that there is no real linkage and, despite what you think, you cannot prove those relationships
Yep, that's how it is. Those short on time would definitely prefer to only hurt themselves and not others, aye?
That is a simplification. As I have said - when i solo I do not do it when I am short on time. to me ittakes longer to complete quests solo - and is much more of a challenge. Of course not all quests can be done solo which makes leveling harder and more of a challenge. Actually I solo more for the challenge of it.
Well, in this specific argument that he/she quoted, I was mainly trying to prove that, at least the 'extreme' casuals prefer solo play to group play.
Wouldn't soloing be even more of a challenge in a game created for group play? I mean, even in the most hc group games I know, soloing is still possible somehow (and it takes quite a bit of skill, even).
As an example - in LOTRO traits are important. To get a Trait sometimes involves 2 steps -kill x amount of a certain type of mob to get the title and then x more to get the trait. KMy burglar went in today to kill slugs in an easy zone. No one else wanted that trait. So I spent the time to kill 30 for the title and 60 more for the trait. I needed it to be competitive. It was easily done but it required time since slugs are passive - you have to attack each one to make defend. Wolves are easier - they will attack you if they see you, sometimes you can kill several at once. No need to have a team. Later in the game you might have to kill 60 to get the title and 120 to get the trait, and the mobs will be a lot more dangerous then 2 or more players might team together to do it.
You can however do it a little at a time without involving anyone else, by being self-sufficient.
Now. you're original argument was about needing groups to get better gear/drops/rewards. I have no problem with that. My problem was with your linking casual and solo play. I think that your preference to grouping has lead you to that belief, nothing else. Just as many casual players group as solo. I have seen people In lotro look for groups for quests that are easily done solo. They want a quick in and out get it done and advance. Many Solo players know that soloing will take them longer and require more patience and time than grouping.