It isn't that soloing and grouping are inherently irreconcilable "playstyles"; they are entirely reconcilable in many ways, through many different systems. What cannot be accommodated by such mechanisms is satisfying players that demand that ONLY their playstyle be rewarded with exclusive, superior rewards.
They believe they are entitled, by their playstyle, to superior rewards.
It isn't that soloing and grouping are inherently irreconcilable "playstyles"; they are entirely reconcilable in many ways, through many different systems. What cannot be accommodated by such mechanisms is satisfying players that demand that ONLY their playstyle be rewarded with exclusive, superior rewards. They believe they are entitled, by their playstyle, to superior rewards.
If this isn't the case, one playstyle will annihilate the other one, and nothing is solved.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Of course it gets ignored, they have no answer for it. It's funny that they somehow instinctlvely recognize that the overwhelming majority of people solo and they think if they just forced all of those people to group, that they'd somehow reach grouping nirvana and everyone would realize just how wonderful grouping all the time is. In reality, we know that the vast majority of those solo players, if faced with being forced to group against their will, would just leave the game and go elsewhere and the pro-groupers would still be left with the same situation: not enough people willing to group with them. When you're a tiny little minority that can't come up with any rational reasons why anyone should support their position, I guess the "control freak" move is all they have left.
Those solo players wouldn't even try the 'forced' group MMO if they didn't even want to try. It's not forcing 'against their will' if those players are given the choice to not to play the game in the first place. And you can't say players wouldn't try it out, although those stuck in the 'make everything a copy of <insert solo MMO here>' mindset probably wouldn't bother trying out new things.
This is not strictly true. Most games these days allow you to solo or group all the way through the game from level 1 to maximum level.
However, if you want the endgame gear, there is no solo content. All of a sudden the game changes from providing entertainment for both solo and group players, to providing entertainment for group and raid players and the solo players are left high and dry.
This is not strictly true. Most games these days allow you to solo or group all the way through the game from level 1 to maximum level. However, if you want the endgame gear, there is no solo content. All of a sudden the game changes from providing entertainment for both solo and group players, to providing entertainment for group and raid players and the solo players are left high and dry.
That's another type of 'forced grouping' that needs be fixed, but I don't care about it since I don't play such games.
My games are forced grouping from the get-go, players know this, and if they want to try they will play it, and if they think forced grouping sucks they won't play it. As simple as it gets, and it's hardly 'forced' at that point.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Ihmotepp, maybe my reading comprehension is off, but it does seem as if you appear to be saying that because you enjoy something, that is the way it should be and that no one: not gamers, not developers, not anyone at all, should care about any other thoughts or opinions. So, I will ask, for clarification: is that what you are saying? That because you enjoy a playstyle or because you believe that a game (or games) should be a certain way, then your opinion is the only one that is valid?
Yet almost every soloer in this thread thinks the exact same way and feels that there should not be any group specific activities whatsoever. Only their playstyle is acceptable and they crusade against any game that caters to a different crowd to impose their will on the game.
That is entirely untrue. Soloers, by and large, don't mind that there is group and raid-oriented content in games; nor do they care that groupers and raiders can get top rewards faster than them; what most soloers and casuals object to is that top rewards can **only** be gained by by the powergamer/grouper style of play.
Here's the difference: casuals and soloers aren't demanding equal access and speed to all areas of the game; they're willing to accept that it will take them longer in real time, and be harder to achieve equal rewards to groupers and powergamers - they just want a means of eventually achieving equal rewards even if they solo or play casually - even if they can't go into certain areas of the game that are reserved for raiding.
You guys keep re-wording and re-characterizing it to make it seem that what powergaming groupers want, and what soloers and casuals want, are equal but competing ideas; this is not true. Casuals and soloers are arguing for eventual EQUALITY of game rewards; powergamers and raiders are arguing for perpetual INEQUALITY of game rewards; they want casuals and soloers to continue to be coded out of ever being able to achieve equal reward.
The only real entitlement whores are the powergamers and groupers, because they want their playstyle to be entitled to exclusively superior rewards. The soloers and casuals are only asking for an **eventual** path to **equal** rewards, not an equally speedy path, or superior rewards.
The sad thing here is that a lot of you powergamers and groupers/raiders can't even see the point in playing if you cannot achieve exclusively superior rewards for your playstyle, but you expect soloers and casuals to play even though they have no hope of achieving them.
It's now wonder MMOGs are in such a sad state; look at the kind of players they attract. They can't even imagine playing a game where their playstyle doesn't get exclusively superior rewards, and they call other players, with different playstyles, who pay the same subscription rate "entitlement whores" because they want eventual access to **equal** rewards.
It isn't that soloing and grouping are inherently irreconcilable "playstyles"; they are entirely reconcilable in many ways, through many different systems. What cannot be accommodated by such mechanisms is satisfying players that demand that ONLY their playstyle be rewarded with exclusive, superior rewards. They believe they are entitled, by their playstyle, to superior rewards.
If this isn't the case, one playstyle will annihilate the other one, and nothing is solved.
Nothing will ever be "solved", in this case, for players that demand exclusively superior rewards for their playstyle. Games have been made, and can continue to be made to cater to their playstyle.
However, of course games can be made for groupers and soloers, casuals and hardcore players who do not **require** that their playstyle be exclusively rewarded with superior content. Such a game would appeal to all sorts playstyles, but would not appeal to all kinds of players. Obviously, players that need to feel superior wouldn't be attracted to such a game.
And I think that would make for a much better game community and a more fun gaming experience.
However, of course games can be made for groupers and soloers, casuals and hardcore players who do not **require** that their playstyle be exclusively rewarded with superior content. Such a game would appeal to all sorts playstyles, but would not appeal to all kinds of players. Obviously, players that need to feel superior wouldn't be attracted to such a game. And I think that would make for a much better game community and a more fun gaming experience.
Until one playstyle withers away, that is.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Ihmotepp, maybe my reading comprehension is off, but it does seem as if you appear to be saying that because you enjoy something, that is the way it should be and that no one: not gamers, not developers, not anyone at all, should care about any other thoughts or opinions. So, I will ask, for clarification: is that what you are saying? That because you enjoy a playstyle or because you believe that a game (or games) should be a certain way, then your opinion is the only one that is valid?
Yet almost every soloer in this thread thinks the exact same way and feels that there should not be any group specific activities whatsoever. Only their playstyle is acceptable and they crusade against any game that caters to a different crowd to impose their will on the game.
I thought I was pretty clear on that. The rewards are of equal value but are different.
If they are different they are not of equal value.
How do you come to this exactly equal value?
The in game impact of the items are the same. Example:
1 - Uber hat of solo mastery = +4AC = Plain old fishng hat graphic
2 - Uber hat of grouping greatness = +4AC = Wizard hat with stars flowing around it
3 - Uber hat of PVP pwner = +4AC = Crown with lightning pulsing between tips
4 - Uber hat of more money than brains = +4AC = Big pink chefs hat
The game effects are all the same (+4AC) but graphically they are different items. Its obvious who is good at solo, pvp, grouping and who has money to burn. Now when you need to group or do some new content game wise it won't matter how you got your loot so no one gets excluded.
Solo doesn't eqaul grouping, Grouping doesn't equal paying real life money, real life money doesn't equal PvP.
This isn't equal at all, by any measure, not even close.
Now you lost me. The rewards are identical the only question is to balance effort.
Are you saying that grouping is ALWAYS more effort than soloing????
If so - LOL
Group play varies depending on game design. No matter how the game is designed you can balance the effot requirements based on playstyle. No one will agree but you can do it. Personally I would do it based on time online
Example:
Solo play - 100 hours to get Uber hat of solo mastery
group play - 100 hours for entire group to get Ubert hat of group greatness (Depending on how loot is doled out this may mean some player get it faster than 100 hours)
PVP - 100 hours of pwning people to get Uber hat of pwning
Money - average player does 10 hours a week so 20 weeks subscrition cost (about $75 for a $15/Month game)
My point is thet equal effort , equal rewards no matter what the playstyle. The only true measure of game effort is time required to obtain the reward.
I thought I was pretty clear on that. The rewards are of equal value but are different.
If they are different they are not of equal value.
How do you come to this exactly equal value?
The in game impact of the items are the same. Example:
1 - Uber hat of solo mastery = +4AC = Plain old fishng hat graphic
2 - Uber hat of grouping greatness = +4AC = Wizard hat with stars flowing around it
3 - Uber hat of PVP pwner = +4AC = Crown with lightning pulsing between tips
4 - Uber hat of more money than brains = +4AC = Big pink chefs hat
The game effects are all the same (+4AC) but graphically they are different items. Its obvious who is good at solo, pvp, grouping and who has money to burn. Now when you need to group or do some new content game wise it won't matter how you got your loot so no one gets excluded.
Solo doesn't eqaul grouping, Grouping doesn't equal paying real life money, real life money doesn't equal PvP.
This isn't equal at all, by any measure, not even close.
Now you lost me. The rewards are identical the only question is to balance effort.
Are you saying that grouping is ALWAYS more effort than soloing????
If so - LOL
Group play varies depending on game design. No matter how the game is designed you can balance the effot requirements based on playstyle. No one will agree but you can do it. Personally I would do it based on time online
Example:
Solo play - 100 hours to get Uber hat of solo mastery
group play - 100 hours for entire group to get Ubert hat of group greatness (Depending on how loot is doled out this may mean some player get it faster than 100 hours)
PVP - 100 hours of pwning people to get Uber hat of pwning
Money - average player does 10 hours a week so 20 weeks subscrition cost (about $75 for a $15/Month game)
My point is thet equal effort , equal rewards no matter what the playstyle. The only true measure of game effort is time required to obtain the reward.
people who only ever group cannot imagine why people would solo - they consider them inferior socially and ability wise. You will not break through to them, they cannot understand that solo play is a challenge, and that some people like challenges. They like to say we are casual players - but many of us solo players log as many or more hours/day/week as them.
people who only ever group cannot imagine why people would solo - they consider them inferior socially and ability wise. You will not break through to them, they cannot understand that solo play is a challenge, and that some people like challenges. They like to say we are casual players - but many of us solo players log as many or more hours/day/week as them.
Group play is not challenging, eh?
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
If it were balanced people would just solo anyways, rather than spend time to put a group toghether. Forced grouping is the only way around the issue of soloers
Best way to describe it succintly.
If YOU can solo, then the rules are the same for ME, and I might as well solo too. It's faster to solo that put together a group.
The only way to make it worthwhile to group, is make XP at least 4x more for group play than solo play. If you call that "forced grouping" then fine, I want a forced grouping game.
I agree with this; but think there needs to be a correction in the terminology - it is not FORCED grouping. No one forced anyone to play a team based game. The consumer CHOSE a team based game and then complains that it's team based. This is ridiculous for blaming the game for FORCING you - when one buys a team based game, one should expect team action or at least having the better stuff/more challenging stuff be team based. If everyone went into the games BECAUSE they wanted to play on teams then you have like-minded individuals who WANT to team.
To further the sports analogy; hearing someone complain that a team based mmo is not soloable is like someone wandering onto a football field and being mad that they can't hit a hole in one. There is no basis for complaints - what you want isn't mmo's to be more solo friendly - you want a different game altogether.
So what you are saying is that grouping isn't fun unless the rewards are better than solo? If you are a min/maxer you will take the path of least resistance but true group player joins up because playing as a team is more fun. In some games group play is not fun so yes i would only group to obtain better rewards but if you make good group dynamics then people will choose that option for the fun. Its funny how natural it comes to people. We have been so well trained. Group play = better rewards. Its stupid but its stuck in the genre. We really need to bring everyone up to speed: 1 - solo does not = easy mode 2 - solo play does not = anti-social The real problem with building content for solo play is the class/spec balance issue. If you have healng classes how do you balance for them solo? If you gear encounters for high dps are tanks and healers screwed? If its geared for tanks does dps just walk through? This is the real reason group play dominates end games. Its because you can only design challenging content by assuming min/maxers with full buffs and good class/spec distribution. If you don't then the content ends up trivial for anyone able to read a walk through. The alternative seems to be to make all classes the same shade of gray. This way everyone can dps and heal and tank and content can easily be scaled because you can predict solo/group abilities. There is no easy answer. If there was someone would have made a game with it already
Ok, imagine this scenario.
You play Football.
It's the Super Bowl. The winner gets rewarded with money, a Super Bowl ring, etc.
Now, you can score points by playing in a team.
OR< we've now changed the rules so you can just get on the field all by yoru self, and run down the field and score touch downs.
You're still going to get in a team, because it's more fun right?
And fans will still come to watch you run down the field all by yourself, because it's the exact same game right?
If that's so much "fun" why don't we change the super bowl to a single player game?
It's because team games really suck and they only play in teams because they get rewarded right?
Taking away the rewards makes grouping pointless.
Just like giving the rewards to someone running down the field all by themselves to score touch downs, would make playing football in a team pointless.
How could you ever score as many touch downs as a team, as the guy that has the field all by himself to play solo? You could not.
This means the RULES of the game ahve changed, and it is no longer a TEAM based game.
That's what makes it fun, that it is a TEAM based game.
Take away the rewards, and you take away the RULES that make it a TEAM based game.
Lets use a better sports analogy.
How about the Olympics
I train my ass off and become the best damn Javelin thrower in the world. What do I get ,a gold medal.
I train my ass off with a relay team and we win what, a gold medal.
Why didn't I just throw javelins?
You see you make the mistake of looking at the game and not the reward. The Super Bowl can only be won by playing the team game of footbal but gold medals and world titles can be earned indivdually as well. The question is are you ready to put in the effort to reach the reward? The question isn't are you ready to team up cause that is the only way to get the reward. I don't need to change the rules to anyones game. I only need to make sure everyone can work for the equivalent (not the same) rewards.
Lets look at ths MMO style:
Player 1 - Solo's his ass off and achieves Uber hat of solo mastery
Player 2 - Gets his buddies together and get Uber hat of grouping greatness
Player 3 - Slaughters player 1 & 2 to obtain Uber hat of PVP pwner
Player 4 - Pays $50 and gets Uber hat of more money than brains
If the Uber hat has the same game play impact , took similar effort (except the purchased one) , but look different then all is fair.
Each player can proudly present his success for all to see sitting upon his head. Even better would be a player who could obtain all the uber hats! No player has had there game experience diminshed by being undergeared due to their playstyle.
The ONLY thing that would prevent group players from geting groups in this scenario would be if the game system made it far harder to get and keep a group going. So don't blame the rewards. If people don't group its because it is more effort than its worth not because soloing is easier.
Now NONE of this applies if the only game in town is grouping or solo but no new MMO is going to reduce its target market by excluding one of those subsets. (read this a football being the only option)
Goragg, you've made a logical and well-reasoned argument that will largely fall on deaf groupers' ears.
Why? Because, for some reason, if any reward that they achieved grouping can be acquired by any non-grouping method, even if it took a hundred times longer, you have somehow diminished their prize.
I've never really understood that point of view, but I can say that pro-groupers are firmly and rigidly entrenched in this position, and they will give no ears to any argument to the contrary.
If it were balanced people would just solo anyways, rather than spend time to put a group toghether. Forced grouping is the only way around the issue of soloers
Best way to describe it succintly.
If YOU can solo, then the rules are the same for ME, and I might as well solo too. It's faster to solo that put together a group.
The only way to make it worthwhile to group, is make XP at least 4x more for group play than solo play. If you call that "forced grouping" then fine, I want a forced grouping game.
I agree with this; but think there needs to be a correction in the terminology - it is not FORCED grouping. No one forced anyone to play a team based game. The consumer CHOSE a team based game and then complains that it's team based. This is ridiculous for blaming the game for FORCING you - when one buys a team based game, one should expect team action or at least having the better stuff/more challenging stuff be team based. If everyone went into the games BECAUSE they wanted to play on teams then you have like-minded individuals who WANT to team.
To further the sports analogy; hearing someone complain that a team based mmo is not soloable is like someone wandering onto a football field and being mad that they can't hit a hole in one. There is no basis for complaints - what you want isn't mmo's to be more solo friendly - you want a different game altogether.
I agree that if you join a group game don't expect them to make it solo.
I agree but current MMOs are not solo or group only. They attempt to reach all playstyles BUT they don't treat them all the same. Personally I think this whole disucssion is WOW's fault. They created a great solo game then screwed the soloer after they invested time to the cap by making only group content.
imagine the reverse. You join a new MMO that requires you to group to get to max level. You and your friends overcome all obstackes and attain the level cap. Now you faced with the endgame instances/challenges. These new challenges are solo only ! Oh ya you can group but the rewards aren't the same.
This is why a game that caters to all playstyles needs to reward them the same and balance progression equally.
If it were balanced people would just solo anyways, rather than spend time to put a group toghether. Forced grouping is the only way around the issue of soloers
Best way to describe it succintly.
If YOU can solo, then the rules are the same for ME, and I might as well solo too. It's faster to solo that put together a group.
The only way to make it worthwhile to group, is make XP at least 4x more for group play than solo play. If you call that "forced grouping" then fine, I want a forced grouping game.
I agree with this; but think there needs to be a correction in the terminology - it is not FORCED grouping. No one forced anyone to play a team based game. The consumer CHOSE a team based game and then complains that it's team based. This is ridiculous for blaming the game for FORCING you - when one buys a team based game, one should expect team action or at least having the better stuff/more challenging stuff be team based. If everyone went into the games BECAUSE they wanted to play on teams then you have like-minded individuals who WANT to team.
To further the sports analogy; hearing someone complain that a team based mmo is not soloable is like someone wandering onto a football field and being mad that they can't hit a hole in one. There is no basis for complaints - what you want isn't mmo's to be more solo friendly - you want a different game altogether.
I can agree with this for the most part. There is another option that may be what the OP was after. I did not read all 22 pages so if this was already addressed I apologise.
To make Group and Solo more balanced, the Solo player may be required to complete 10 missions to obtain the same reward the Group does once. This is random and it may even need to be 50 or somewhere in between.
It would not be fair to allow a Solo player to do ONE mission and get the same reward for a group to do. The key is to allow the Solo player to have the option to get the same rewards as a group but with extended effort. How that would be determined is yet another challenge and will never be accepted by ALL players Grouped or not...but then that is true for all existing MMOs.
So what you are saying is that grouping isn't fun unless the rewards are better than solo? If you are a min/maxer you will take the path of least resistance but true group player joins up because playing as a team is more fun. In some games group play is not fun so yes i would only group to obtain better rewards but if you make good group dynamics then people will choose that option for the fun. Its funny how natural it comes to people. We have been so well trained. Group play = better rewards. Its stupid but its stuck in the genre. We really need to bring everyone up to speed: 1 - solo does not = easy mode 2 - solo play does not = anti-social The real problem with building content for solo play is the class/spec balance issue. If you have healng classes how do you balance for them solo? If you gear encounters for high dps are tanks and healers screwed? If its geared for tanks does dps just walk through? This is the real reason group play dominates end games. Its because you can only design challenging content by assuming min/maxers with full buffs and good class/spec distribution. If you don't then the content ends up trivial for anyone able to read a walk through. The alternative seems to be to make all classes the same shade of gray. This way everyone can dps and heal and tank and content can easily be scaled because you can predict solo/group abilities. There is no easy answer. If there was someone would have made a game with it already
Ok, imagine this scenario.
You play Football.
It's the Super Bowl. The winner gets rewarded with money, a Super Bowl ring, etc.
Now, you can score points by playing in a team.
OR< we've now changed the rules so you can just get on the field all by yoru self, and run down the field and score touch downs.
You're still going to get in a team, because it's more fun right?
And fans will still come to watch you run down the field all by yourself, because it's the exact same game right?
If that's so much "fun" why don't we change the super bowl to a single player game?
It's because team games really suck and they only play in teams because they get rewarded right?
Taking away the rewards makes grouping pointless.
Just like giving the rewards to someone running down the field all by themselves to score touch downs, would make playing football in a team pointless.
How could you ever score as many touch downs as a team, as the guy that has the field all by himself to play solo? You could not.
This means the RULES of the game ahve changed, and it is no longer a TEAM based game.
That's what makes it fun, that it is a TEAM based game.
Take away the rewards, and you take away the RULES that make it a TEAM based game.
Lets use a better sports analogy.
How about the Olympics
I train my ass off and become the best damn Javelin thrower in the world. What do I get ,a gold medal.
I train my ass off with a relay team and we win what, a gold medal.
Why didn't I just throw javelins?
You see you make the mistake of looking at the game and not the reward. The Super Bowl can only be won by playing the team game of footbal but gold medals and world titles can be earned indivdually as well. The question is are you ready to put in the effort to reach the reward? The question isn't are you ready to team up cause that is the only way to get the reward. I don't need to change the rules to anyones game. I only need to make sure everyone can work for the equivalent (not the same) rewards.
Lets look at ths MMO style:
Player 1 - Solo's his ass off and achieves Uber hat of solo mastery
Player 2 - Gets his buddies together and get Uber hat of grouping greatness
Player 3 - Slaughters player 1 & 2 to obtain Uber hat of PVP pwner
Player 4 - Pays $50 and gets Uber hat of more money than brains
If the Uber hat has the same game play impact , took similar effort (except the purchased one) , but look different then all is fair.
Each player can proudly present his success for all to see sitting upon his head. Even better would be a player who could obtain all the uber hats! No player has had there game experience diminshed by being undergeared due to their playstyle.
The ONLY thing that would prevent group players from geting groups in this scenario would be if the game system made it far harder to get and keep a group going. So don't blame the rewards. If people don't group its because it is more effort than its worth not because soloing is easier.
Now NONE of this applies if the only game in town is grouping or solo but no new MMO is going to reduce its target market by excluding one of those subsets. (read this a football being the only option)
Goragg, you've made a logical and well-reasoned argument that will largely fall on deaf groupers' ears.
Why? Because, for some reason, if any reward that they achieved grouping can be acquired by any non-grouping method, even if it took a hundred times longer, you have somehow diminished their prize.
I've never really understood that point of view, but I can say that pro-groupers are firmly and rigidly entrenched in this position, and they will give no ears to any argument to the contrary.
I would certainly not complain about that, if it took solo players 100 times longer to do something, but they could do everything in the game a group could do.
In fact, I'd say that was to hard on solo players.
10 x is more than enough, 100 times is way to much.
I'm happy with this set up.
I can get in a group, and we can do quests or grind mobs that give us say 1,000 xp each.
The solo player can't do this content at his level, it's to hard. The solo player has to do content that gives hiim 100 xp each, or maybe 200 or 300, something like that.
However, as the solo players levels up, he can go back and do the same content the Group was doing, getting the 1,000 xp points.
Only now the group has moved on, made a few levels, and they are doing content that gives them 2,000 xp points a piece, and so on.
Same with dungeons and loot. As you level up, you can do dungeons solo, but the drops are only going to be so so for your level. For the best gear you can wear for your level or skill leve, you need to group.
I think that's adequate reward for grouping, and still lets you solo the game if you want to.
The problem is, this is the exact set up where solo'ers cry "forced grouping".
OMG! I can't level as fast as groups! It's Forced grouping!! OMG!! QQ!! I can't get the exact same loot drops as groupers! It's forced grouping!!! !!QQ
I thought I was pretty clear on that. The rewards are of equal value but are different.
If they are different they are not of equal value.
How do you come to this exactly equal value?
The in game impact of the items are the same. Example:
1 - Uber hat of solo mastery = +4AC = Plain old fishng hat graphic
2 - Uber hat of grouping greatness = +4AC = Wizard hat with stars flowing around it
3 - Uber hat of PVP pwner = +4AC = Crown with lightning pulsing between tips
4 - Uber hat of more money than brains = +4AC = Big pink chefs hat
The game effects are all the same (+4AC) but graphically they are different items. Its obvious who is good at solo, pvp, grouping and who has money to burn. Now when you need to group or do some new content game wise it won't matter how you got your loot so no one gets excluded.
Solo doesn't eqaul grouping, Grouping doesn't equal paying real life money, real life money doesn't equal PvP.
This isn't equal at all, by any measure, not even close.
Now you lost me. The rewards are identical the only question is to balance effort.
Are you saying that grouping is ALWAYS more effort than soloing????
If so - LOL
Group play varies depending on game design. No matter how the game is designed you can balance the effot requirements based on playstyle. No one will agree but you can do it. Personally I would do it based on time online
Example:
Solo play - 100 hours to get Uber hat of solo mastery
group play - 100 hours for entire group to get Ubert hat of group greatness (Depending on how loot is doled out this may mean some player get it faster than 100 hours)
PVP - 100 hours of pwning people to get Uber hat of pwning
Money - average player does 10 hours a week so 20 weeks subscrition cost (about $75 for a $15/Month game)
My point is thet equal effort , equal rewards no matter what the playstyle. The only true measure of game effort is time required to obtain the reward.
IMO, this is a solo game.
Unless, you mean that I get 10 people in a group, we play 10 hours, that's 100 hours combined, we ALL get the uber hat.
VS, the solo player has to play 100 hours solo to get the same hat. I play in a 10 person group (easy for math) all day for 10 hours, and all 10 people get the hat. The solo person has to play 10 hours a day for 10 days to get teh same hat. It's a deal.
if that's what you mean, sure that sounds fair to me.
if you mean, each person in the group has to play for 100 hours to get the hat, then that's just a solo game. If you mean the group plays 10 hours and gets ONE hat to split, that's a solo game.
The group will have to play 100 hours to get 10 hats, one hat each.
The solo player will have to play 100 hours to get a hat of equal power.
THat's a solo game. The group will waste an additional 100 hours forming and keeping groups together over time, it would be stupid to group for the hat. I would solo that game.
For me, its not even about the rewards. Its about community. I don't care about loot rewards. I group for the social interaction and roleplaying. If everyone is soloing, its alot harder to get into a group.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
For me, its not even about the rewards. Its about community. I don't care about loot rewards. I group for the social interaction and roleplaying. If everyone is soloing, its alot harder to get into a group.
All the more reason for you to want a game that balances rewards for solo and group play. That way you can group with people that want to group instead of those that feel they have too.
For me, its not even about the rewards. Its about community. I don't care about loot rewards. I group for the social interaction and roleplaying. If everyone is soloing, its alot harder to get into a group.
All the more reason for you to want a game that balances rewards for solo and group play. That way you can group with people that want to group instead of those that feel they have too.
Even better for him is to play a game where everyone shares the same ideals as he does!
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
The time to form the group needs to be included in the 100 hours Therefore a game that makes grouping easy will allow for more play.
Again, if you mean I play in a group for 10 hours, with 10 people and everyone of us gets the UBER hat, but the solo players has to play 100 hours solo to get the same hat, sounds fair to me.
If you mean I play in a group 100 hours to get the uber hat, and you can play solo 100 hours to get the uber hat, that's a solo game.
I would never bother to group in that game, it would be pointless.
For me, its not even about the rewards. Its about community. I don't care about loot rewards. I group for the social interaction and roleplaying. If everyone is soloing, its alot harder to get into a group.
All the more reason for you to want a game that balances rewards for solo and group play. That way you can group with people that want to group instead of those that feel they have too.
Even better for him is to play a game where everyone shares the same ideals as he does!
Did you take into consideration the people, like myself, that want to group when they have to, and don't want to group when they don't have to?
THe "have to" is the part that makes me want to group, and makes it fun.
Take out the "have to" and you've removed the obstacle that makes grouping fun.
Here, you have to get past this 12 foot wall. You can get a buddy, and he can give you a boost, you can reach the top, and then reach down to pull him up. Team work! It's fun.
Ok, here's a door in the wall. You can just open in and walk through. BUT, I'm not going to stop you from using team work! You can STILL climb over the wall if you want to!
Why would I want to? There's a door right there dummy.
The time to form the group needs to be included in the 100 hours Therefore a game that makes grouping easy will allow for more play.
Again, if you mean I play in a group for 10 hours, with 10 people and everyone of us gets the UBER hat, but the solo players has to play 100 hours solo to get the same hat, sounds fair to me.
If you mean I play in a group 100 hours to get the uber hat, and you can play solo 100 hours to get the uber hat, that's a solo game.
I would never bother to group in that game, it would be pointless.
Why should everyone in the group get the UBER hat? Your group should get one hat and they can then decide who gets it first. If they each want an UBER hat they need to play 100 hours each to much the effort put in by the solo player. No EAZY LOOTZ for them.
Did you take into consideration the people, like myself, that want to group when they have to, and don't want to group when they don't have to? THe "have to" is the part that makes me want to group, and makes it fun. Take out the "have to" and you've removed the obstacle that makes grouping fun. Here, you have to get past this 12 foot wall. You can get a buddy, and he can give you a boost, you can reach the top, and then reach down to pull him up. Team work! It's fun. Ok, here's a door in the wall. You can just open in and walk through. BUT, I'm not going to stop you from using team work! You can STILL climb over the wall if you want to! Why would I want to? There's a door right there dummy.
Sounds exactly like how it is for me o_0;
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Comments
It isn't that soloing and grouping are inherently irreconcilable "playstyles"; they are entirely reconcilable in many ways, through many different systems. What cannot be accommodated by such mechanisms is satisfying players that demand that ONLY their playstyle be rewarded with exclusive, superior rewards.
They believe they are entitled, by their playstyle, to superior rewards.
If this isn't the case, one playstyle will annihilate the other one, and nothing is solved.
Those solo players wouldn't even try the 'forced' group MMO if they didn't even want to try. It's not forcing 'against their will' if those players are given the choice to not to play the game in the first place. And you can't say players wouldn't try it out, although those stuck in the 'make everything a copy of <insert solo MMO here>' mindset probably wouldn't bother trying out new things.
This is not strictly true. Most games these days allow you to solo or group all the way through the game from level 1 to maximum level.
However, if you want the endgame gear, there is no solo content. All of a sudden the game changes from providing entertainment for both solo and group players, to providing entertainment for group and raid players and the solo players are left high and dry.
That's another type of 'forced grouping' that needs be fixed, but I don't care about it since I don't play such games.
My games are forced grouping from the get-go, players know this, and if they want to try they will play it, and if they think forced grouping sucks they won't play it. As simple as it gets, and it's hardly 'forced' at that point.
Yet almost every soloer in this thread thinks the exact same way and feels that there should not be any group specific activities whatsoever. Only their playstyle is acceptable and they crusade against any game that caters to a different crowd to impose their will on the game.
That is entirely untrue. Soloers, by and large, don't mind that there is group and raid-oriented content in games; nor do they care that groupers and raiders can get top rewards faster than them; what most soloers and casuals object to is that top rewards can **only** be gained by by the powergamer/grouper style of play.
Here's the difference: casuals and soloers aren't demanding equal access and speed to all areas of the game; they're willing to accept that it will take them longer in real time, and be harder to achieve equal rewards to groupers and powergamers - they just want a means of eventually achieving equal rewards even if they solo or play casually - even if they can't go into certain areas of the game that are reserved for raiding.
You guys keep re-wording and re-characterizing it to make it seem that what powergaming groupers want, and what soloers and casuals want, are equal but competing ideas; this is not true. Casuals and soloers are arguing for eventual EQUALITY of game rewards; powergamers and raiders are arguing for perpetual INEQUALITY of game rewards; they want casuals and soloers to continue to be coded out of ever being able to achieve equal reward.
The only real entitlement whores are the powergamers and groupers, because they want their playstyle to be entitled to exclusively superior rewards. The soloers and casuals are only asking for an **eventual** path to **equal** rewards, not an equally speedy path, or superior rewards.
The sad thing here is that a lot of you powergamers and groupers/raiders can't even see the point in playing if you cannot achieve exclusively superior rewards for your playstyle, but you expect soloers and casuals to play even though they have no hope of achieving them.
It's now wonder MMOGs are in such a sad state; look at the kind of players they attract. They can't even imagine playing a game where their playstyle doesn't get exclusively superior rewards, and they call other players, with different playstyles, who pay the same subscription rate "entitlement whores" because they want eventual access to **equal** rewards.
It's mind-boggling.
If this isn't the case, one playstyle will annihilate the other one, and nothing is solved.
Nothing will ever be "solved", in this case, for players that demand exclusively superior rewards for their playstyle. Games have been made, and can continue to be made to cater to their playstyle.
However, of course games can be made for groupers and soloers, casuals and hardcore players who do not **require** that their playstyle be exclusively rewarded with superior content. Such a game would appeal to all sorts playstyles, but would not appeal to all kinds of players. Obviously, players that need to feel superior wouldn't be attracted to such a game.
And I think that would make for a much better game community and a more fun gaming experience.
Until one playstyle withers away, that is.
Yet almost every soloer in this thread thinks the exact same way and feels that there should not be any group specific activities whatsoever. Only their playstyle is acceptable and they crusade against any game that caters to a different crowd to impose their will on the game.
I think you exagerrate.
If they are different they are not of equal value.
How do you come to this exactly equal value?
The in game impact of the items are the same. Example:
1 - Uber hat of solo mastery = +4AC = Plain old fishng hat graphic
2 - Uber hat of grouping greatness = +4AC = Wizard hat with stars flowing around it
3 - Uber hat of PVP pwner = +4AC = Crown with lightning pulsing between tips
4 - Uber hat of more money than brains = +4AC = Big pink chefs hat
The game effects are all the same (+4AC) but graphically they are different items. Its obvious who is good at solo, pvp, grouping and who has money to burn. Now when you need to group or do some new content game wise it won't matter how you got your loot so no one gets excluded.
Solo doesn't eqaul grouping, Grouping doesn't equal paying real life money, real life money doesn't equal PvP.
This isn't equal at all, by any measure, not even close.
Now you lost me. The rewards are identical the only question is to balance effort.
Are you saying that grouping is ALWAYS more effort than soloing????
If so - LOL
Group play varies depending on game design. No matter how the game is designed you can balance the effot requirements based on playstyle. No one will agree but you can do it. Personally I would do it based on time online
Example:
Solo play - 100 hours to get Uber hat of solo mastery
group play - 100 hours for entire group to get Ubert hat of group greatness (Depending on how loot is doled out this may mean some player get it faster than 100 hours)
PVP - 100 hours of pwning people to get Uber hat of pwning
Money - average player does 10 hours a week so 20 weeks subscrition cost (about $75 for a $15/Month game)
My point is thet equal effort , equal rewards no matter what the playstyle. The only true measure of game effort is time required to obtain the reward.
If they are different they are not of equal value.
How do you come to this exactly equal value?
The in game impact of the items are the same. Example:
1 - Uber hat of solo mastery = +4AC = Plain old fishng hat graphic
2 - Uber hat of grouping greatness = +4AC = Wizard hat with stars flowing around it
3 - Uber hat of PVP pwner = +4AC = Crown with lightning pulsing between tips
4 - Uber hat of more money than brains = +4AC = Big pink chefs hat
The game effects are all the same (+4AC) but graphically they are different items. Its obvious who is good at solo, pvp, grouping and who has money to burn. Now when you need to group or do some new content game wise it won't matter how you got your loot so no one gets excluded.
Solo doesn't eqaul grouping, Grouping doesn't equal paying real life money, real life money doesn't equal PvP.
This isn't equal at all, by any measure, not even close.
Now you lost me. The rewards are identical the only question is to balance effort.
Are you saying that grouping is ALWAYS more effort than soloing????
If so - LOL
Group play varies depending on game design. No matter how the game is designed you can balance the effot requirements based on playstyle. No one will agree but you can do it. Personally I would do it based on time online
Example:
Solo play - 100 hours to get Uber hat of solo mastery
group play - 100 hours for entire group to get Ubert hat of group greatness (Depending on how loot is doled out this may mean some player get it faster than 100 hours)
PVP - 100 hours of pwning people to get Uber hat of pwning
Money - average player does 10 hours a week so 20 weeks subscrition cost (about $75 for a $15/Month game)
My point is thet equal effort , equal rewards no matter what the playstyle. The only true measure of game effort is time required to obtain the reward.
people who only ever group cannot imagine why people would solo - they consider them inferior socially and ability wise. You will not break through to them, they cannot understand that solo play is a challenge, and that some people like challenges. They like to say we are casual players - but many of us solo players log as many or more hours/day/week as them.
Group play is not challenging, eh?
Best way to describe it succintly.
If YOU can solo, then the rules are the same for ME, and I might as well solo too. It's faster to solo that put together a group.
The only way to make it worthwhile to group, is make XP at least 4x more for group play than solo play. If you call that "forced grouping" then fine, I want a forced grouping game.
I agree with this; but think there needs to be a correction in the terminology - it is not FORCED grouping. No one forced anyone to play a team based game. The consumer CHOSE a team based game and then complains that it's team based. This is ridiculous for blaming the game for FORCING you - when one buys a team based game, one should expect team action or at least having the better stuff/more challenging stuff be team based. If everyone went into the games BECAUSE they wanted to play on teams then you have like-minded individuals who WANT to team.
To further the sports analogy; hearing someone complain that a team based mmo is not soloable is like someone wandering onto a football field and being mad that they can't hit a hole in one. There is no basis for complaints - what you want isn't mmo's to be more solo friendly - you want a different game altogether.
Ok, imagine this scenario.
You play Football.
It's the Super Bowl. The winner gets rewarded with money, a Super Bowl ring, etc.
Now, you can score points by playing in a team.
OR< we've now changed the rules so you can just get on the field all by yoru self, and run down the field and score touch downs.
You're still going to get in a team, because it's more fun right?
And fans will still come to watch you run down the field all by yourself, because it's the exact same game right?
If that's so much "fun" why don't we change the super bowl to a single player game?
It's because team games really suck and they only play in teams because they get rewarded right?
Taking away the rewards makes grouping pointless.
Just like giving the rewards to someone running down the field all by themselves to score touch downs, would make playing football in a team pointless.
How could you ever score as many touch downs as a team, as the guy that has the field all by himself to play solo? You could not.
This means the RULES of the game ahve changed, and it is no longer a TEAM based game.
That's what makes it fun, that it is a TEAM based game.
Take away the rewards, and you take away the RULES that make it a TEAM based game.
Lets use a better sports analogy.
How about the Olympics
I train my ass off and become the best damn Javelin thrower in the world. What do I get ,a gold medal.
I train my ass off with a relay team and we win what, a gold medal.
Why didn't I just throw javelins?
You see you make the mistake of looking at the game and not the reward. The Super Bowl can only be won by playing the team game of footbal but gold medals and world titles can be earned indivdually as well. The question is are you ready to put in the effort to reach the reward? The question isn't are you ready to team up cause that is the only way to get the reward. I don't need to change the rules to anyones game. I only need to make sure everyone can work for the equivalent (not the same) rewards.
Lets look at ths MMO style:
Player 1 - Solo's his ass off and achieves Uber hat of solo mastery
Player 2 - Gets his buddies together and get Uber hat of grouping greatness
Player 3 - Slaughters player 1 & 2 to obtain Uber hat of PVP pwner
Player 4 - Pays $50 and gets Uber hat of more money than brains
If the Uber hat has the same game play impact , took similar effort (except the purchased one) , but look different then all is fair.
Each player can proudly present his success for all to see sitting upon his head. Even better would be a player who could obtain all the uber hats! No player has had there game experience diminshed by being undergeared due to their playstyle.
The ONLY thing that would prevent group players from geting groups in this scenario would be if the game system made it far harder to get and keep a group going. So don't blame the rewards. If people don't group its because it is more effort than its worth not because soloing is easier.
Now NONE of this applies if the only game in town is grouping or solo but no new MMO is going to reduce its target market by excluding one of those subsets. (read this a football being the only option)
Goragg, you've made a logical and well-reasoned argument that will largely fall on deaf groupers' ears.
Why? Because, for some reason, if any reward that they achieved grouping can be acquired by any non-grouping method, even if it took a hundred times longer, you have somehow diminished their prize.
I've never really understood that point of view, but I can say that pro-groupers are firmly and rigidly entrenched in this position, and they will give no ears to any argument to the contrary.
Best way to describe it succintly.
If YOU can solo, then the rules are the same for ME, and I might as well solo too. It's faster to solo that put together a group.
The only way to make it worthwhile to group, is make XP at least 4x more for group play than solo play. If you call that "forced grouping" then fine, I want a forced grouping game.
I agree with this; but think there needs to be a correction in the terminology - it is not FORCED grouping. No one forced anyone to play a team based game. The consumer CHOSE a team based game and then complains that it's team based. This is ridiculous for blaming the game for FORCING you - when one buys a team based game, one should expect team action or at least having the better stuff/more challenging stuff be team based. If everyone went into the games BECAUSE they wanted to play on teams then you have like-minded individuals who WANT to team.
To further the sports analogy; hearing someone complain that a team based mmo is not soloable is like someone wandering onto a football field and being mad that they can't hit a hole in one. There is no basis for complaints - what you want isn't mmo's to be more solo friendly - you want a different game altogether.
I agree that if you join a group game don't expect them to make it solo.
I agree but current MMOs are not solo or group only. They attempt to reach all playstyles BUT they don't treat them all the same. Personally I think this whole disucssion is WOW's fault. They created a great solo game then screwed the soloer after they invested time to the cap by making only group content.
imagine the reverse. You join a new MMO that requires you to group to get to max level. You and your friends overcome all obstackes and attain the level cap. Now you faced with the endgame instances/challenges. These new challenges are solo only ! Oh ya you can group but the rewards aren't the same.
This is why a game that caters to all playstyles needs to reward them the same and balance progression equally.
Best way to describe it succintly.
If YOU can solo, then the rules are the same for ME, and I might as well solo too. It's faster to solo that put together a group.
The only way to make it worthwhile to group, is make XP at least 4x more for group play than solo play. If you call that "forced grouping" then fine, I want a forced grouping game.
I agree with this; but think there needs to be a correction in the terminology - it is not FORCED grouping. No one forced anyone to play a team based game. The consumer CHOSE a team based game and then complains that it's team based. This is ridiculous for blaming the game for FORCING you - when one buys a team based game, one should expect team action or at least having the better stuff/more challenging stuff be team based. If everyone went into the games BECAUSE they wanted to play on teams then you have like-minded individuals who WANT to team.
To further the sports analogy; hearing someone complain that a team based mmo is not soloable is like someone wandering onto a football field and being mad that they can't hit a hole in one. There is no basis for complaints - what you want isn't mmo's to be more solo friendly - you want a different game altogether.
I can agree with this for the most part. There is another option that may be what the OP was after. I did not read all 22 pages so if this was already addressed I apologise.
To make Group and Solo more balanced, the Solo player may be required to complete 10 missions to obtain the same reward the Group does once. This is random and it may even need to be 50 or somewhere in between.
It would not be fair to allow a Solo player to do ONE mission and get the same reward for a group to do. The key is to allow the Solo player to have the option to get the same rewards as a group but with extended effort. How that would be determined is yet another challenge and will never be accepted by ALL players Grouped or not...but then that is true for all existing MMOs.
Ok, imagine this scenario.
You play Football.
It's the Super Bowl. The winner gets rewarded with money, a Super Bowl ring, etc.
Now, you can score points by playing in a team.
OR< we've now changed the rules so you can just get on the field all by yoru self, and run down the field and score touch downs.
You're still going to get in a team, because it's more fun right?
And fans will still come to watch you run down the field all by yourself, because it's the exact same game right?
If that's so much "fun" why don't we change the super bowl to a single player game?
It's because team games really suck and they only play in teams because they get rewarded right?
Taking away the rewards makes grouping pointless.
Just like giving the rewards to someone running down the field all by themselves to score touch downs, would make playing football in a team pointless.
How could you ever score as many touch downs as a team, as the guy that has the field all by himself to play solo? You could not.
This means the RULES of the game ahve changed, and it is no longer a TEAM based game.
That's what makes it fun, that it is a TEAM based game.
Take away the rewards, and you take away the RULES that make it a TEAM based game.
Lets use a better sports analogy.
How about the Olympics
I train my ass off and become the best damn Javelin thrower in the world. What do I get ,a gold medal.
I train my ass off with a relay team and we win what, a gold medal.
Why didn't I just throw javelins?
You see you make the mistake of looking at the game and not the reward. The Super Bowl can only be won by playing the team game of footbal but gold medals and world titles can be earned indivdually as well. The question is are you ready to put in the effort to reach the reward? The question isn't are you ready to team up cause that is the only way to get the reward. I don't need to change the rules to anyones game. I only need to make sure everyone can work for the equivalent (not the same) rewards.
Lets look at ths MMO style:
Player 1 - Solo's his ass off and achieves Uber hat of solo mastery
Player 2 - Gets his buddies together and get Uber hat of grouping greatness
Player 3 - Slaughters player 1 & 2 to obtain Uber hat of PVP pwner
Player 4 - Pays $50 and gets Uber hat of more money than brains
If the Uber hat has the same game play impact , took similar effort (except the purchased one) , but look different then all is fair.
Each player can proudly present his success for all to see sitting upon his head. Even better would be a player who could obtain all the uber hats! No player has had there game experience diminshed by being undergeared due to their playstyle.
The ONLY thing that would prevent group players from geting groups in this scenario would be if the game system made it far harder to get and keep a group going. So don't blame the rewards. If people don't group its because it is more effort than its worth not because soloing is easier.
Now NONE of this applies if the only game in town is grouping or solo but no new MMO is going to reduce its target market by excluding one of those subsets. (read this a football being the only option)
Goragg, you've made a logical and well-reasoned argument that will largely fall on deaf groupers' ears.
Why? Because, for some reason, if any reward that they achieved grouping can be acquired by any non-grouping method, even if it took a hundred times longer, you have somehow diminished their prize.
I've never really understood that point of view, but I can say that pro-groupers are firmly and rigidly entrenched in this position, and they will give no ears to any argument to the contrary.
I would certainly not complain about that, if it took solo players 100 times longer to do something, but they could do everything in the game a group could do.
In fact, I'd say that was to hard on solo players.
10 x is more than enough, 100 times is way to much.
I'm happy with this set up.
I can get in a group, and we can do quests or grind mobs that give us say 1,000 xp each.
The solo player can't do this content at his level, it's to hard. The solo player has to do content that gives hiim 100 xp each, or maybe 200 or 300, something like that.
However, as the solo players levels up, he can go back and do the same content the Group was doing, getting the 1,000 xp points.
Only now the group has moved on, made a few levels, and they are doing content that gives them 2,000 xp points a piece, and so on.
Same with dungeons and loot. As you level up, you can do dungeons solo, but the drops are only going to be so so for your level. For the best gear you can wear for your level or skill leve, you need to group.
I think that's adequate reward for grouping, and still lets you solo the game if you want to.
The problem is, this is the exact set up where solo'ers cry "forced grouping".
OMG! I can't level as fast as groups! It's Forced grouping!! OMG!! QQ!! I can't get the exact same loot drops as groupers! It's forced grouping!!! !!QQ
If they are different they are not of equal value.
How do you come to this exactly equal value?
The in game impact of the items are the same. Example:
1 - Uber hat of solo mastery = +4AC = Plain old fishng hat graphic
2 - Uber hat of grouping greatness = +4AC = Wizard hat with stars flowing around it
3 - Uber hat of PVP pwner = +4AC = Crown with lightning pulsing between tips
4 - Uber hat of more money than brains = +4AC = Big pink chefs hat
The game effects are all the same (+4AC) but graphically they are different items. Its obvious who is good at solo, pvp, grouping and who has money to burn. Now when you need to group or do some new content game wise it won't matter how you got your loot so no one gets excluded.
Solo doesn't eqaul grouping, Grouping doesn't equal paying real life money, real life money doesn't equal PvP.
This isn't equal at all, by any measure, not even close.
Now you lost me. The rewards are identical the only question is to balance effort.
Are you saying that grouping is ALWAYS more effort than soloing????
If so - LOL
Group play varies depending on game design. No matter how the game is designed you can balance the effot requirements based on playstyle. No one will agree but you can do it. Personally I would do it based on time online
Example:
Solo play - 100 hours to get Uber hat of solo mastery
group play - 100 hours for entire group to get Ubert hat of group greatness (Depending on how loot is doled out this may mean some player get it faster than 100 hours)
PVP - 100 hours of pwning people to get Uber hat of pwning
Money - average player does 10 hours a week so 20 weeks subscrition cost (about $75 for a $15/Month game)
My point is thet equal effort , equal rewards no matter what the playstyle. The only true measure of game effort is time required to obtain the reward.
IMO, this is a solo game.
Unless, you mean that I get 10 people in a group, we play 10 hours, that's 100 hours combined, we ALL get the uber hat.
VS, the solo player has to play 100 hours solo to get the same hat. I play in a 10 person group (easy for math) all day for 10 hours, and all 10 people get the hat. The solo person has to play 10 hours a day for 10 days to get teh same hat. It's a deal.
if that's what you mean, sure that sounds fair to me.
if you mean, each person in the group has to play for 100 hours to get the hat, then that's just a solo game. If you mean the group plays 10 hours and gets ONE hat to split, that's a solo game.
The group will have to play 100 hours to get 10 hats, one hat each.
The solo player will have to play 100 hours to get a hat of equal power.
THat's a solo game. The group will waste an additional 100 hours forming and keeping groups together over time, it would be stupid to group for the hat. I would solo that game.
The time to form the group needs to be included in the 100 hours Therefore a game that makes grouping easy will allow for more play.
For me, its not even about the rewards. Its about community. I don't care about loot rewards. I group for the social interaction and roleplaying. If everyone is soloing, its alot harder to get into a group.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
All the more reason for you to want a game that balances rewards for solo and group play. That way you can group with people that want to group instead of those that feel they have too.
All the more reason for you to want a game that balances rewards for solo and group play. That way you can group with people that want to group instead of those that feel they have too.
Even better for him is to play a game where everyone shares the same ideals as he does!
Again, if you mean I play in a group for 10 hours, with 10 people and everyone of us gets the UBER hat, but the solo players has to play 100 hours solo to get the same hat, sounds fair to me.
If you mean I play in a group 100 hours to get the uber hat, and you can play solo 100 hours to get the uber hat, that's a solo game.
I would never bother to group in that game, it would be pointless.
All the more reason for you to want a game that balances rewards for solo and group play. That way you can group with people that want to group instead of those that feel they have too.
Even better for him is to play a game where everyone shares the same ideals as he does!
Did you take into consideration the people, like myself, that want to group when they have to, and don't want to group when they don't have to?
THe "have to" is the part that makes me want to group, and makes it fun.
Take out the "have to" and you've removed the obstacle that makes grouping fun.
Here, you have to get past this 12 foot wall. You can get a buddy, and he can give you a boost, you can reach the top, and then reach down to pull him up. Team work! It's fun.
Ok, here's a door in the wall. You can just open in and walk through. BUT, I'm not going to stop you from using team work! You can STILL climb over the wall if you want to!
Why would I want to? There's a door right there dummy.
Again, if you mean I play in a group for 10 hours, with 10 people and everyone of us gets the UBER hat, but the solo players has to play 100 hours solo to get the same hat, sounds fair to me.
If you mean I play in a group 100 hours to get the uber hat, and you can play solo 100 hours to get the uber hat, that's a solo game.
I would never bother to group in that game, it would be pointless.
Why should everyone in the group get the UBER hat? Your group should get one hat and they can then decide who gets it first. If they each want an UBER hat they need to play 100 hours each to much the effort put in by the solo player. No EAZY LOOTZ for them.
Sounds exactly like how it is for me o_0;