freedom of choise , what a beautiful thing, and if games as mmos are going in that direction in every sector im only pleased.
forcing is so last season. some people enjoy mmos without having a need to do something to be best. how you play is more important than how many you play with.
freedom of choise , what a beautiful thing, and if games as mmos are going in that direction in every sector im only pleased. forcing is so last season. some people enjoy mmos without having a need to do something to be best. how you play is more important than how many you play with.
There is no freedom of choice if there won't be forced grouping MMO's in the next generation..
Just one MMO would be enough for me.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
freedom of choise , what a beautiful thing, and if games as mmos are going in that direction in every sector im only pleased. forcing is so last season. some people enjoy mmos without having a need to do something to be best. how you play is more important than how many you play with.
I'm not so sure about the yellow shaded part. FF XI, a mostly forced group game, has had 500k subscriptions and they have been steady for 8 years.
Plus, forced grouping didn't mean you fought something to be best, it meant that you are working with others in a coordinated matter to get things done, which can be both fun and challenging. It was always fun to socialize with my fellow thieves back in the old game I played, Silkroad Online (which I suggest you do not play since it is bot-infested and has untrustworthy GMs). Whether it was planning out next coordinated attack on merchants, or talking about something interesting that happened to us either in the game or real life, I had fun with a group. And had we been by ourselves, well, let's say one lvl 90 thief vs. 2 level 90 merchants and 2 lvl 90 hunters showed that you really didn't want to be by yourself most of the time.
It is not so much that older games had forced grouping and modern ones do not. It is about the extent of forced grouping. Even in the most solo friendly game you with get a couple of quests each zone which require a group. It is the amount of that grouping content which has dropped off. That’s why I would advocate confining forced grouping to certain zones, levels and activities. As we stand in the new games soloing is killing grouping. Split grouping into it’s own areas etc and it will thrive again.
So levels 1 to 9 get you used to the game and are soloing. Getting to level ten is by grouping only. Then it is soloing to 14, level 15 grouping again. In a game that had 50 levels once you hit 30 you find the grouping only PvP areas. Using small group quests and a public quest system helps here. You don’t need a six or eight man team to be in a ‘group’. Three or thirty has its own dynamic too.
freedom of choise , what a beautiful thing, and if games as mmos are going in that direction in every sector im only pleased. forcing is so last season. some people enjoy mmos without having a need to do something to be best. how you play is more important than how many you play with.
I'm not so sure about the yellow shaded part. FF XI, a mostly forced group game, has had 500k subscriptions and they have been steady for 8 years.
Plus, forced grouping didn't mean you fought something to be best, it meant that you are working with others in a coordinated matter to get things done, which can be both fun and challenging. It was always fun to socialize with my fellow thieves back in the old game I played, Silkroad Online (which I suggest you do not play since it is bot-infested and has untrustworthy GMs). Whether it was planning out next coordinated attack on merchants, or talking about something interesting that happened to us either in the game or real life, I had fun with a group. And had we been by ourselves, well, let's say one lvl 90 thief vs. 2 level 90 merchants and 2 lvl 90 hunters showed that you really didn't want to be by yourself most of the time.
Force grouping is holding it back. With the FF name, and Square's design team, they only get 500k subs, where AION surpass in a few weeks, and ONLY release in Asia.
It would be a much more popular game if it does not have force grouping.
Force grouping is holding it back. With the FF name, and Square's design team, they only get 500k subs, where AION surpass in a few weeks, and ONLY release in Asia. It would be a much more popular game if it does not have force grouping.
FFXI wasn't released where Aion was released (korea/china).. FFXI also came out when 700k subscribers was a Lot. Today it's not enough of course (post-WoW), but FFXI is a game of the past anyway.
For it's time it was a huge success, I don't think it'd have done that much better if they made it more soloable.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
freedom of choise , what a beautiful thing, and if games as mmos are going in that direction in every sector im only pleased. forcing is so last season. some people enjoy mmos without having a need to do something to be best. how you play is more important than how many you play with.
I'm not so sure about the yellow shaded part. FF XI, a mostly forced group game, has had 500k subscriptions and they have been steady for 8 years.
Plus, forced grouping didn't mean you fought something to be best, it meant that you are working with others in a coordinated matter to get things done, which can be both fun and challenging. It was always fun to socialize with my fellow thieves back in the old game I played, Silkroad Online (which I suggest you do not play since it is bot-infested and has untrustworthy GMs). Whether it was planning out next coordinated attack on merchants, or talking about something interesting that happened to us either in the game or real life, I had fun with a group. And had we been by ourselves, well, let's say one lvl 90 thief vs. 2 level 90 merchants and 2 lvl 90 hunters showed that you really didn't want to be by yourself most of the time.
Force grouping is holding it back. With the FF name, and Square's design team, they only get 500k subs, where AION surpass in a few weeks, and ONLY release in Asia.
It would be a much more popular game if it does not have force grouping.
I don't know, I consider 500k subscriptions for eight consecutive years to be successful. Also, Aion is practically the East's answer to the West's WOW. Comparing a titan to FF XI is a bit of a mismatch.
Also, ONLY 500k steady subscriptions? Boyo, that is alot of money, considering it's a forced group game that has remained profiting and successful for 8 straight years in a row.
Come on, there's hundreds of casual games with casual grouping. Why can't we have a hardcore group game in all fairness? Us hardcore group gamers need our games too, you know...
freedom of choise , what a beautiful thing, and if games as mmos are going in that direction in every sector im only pleased. forcing is so last season. some people enjoy mmos without having a need to do something to be best. how you play is more important than how many you play with.
I'm not so sure about the yellow shaded part. FF XI, a mostly forced group game, has had 500k subscriptions and they have been steady for 8 years.
Plus, forced grouping didn't mean you fought something to be best, it meant that you are working with others in a coordinated matter to get things done, which can be both fun and challenging. It was always fun to socialize with my fellow thieves back in the old game I played, Silkroad Online (which I suggest you do not play since it is bot-infested and has untrustworthy GMs). Whether it was planning out next coordinated attack on merchants, or talking about something interesting that happened to us either in the game or real life, I had fun with a group. And had we been by ourselves, well, let's say one lvl 90 thief vs. 2 level 90 merchants and 2 lvl 90 hunters showed that you really didn't want to be by yourself most of the time.
Force grouping is holding it back. With the FF name, and Square's design team, they only get 500k subs, where AION surpass in a few weeks, and ONLY release in Asia.
It would be a much more popular game if it does not have force grouping.
I don't know, I consider 500k subscriptions for eight consecutive years to be successful. Also, Aion is practically the East's answer to the West's WOW. Comparing a titan to FF XI is a bit of a mismatch.
Also, ONLY 500k steady subscriptions? Boyo, that is alot of money, considering it's a forced group game that has remained profiting and successful for 8 straight years in a row.
Come on, there's hundreds of casual games with casual grouping. Why can't we have a hardcore group game in all fairness? Us hardcore group gamers need our games too, you know...
Never tried FF Xl as i never cared for the FF console games. But yes, 500 K subs is great. WOW subs are an anomaly and an unrealistic bench mark. Any game maintaining 500 K for that amount of time is a huge success.
freedom of choise , what a beautiful thing, and if games as mmos are going in that direction in every sector im only pleased. forcing is so last season. some people enjoy mmos without having a need to do something to be best. how you play is more important than how many you play with.
I'm not so sure about the yellow shaded part. FF XI, a mostly forced group game, has had 500k subscriptions and they have been steady for 8 years.
Plus, forced grouping didn't mean you fought something to be best, it meant that you are working with others in a coordinated matter to get things done, which can be both fun and challenging. It was always fun to socialize with my fellow thieves back in the old game I played, Silkroad Online (which I suggest you do not play since it is bot-infested and has untrustworthy GMs). Whether it was planning out next coordinated attack on merchants, or talking about something interesting that happened to us either in the game or real life, I had fun with a group. And had we been by ourselves, well, let's say one lvl 90 thief vs. 2 level 90 merchants and 2 lvl 90 hunters showed that you really didn't want to be by yourself most of the time.
Force grouping is holding it back. With the FF name, and Square's design team, they only get 500k subs, where AION surpass in a few weeks, and ONLY release in Asia.
It would be a much more popular game if it does not have force grouping.
I don't know, I consider 500k subscriptions for eight consecutive years to be successful. Also, Aion is practically the East's answer to the West's WOW. Comparing a titan to FF XI is a bit of a mismatch.
Also, ONLY 500k steady subscriptions? Boyo, that is alot of money, considering it's a forced group game that has remained profiting and successful for 8 straight years in a row.
Come on, there's hundreds of casual games with casual grouping. Why can't we have a hardcore group game in all fairness? Us hardcore group gamers need our games too, you know...
Whats ruining the MMOs..There is not one dam game out there that is worth playing Solo or Grouping..There is no fun from the start to finish.Even if there is a finish to some games..I do believe its not the Solo or the Grouping that is at fault.It is how the game is made..The game should entertain a player and not making it where you have to grind a day to go up a lvl; as a example..There should be a hell of allot more to a game instead of going to x,y,z and kill x amount of this and that.And to group to kill a boss knowing that you just took on 15 creatures by your self..Something is wrong with that picture..There been 1000s of post to what players want or like..There is no reason why we can't have it for everyone..All the game makers need to have is alittle Imagination.So instead of pointing fingers at Solo or Groupers lets look where it should be..The Company who makes the game.
Some people rob you at gun point..Others will rob you at "Ball Point Pen"
Whats ruining the MMOs..There is not one dam game out there that is worth playing Solo or Grouping..There is no fun from the start to finish.Even if there is a finish to some games..I do believe its not the Solo or the Grouping that is at fault.It is how the game is made..The game should entertain a player and not making it where you have to grind a day to go up a lvl; as a example..There should be a hell of allot more to a game instead of going to x,y,z and kill x amount of this and that.And to group to kill a boss knowing that you just took on 15 creatures by your self..Something is wrong with that picture..There been 1000s of post to what players want or like..There is no reason why we can't have it for everyone..All the game makers need to have is alittle Imagination.So instead of pointing fingers at Solo or Groupers lets look where it should be..The Company who makes the game.
That's true only to a certain point. I agree with you entirely that a lot of games are just boring grindfests no matter how you play, killing the same mobs over and over, doing the same quests over and over, is entirely annoying and it's one thing that will drive me away from a game fast.
However, there are a lot of people who apparently cannot share a game with people who don't share their playstyle. You have people who think that the very existence of soloable material makes grouping pointless. They want to force everyone to play their way and their way alone or they can't have fun. That's not something the companies can fix, they can't make games that appeal to everyone and limit gameplay to one narrow style. It's just not possible.
That's true only to a certain point. I agree with you entirely that a lot of games are just boring grindfests no matter how you play, killing the same mobs over and over, doing the same quests over and over, is entirely annoying and it's one thing that will drive me away from a game fast. However, there are a lot of people who apparently cannot share a game with people who don't share their playstyle. You have people who think that the very existence of soloable material makes grouping pointless. They want to force everyone to play their way and their way alone or they can't have fun. That's not something the companies can fix, they can't make games that appeal to everyone and limit gameplay to one narrow style. It's just not possible.
Just like you want to force us to play the way you want- only that you call it "balanced game that pleases everyone", how ironic. There is no middleground. Either we play your way and your way alone, or my way and my way alone. If we go off from this path, one side is going to be upset.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Whats ruining the MMOs..There is not one dam game out there that is worth playing Solo or Grouping..There is no fun from the start to finish.Even if there is a finish to some games..I do believe its not the Solo or the Grouping that is at fault.It is how the game is made..The game should entertain a player and not making it where you have to grind a day to go up a lvl; as a example..There should be a hell of allot more to a game instead of going to x,y,z and kill x amount of this and that.And to group to kill a boss knowing that you just took on 15 creatures by your self..Something is wrong with that picture..There been 1000s of post to what players want or like..There is no reason why we can't have it for everyone..All the game makers need to have is alittle Imagination.So instead of pointing fingers at Solo or Groupers lets look where it should be..The Company who makes the game.
It sounds to me like you are not looking for an MMORPG, but a single player rpg. They are different games, and usually have different features.
TOR is trying to make a massive game that plays more like a single player game, so perhaps you will like that one when it releases.
I don't understand how 'Massively Multiplayer Online' translates into 'Group or Gtfo'. To me, MMO means you play in, and are a part of a fantasy world that is persistent, full of other players and things to do. That's what it is to me, a persistent world that doesn't shut down when I close the game. In no way does it mean that if I don't group with people I'm doing it wrong and destroying the game.
I don't exactly know what is wrong with the people who view it this way, but they deserve every bit of grief this wonderful genre is throwing their way.
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
I don't understand how 'Massively Multiplayer Online' translates into 'Group or Gtfo'. To me, MMO means you play in, and are a part of a fantasy world that is persistent, full of other players and things to do. That's what it is to me, a persistent world that doesn't shut down when I close the game. In no way does it mean that if I don't group with people I'm doing it wrong and destroying the game. I don't exactly know what is wrong with the people who view it this way, but they deserve every bit of grief this wonderful genre is throwing their way.
By killing the cooperative aspect of the game, companies are destroying one part of what makes MMO superior over single player games. By no means are they destroying the game, but it's one feature less that makes the games differ from normal games and brings the genre closer to single player games.
You may like the direction companies are taking the MMO genre- imo, though, killing one of the features that define 'MMO' can't be called progress at all, and is rather sad.
Your problem is that you can't look at the issue from my point of view, you just simply think that it's 'wrong' without much thought. Grouping brings features to the MMO table that soloing won't- how could I just accept it that the companies are trying to get rid of those wonderful features just because it's what the players assume they want- keyword being 'assume'.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
I don't understand how 'Massively Multiplayer Online' translates into 'Group or Gtfo'. To me, MMO means you play in, and are a part of a fantasy world that is persistent, full of other players and things to do. That's what it is to me, a persistent world that doesn't shut down when I close the game. In no way does it mean that if I don't group with people I'm doing it wrong and destroying the game. I don't exactly know what is wrong with the people who view it this way, but they deserve every bit of grief this wonderful genre is throwing their way.
By killing the cooperative aspect of the game, companies are destroying one part of what makes MMO superior over single player games. By no means are they destroying the game, but it's one feature less that makes the games differ from normal games and brings the genre closer to single player games.
You may like the direction companies are taking the MMO genre- to me, though, killing one of the features that define 'MMO' can't be called progress at all, and is rather sad.
Ok, take wow and Lotro, the two last mmos I played. Both are extremely solo friendly. But in both games there are quests you simply can't do alone. And if you are a soloer you can't even participate in the RPG part of the mmorpg! Want to see what happens to Arthas? sorry you have to group. See what I mean? People are complaining when they shouldn't. People that favour group have everything going for them and there are no games being made that don't offer higher rewards for raiders.
So that's why I said, in different words, to qq more, because that's what they are doing.
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
Ok, take wow and Lotro, the two last mmos I played. Both are extremely solo friendly. But in both games there are quests you simply can't do alone. And if you are a soloer you can't even participate in the RPG part of the mmorpg! Want to see what happens to Arthas? sorry you have to group. See what I mean? People are complaining when they shouldn't. People that favour group have everything going for them and there are no games being made that don't offer higher rewards for raiders. So that's why I said, in different words, to qq more, because that's what they are doing.
In forced group games there are things you can do alone, as well. Slowly but steady companies are sacrificing the co-op for more and more solo content.
But the silliest thing to do is to make a solo game, then create endgame that only groupers can do. What the heck? Right now no one is happy. If you make a game that can be soloed to level cap, why not make it go all the way? I as a grouper will get bored long before endgame anyway, so it's no good for me. Soloers on the other hand get stuck because if you want to get better, you must group up. Where's the grouping pre-endgame, and where's the soloability in endgame?
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
I guess i seem to be one of those few people that have a problem with words like 'forced'. a game shouldn't force me to do anything. you can group all the way to the end in wow too, so why don't they?
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
I guess i seem to be one of those few people that have a problem with words like 'forced'. a game shouldn't force me to do anything. you can group all the way to the end in wow too, so why don't they?
'Forced' is actually a bit misleading word. You wouldn't be playing a group based game if you didn't like grouping in the first place, right? That's where you have a choice, so in that sense it's not forced.
Also, just because the game is group based doesn't mean that there's not things you can do alone. Soloing might be possible, but it's not as viable as grouping is. Even while soloing you'd always be looking for a group, because it's just that much better way to gather experience. Features you can do alone are almost required even in this kind of game, because you're not going to be playing in a group 100% of the playtime. So, it's more like 'forced' in a way WoW 'forces' soloing- you can still group, but it's more beneficial/easy/less time consuming to solo, so players prefer it to grouping. In the same way, in group game you can still solo, but it's more beneficial/easy/less time consuming to group, so players prefer it to soloing.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Whats ruining the MMOs..There is not one dam game out there that is worth playing Solo or Grouping..There is no fun from the start to finish.Even if there is a finish to some games..I do believe its not the Solo or the Grouping that is at fault.It is how the game is made..The game should entertain a player and not making it where you have to grind a day to go up a lvl; as a example..There should be a hell of allot more to a game instead of going to x,y,z and kill x amount of this and that.And to group to kill a boss knowing that you just took on 15 creatures by your self..Something is wrong with that picture..There been 1000s of post to what players want or like..There is no reason why we can't have it for everyone..All the game makers need to have is alittle Imagination.So instead of pointing fingers at Solo or Groupers lets look where it should be..The Company who makes the game.
It sounds to me like you are not looking for an MMORPG, but a single player rpg. They are different games, and usually have different features.
TOR is trying to make a massive game that plays more like a single player game, so perhaps you will like that one when it releases.
Don't need a single rpg..I play enough FPS online to fill my needs to group.But for a RPG game..I dont need a person to hold my hand to wack a boss, knowing that, I just killed 15 mobs all at once..It just dont make sense.There no developer imagination in this area..Think about it..Players solo 3/4 of the time.The only time you need to group is to wack a Boss? WTF..If these Developers going to make a game.Make the game to what it is intended for.Either Solo or Group play.Darkfall is more of a group play than a solo.There a reason for it..At least Darkfall did something right in that area..Whats really funny when War hammer came out.Most players treated this game as a Solo, when really this game is suppose to be grouped.Should i say the players lack the knowledge to what is really a group game and what is not?To have a game that is 3/4 Solo and 1/4 group just dont make sence in my book..
Some people rob you at gun point..Others will rob you at "Ball Point Pen"
I guess i seem to be one of those few people that have a problem with words like 'forced'. a game shouldn't force me to do anything. you can group all the way to the end in wow too, so why don't they?
'Forced' is actually a bit misleading word. You wouldn't be playing a group based game if you didn't like grouping in the first place, right? That's where you have a choice, so in that sense it's not forced.
Also, just because the game is group based doesn't mean that there's not things you can do alone. Soloing might be possible, but it's not as viable as grouping is. Even while soloing you'd always be looking for a group, because it's just that much better way to gather experience. Features you can do alone are almost required even in this kind of game, because you're not going to be playing in a group 100% of the playtime. So, it's more like 'forced' in a way WoW 'forces' soloing- you can still group, but it's more beneficial/easy/less time consuming to solo, so players prefer it to grouping. In the same way, in group game you can still solo, but it's more beneficial/easy/less time consuming to group, so players prefer it to soloing.
That's where you and I disagree. I don't think MMORPGs are group-based nor they should. A good MMORPG will have the choice to group and solo, make both choices viable, and distribute rewards accordingly. Like I said previously, in no way does MMORPG translates into 'Group or Gtfo'. If people are unable to allow one style of playing into 'their' game that says more about 'them' then it says about the gaming style they despise.
I don't group often. But am I trying to convince myself I'm playing a single player game? No. I like knowing there are lots of people out there. Interaction is not just grouping. What about the Auction House? What about the Inns? What about great quest hubs? I, as a solo player mostly, enjoy all of those. I like to play the Auction House, wouldn't you say I was interacting with other players?
Don't try to alienate players because of how they chose to play the game, and don't be surprised when they punch back when / if you do.
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
That's where you and I disagree. I don't think MMORPGs are group-based nor they should. A good MMORPG will have the choice to group and solo, make both choices viable, and distribute rewards accordingly. Like I said previously, in no way does MMORPG translates into 'Group or Gtfo'. If people are unable to allow one style of playing into 'their' game that says more about 'them' then it says about the gaming style they despise. I don't group often. But am I trying to convince myself I'm playing a single player game? No. I like knowing there are lots of people out there. Interaction is not just grouping. What about the Auction House? What about the Inns? What about great quest hubs? I, as a solo player mostly, enjoy all of those. I like to play the Auction House, wouldn't you say I was interacting with other players? Don't try to alienate players because of how they chose to play the game, and don't be surprised when they punch back when / if you do.
'RPG' doesn't translate to "Turn based battles and experience based leveling systems" either. That is where you're wrong. There's not just one definition for MMORPG, and your definition doesn't mean that it's the 'right one' either.
Like I've said before, when you make both choices viable, you actually alienate one choice. They can not coexist together. What you're actually trying to do is to alienate the players of my kind, while I want everyone to have games that are tailored for their needs. I don't want for companies to stop making MMO's like they do today. I only want more choices. PvP based MMO, PvE based MMO... group based MMO, solo based MMO... a mix of everything, as well. But each of these choices has features that you can't do in an MMO that tries to do it all at once.. that's why we need choices.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
I guess i seem to be one of those few people that have a problem with words like 'forced'. a game shouldn't force me to do anything. you can group all the way to the end in wow too, so why don't they?
'Forced' is actually a bit misleading word. You wouldn't be playing a group based game if you didn't like grouping in the first place, right? That's where you have a choice, so in that sense it's not forced.
Also, just because the game is group based doesn't mean that there's not things you can do alone. Soloing might be possible, but it's not as viable as grouping is. Even while soloing you'd always be looking for a group, because it's just that much better way to gather experience. Features you can do alone are almost required even in this kind of game, because you're not going to be playing in a group 100% of the playtime. So, it's more like 'forced' in a way WoW 'forces' soloing- you can still group, but it's more beneficial/easy/less time consuming to solo, so players prefer it to grouping. In the same way, in group game you can still solo, but it's more beneficial/easy/less time consuming to group, so players prefer it to soloing.
Name some games that are intended to be grouped played, with out 3/4 of Solo in it.. Theres only a few games that are intended for group play..The rest are wanna be...And yes, Allot of games that players 3/4 solo through are forced to group in one way or another..Which is a crock of shit if you ask me..
Some people rob you at gun point..Others will rob you at "Ball Point Pen"
Comments
freedom of choise , what a beautiful thing, and if games as mmos are going in that direction in every sector im only pleased.
forcing is so last season. some people enjoy mmos without having a need to do something to be best. how you play is more important than how many you play with.
There is no freedom of choice if there won't be forced grouping MMO's in the next generation..
Just one MMO would be enough for me.
Gosh, I remember EQ and how important and bonding it was to group
King of the world
I'm not so sure about the yellow shaded part. FF XI, a mostly forced group game, has had 500k subscriptions and they have been steady for 8 years.
Plus, forced grouping didn't mean you fought something to be best, it meant that you are working with others in a coordinated matter to get things done, which can be both fun and challenging. It was always fun to socialize with my fellow thieves back in the old game I played, Silkroad Online (which I suggest you do not play since it is bot-infested and has untrustworthy GMs). Whether it was planning out next coordinated attack on merchants, or talking about something interesting that happened to us either in the game or real life, I had fun with a group. And had we been by ourselves, well, let's say one lvl 90 thief vs. 2 level 90 merchants and 2 lvl 90 hunters showed that you really didn't want to be by yourself most of the time.
It is not so much that older games had forced grouping and modern ones do not. It is about the extent of forced grouping. Even in the most solo friendly game you with get a couple of quests each zone which require a group. It is the amount of that grouping content which has dropped off. That’s why I would advocate confining forced grouping to certain zones, levels and activities. As we stand in the new games soloing is killing grouping. Split grouping into it’s own areas etc and it will thrive again.
So levels 1 to 9 get you used to the game and are soloing. Getting to level ten is by grouping only. Then it is soloing to 14, level 15 grouping again. In a game that had 50 levels once you hit 30 you find the grouping only PvP areas. Using small group quests and a public quest system helps here. You don’t need a six or eight man team to be in a ‘group’. Three or thirty has its own dynamic too.
I'm not so sure about the yellow shaded part. FF XI, a mostly forced group game, has had 500k subscriptions and they have been steady for 8 years.
Plus, forced grouping didn't mean you fought something to be best, it meant that you are working with others in a coordinated matter to get things done, which can be both fun and challenging. It was always fun to socialize with my fellow thieves back in the old game I played, Silkroad Online (which I suggest you do not play since it is bot-infested and has untrustworthy GMs). Whether it was planning out next coordinated attack on merchants, or talking about something interesting that happened to us either in the game or real life, I had fun with a group. And had we been by ourselves, well, let's say one lvl 90 thief vs. 2 level 90 merchants and 2 lvl 90 hunters showed that you really didn't want to be by yourself most of the time.
Force grouping is holding it back. With the FF name, and Square's design team, they only get 500k subs, where AION surpass in a few weeks, and ONLY release in Asia.
It would be a much more popular game if it does not have force grouping.
FFXI wasn't released where Aion was released (korea/china).. FFXI also came out when 700k subscribers was a Lot. Today it's not enough of course (post-WoW), but FFXI is a game of the past anyway.
For it's time it was a huge success, I don't think it'd have done that much better if they made it more soloable.
I'm not so sure about the yellow shaded part. FF XI, a mostly forced group game, has had 500k subscriptions and they have been steady for 8 years.
Plus, forced grouping didn't mean you fought something to be best, it meant that you are working with others in a coordinated matter to get things done, which can be both fun and challenging. It was always fun to socialize with my fellow thieves back in the old game I played, Silkroad Online (which I suggest you do not play since it is bot-infested and has untrustworthy GMs). Whether it was planning out next coordinated attack on merchants, or talking about something interesting that happened to us either in the game or real life, I had fun with a group. And had we been by ourselves, well, let's say one lvl 90 thief vs. 2 level 90 merchants and 2 lvl 90 hunters showed that you really didn't want to be by yourself most of the time.
Force grouping is holding it back. With the FF name, and Square's design team, they only get 500k subs, where AION surpass in a few weeks, and ONLY release in Asia.
It would be a much more popular game if it does not have force grouping.
I don't know, I consider 500k subscriptions for eight consecutive years to be successful. Also, Aion is practically the East's answer to the West's WOW. Comparing a titan to FF XI is a bit of a mismatch.
Also, ONLY 500k steady subscriptions? Boyo, that is alot of money, considering it's a forced group game that has remained profiting and successful for 8 straight years in a row.
Come on, there's hundreds of casual games with casual grouping. Why can't we have a hardcore group game in all fairness? Us hardcore group gamers need our games too, you know...
I'm not so sure about the yellow shaded part. FF XI, a mostly forced group game, has had 500k subscriptions and they have been steady for 8 years.
Plus, forced grouping didn't mean you fought something to be best, it meant that you are working with others in a coordinated matter to get things done, which can be both fun and challenging. It was always fun to socialize with my fellow thieves back in the old game I played, Silkroad Online (which I suggest you do not play since it is bot-infested and has untrustworthy GMs). Whether it was planning out next coordinated attack on merchants, or talking about something interesting that happened to us either in the game or real life, I had fun with a group. And had we been by ourselves, well, let's say one lvl 90 thief vs. 2 level 90 merchants and 2 lvl 90 hunters showed that you really didn't want to be by yourself most of the time.
Force grouping is holding it back. With the FF name, and Square's design team, they only get 500k subs, where AION surpass in a few weeks, and ONLY release in Asia.
It would be a much more popular game if it does not have force grouping.
I don't know, I consider 500k subscriptions for eight consecutive years to be successful. Also, Aion is practically the East's answer to the West's WOW. Comparing a titan to FF XI is a bit of a mismatch.
Also, ONLY 500k steady subscriptions? Boyo, that is alot of money, considering it's a forced group game that has remained profiting and successful for 8 straight years in a row.
Come on, there's hundreds of casual games with casual grouping. Why can't we have a hardcore group game in all fairness? Us hardcore group gamers need our games too, you know...
Never tried FF Xl as i never cared for the FF console games. But yes, 500 K subs is great. WOW subs are an anomaly and an unrealistic bench mark. Any game maintaining 500 K for that amount of time is a huge success.
I'm not so sure about the yellow shaded part. FF XI, a mostly forced group game, has had 500k subscriptions and they have been steady for 8 years.
Plus, forced grouping didn't mean you fought something to be best, it meant that you are working with others in a coordinated matter to get things done, which can be both fun and challenging. It was always fun to socialize with my fellow thieves back in the old game I played, Silkroad Online (which I suggest you do not play since it is bot-infested and has untrustworthy GMs). Whether it was planning out next coordinated attack on merchants, or talking about something interesting that happened to us either in the game or real life, I had fun with a group. And had we been by ourselves, well, let's say one lvl 90 thief vs. 2 level 90 merchants and 2 lvl 90 hunters showed that you really didn't want to be by yourself most of the time.
Force grouping is holding it back. With the FF name, and Square's design team, they only get 500k subs, where AION surpass in a few weeks, and ONLY release in Asia.
It would be a much more popular game if it does not have force grouping.
I don't know, I consider 500k subscriptions for eight consecutive years to be successful. Also, Aion is practically the East's answer to the West's WOW. Comparing a titan to FF XI is a bit of a mismatch.
Also, ONLY 500k steady subscriptions? Boyo, that is alot of money, considering it's a forced group game that has remained profiting and successful for 8 straight years in a row.
Come on, there's hundreds of casual games with casual grouping. Why can't we have a hardcore group game in all fairness? Us hardcore group gamers need our games too, you know...
And you do. Eve ONLINE.
Whats ruining the MMOs..There is not one dam game out there that is worth playing Solo or Grouping..There is no fun from the start to finish.Even if there is a finish to some games..I do believe its not the Solo or the Grouping that is at fault.It is how the game is made..The game should entertain a player and not making it where you have to grind a day to go up a lvl; as a example..There should be a hell of allot more to a game instead of going to x,y,z and kill x amount of this and that.And to group to kill a boss knowing that you just took on 15 creatures by your self..Something is wrong with that picture..There been 1000s of post to what players want or like..There is no reason why we can't have it for everyone..All the game makers need to have is alittle Imagination.So instead of pointing fingers at Solo or Groupers lets look where it should be..The Company who makes the game.
Some people rob you at gun point..Others will rob you at "Ball Point Pen"
That's true only to a certain point. I agree with you entirely that a lot of games are just boring grindfests no matter how you play, killing the same mobs over and over, doing the same quests over and over, is entirely annoying and it's one thing that will drive me away from a game fast.
However, there are a lot of people who apparently cannot share a game with people who don't share their playstyle. You have people who think that the very existence of soloable material makes grouping pointless. They want to force everyone to play their way and their way alone or they can't have fun. That's not something the companies can fix, they can't make games that appeal to everyone and limit gameplay to one narrow style. It's just not possible.
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
Just like you want to force us to play the way you want- only that you call it "balanced game that pleases everyone", how ironic. There is no middleground. Either we play your way and your way alone, or my way and my way alone. If we go off from this path, one side is going to be upset.
It sounds to me like you are not looking for an MMORPG, but a single player rpg. They are different games, and usually have different features.
TOR is trying to make a massive game that plays more like a single player game, so perhaps you will like that one when it releases.
What game post-WoW hasn't been like that?
My humble opinion is that it's what's killing the genre right now ;D
I don't understand how 'Massively Multiplayer Online' translates into 'Group or Gtfo'. To me, MMO means you play in, and are a part of a fantasy world that is persistent, full of other players and things to do. That's what it is to me, a persistent world that doesn't shut down when I close the game. In no way does it mean that if I don't group with people I'm doing it wrong and destroying the game.
I don't exactly know what is wrong with the people who view it this way, but they deserve every bit of grief this wonderful genre is throwing their way.
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
By killing the cooperative aspect of the game, companies are destroying one part of what makes MMO superior over single player games. By no means are they destroying the game, but it's one feature less that makes the games differ from normal games and brings the genre closer to single player games.
You may like the direction companies are taking the MMO genre- imo, though, killing one of the features that define 'MMO' can't be called progress at all, and is rather sad.
Your problem is that you can't look at the issue from my point of view, you just simply think that it's 'wrong' without much thought. Grouping brings features to the MMO table that soloing won't- how could I just accept it that the companies are trying to get rid of those wonderful features just because it's what the players assume they want- keyword being 'assume'.
By killing the cooperative aspect of the game, companies are destroying one part of what makes MMO superior over single player games. By no means are they destroying the game, but it's one feature less that makes the games differ from normal games and brings the genre closer to single player games.
You may like the direction companies are taking the MMO genre- to me, though, killing one of the features that define 'MMO' can't be called progress at all, and is rather sad.
Ok, take wow and Lotro, the two last mmos I played. Both are extremely solo friendly. But in both games there are quests you simply can't do alone. And if you are a soloer you can't even participate in the RPG part of the mmorpg! Want to see what happens to Arthas? sorry you have to group. See what I mean? People are complaining when they shouldn't. People that favour group have everything going for them and there are no games being made that don't offer higher rewards for raiders.
So that's why I said, in different words, to qq more, because that's what they are doing.
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
In forced group games there are things you can do alone, as well. Slowly but steady companies are sacrificing the co-op for more and more solo content.
But the silliest thing to do is to make a solo game, then create endgame that only groupers can do. What the heck? Right now no one is happy. If you make a game that can be soloed to level cap, why not make it go all the way? I as a grouper will get bored long before endgame anyway, so it's no good for me. Soloers on the other hand get stuck because if you want to get better, you must group up. Where's the grouping pre-endgame, and where's the soloability in endgame?
I guess i seem to be one of those few people that have a problem with words like 'forced'. a game shouldn't force me to do anything. you can group all the way to the end in wow too, so why don't they?
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
'Forced' is actually a bit misleading word. You wouldn't be playing a group based game if you didn't like grouping in the first place, right? That's where you have a choice, so in that sense it's not forced.
Also, just because the game is group based doesn't mean that there's not things you can do alone. Soloing might be possible, but it's not as viable as grouping is. Even while soloing you'd always be looking for a group, because it's just that much better way to gather experience. Features you can do alone are almost required even in this kind of game, because you're not going to be playing in a group 100% of the playtime. So, it's more like 'forced' in a way WoW 'forces' soloing- you can still group, but it's more beneficial/easy/less time consuming to solo, so players prefer it to grouping. In the same way, in group game you can still solo, but it's more beneficial/easy/less time consuming to group, so players prefer it to soloing.
It sounds to me like you are not looking for an MMORPG, but a single player rpg. They are different games, and usually have different features.
TOR is trying to make a massive game that plays more like a single player game, so perhaps you will like that one when it releases.
Don't need a single rpg..I play enough FPS online to fill my needs to group.But for a RPG game..I dont need a person to hold my hand to wack a boss, knowing that, I just killed 15 mobs all at once..It just dont make sense.There no developer imagination in this area..Think about it..Players solo 3/4 of the time.The only time you need to group is to wack a Boss? WTF..If these Developers going to make a game.Make the game to what it is intended for.Either Solo or Group play.Darkfall is more of a group play than a solo.There a reason for it..At least Darkfall did something right in that area..Whats really funny when War hammer came out.Most players treated this game as a Solo, when really this game is suppose to be grouped.Should i say the players lack the knowledge to what is really a group game and what is not?To have a game that is 3/4 Solo and 1/4 group just dont make sence in my book..
Some people rob you at gun point..Others will rob you at "Ball Point Pen"
'Forced' is actually a bit misleading word. You wouldn't be playing a group based game if you didn't like grouping in the first place, right? That's where you have a choice, so in that sense it's not forced.
Also, just because the game is group based doesn't mean that there's not things you can do alone. Soloing might be possible, but it's not as viable as grouping is. Even while soloing you'd always be looking for a group, because it's just that much better way to gather experience. Features you can do alone are almost required even in this kind of game, because you're not going to be playing in a group 100% of the playtime. So, it's more like 'forced' in a way WoW 'forces' soloing- you can still group, but it's more beneficial/easy/less time consuming to solo, so players prefer it to grouping. In the same way, in group game you can still solo, but it's more beneficial/easy/less time consuming to group, so players prefer it to soloing.
That's where you and I disagree. I don't think MMORPGs are group-based nor they should. A good MMORPG will have the choice to group and solo, make both choices viable, and distribute rewards accordingly. Like I said previously, in no way does MMORPG translates into 'Group or Gtfo'. If people are unable to allow one style of playing into 'their' game that says more about 'them' then it says about the gaming style they despise.
I don't group often. But am I trying to convince myself I'm playing a single player game? No. I like knowing there are lots of people out there. Interaction is not just grouping. What about the Auction House? What about the Inns? What about great quest hubs? I, as a solo player mostly, enjoy all of those. I like to play the Auction House, wouldn't you say I was interacting with other players?
Don't try to alienate players because of how they chose to play the game, and don't be surprised when they punch back when / if you do.
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
'RPG' doesn't translate to "Turn based battles and experience based leveling systems" either. That is where you're wrong. There's not just one definition for MMORPG, and your definition doesn't mean that it's the 'right one' either.
Like I've said before, when you make both choices viable, you actually alienate one choice. They can not coexist together. What you're actually trying to do is to alienate the players of my kind, while I want everyone to have games that are tailored for their needs. I don't want for companies to stop making MMO's like they do today. I only want more choices. PvP based MMO, PvE based MMO... group based MMO, solo based MMO... a mix of everything, as well. But each of these choices has features that you can't do in an MMO that tries to do it all at once.. that's why we need choices.
'Forced' is actually a bit misleading word. You wouldn't be playing a group based game if you didn't like grouping in the first place, right? That's where you have a choice, so in that sense it's not forced.
Also, just because the game is group based doesn't mean that there's not things you can do alone. Soloing might be possible, but it's not as viable as grouping is. Even while soloing you'd always be looking for a group, because it's just that much better way to gather experience. Features you can do alone are almost required even in this kind of game, because you're not going to be playing in a group 100% of the playtime. So, it's more like 'forced' in a way WoW 'forces' soloing- you can still group, but it's more beneficial/easy/less time consuming to solo, so players prefer it to grouping. In the same way, in group game you can still solo, but it's more beneficial/easy/less time consuming to group, so players prefer it to soloing.
Name some games that are intended to be grouped played, with out 3/4 of Solo in it..
Theres only a few games that are intended for group play..The rest are wanna be...And yes, Allot of games that players 3/4 solo through are forced to group in one way or another..Which is a crock of shit if you ask me..
Some people rob you at gun point..Others will rob you at "Ball Point Pen"