This thing called soloing in MMO's is caused by player demand, because people have changed over the years. I know myself, I don't play the way I used to in 2000. Back then I loved grouping with strangers, I didn't mind having nothing to do when there was no group to be had. But then back then 3D MMO's were new and people were willing to put up with a lot of stuff, not to mention we were younger back then. These days I find myself not wanting to deal with people I don't know, so I mostly group with people I know only, otherwise soloing by myself.
Well at least you admit that reason you don't group is due to anti-social choices, something 'some' soloists have continually tried to deny.
I love to socialize when I'm soloing. Chatting is an acceptable means of socializing in anyone's book or do you consider soloers like me to be delusional? I would love to see the evidence that supports your conclusion that the majority of soloers are anti-social, please, anything.
In this case, a socializing soloist wouldn't be considered anti-social. But read post #276 (I think that's the post, it talks about an experience I had in Silkroad Online). That case was an anti-social soloist, and on a group-centric game it didn't turn out well in that situation.
A soloist that actively avoids others and doesn't talk to others would be consider anti-social. But one that could stomach the idea of some sort of interaction isn't considered anti-social.
Remember this, socializing with strangers on an MMO really is different than in real life. On an MMO, grouping with strangers will happen quite often, you'll have to get used to that on a group-centric game (or basically in any game that has grouping in it). Not talking to strangers in real life isn't anti-social neccessarily, since who know what that stranger would do to you in real life. But on an MMO, you'll deal with strangers quite often, and if you actively avoid any form of socializing with others online, that could be considered anti-social online. Mardy could be considered part of that group, but that doesn't make him (or her?) bad. It just mean that Mardy is somewhat anti-social online, he/she doesn't like doing anything with a stranger that could simply just want to talk to him/her for a little while.
The point is that Greenie and others try to make that representative of soloers in general with absolutely no data to back it up. It's called stereotyping and cannot even be used as a general consensus. And even if it were remotely true, how does that invalidate their play style or the need of the genre to cater to it? If that's where the money is, it will happen no matter how much you people hate it.
It would be no different than those people who go to malls to 'people watch', a soloer surrounded by many, but not interacting and still having a good time by not being alone.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
This thing called soloing in MMO's is caused by player demand, because people have changed over the years. I know myself, I don't play the way I used to in 2000. Back then I loved grouping with strangers, I didn't mind having nothing to do when there was no group to be had. But then back then 3D MMO's were new and people were willing to put up with a lot of stuff, not to mention we were younger back then. These days I find myself not wanting to deal with people I don't know, so I mostly group with people I know only, otherwise soloing by myself.
Well at least you admit that reason you don't group is due to anti-social choices, something 'some' soloists have continually tried to deny.
I love to socialize when I'm soloing. Chatting is an acceptable means of socializing in anyone's book or do you consider soloers like me to be delusional? I would love to see the evidence that supports your conclusion that the majority of soloers are anti-social, please, anything.
Do you read this poorly when you're chatting in game too? I was talking to HIM specifically by the green highlighted comment , and you'll notice the second comment I highlighted yellow where I stated said SOME not majority. I even color coated them so you wouldn't get them confused.
As to your other post. Yea, using vocabulary as a means of clarifying someone's message in a conversation is clearly the same thing as posing as a psychologist.... Please use up the whole slew of logical fallacies so you can continue to not add anything of worth to the discussion or prove any point other than you really have no argument, just insults and misquotes.
Read post #291 on this thread for a more professional take on why that poll is quite invalid when dealing with whether people believe solo gameplay or group game play is more important. I'm not being sarcastic, but I do point out professional views on why that poll was quite flawed.
I apologize I didnt represent my point properly Ramen. I may have added a bit of showmanship to that nonsense, but come on. That was totally noncontextual response. It was perpetrated as a survey that represented the topic specifically. My professionalism?!? RamenThief! lol Ok, ill reel it in then I think I made my point. You even commented on it.
This site has alot of different voices speaking from the same platform. MMO's. PvP'ers, PvE'ers, FPS'ers, RTS'ers, and every variation of playstyle within those camps and more im missing(space reasons), apologetically. Those following along get the point. This site is absolutlely a cross section of MMO gamers. Polls dont need to ask every single person, only a suitable sampling of potential participants.
A valid survey requires an unbiased sampling. Any poll from a site like this is subject to self selection bias. . Any concusion based on the poll about the overall MMO population is suspect at best. Thats what a margin of error is for, -/+. Its not gonna be exact. Who should we poll about MMO's? People who eat cheesburgers? People who have green cars? You ask MMO players and you get an answer. I dont ask do you or do you not like Ulitma Online, cause that doesnt answer my question. Im pretty much WTF on this That is because you don't look for real research. Here is a link of MMORPG research done by Nick Yee, who has research in this space extensive, on the subject of what MMO players want. His sampling is a lot BETTER and BIGGER than looking at a few people on forum threads. And you don't have numbers (you mention margin of errors, what are they? give me the numbers) .. while he does. http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001630.php Quest content is ranked #1 of what MMO players want. SOLO content is #3. Social tools is #10 & Grouping is #12. If you look at the percentages, Quest/SOLO > grouping by almost a 2 to 1 margin. There is your data.
Super. Now lets cut away all the BS and get a real survery.
89% of 500 people voted for other choices.
You're not serious? So what does the other 89% think? They dont care? That could be right? Hmmm...
If its a group game with special attention to thier importance its kewl, right? Who knows, they didnt answer that.
Maybe they are fine with a soloist game? Who knows, they didnt answer that.
Im glad you posted this. Another clear vantage point, besides just 'random' nobodys across several MMO/Gaming website forums. We couldnt possible take them seriously. NO WAY!! Fakes. Frauds. Im not a real person who has a voice. Thanks! WEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
I probably wouldnt have voted for group either, entirely. Hell, I like alot of that shit on that list. I think alot of it is important. Im not gonna play a game that has us all standing in a group holding hands. That other stuff needs to be good too. Besides that, if you say to me MMOG, im gonna instantly think Massively Multiplayer Online Game. That description has Multiplayers in it. Likely and most importantly doing shit together!
Wow, you sure are an arrogant puss aren't ya.
Real survey, huh? Don't you mean one that agrees with your opinion, that is.
Please, since you are obviously an experienced and professional poller, why don't you come up with the real numbers and prove it. Personally, I'll take that websites credentials over yours anyday.
Read post #291 on this thread for a more professional take on why that poll is quite invalid when dealing with whether people believe solo gameplay or group game play is more important. I'm not being sarcastic, but I do point out professional views on why that poll was quite flawed.
What are you talking about? They were asked what primary game play aspect they prefer most in an MMO. It doesn't have to be a direct comparison between solo and group play to be valid. A list was given of different aspects of game play and people chose what was most important to them. Looking at the results, it certainly matches the current trends in MMO's, go figure.
Sorry, quoted the wrong post.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Read post #291 on this thread for a more professional take on why that poll is quite invalid when dealing with whether people believe solo gameplay or group game play is more important. I'm not being sarcastic, but I do point out professional views on why that poll was quite flawed.
I apologize I didnt represent my point properly Ramen. I may have added a bit of showmanship to that nonsense, but come on. That was totally noncontextual response. It was perpetrated as a survey that represented the topic specifically. My professionalism?!? RamenThief! lol Ok, ill reel it in then I think I made my point. You even commented on it.
I don't mean to make fun of you also Demonshank. By "professional" I just meant it would be more clear and straight to the point. You made a good point too, it was just buried under alot of shrewd (but funny) remarks.
This site has alot of different voices speaking from the same platform. MMO's. PvP'ers, PvE'ers, FPS'ers, RTS'ers, and every variation of playstyle within those camps and more im missing(space reasons), apologetically. Those following along get the point. This site is absolutlely a cross section of MMO gamers. Polls dont need to ask every single person, only a suitable sampling of potential participants.
A valid survey requires an unbiased sampling. Any poll from a site like this is subject to self selection bias. . Any concusion based on the poll about the overall MMO population is suspect at best. Thats what a margin of error is for, -/+. Its not gonna be exact. Who should we poll about MMO's? People who eat cheesburgers? People who have green cars? You ask MMO players and you get an answer. I dont ask do you or do you not like Ulitma Online, cause that doesnt answer my question. Im pretty much WTF on this That is because you don't look for real research. Here is a link of MMORPG research done by Nick Yee, who has research in this space extensive, on the subject of what MMO players want. His sampling is a lot BETTER and BIGGER than looking at a few people on forum threads. And you don't have numbers (you mention margin of errors, what are they? give me the numbers) .. while he does. http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001630.php Quest content is ranked #1 of what MMO players want. SOLO content is #3. Social tools is #10 & Grouping is #12. If you look at the percentages, Quest/SOLO > grouping by almost a 2 to 1 margin. There is your data.
Super. Now lets cut away all the BS and get a real survery.
89% of 500 people voted for other choices.
You're not serious? So what does the other 89% think? They dont care? That could be right? Hmmm...
If its a group game with special attention to thier importance its kewl, right? Who knows, they didnt answer that.
Maybe they are fine with a soloist game? Who knows, they didnt answer that.
Im glad you posted this. Another clear vantage point, besides just 'random' nobodys across several MMO/Gaming website forums. We couldnt possible take them seriously. NO WAY!! Fakes. Frauds. Im not a real person who has a voice. Thanks! WEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
I probably wouldnt have voted for group either, entirely. Hell, I like alot of that shit on that list. I think alot of it is important. Im not gonna play a game that has us all standing in a group holding hands. That other stuff needs to be good too. Besides that, if you say to me MMOG, im gonna instantly think Massively Multiplayer Online Game. That description has Multiplayers in it. Likely and most importantly doing shit together!
Wow, you sure are an arrogant puss aren't ya.
Real survey, huh? Don't you mean one that agrees with your opinion, that is.
Please, since you are obviously an experienced and professional poller, why don't you come up with the real numbers and prove it. Personally, I'll take that websites credentials over yours anyday.
Read post #291 on this thread for a more professional take on why that poll is quite invalid when dealing with whether people believe solo gameplay or group game play is more important. I'm not being sarcastic, but I do point out professional views on why that poll was quite flawed.
What are you talking about? They were asked what would one primary thing they like to see most in an MMO. It doesn't have to be a direct comparison between solo and group play to be valid. A list was given of different aspects of game play and people chose what was most important to them. Looking at the results, it certainly matches the current trends in MMO's, go figure.
The reason I argue over why the poll was invalid was because the poll was originally brought up by someone as a tool to try to show that solo play was considered more important than group play by the majority of gamers. My assessment on post #291 was that the poll wasn't a good comparison tool in that matter because the poll asked a variety of things that the person considered very important inside a game. Personally, I would've voted harder difficulties to be more important than even group play.
Edit Part: I noticed you edited the part I quoted from you. Basically, #291 showed that the poll was invalid when dealing with the question of whether the majority of gamers thought that solo play was more important or whether group play was more important.
What are you talking about? They were asked what primary game play aspect they prefer most in an MMO. It doesn't have to be a direct comparison between solo and group play to be valid. A list was given of different aspects of game play and people chose what was most important to them. Looking at the results, it certainly matches the current trends in MMO's, go figure. Sorry, quoted the wrong post.
Parts of the survey you left out or chose to ignore.
Casual Content (6%): More casual-friendly content. More content for small groups. Low-level content.
Grouping (4%): Content for small groups. Content that fosters cooperation among players. Player interaction more integral to gaming.
High-Level Content (2%): Content for large raids. Challenging endgame content.
12% of those polled chose an option for GROUP content. 12 is greater than 7 is it not?
-----
Quests (9%): More interesting quests. Quests with variable outcomes. Quests that involve trade skills. Quests that drive social interaction. Quests that utilize logic9% chose quests that drive social interaction.
Social Tools (5%): Ability to build houses or social spaces. Group transportation. Collective player-created content. Social events tools.
5% chose an option with GROUP transportation.
So even though these do not specifically state they are voting for group content to be added these people voted an answer that includes group mechanics being added.
The creator of the survey even states: Given the open-ended format of this question, there was no easy way to analyze a large amount of data. On the other hand, small samples usually lead to uneven spikes in the data, but we don't really see that here. Responses were pretty evenly spread out, so one conclusion is that in general players do not perceive MMOs as needing one single important thing.
So your argument that soloer's are in the majority is even refuted by this guy who's credibility you endorse as no one thing,aspect of gameplay dominates.
I even color coded this one for you so you could find it easier to understand. Green= my comments. Yellow = the survey Red = Survey creator's analysis.
What are you talking about? They were asked what primary game play aspect they prefer most in an MMO. It doesn't have to be a direct comparison between solo and group play to be valid. A list was given of different aspects of game play and people chose what was most important to them. Looking at the results, it certainly matches the current trends in MMO's, go figure. Sorry, quoted the wrong post.
Yes it does need to be a direct comparison, when quoted in the context of This discussion. It most certainly does. That is exactly what it was quoted to portray. It was also quickly debased, no later than the second line in my response. When 89% of the total had 23 other choices to choose from. While I go on to point out exactly why it does not appropriately fit in this discussion at all the way it was quoted.
Sure it does. You could also break down every group there and further poll them specifically on what their importance on execution(quests:what type, how many, fed-ex, kill x, yadda, yadda, yadda) per category. The results would look like broken glass. This discussion however doesnt belong here, just pointing it out.
This survey is probably more appropriate for this discussion www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001645.php Solo is ranked higher than grouping but the difference is rather small. The main thing I take from the survey is that there were very few 100% solo or 100% group players.
Well it's rated higher vs. 6 other groups categories too keep in mind. But thank you for the post.
That's what I hate about games today. They keep adding in more and more solo content because they assume there is a huge population of solo-only players. Instead of making 1000 stupid quests, I wish they'd make 250 epic quests for the soloer and create more SMALL group content with the other amount of time/energy they have.
This survey is probably more appropriate for this discussion www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001645.php Solo is ranked higher than grouping but the difference is rather small. The main thing I take from the survey is that there were very few 100% solo or 100% group players.
Well it's rated higher vs. 6 other groups categories too keep in mind. But thank you for the post.
That's what I hate about games today. They keep adding in more and more solo content because they assume there is a huge population of solo-only players. Instead of making 1000 stupid quests, I wish they'd make 250 epic quests for the soloer and create more SMALL group content with the other amount of time/energy they have.
Actually it is not rated against each other. Each catagory was rated 1-5 individually. Small group content was rated less than full group and solo.
What I take from the survey is that most players prefer doing both group and solo content.
What is lacking in most games today is more than a tiny number of epic quests for the soloer. The kill 10 rats gets old no matter if your are in a group or solo. At least in the games I have played the number of solo dungeons I can count on one hand.
In this case, a socializing soloist wouldn't be considered anti-social. But read post #276 (I think that's the post, it talks about an experience I had in Silkroad Online). That case was an anti-social soloist, and on a group-centric game it didn't turn out well in that situation. A soloist that actively avoids others and doesn't talk to others would be consider anti-social. But one that could stomach the idea of some sort of interaction isn't considered anti-social. Remember this, socializing with strangers on an MMO really is different than in real life. On an MMO, grouping with strangers will happen quite often, you'll have to get used to that on a group-centric game (or basically in any game that has grouping in it). Not talking to strangers in real life isn't anti-social neccessarily, since who know what that stranger would do to you in real life. But on an MMO, you'll deal with strangers quite often, and if you actively avoid any form of socializing with others online, that could be considered anti-social online. Mardy could be considered part of that group, but that doesn't make him (or her?) bad. It just mean that Mardy is somewhat anti-social online, he/she doesn't like doing anything with a stranger that could simply just want to talk to him/her for a little while.
I've made the point before that just because you're in a group doesn't make you social. I've been in plenty of groups with people who never talk to anyone else, they're only in the group to use everyone else to get XP and loot. Beyond that, they couldn't care less about what the group does and as soon as the group decides to do something they don't want to do, they leave the group and go elsewhere.
People really need to separate the idea of "solo/group" from "social/anti-social", they are simply not the same thing.
I've made the point before that just because you're in a group doesn't make you social. I've been in plenty of groups with people who never talk to anyone else, they're only in the group to use everyone else to get XP and loot. Beyond that, they couldn't care less about what the group does and as soon as the group decides to do something they don't want to do, they leave the group and go elsewhere. People really need to separate the idea of "solo/group" from "social/anti-social", they are simply not the same thing.
It's not a matter of seperating the idea. Some soloers are social. Some are not. The act of soloing without being a necessity, is an act that displays an anti-social trait. That doesn't automatically make them anti-social.
When a person joins a group, there is no way to tell if they are social or not, are they normally a soloer or not. Did they just join the group because they need to accomplish something that the game requires a group. Do they speak english? Are they in vent speaking with their friends and don't feel like typing? Point is you don't ever know why a person will not speak to you in a group, and yes just because a person is in your group doesn't mean they're going to be social.
Only when you try to label "everyone" to one standard of behavior do you run into that discrepancy. If you look at the general population of a playstyle you can get an idea.
Most players are social. Whether they are groupers or soloers. You are probably going to find more anti-social behavior or reasons for soloing, out of soloers than you will groupers.
The problem comes in when people who solo because of these traits try to deny they're anti-social because it might give groupers any foothold in a discussion.
I've made the point before that just because you're in a group doesn't make you social. I've been in plenty of groups with people who never talk to anyone else, they're only in the group to use everyone else to get XP and loot. Beyond that, they couldn't care less about what the group does and as soon as the group decides to do something they don't want to do, they leave the group and go elsewhere. People really need to separate the idea of "solo/group" from "social/anti-social", they are simply not the same thing.
HOLY %$^%$!!!!!
Alright, quick fuckin around with Cephus' computer! I know its not you Cephus, cause a point was made....and a good point at that!
Well done. Now log out, seriously, you're not Cephus
I do not have time to finish all pages of discussion, it is interesting read, till, I have to prepare and log out. I have a plane to catch in a few, hoping it is not delayed any more.
To the OP: a few points you might want to consider.
(1) RPG is role playing game. Some roles might be soloist. Imagine a thief. It is absurd for me to consider a thief teaming with a paladin, except it is part of a story. Yes in some solo RPG, I was in a plot to team with a paladin when I am from the dark side, that is a quest. But to imagine day in day out random PUGGing a thief, it totally ruins the role of a thief.
(2) Solo game play does not affect your grouping, at least in terms of gameplay. You need to group to get the gear, he can solo it. Lets assume its the same gear, for simplicity of argument. How does that affect your gameplay? If you enjoy grouping you can still group, and still get what you want at the end. Mr A gets it soloing, so what? Jealousy?
(3) People who wants to solo and does not want to group, or only groups with friend not including you, will never group with you anyway. Why do you care if they solo or group with friends exclusively. Your gaming depends on your social links. If you have friends you can depend on them. If you want to PUG, then you accept the risk that PUG formation is random.
(4) Gaming is an offhour leisure, not a race. If a pet class solo to max level faster than your healer, so bloody what? He gets to enjoy all 80 levels like you do. You do not lose a second of enjoyment as you work towards your goal. Jealousy aside. Fact is, he gets to burn out faster than you. Also if you are a healer class you can do things he can never do, and that is, welcome by people who need a healer. Maybe he is jealous when people form interesting raids, and insist on filling the healer roles first before considering hunter vs other dps classes.
(5) As for the argument that soloing is easy, I think you have it upside down. If you solo, you generally can only pull 1 or 2, and only mobs of the similar level. You need to dodge mobs, move slowly. You need downtime, or lots of food drinks. You need preparation, you will have no buffs. If you have a mistake when pulling, if you DC, you die. If you are in a group, you can zerg your way thru. You can pull more mobs, higher level mobs, and be assured that you can go afk on and off and still live. For same content, more players makes it easier than less. More players = more kills, faster kills = more drops and generally better chance of getting some drops you wanted. A good group of 5 can kill > 5 times the mobs of a soloist. Imagine wow. Even a hunter with a pet cannot kill 20% as fast as a AoE tank+priest+3xAoEs. Down time factored in.
(6) Your idea of RPGs always grouping with NPCs, that is not true. One of the first few "sandbox" RPG is called Arena, in which you solo everything. Diablo is another (you may call it RPG or not). In Might and Magic as well as SirTech's RPGs, you form your team and that is it. You do not team with random NPCs except for some rare quests or storyline. Ok if you create your own definition and define those as adventure games fine. Most people do not think so. Diablo maybe called a hack and slash but it has more RPG features than just that, it has character progression, it has gear set, it has talent trees. If you want to play semantics, ywmw.
(7) If you want to take WoW as an illustration, then look at it this way. WoW provides both solo content (dailies, many solo quests, harvesting, crafting) and grouped content (raids, some group quests, pvp). You can do both. Raiders can dip in solo content for whatever reason (recouping raid repair costs, collecting mats for potions ...). Arguing about the propotion of group vs solo content is a bit ridiculous. Fact is, all content is open to all, or actually, solo content is open to all, while grouped content requires a group, unless you grossly out levelled it.
(8) If you group in solo content, you do it for fun. It takes a hit in xp? So what? Now you sound like you are another minimaxer, jealous of someone else levelling faster than you. Why are you so concerned with xp hit, with someone else getting gear easier than you? If you have fun, go play, if not find another game, another hobbit. You sound like someone holding a picnic party but constantly looking over your shoulder feeling jealous about the roast turkey the other camp is preparing for dinner. Grouping makes it easier? Sure, so what? You can only enjoy it when its hard? Then find a higher level instance and group, if you must group and need challenge. Take WoW. You can enter the Scarelet Monastry at level 20. Even with the best level 20 group, best geared, most experienced, you will find it very hard to get it done at level 20. Are you challenged enough?
Should there be soloing? Should soloing be the main aspect you ask. What is main aspect? In EQ2, I was once in a guild in which one lady player focus straightly on crafting. She is the guild crafter, maxing all crafts with alts. That is her main aspect. Yes, she solos.
Should there be soloing, should soloing be possible in the main story line to level max? Who should decide it? The producer. Games are shelf products, like canned soups or frozen meat. Pick the one you like and leave others to make their own choices.
Grouping has nothing to do with being social. The fact of the matter is that grouping or soloing is a personal choice and calling people antisocial because of it has no real basis. Antisocial is a broad spectrum of behaviors and not wanting to play a game with random strangers is not one of them.
The fact is that most people, solo or group oriented, play MMOs specifically for the social aspect. Because let's face it, MMOs cannot even compare to the depth, game play and graphics of single player games. Technologically, most MMOs are years behind single player games, so there really is no real reason for an antisocial person to play an MMO, when he can find a better product.
I mean, if you do not want to play with other people, why pay a monthly fee and play a sub par game, right? So maybe, just maybe, the solo gamers are not antisocial after all. I mean, they are paying money to play a sub par social game. The social aspect is what attracts most people to MMOs and not the ability to run repetitive content and maybe the people who solo, find different aspects of MMOs fun?
Maybe they are more independent. Or maybe they just want to move at their own pace. Why can't we just deal with the fact that people are different and like different things? Why must we go to extremes and use wacky logic and baseless assumptions to point out that just because someone likes something else, then there is something wrong with them?
It's all about choice. When given the opportunity to make a decision, some people will choose different paths and you, and I, will just have to learn to accept it.
As far as being antisocial goes, the closest thing to real antisocial behavior in MMOs is griefing.
Your original post was a bit of a rant, but I have to agree with you. I think the real problem with grouping in popular MMORPG's lay at the feet of the Devs who create the game while lacking a clear concise list of reasons for people to group, and the benefits they get from it.
As for solo game play, I think it's a necessary part of any MMO made these days to accomodate the casual player that comes home from work, has only a couple of hours to kill due to school work / social responsibilities, and wouldn't play the game otherwise (and wouldn't pay the monthly fee) if they couldn't get anything meaningful done in those spare 2 hours. If I were a game publisher, I'd be shooting myself in the foot by telling those players they'd get nothing done in my product.
That said, I see 3 clear and glaring issues that Devs have consistantly missed in most of the successful MMORPG's to date revolving around grouping.
1) Lower level - mid level dungeons. If people are going to outgrow the loot rewards rapidly and can replace worn items with crafted gear or quest related gear in a short amount of time, then what's the point of bothering with grouping for those dungeons? Everquest initially demanded that people obtain strange monster drops that could ONLY be found in the depths of dungeons for quests that would combine them into class specific armor rewards. While a player could get by and level up for a long time using just drop items or crafted items, if you wanted to take the initial step into raiding you had to go visit some places (or pay people who had the items, which was usually overpriced). What happened in EQ back then? Those zones were camped to death by major guilds, who train people trying to set a foothold inside, and then sell the items at whatever price the market can carry. No thanks. Warcraft and other games got away from this idea and now they have dungeons no one cares about. 2) Instead of split shared experience hitting a lower ratio when one or more people group together to do overland monster kill grinding, it should go UP significantly to MAKE players want to seek out pickup groups for afternoons of mindless leveling. A person with only a couple of hours to solo should be able to make some strides in leveling, but the game rules should be in place so that if that person had more time to kill to commit with a group, that it would be by far in their best interest to do it. So, the mimimaxer will just pug everything and rush to the end, all are one off random PUGs, no talk no nothing just group, kill, disband or next dunegon. Again, Warcraft and certain other successful games got away from this too. Dark Age of Camelot was the last game I played where players were put into this situation and oh snap! Players didn't treat each other like jerks and CARED about their in game reputations. The real reputation issue lies in the end game raid, if you are known to be a ninjer, a jerk, you won't get to good raid guilds, you won't get to masterloot a pug, you will be shunned by most good players, who do not want to carry you thru. Early day instances are just warm up exercises. 3) A Catch-all purpose of doing group questing as opposed to solo questing would be a "wouldn't it be cool?" idea of lower level and mid level quests granting rewards might later require those rewards for "upgrades" through higher level group quests, or the lower to mid level quests might be required to open up new quests that would allow for very desirable rewards in higher level dungeons. Players should be encouraged through ALL levels of a game to discover that the "best stuff" is gained from group effort, and that the rules of the game setting that up start off early in character careers. WoW has achievement which encourages everyone to at least try some major low level instances once.
Those are just my thoughts. The bottom line is that if a game launches without a clear vision of why people should be grouping weighed against what can be gained from solo play, it's asking for trouble. And that game vision should be made clear to the players through early level content and followed through to the endgame.
Anything that puts us in a situation that makes players interact with each other in a MMO is worth while. Grouping is an easy way to do that, yes it often fails in that aim but I don’t expect perfection.
In SW’s you had to go and see a doctor and entertainer to get healed apparently, another fine way to get some player interaction. In EQ you could learn race languages by being around when other people who spoke in them. PvP is another great form of player interaction.
That’s what this is all about, it is not a MMO if you just see players running past you or standing next to you at a trader. The point of playing online is the enormous potential playing with other players have, soloing is the antithesis of that potential.
Anything that puts us in a situation that makes players interact with each other in a MMO is worth while. Grouping is an easy way to do that, yes it often fails in that aim but I don’t expect perfection. In SW’s you had to go and see a doctor and entertainer to get healed apparently, another fine way to get some player interaction. In EQ you could learn race languages by being around when other people who spoke in them. PvP is another great form of player interaction. That’s what this is all about, it is not a MMO if you just see players running past you or standing next to you at a trader. The point of playing online is the enormous potential playing with other players have, soloing is the antithesis of that potential.
A great example of player interaction in EQ1 pre-pop is transport, people having to use Druids and Wizard's to port you about, it was great, giving a real feel of size and mini economy out of it.
Anything that puts us in a situation that makes players interact with each other in a MMO is worth while. Grouping is an easy way to do that, yes it often fails in that aim but I don’t expect perfection. In SW’s you had to go and see a doctor and entertainer to get healed apparently, another fine way to get some player interaction. In EQ you could learn race languages by being around when other people who spoke in them. PvP is another great form of player interaction. That’s what this is all about, it is not a MMO if you just see players running past you or standing next to you at a trader. The point of playing online is the enormous potential playing with other players have, soloing is the antithesis of that potential.
A great example of player interaction in EQ1 pre-pop is transport, people having to use Druids and Wizard's to port you about, it was great, giving a real feel of size and mini economy out of it.
Regarding SWG and the whole healer, entertainer debacle... I was there in beta when they "tried this out". You had to wait in line for an Entertainer or Doctor class to heal you before you could go out and play again. THESE PEOPLE WERE CHARGING FOR IT!!! Charging you to just stand in line, while they hit a macro. You literally couldn't play(kill things) until another player allowed you to;) Lets just say that concept never got out of beta=) Anyone who would approve of something so asinine is nutty. About as fun as waiting for a boat for 20 minutes, or requiring other players to allow you the courtesy of travel=) SImply astounding how little value some people put on their in-game time.
Anything that puts us in a situation that makes players interact with each other in a MMO is worth while. Grouping is an easy way to do that, yes it often fails in that aim but I don’t expect perfection. In SW’s you had to go and see a doctor and entertainer to get healed apparently, another fine way to get some player interaction. In EQ you could learn race languages by being around when other people who spoke in them. PvP is another great form of player interaction. That’s what this is all about, it is not a MMO if you just see players running past you or standing next to you at a trader. The point of playing online is the enormous potential playing with other players have, soloing is the antithesis of that potential.
A great example of player interaction in EQ1 pre-pop is transport, people having to use Druids and Wizard's to port you about, it was great, giving a real feel of size and mini economy out of it.
Regarding SWG and the whole healer, entertainer debacle... I was there in beta when they "tried this out". You had to wait in line for an Entertainer or Doctor class to heal you before you could go out and play again. THESE PEOPLE WERE CHARGING FOR IT!!! Charging you to just stand in line, while they hit a macro. You literally couldn't play(kill things) until another player allowed you to;) Lets just say that concept never got out of beta=) Anyone who would approve of something so asinine is nutty. About as fun as waiting for a boat for 20 minutes, or requiring other players to allow you the courtesy of travel=) SImply astounding how little value some people put on their in-game time.
It creates player interaction and gives further purpose and difference to classes etc. Just like people who like to craft and get involved in the economics, there are more levels of what people want from a game than just 'hack 'n' slash'.
Anything that puts us in a situation that makes players interact with each other in a MMO is worth while. Grouping is an easy way to do that, yes it often fails in that aim but I don’t expect perfection. In SW’s you had to go and see a doctor and entertainer to get healed apparently, another fine way to get some player interaction. In EQ you could learn race languages by being around when other people who spoke in them. PvP is another great form of player interaction. That’s what this is all about, it is not a MMO if you just see players running past you or standing next to you at a trader. The point of playing online is the enormous potential playing with other players have, soloing is the antithesis of that potential.
A great example of player interaction in EQ1 pre-pop is transport, people having to use Druids and Wizard's to port you about, it was great, giving a real feel of size and mini economy out of it.
Regarding SWG and the whole healer, entertainer debacle... I was there in beta when they "tried this out". You had to wait in line for an Entertainer or Doctor class to heal you before you could go out and play again. THESE PEOPLE WERE CHARGING FOR IT!!! Charging you to just stand in line, while they hit a macro. You literally couldn't play(kill things) until another player allowed you to;) Lets just say that concept never got out of beta=) Anyone who would approve of something so asinine is nutty. About as fun as waiting for a boat for 20 minutes, or requiring other players to allow you the courtesy of travel=) SImply astounding how little value some people put on their in-game time.
It creates player interaction and gives further purpose and difference to classes etc. Just like people who like to craft and get involved in the economics, there are more levels of what people want from a game than just 'hack 'n' slash'.
Very true, but wouldn't players who like to socially mingle do it no matter what? Using SWG beta as an example again, If someone wanted to hang out in the cantina and chat, they did it. But for the vast majority that wanted to hack and slash and go out adventuring, it doesn't really make much sense to then FORCE them to be reliant on the few who can give them that right to play. What people did in beta was make Entertainer alts and use them instead of being at the beck and call of the social players. There were lines because MOST people wanted to go kill stuff but there weren't enough Entertainers and Docs to go around. Add in the charge for their time and it was obvious the concept was severly broken at the core and was scrapped for more traditional NPCs. People could still hang around and chat when they needed to recharge, but they weren't forced to. Makes everyone happy. I'm not sure how the whole system ended up since SWG as an adventuing and combat MMO was severly lacking. Its strength originally was community and RPing, not action.
Asking for a new MMO to impliment an already proven broken concept just isn't feasible and smart. So you put in game features which basically piss off 99% of the people just to create a so called "better community". You won't have a community if no one wants to play=) A MMO can't run on social players alone unless its extremely niche. Proposing things that might work in an independant MMO that support 10k or 20k players isn't exactly relevant to a discussino on how to fix the genre as a whole.
This survey is probably more appropriate for this discussion www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001645.php Solo is ranked higher than grouping but the difference is rather small. The main thing I take from the survey is that there were very few 100% solo or 100% group players.
Well it's rated higher vs. 6 other groups categories too keep in mind. But thank you for the post.
That's what I hate about games today. They keep adding in more and more solo content because they assume there is a huge population of solo-only players. Instead of making 1000 stupid quests, I wish they'd make 250 epic quests for the soloer and create more SMALL group content with the other amount of time/energy they have.
What the survey does NOT provide, is the distribution & correlation of the scores. So we don't really know if EVERYONE rate solo content higher than small group (in that case, developers should focus on solo) or there are two distinct group with one rated solo MUCH higher, one rated group MUCH higher but with the solo group slightly larger. In this second scenario, the develop should provide both solo & group content.
Anything that puts us in a situation that makes players interact with each other in a MMO is worth while. Grouping is an easy way to do that, yes it often fails in that aim but I don’t expect perfection. In SW’s you had to go and see a doctor and entertainer to get healed apparently, another fine way to get some player interaction. In EQ you could learn race languages by being around when other people who spoke in them. PvP is another great form of player interaction. That’s what this is all about, it is not a MMO if you just see players running past you or standing next to you at a trader. The point of playing online is the enormous potential playing with other players have, soloing is the antithesis of that potential.
A great example of player interaction in EQ1 pre-pop is transport, people having to use Druids and Wizard's to port you about, it was great, giving a real feel of size and mini economy out of it.
Regarding SWG and the whole healer, entertainer debacle... I was there in beta when they "tried this out". You had to wait in line for an Entertainer or Doctor class to heal you before you could go out and play again. THESE PEOPLE WERE CHARGING FOR IT!!! Charging you to just stand in line, while they hit a macro. You literally couldn't play(kill things) until another player allowed you to;) Lets just say that concept never got out of beta=) Anyone who would approve of something so asinine is nutty. About as fun as waiting for a boat for 20 minutes, or requiring other players to allow you the courtesy of travel=) SImply astounding how little value some people put on their in-game time.
It creates player interaction and gives further purpose and difference to classes etc. Just like people who like to craft and get involved in the economics, there are more levels of what people want from a game than just 'hack 'n' slash'.
Very true, but wouldn't players who like to socially mingle do it no matter what? Using SWG beta as an example again, If someone wanted to hang out in the cantina and chat, they did it. But for the vast majority that wanted to hack and slash and go out adventuring, it doesn't really make much sense to then FORCE them to be reliant on the few who can give them that right to play. What people did in beta was make Entertainer alts and use them instead of being at the beck and call of the social players. There were lines because MOST people wanted to go kill stuff but there weren't enough Entertainers and Docs to go around. Add in the charge for their time and it was obvious the concept was severly broken at the core and was scrapped for more traditional NPCs. People could still hang around and chat when they needed to recharge, but they weren't forced to. Makes everyone happy. I'm not sure how the whole system ended up since SWG as an adventuing and combat MMO was severly lacking. Its strength originally was community and RPing, not action.
Asking for a new MMO to impliment an already proven broken concept just isn't feasible and smart. So you put in game features which basically piss off 99% of the people just to create a so called "better community". You won't have a community if no one wants to play=) A MMO can't run on social players alone unless its extremely niche. Proposing things that might work in an independant MMO that support 10k or 20k players isn't exactly relevant to a discussino on how to fix the genre as a whole.
I'm afraid I'm with Josher on this one. Waiting in line so another player can enable me to play? Ridiculous.
I am for the idea of allowing players to give extra buffs in cantinas or what not by having players listening to them play or allowing the ability for players to transport others to different parts of the map.
But making playes reliant on others for simple playing? No, that won't work, people won't play, and you will have just a small group playng the game.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Comments
Well at least you admit that reason you don't group is due to anti-social choices, something 'some' soloists have continually tried to deny.
I love to socialize when I'm soloing. Chatting is an acceptable means of socializing in anyone's book or do you consider soloers like me to be delusional? I would love to see the evidence that supports your conclusion that the majority of soloers are anti-social, please, anything.
In this case, a socializing soloist wouldn't be considered anti-social. But read post #276 (I think that's the post, it talks about an experience I had in Silkroad Online). That case was an anti-social soloist, and on a group-centric game it didn't turn out well in that situation.
A soloist that actively avoids others and doesn't talk to others would be consider anti-social. But one that could stomach the idea of some sort of interaction isn't considered anti-social.
Remember this, socializing with strangers on an MMO really is different than in real life. On an MMO, grouping with strangers will happen quite often, you'll have to get used to that on a group-centric game (or basically in any game that has grouping in it). Not talking to strangers in real life isn't anti-social neccessarily, since who know what that stranger would do to you in real life. But on an MMO, you'll deal with strangers quite often, and if you actively avoid any form of socializing with others online, that could be considered anti-social online. Mardy could be considered part of that group, but that doesn't make him (or her?) bad. It just mean that Mardy is somewhat anti-social online, he/she doesn't like doing anything with a stranger that could simply just want to talk to him/her for a little while.
The point is that Greenie and others try to make that representative of soloers in general with absolutely no data to back it up. It's called stereotyping and cannot even be used as a general consensus. And even if it were remotely true, how does that invalidate their play style or the need of the genre to cater to it? If that's where the money is, it will happen no matter how much you people hate it.
It would be no different than those people who go to malls to 'people watch', a soloer surrounded by many, but not interacting and still having a good time by not being alone.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Well at least you admit that reason you don't group is due to anti-social choices, something 'some' soloists have continually tried to deny.
I love to socialize when I'm soloing. Chatting is an acceptable means of socializing in anyone's book or do you consider soloers like me to be delusional? I would love to see the evidence that supports your conclusion that the majority of soloers are anti-social, please, anything.
Do you read this poorly when you're chatting in game too? I was talking to HIM specifically by the green highlighted comment , and you'll notice the second comment I highlighted yellow where I stated said SOME not majority. I even color coated them so you wouldn't get them confused.
As to your other post. Yea, using vocabulary as a means of clarifying someone's message in a conversation is clearly the same thing as posing as a psychologist.... Please use up the whole slew of logical fallacies so you can continue to not add anything of worth to the discussion or prove any point other than you really have no argument, just insults and misquotes.
I apologize I didnt represent my point properly Ramen. I may have added a bit of showmanship to that nonsense, but come on. That was totally noncontextual response. It was perpetrated as a survey that represented the topic specifically. My professionalism?!? RamenThief! lol Ok, ill reel it in then
I think I made my point. You even commented on it.
Super. Now lets cut away all the BS and get a real survery.
89% of 500 people voted for other choices.
You're not serious? So what does the other 89% think? They dont care? That could be right? Hmmm...
If its a group game with special attention to thier importance its kewl, right? Who knows, they didnt answer that.
Maybe they are fine with a soloist game? Who knows, they didnt answer that.
Im glad you posted this. Another clear vantage point, besides just 'random' nobodys across several MMO/Gaming website forums. We couldnt possible take them seriously. NO WAY!! Fakes. Frauds. Im not a real person who has a voice. Thanks! WEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
I probably wouldnt have voted for group either, entirely. Hell, I like alot of that shit on that list. I think alot of it is important. Im not gonna play a game that has us all standing in a group holding hands. That other stuff needs to be good too. Besides that, if you say to me MMOG, im gonna instantly think Massively Multiplayer Online Game. That description has Multiplayers in it. Likely and most importantly doing shit together!
Wow, you sure are an arrogant puss aren't ya.
Real survey, huh? Don't you mean one that agrees with your opinion, that is.
Please, since you are obviously an experienced and professional poller, why don't you come up with the real numbers and prove it. Personally, I'll take that websites credentials over yours anyday.
Read post #291 on this thread for a more professional take on why that poll is quite invalid when dealing with whether people believe solo gameplay or group game play is more important. I'm not being sarcastic, but I do point out professional views on why that poll was quite flawed.
What are you talking about? They were asked what primary game play aspect they prefer most in an MMO. It doesn't have to be a direct comparison between solo and group play to be valid. A list was given of different aspects of game play and people chose what was most important to them. Looking at the results, it certainly matches the current trends in MMO's, go figure.
Sorry, quoted the wrong post.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
I apologize I didnt represent my point properly Ramen. I may have added a bit of showmanship to that nonsense, but come on. That was totally noncontextual response. It was perpetrated as a survey that represented the topic specifically. My professionalism?!? RamenThief! lol Ok, ill reel it in then
I think I made my point. You even commented on it.
I don't mean to make fun of you also Demonshank. By "professional" I just meant it would be more clear and straight to the point. You made a good point too, it was just buried under alot of shrewd (but funny) remarks.
Super. Now lets cut away all the BS and get a real survery.
89% of 500 people voted for other choices.
You're not serious? So what does the other 89% think? They dont care? That could be right? Hmmm...
If its a group game with special attention to thier importance its kewl, right? Who knows, they didnt answer that.
Maybe they are fine with a soloist game? Who knows, they didnt answer that.
Im glad you posted this. Another clear vantage point, besides just 'random' nobodys across several MMO/Gaming website forums. We couldnt possible take them seriously. NO WAY!! Fakes. Frauds. Im not a real person who has a voice. Thanks! WEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
I probably wouldnt have voted for group either, entirely. Hell, I like alot of that shit on that list. I think alot of it is important. Im not gonna play a game that has us all standing in a group holding hands. That other stuff needs to be good too. Besides that, if you say to me MMOG, im gonna instantly think Massively Multiplayer Online Game. That description has Multiplayers in it. Likely and most importantly doing shit together!
Wow, you sure are an arrogant puss aren't ya.
Real survey, huh? Don't you mean one that agrees with your opinion, that is.
Please, since you are obviously an experienced and professional poller, why don't you come up with the real numbers and prove it. Personally, I'll take that websites credentials over yours anyday.
Read post #291 on this thread for a more professional take on why that poll is quite invalid when dealing with whether people believe solo gameplay or group game play is more important. I'm not being sarcastic, but I do point out professional views on why that poll was quite flawed.
What are you talking about? They were asked what would one primary thing they like to see most in an MMO. It doesn't have to be a direct comparison between solo and group play to be valid. A list was given of different aspects of game play and people chose what was most important to them. Looking at the results, it certainly matches the current trends in MMO's, go figure.
The reason I argue over why the poll was invalid was because the poll was originally brought up by someone as a tool to try to show that solo play was considered more important than group play by the majority of gamers. My assessment on post #291 was that the poll wasn't a good comparison tool in that matter because the poll asked a variety of things that the person considered very important inside a game. Personally, I would've voted harder difficulties to be more important than even group play.
Edit Part: I noticed you edited the part I quoted from you. Basically, #291 showed that the poll was invalid when dealing with the question of whether the majority of gamers thought that solo play was more important or whether group play was more important.
Parts of the survey you left out or chose to ignore.
Casual Content (6%): More casual-friendly content. More content for small groups. Low-level content.
Grouping (4%): Content for small groups. Content that fosters cooperation among players. Player interaction more integral to gaming.
High-Level Content (2%): Content for large raids. Challenging endgame content.
12% of those polled chose an option for GROUP content. 12 is greater than 7 is it not?
-----
Quests (9%): More interesting quests. Quests with variable outcomes. Quests that involve trade skills. Quests that drive social interaction. Quests that utilize logic9% chose quests that drive social interaction.
Social Tools (5%): Ability to build houses or social spaces. Group transportation. Collective player-created content. Social events tools.
5% chose an option with GROUP transportation.
So even though these do not specifically state they are voting for group content to be added these people voted an answer that includes group mechanics being added.
The creator of the survey even states: Given the open-ended format of this question, there was no easy way to analyze a large amount of data. On the other hand, small samples usually lead to uneven spikes in the data, but we don't really see that here. Responses were pretty evenly spread out, so one conclusion is that in general players do not perceive MMOs as needing one single important thing.
So your argument that soloer's are in the majority is even refuted by this guy who's credibility you endorse as no one thing,aspect of gameplay dominates.
I even color coded this one for you so you could find it easier to understand. Green= my comments. Yellow = the survey Red = Survey creator's analysis.
Yes it does need to be a direct comparison, when quoted in the context of This discussion. It most certainly does. That is exactly what it was quoted to portray. It was also quickly debased, no later than the second line in my response. When 89% of the total had 23 other choices to choose from. While I go on to point out exactly why it does not appropriately fit in this discussion at all the way it was quoted.
Sure it does. You could also break down every group there and further poll them specifically on what their importance on execution(quests:what type, how many, fed-ex, kill x, yadda, yadda, yadda) per category. The results would look like broken glass. This discussion however doesnt belong here, just pointing it out.
This survey is probably more appropriate for this discussion
www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001645.php
Solo is ranked higher than grouping but the difference is rather small.
The main thing I take from the survey is that there were very few 100% solo or 100% group players.
Well it's rated higher vs. 6 other groups categories too keep in mind. But thank you for the post.
That's what I hate about games today. They keep adding in more and more solo content because they assume there is a huge population of solo-only players. Instead of making 1000 stupid quests, I wish they'd make 250 epic quests for the soloer and create more SMALL group content with the other amount of time/energy they have.
Well it's rated higher vs. 6 other groups categories too keep in mind. But thank you for the post.
That's what I hate about games today. They keep adding in more and more solo content because they assume there is a huge population of solo-only players. Instead of making 1000 stupid quests, I wish they'd make 250 epic quests for the soloer and create more SMALL group content with the other amount of time/energy they have.
Actually it is not rated against each other. Each catagory was rated 1-5 individually. Small group content was rated less than full group and solo.
What I take from the survey is that most players prefer doing both group and solo content.
What is lacking in most games today is more than a tiny number of epic quests for the soloer. The kill 10 rats gets old no matter if your are in a group or solo. At least in the games I have played the number of solo dungeons I can count on one hand.
Oh okay, thanks for the correction.
I've made the point before that just because you're in a group doesn't make you social. I've been in plenty of groups with people who never talk to anyone else, they're only in the group to use everyone else to get XP and loot. Beyond that, they couldn't care less about what the group does and as soon as the group decides to do something they don't want to do, they leave the group and go elsewhere.
People really need to separate the idea of "solo/group" from "social/anti-social", they are simply not the same thing.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
It's not a matter of seperating the idea. Some soloers are social. Some are not. The act of soloing without being a necessity, is an act that displays an anti-social trait. That doesn't automatically make them anti-social.
When a person joins a group, there is no way to tell if they are social or not, are they normally a soloer or not. Did they just join the group because they need to accomplish something that the game requires a group. Do they speak english? Are they in vent speaking with their friends and don't feel like typing? Point is you don't ever know why a person will not speak to you in a group, and yes just because a person is in your group doesn't mean they're going to be social.
Only when you try to label "everyone" to one standard of behavior do you run into that discrepancy. If you look at the general population of a playstyle you can get an idea.
Most players are social. Whether they are groupers or soloers. You are probably going to find more anti-social behavior or reasons for soloing, out of soloers than you will groupers.
The problem comes in when people who solo because of these traits try to deny they're anti-social because it might give groupers any foothold in a discussion.
People really need to separate the idea of "solo/group" from "social/anti-social", they are simply not the same thing.
HOLY %$^%$!!!!!
Alright, quick fuckin around with Cephus' computer! I know its not you Cephus, cause a point was made....and a good point at that!
Well done. Now log out, seriously, you're not Cephus
I do not have time to finish all pages of discussion, it is interesting read, till, I have to prepare and log out. I have a plane to catch in a few, hoping it is not delayed any more.
To the OP: a few points you might want to consider.
(1) RPG is role playing game. Some roles might be soloist. Imagine a thief. It is absurd for me to consider a thief teaming with a paladin, except it is part of a story. Yes in some solo RPG, I was in a plot to team with a paladin when I am from the dark side, that is a quest. But to imagine day in day out random PUGGing a thief, it totally ruins the role of a thief.
(2) Solo game play does not affect your grouping, at least in terms of gameplay. You need to group to get the gear, he can solo it. Lets assume its the same gear, for simplicity of argument. How does that affect your gameplay? If you enjoy grouping you can still group, and still get what you want at the end. Mr A gets it soloing, so what? Jealousy?
(3) People who wants to solo and does not want to group, or only groups with friend not including you, will never group with you anyway. Why do you care if they solo or group with friends exclusively. Your gaming depends on your social links. If you have friends you can depend on them. If you want to PUG, then you accept the risk that PUG formation is random.
(4) Gaming is an offhour leisure, not a race. If a pet class solo to max level faster than your healer, so bloody what? He gets to enjoy all 80 levels like you do. You do not lose a second of enjoyment as you work towards your goal. Jealousy aside. Fact is, he gets to burn out faster than you. Also if you are a healer class you can do things he can never do, and that is, welcome by people who need a healer. Maybe he is jealous when people form interesting raids, and insist on filling the healer roles first before considering hunter vs other dps classes.
(5) As for the argument that soloing is easy, I think you have it upside down. If you solo, you generally can only pull 1 or 2, and only mobs of the similar level. You need to dodge mobs, move slowly. You need downtime, or lots of food drinks. You need preparation, you will have no buffs. If you have a mistake when pulling, if you DC, you die. If you are in a group, you can zerg your way thru. You can pull more mobs, higher level mobs, and be assured that you can go afk on and off and still live. For same content, more players makes it easier than less. More players = more kills, faster kills = more drops and generally better chance of getting some drops you wanted. A good group of 5 can kill > 5 times the mobs of a soloist. Imagine wow. Even a hunter with a pet cannot kill 20% as fast as a AoE tank+priest+3xAoEs. Down time factored in.
(6) Your idea of RPGs always grouping with NPCs, that is not true. One of the first few "sandbox" RPG is called Arena, in which you solo everything. Diablo is another (you may call it RPG or not). In Might and Magic as well as SirTech's RPGs, you form your team and that is it. You do not team with random NPCs except for some rare quests or storyline. Ok if you create your own definition and define those as adventure games fine. Most people do not think so. Diablo maybe called a hack and slash but it has more RPG features than just that, it has character progression, it has gear set, it has talent trees. If you want to play semantics, ywmw.
(7) If you want to take WoW as an illustration, then look at it this way. WoW provides both solo content (dailies, many solo quests, harvesting, crafting) and grouped content (raids, some group quests, pvp). You can do both. Raiders can dip in solo content for whatever reason (recouping raid repair costs, collecting mats for potions ...). Arguing about the propotion of group vs solo content is a bit ridiculous. Fact is, all content is open to all, or actually, solo content is open to all, while grouped content requires a group, unless you grossly out levelled it.
(8) If you group in solo content, you do it for fun. It takes a hit in xp? So what? Now you sound like you are another minimaxer, jealous of someone else levelling faster than you. Why are you so concerned with xp hit, with someone else getting gear easier than you? If you have fun, go play, if not find another game, another hobbit. You sound like someone holding a picnic party but constantly looking over your shoulder feeling jealous about the roast turkey the other camp is preparing for dinner. Grouping makes it easier? Sure, so what? You can only enjoy it when its hard? Then find a higher level instance and group, if you must group and need challenge. Take WoW. You can enter the Scarelet Monastry at level 20. Even with the best level 20 group, best geared, most experienced, you will find it very hard to get it done at level 20. Are you challenged enough?
Should there be soloing? Should soloing be the main aspect you ask. What is main aspect? In EQ2, I was once in a guild in which one lady player focus straightly on crafting. She is the guild crafter, maxing all crafts with alts. That is her main aspect. Yes, she solos.
Should there be soloing, should soloing be possible in the main story line to level max? Who should decide it? The producer. Games are shelf products, like canned soups or frozen meat. Pick the one you like and leave others to make their own choices.
Grouping has nothing to do with being social. The fact of the matter is that grouping or soloing is a personal choice and calling people antisocial because of it has no real basis. Antisocial is a broad spectrum of behaviors and not wanting to play a game with random strangers is not one of them.
The fact is that most people, solo or group oriented, play MMOs specifically for the social aspect. Because let's face it, MMOs cannot even compare to the depth, game play and graphics of single player games. Technologically, most MMOs are years behind single player games, so there really is no real reason for an antisocial person to play an MMO, when he can find a better product.
I mean, if you do not want to play with other people, why pay a monthly fee and play a sub par game, right? So maybe, just maybe, the solo gamers are not antisocial after all. I mean, they are paying money to play a sub par social game. The social aspect is what attracts most people to MMOs and not the ability to run repetitive content and maybe the people who solo, find different aspects of MMOs fun?
Maybe they are more independent. Or maybe they just want to move at their own pace. Why can't we just deal with the fact that people are different and like different things? Why must we go to extremes and use wacky logic and baseless assumptions to point out that just because someone likes something else, then there is something wrong with them?
It's all about choice. When given the opportunity to make a decision, some people will choose different paths and you, and I, will just have to learn to accept it.
As far as being antisocial goes, the closest thing to real antisocial behavior in MMOs is griefing.
Some views presented for your considerations.
Anything that puts us in a situation that makes players interact with each other in a MMO is worth while. Grouping is an easy way to do that, yes it often fails in that aim but I don’t expect perfection.
In SW’s you had to go and see a doctor and entertainer to get healed apparently, another fine way to get some player interaction. In EQ you could learn race languages by being around when other people who spoke in them. PvP is another great form of player interaction.
That’s what this is all about, it is not a MMO if you just see players running past you or standing next to you at a trader. The point of playing online is the enormous potential playing with other players have, soloing is the antithesis of that potential.
A great example of player interaction in EQ1 pre-pop is transport, people having to use Druids and Wizard's to port you about, it was great, giving a real feel of size and mini economy out of it.
A great example of player interaction in EQ1 pre-pop is transport, people having to use Druids and Wizard's to port you about, it was great, giving a real feel of size and mini economy out of it.
Regarding SWG and the whole healer, entertainer debacle... I was there in beta when they "tried this out". You had to wait in line for an Entertainer or Doctor class to heal you before you could go out and play again. THESE PEOPLE WERE CHARGING FOR IT!!! Charging you to just stand in line, while they hit a macro. You literally couldn't play(kill things) until another player allowed you to;) Lets just say that concept never got out of beta=) Anyone who would approve of something so asinine is nutty. About as fun as waiting for a boat for 20 minutes, or requiring other players to allow you the courtesy of travel=) SImply astounding how little value some people put on their in-game time.
A great example of player interaction in EQ1 pre-pop is transport, people having to use Druids and Wizard's to port you about, it was great, giving a real feel of size and mini economy out of it.
Regarding SWG and the whole healer, entertainer debacle... I was there in beta when they "tried this out". You had to wait in line for an Entertainer or Doctor class to heal you before you could go out and play again. THESE PEOPLE WERE CHARGING FOR IT!!! Charging you to just stand in line, while they hit a macro. You literally couldn't play(kill things) until another player allowed you to;) Lets just say that concept never got out of beta=) Anyone who would approve of something so asinine is nutty. About as fun as waiting for a boat for 20 minutes, or requiring other players to allow you the courtesy of travel=) SImply astounding how little value some people put on their in-game time.
It creates player interaction and gives further purpose and difference to classes etc. Just like people who like to craft and get involved in the economics, there are more levels of what people want from a game than just 'hack 'n' slash'.
A great example of player interaction in EQ1 pre-pop is transport, people having to use Druids and Wizard's to port you about, it was great, giving a real feel of size and mini economy out of it.
Regarding SWG and the whole healer, entertainer debacle... I was there in beta when they "tried this out". You had to wait in line for an Entertainer or Doctor class to heal you before you could go out and play again. THESE PEOPLE WERE CHARGING FOR IT!!! Charging you to just stand in line, while they hit a macro. You literally couldn't play(kill things) until another player allowed you to;) Lets just say that concept never got out of beta=) Anyone who would approve of something so asinine is nutty. About as fun as waiting for a boat for 20 minutes, or requiring other players to allow you the courtesy of travel=) SImply astounding how little value some people put on their in-game time.
It creates player interaction and gives further purpose and difference to classes etc. Just like people who like to craft and get involved in the economics, there are more levels of what people want from a game than just 'hack 'n' slash'.
Very true, but wouldn't players who like to socially mingle do it no matter what? Using SWG beta as an example again, If someone wanted to hang out in the cantina and chat, they did it. But for the vast majority that wanted to hack and slash and go out adventuring, it doesn't really make much sense to then FORCE them to be reliant on the few who can give them that right to play. What people did in beta was make Entertainer alts and use them instead of being at the beck and call of the social players. There were lines because MOST people wanted to go kill stuff but there weren't enough Entertainers and Docs to go around. Add in the charge for their time and it was obvious the concept was severly broken at the core and was scrapped for more traditional NPCs. People could still hang around and chat when they needed to recharge, but they weren't forced to. Makes everyone happy. I'm not sure how the whole system ended up since SWG as an adventuing and combat MMO was severly lacking. Its strength originally was community and RPing, not action.
Asking for a new MMO to impliment an already proven broken concept just isn't feasible and smart. So you put in game features which basically piss off 99% of the people just to create a so called "better community". You won't have a community if no one wants to play=) A MMO can't run on social players alone unless its extremely niche. Proposing things that might work in an independant MMO that support 10k or 20k players isn't exactly relevant to a discussino on how to fix the genre as a whole.
Well it's rated higher vs. 6 other groups categories too keep in mind. But thank you for the post.
That's what I hate about games today. They keep adding in more and more solo content because they assume there is a huge population of solo-only players. Instead of making 1000 stupid quests, I wish they'd make 250 epic quests for the soloer and create more SMALL group content with the other amount of time/energy they have.
What the survey does NOT provide, is the distribution & correlation of the scores. So we don't really know if EVERYONE rate solo content higher than small group (in that case, developers should focus on solo) or there are two distinct group with one rated solo MUCH higher, one rated group MUCH higher but with the solo group slightly larger. In this second scenario, the develop should provide both solo & group content.
A great example of player interaction in EQ1 pre-pop is transport, people having to use Druids and Wizard's to port you about, it was great, giving a real feel of size and mini economy out of it.
Regarding SWG and the whole healer, entertainer debacle... I was there in beta when they "tried this out". You had to wait in line for an Entertainer or Doctor class to heal you before you could go out and play again. THESE PEOPLE WERE CHARGING FOR IT!!! Charging you to just stand in line, while they hit a macro. You literally couldn't play(kill things) until another player allowed you to;) Lets just say that concept never got out of beta=) Anyone who would approve of something so asinine is nutty. About as fun as waiting for a boat for 20 minutes, or requiring other players to allow you the courtesy of travel=) SImply astounding how little value some people put on their in-game time.
It creates player interaction and gives further purpose and difference to classes etc. Just like people who like to craft and get involved in the economics, there are more levels of what people want from a game than just 'hack 'n' slash'.
Very true, but wouldn't players who like to socially mingle do it no matter what? Using SWG beta as an example again, If someone wanted to hang out in the cantina and chat, they did it. But for the vast majority that wanted to hack and slash and go out adventuring, it doesn't really make much sense to then FORCE them to be reliant on the few who can give them that right to play. What people did in beta was make Entertainer alts and use them instead of being at the beck and call of the social players. There were lines because MOST people wanted to go kill stuff but there weren't enough Entertainers and Docs to go around. Add in the charge for their time and it was obvious the concept was severly broken at the core and was scrapped for more traditional NPCs. People could still hang around and chat when they needed to recharge, but they weren't forced to. Makes everyone happy. I'm not sure how the whole system ended up since SWG as an adventuing and combat MMO was severly lacking. Its strength originally was community and RPing, not action.
Asking for a new MMO to impliment an already proven broken concept just isn't feasible and smart. So you put in game features which basically piss off 99% of the people just to create a so called "better community". You won't have a community if no one wants to play=) A MMO can't run on social players alone unless its extremely niche. Proposing things that might work in an independant MMO that support 10k or 20k players isn't exactly relevant to a discussino on how to fix the genre as a whole.
I'm afraid I'm with Josher on this one. Waiting in line so another player can enable me to play? Ridiculous.
I am for the idea of allowing players to give extra buffs in cantinas or what not by having players listening to them play or allowing the ability for players to transport others to different parts of the map.
But making playes reliant on others for simple playing? No, that won't work, people won't play, and you will have just a small group playng the game.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo