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.
The lack of vision of players today just amazes me. Just because you can't comprehend how a developer could offer both solo and grouping, doesn't mean it can't be done. I offer, as one of many examples, reality. You see, in reality, some people choose to shoot hoops by themselves. Other people choose to play pickup games. While others join a league, and some play professionally. Some play baseball on a team, while others hit the batting cages.
People CHOOSE to play as a team when they want to, and they CHOOSE to play solo when they want to do that. Isn't that what we're all after here? The ability to make choices in game and have it actually effect the outcome? That's what this offers, that's exactly what this is.
Last night, I CHOSE to group up with a couple of guys while playing Aion. I was just hanging out, picking up a few hairpins, they needed some help on a higher level mob, and we ended up running around together for an hour. They needed to group. I chose to group. It worked out just great for everyone.
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.
I understand that, and I wasn't alienating your favourite playing style, I was merely defending mine. The title of this thread is about soloing destroying mmos, and that is just ridiculous. I haven't seen one argument that backs that statement, even if poorly. Specially considering very successful games like EVE.
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.
The lack of vision of players today just amazes me. Just because you can't comprehend how a developer could offer both solo and grouping, doesn't mean it can't be done. I offer, as one of many examples, reality. You see, in reality, some people choose to shoot hoops by themselves. Other people choose to play pickup games. While others join a league, and some play professionally. Some play baseball on a team, while others hit the batting cages.
People CHOOSE to play as a team when they want to, and they CHOOSE to play solo when they want to do that. Isn't that what we're all after here? The ability to make choices in game and have it actually effect the outcome? That's what this offers, that's exactly what this is.
Last night, I CHOSE to group up with a couple of guys while playing Aion. I was just hanging out, picking up a few hairpins, they needed some help on a higher level mob, and we ended up running around together for an hour. They needed to group. I chose to group. It worked out just great for everyone.
You're right. There's nothing wrong with flexibility, and I play games that offer a mix of playstyles. Some people just want everything their way - the entire game has to cater to their playstyle, or they get upset and cry that the genre is doomed.
I've been playing WoW lately. I did some questing with a couple of friends, I did some dungeons with some friends and a couple of strangers, I did some soloing, and tomorrow I'll be doing end-game raiding with my level 80 druid. I'm not being forced into any of it - if I want to group, I can find a group. If I want to solo, I can find things to do solo.
The existence of group content doesn't destroy my solo play, and the existence of solo content doesn't destroy my group play. All the complaining is ridiculous. It boils down to: "People who don't play the game my way are destroying the genre. And by destroying, I mean they're not playing my way. So people who don't play my way aren't playing my way. Waaah! Make them play my way!"
I understand that, and I wasn't alienating your favourite playing style, I was merely defending mine. The title of this thread is about soloing destroying mmos, and that is just ridiculous. I haven't seen one argument that backs that statement, even if poorly. Specially considering very successful games like EVE.
That's fine. I actually misread your first comment.. I wouldn't say that it's soloing that's destroying it, but the fact that it's the only choice we seem to have in post-WoW MMO's, which isn't fault of the system itself but rather the companies that make games.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
The lack of vision of players today just amazes me. Just because you can't comprehend how a developer could offer both solo and grouping, doesn't mean it can't be done. I offer, as one of many examples, reality. You see, in reality, some people choose to shoot hoops by themselves. Other people choose to play pickup games. While others join a league, and some play professionally. Some play baseball on a team, while others hit the batting cages. People CHOOSE to play as a team when they want to, and they CHOOSE to play solo when they want to do that. Isn't that what we're all after here? The ability to make choices in game and have it actually effect the outcome? That's what this offers, that's exactly what this is. Last night, I CHOSE to group up with a couple of guys while playing Aion. I was just hanging out, picking up a few hairpins, they needed some help on a higher level mob, and we ended up running around together for an hour. They needed to group. I chose to group. It worked out just great for everyone.
Reality is a baaaaad example, lol. It can't get anymore 'forced grouping' than that!
You can CHOOSE to not play the 'forced grouping' game, too, and rather play the 'forced solo' game instead.. so the problem here is?
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Maybe the solution is group and solo instances with completely seperate progression and acheivement paths. They could even make the gear obtained in either have stats (like they did with the pvp gear in Wow) that give them a clear advantage in their specialty. Then, raiders would still have superior raid gear, and solo players would have superior solo gear.
Maybe the solution is group and solo instances with completely seperate progression and acheivement paths. They could even make the gear obtained in either have stats (like they did with the pvp gear in Wow) that give them a clear advantage in their specialty. Then, raiders would still have superior raid gear, and solo players would have superior solo gear.
Or take it one more step further... separate games for both groups o_0! That way soloers would get twice as much content and groupers as well, since the devs wouldn't have to do content for 2 separate groups of players at once.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Maybe the solution is group and solo instances with completely seperate progression and acheivement paths. They could even make the gear obtained in either have stats (like they did with the pvp gear in Wow) that give them a clear advantage in their specialty. Then, raiders would still have superior raid gear, and solo players would have superior solo gear.
Or take it one more step further... separate games for both groups o_0! That way soloers would get twice as much content and groupers as well, since the devs wouldn't have to do content for 2 separate groups of players at once.
With the divide that exists between the various playstyles, that's probably an inevitability.
Using television as an example, in it's early days the networks had massive audience numbers (like WoW's subscriber base now), but as consumer appetites grew and became more specialised, cable and satellite arrived and supplied specialty channels for the various niche markets. Of course, HBO, SyFy etc. don't have the money to spend that the networks do, but their fans are happy with the product, and those specialty channels are profitable as a result of catering to their client base.
Raid, Solo, PvP, RP.......there's four niche MMO markets that a small to mid sized dev could cater to and profit from right off the bat.
I don't think its one group of player styles thats ruining the games. Its the developers who are trying to cater and make everyone happy at the same time. If they would just make up their mind on one play style and concentrate all their energy on it people would be a little happier. What we have now is this mixed up wishy wash hybrid clones that try to make everyone happy. They need to stick with one and go with it. If someone wants a certain type of play style go play that game. Don't infiltrate a game just because you think your personal play style is what everyone will want. Keep thy play style to thyself. No one is forcing you to play a game, don't force others to play your game.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
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.
I don't "force" you to do anything. You can group until the cows come home if that's what you want to do, nobody is stopping you. However, you get the pro-groupers who have an emotional reaction to other's ability to solo at all. "Waaah, we're not being made to feel special!" It's a load of nonsense.
There is a middleground, you just don't like it and the reality is, there just aren't enough people willing to play a group-only game to make it financially viable to a mainstream audience. I guess we'll just have to put up with the endless pro-group whining here.
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'.
What makes you think MMOs are "superior"? They're just different. Forced grouping isn't a "feature" that "defines" MMOs, apparently it's something that kills them because the majority of people who play MMOs simply don't want it.
The problem is, your point of view doesn't make any sense. You want your way or the highway, but people who share your view represent a minuscule percentage of MMO players. You claim that grouping, and by this you mean forced, take-it-or-gtfo grouping, brings features that soloing doesn't, that doesn't mean it's something most people want any more than hardcore permadeath is something most people want even if it does have a tiny following. You keep claiming these features are wonderful, you and your very small number of pro-grouping advocates seem to be the only ones that think so.
I don't think its one group of player styles thats ruining the games. Its the developers who are trying to cater and make everyone happy at the same time. If they would just make up their mind on one play style and concentrate all their energy on it people would be a little happier. What we have now is this mixed up wishy wash hybrid clones that try to make everyone happy. They need to stick with one and go with it. If someone wants a certain type of play style go play that game. Don't infiltrate a game just because you think your personal play style is what everyone will want. Keep thy play style to thyself. No one is forcing you to play a game, don't force others to play your game.
A good argument. Which is why developers should stop trying to create games that cater to both soloers and group people. Let's face it, no one has created a powerhouse game that effectively combines solo and group aspects. Some may have been successful enough to survive and profit their companies a little, but no one has created a purely awesome game that combines solo and group aspects.
Look at EVE Online (a game that, sadly, I cannot play for now because I do need to focus on the future of which trade I should pick up and what technical school I should join, the bills that come with that, basically real life, and FF XIV does look interesting in the future). It caters mostly to group aspects, and it's very difficult to solo in that game on some particular points (soloer vs. group of raiders = soloer losing 24/7 unless being raided by a pack of noobs). EVE Online is technically a niche game, yet it is a very successful niche game. It refuses to change the main aspects, and keeps delivering what the fans want.
I wish to see more games with that kind of style that EVE Online has. It focuses greatly on one party, and caters to make that playstyle awesome in that game.
I don't think its one group of player styles thats ruining the games. Its the developers who are trying to cater and make everyone happy at the same time. If they would just make up their mind on one play style and concentrate all their energy on it people would be a little happier. What we have now is this mixed up wishy wash hybrid clones that try to make everyone happy. They need to stick with one and go with it. If someone wants a certain type of play style go play that game. Don't infiltrate a game just because you think your personal play style is what everyone will want. Keep thy play style to thyself. No one is forcing you to play a game, don't force others to play your game.
A good argument. Which is why developers should stop trying to create games that cater to both soloers and group people. Let's face it, no one has created a powerhouse game that effectively combines solo and group aspects. Some may have been successful enough to survive and profit their companies a little, but no one has created a purely awesome game that combines solo and group aspects.
Look at EVE Online (a game that, sadly, I cannot play for now because I do need to focus on the future of which trade I should pick up and what technical school I should join, the bills that come with that, basically real life, and FF XIV does look interesting in the future). It caters mostly to group aspects, and it's very difficult to solo in that game on some particular points (soloer vs. group of raiders = soloer losing 24/7 unless being raided by a pack of noobs). EVE Online is technically a niche game, yet it is a very successful niche game. It refuses to change the main aspects, and keeps delivering what the fans want.
I wish to see more games with that kind of style that EVE Online has. It focuses greatly on one party, and caters to make that playstyle awesome in that game.
I know. They should just stick with one idea and go with it instead of getting a loyal playerbase and making a complete 180 degree change down the road because they think more players will join. They shouldn't pull the rug out from under people just because of something someone might have said online.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
That's fine. I actually misread your first comment.. I wouldn't say that it's soloing that's destroying it, but the fact that it's the only choice we seem to have in post-WoW MMO's, which isn't fault of the system itself but rather the companies that make games.
It's the evolution of the genre. MMOs started group-heavy, but they didn't break out into the mainstream with millions of subscribers until developers recognized that soloable material was what the vast majority of players wanted. It's survival of the fittest and group-only games are largely going extinct because they cannot sustain their own financial weight.
Your conception of ‘MMO evolution’ is totally off base, MMOs have devolved to the lowest common player base. MMO’s started of as grouping games, on the PC.
How did this “developers recognized that soloable material was what the vast majority of players wanted” happen? How do you realise that a genre wants something before it is implemented? What happened was that the gaming style of solo games was copied for MMO’s, developers did not know that’s what we wanted but it seemed to work with the kiddies playing solo games.
The teen/pre teen market was and is a huge business, that model was forced on us. So you either stick with a MMO that is over five years old or you accept the new dumbed down solo version of MMO’s. WoW and consoles coming into MMO’s were key turning points in this sorry tale.
We already had solo games, we gained an online grouping genre. Now they have online solo games and you call that evolution? This is devolution to the simplest, easiest format. Yes that format attracts more players because of the teenies are now playing but that gives us a very boring MMO world.
It is like letting kids take over every playing field in the world because they only like skateboarding. We no longer play football, ruby, cricket or whatever. Just one dimensional solo games.
Your conception of ‘MMO evolution’ is totally off base, MMOs have devolved to the lowest common player base. MMO’s started of as grouping games, on the PC. Sure, until developers realized there just wasn't a big enough market for grouping-only games, the real money was in solo games. MMOs aren't the niche genre they were a decade ago, sorry to burst your bubble.
I suspect that the reason there is more solo activity today is because grouping has become a more complicated affair.
1) There was a time when there were very few limitations on group size. SWG allowed you to have 20 in a group, which meant you could afford to bring along whomever you wanted. These days, the standard is 8, which means you can't bring along just anyone like you could in the old days. Since the group sizes are smaller, groups tend to become a bit more picky with whom they choose. Because they are more picky with whom they choose, more people are going to be left out. Because more people are going to be left out, there has to be more of a game for them to play.
2) There was a time when people weren't so picky about voicechat. These days, people tend to prefer those who accept their communication preferences, which means those who use TS only will insist on its use, those who use vent only will insist on its use, and those who only chat longhand will insist that chat be done longhand. Because people insist on a particular communications standard, those who won't use the standard will be left out. Because more people will be left out, there has to be more of a game for them to play.
3) There was a time when people used to enter and leave groups at will. These days, entering or leaving a group durring the middle of a scaled instance or raid instance messes up the experience for everyone. Either the game doesn't allow new people to enter a group in the middle of a raid or encounter, or if it does, it throws off the balance. Because the game forces groups to remain cohesive for extended periods of time, people unable or unwilling to commit to the parameters will be left out. Because people will be left out, there has to be more of a game for them to play.
So you see, I don't see the rise of solo options in MMOs as a function of an increase in antisocial players. I see it as a function of the ever-increasing barriers to group play. And those barriers are a combination of smaller group sizes, the increasing prerequisites to gain admittance into a group, and the increasing demands that groups remain cohesive for the entirety of an encounter. These factors place players into the solo game who wouldn't have ordinarily been placed into the solo game in past games, where the barriers to grouping weren't so numerous.
Therefore, I think the way to solve the solo/group problem isn't to force players to conform to the present system. The way to solve it is to lower the accessability barriers to group play.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
The teen/pre teen market was and is a huge business, that model was forced on us. So you either stick with a MMO that is over five years old or you accept the new dumbed down solo version of MMO’s. WoW and consoles coming into MMO’s were key turning points in this sorry tale.
This argument is a clutch for people who don't like the more casual MMO market trend and it is not even true.
From the survey data, the average age of the WoW player is 28.3 (SD = 8.4). 84% of players are male. 16% are female. Female players are significantly older (M = 32.5, SD = 10.0) than male players (M = 28.0, SD = 8.4). On average, they spend 22.7 (SD = 14.1) hours per week playinFrom the survey data, the average age of the WoW player is 28.3 (SD = 8.4). 84% of players are male. 16% are female. Female players are significantly older (M = 32.5, SD = 10.0) than male players (M = 28.0, SD = 8.4). On average, they spend 22.7 (SD = 14.1) hours per week playing WoW. There are no gender differences in hours played per week.g WoW. There are no gender differences in hours played per week.
So you see, I don't see the rise of solo options in MMOs as a function of an increase in antisocial players. I see it as a function of the ever-increasing barriers to group play. And those barriers are a combination of smaller group sizes, the increasing prerequisites to gain admittance into a group, and the increasing demands that groups remain cohesive for the entirety of an encounter. These factors place players into the solo game who wouldn't have ordinarily been placed into the solo game in past games, where the barriers to grouping weren't so numerous. Therefore, I think the way to solve the solo/group problem isn't to force players to conform to the present system. The way to solve it is to lower the accessability barriers to group play.
There are plenty of games where those barriers don't exist, outside of a limited number of people on a team and I think that one really works because otherwise, you don't have a team, you've got a gang. I'll have to say I've never once been asked if I had voicechat, I don't and I don't care. If I've wanted to get into a team, it hasn't been a matter of picky players but of not enough people wanting to do the same thing at the same time.
The simple reality is, there are barriers to grouping, but most of them are inherent in grouping itself. Finding *ANYONE* who wants to group and do what you want to do. Getting everyone to the same place in a reasonable amount of time. Playing with idiots who either don't know how to play their character or who only want to use the group as a means for mondo-XP. These are all things that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the game and everything to do with grouping itself.
There might be ways around it, I suppose, especially the getting people to one place. If you used a teleporting system where as soon as you joined the team, you were instantly teleported to wherever they are and play could resume immediately, that would certainly help but I can see a lot of problems with it as well as a lot of complaining about how unrealistic it is. Otherwise, these are problems that will never go away because that's just what grouping requires. Far too many people, as you pointed out, want to punish people who choose not to group, rather than simply accept that there are inherent barriers to their chosen playstyle and that's life.
I accept that grouping mechanics can be a rod for their own back, but that’s an argument for a better way of grouping, not to dump grouping. Public Quests are a way forward, there are good ideas already in play out there.
I never said that WoW was a preteen game, only that it helped shape MMO’s to looking for a younger market. Also my argument is not that only preteens or teenagers play these games, as I said that model was forced on us. We, the people over the age of 19, are being forced to play games modelled for those under 20. So it is no surprise to me that the average age of a WoW player is 28.
I do not want to punish soloers, but the need in my eyes to reward groupers may make it seem that way. I have argued elsewhere that maybe we just need to play different games or on ‘grouping servers’. But that is defeatist, I just can’t get my head around how we can let the opportunity to play as groups and teams and guilds pass us by. If you want to play solo, stick to solo games. Fallout and GTA are better at solo play than any MMO on the market.
Realm defence in DAOC, seiges in AoC, mini raids in LotR, unexpected battles against the Horde in WoW, these have been my best MMO times.
So why come online and just run round on your own, this is just madness to me?
I accept that grouping mechanics can be a rod for their own back, but that’s an argument for a better way of grouping, not to dump grouping. Public Quests are a way forward, there are good ideas already in play out there. But nobody is dumping grouping, I can't think of a single game out there that you cannot group in, can you? I'll be the first to agree that there are a lot of mechanical issues that might make grouping more difficult, but by no means does that mean that grouping has been "dumped". It's freely available to anyone who wants to do it in virtually every game on the market. I do not want to punish soloers, but the need in my eyes to reward groupers may make it seem that way. I have argued elsewhere that maybe we just need to play different games or on ‘grouping servers’. But that is defeatist, I just can’t get my head around how we can let the opportunity to play as groups and teams and guilds pass us by. If you want to play solo, stick to solo games. Fallout and GTA are better at solo play than any MMO on the market. What you don't seem to realize is that rewarding grouping inherently punishes soloing. It gives preference to one playstyle over another, frankly just because it's the one you prefer. There's no rational, logical argument that I've ever seen why groupers deserve something special for their efforts. Every argument I've seen has been geared toward pushing non-groupers into grouping and that, in and of itself, is a punishment in the eyes of people who do not want to group. If you want to make a good argument, you need to remove yourself entirely from it and make it based on the facts. Don't assert that MMOs are about grouping, they're obviously not. Don't assert that grouping is the "correct" way to play them, it isn't. What you like or dislike is entirely irrelevant to the argument as well. Come up with a solid, well-constructed, well-reasoned, logical discussion about why people who choose to get into a team deserve better rewards, given the same conditions, as those who do not. I've asked people to do it before and amazingly, they just go silent. Realm defence in DAOC, seiges in AoC, mini raids in LotR, unexpected battles against the Horde in WoW, these have been my best MMO times. Unfortunately, times change and so do games. Maybe the games that are out there today aren't what you want to play and that's certainly understandable. There's a reason games have changed and that has to do with what the majority of players want out of games. You have to understand that developers are in this to make money and the vast majority of money comes from soloers and casuals. Like it or not, that's reality. Crying that it shouldn't be reality doesn't change anything. So why come online and just run round on your own, this is just madness to me? Why do they do it? Because they want to. Not to be rude here, but it's none of your damn business what they do or why they do it, any more than it's any of their business if they think your desire to group seems like madness. Everyone has a right to do what they want for whatever reason they want to do it and no one, absolutely no one, deserves to be unduly rewarded for their *CHOICE* in playstyle. Not even you.
You two (Cephus404 and Scot) have a lot of differences in perspective, and I think they both are valid ones. But I think the differences have to do with viewing the solo/group debate as an exclusivity issue, rather than as an accessability issue.
In my opinion, before we can even talk about relative rewards, we have to talk about accessability. Because it seems that the problems that groupers and soloers have with one another have to do with the "goodies" that are earned in encounters. But that doesn't solve the soloer's problem that grouping is too much of a hassle, and that doesn't solve the grouper's problem that there's nobody around to help with content. All that focusing on the rewards each group "should" get just puts the two groups at odds, when they should be finding common ground. We all like these games and we all want them to succeed.
So to the groupers, what other things (other than increases in loot, XP, or gold for groupers) do you think would encourage more soloers to group?
To the soloers, what would it take for you to join groups more often than you do?
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Soloing is ruining the MMORPG market! A few reasons: One, solo'ers shouldnt be able to get the same gear as groupers because groupers are doing more work. Us groupers are fighting harder enemies that obviously require a group to kill signifying that the monster is not solo'able. So why should a solo'er get the same ranking gear from something much easier to kill / do?
Plus, solo'ing isn't fun, you don't meet new people and have very limiting social interaction. As well as breeding negative socialization with groupers by 'using' groups to get that one thing done for themselves then bail out of the party. It is very annoying and I've seen a lot of it in games that it shouldn't be happening in.
For solo'ers
Soloing is very fun. Soloing through a game by yourself in a world full of other players changing in and one manning to the the top can be fun. A lot of groupers haven't done that but blow it away anyway. Even in games like DDO, where soloing is hated by most groupers... soloing is even then still recognized as a challenge and an accomplishment in certain quests.
What does this argument come down to?
In my opinion this entire argument comes down to the community of the game. I talk alot about DDO because, one I love it, and two, the community. If you are a solo'er, thats great and I feel you if you wanna solo through a game. But when you go into a game and revolt against the rest of the community about their game being too group oriented, well thats the way the game was made and how the community plays it. If people are having fun, and you're not having fun, it doesnt give you the right to try to revolt against the game.
DDO is becoming a solo friendly game, and a lot of founders don't like it. I don't really mind because I know you can't solo certain things and you'll never be able to. And a lot of people are gonna have fun, I won't solo so I'll still be having fun. I'm not gonna yell at someone because they have some good gear and got it by themselves, who cares? Worry about yourself, and if you're not having fun, stop playing,
You two (Cephus404 and Scot) have a lot of differences in perspective, and I think they both are valid ones. But I think the differences have to do with viewing the solo/group debate as an exclusivity issue, rather than as an accessability issue. Except you almost immediately try to turn it back into an exclusivity issue. Accessibility means that everyone can play the way they want to play without undue barriers. It doesn't mean trying to push one side into playing the way the other side wants. In my opinion, before we can even talk about relative rewards, we have to talk about accessability. Because it seems that the problems that groupers and soloers have with one another have to do with the "goodies" that are earned in encounters. But that doesn't solve the soloer's problem that grouping is too much of a hassle, and that doesn't solve the grouper's problem that there's nobody around to help with content. All that focusing on the rewards each group "should" get just puts the two groups at odds, when they should be finding common ground. We all like these games and we all want them to succeed. Let's use an analogy. Say you were involved in a road race and could drive any car you wanted to. Just about everyone chose a gasoline powered car but you wanted to drive one that required rocket fuel. Certainly, your car is going to be faster than everyone else's, but when it comes time to refuel, you're going to have a harder time doing it because rocket fuel is inherently harder to find than gasoline. Should you get extra points or extra compensation because of a problem inherent in the vehicle you chose to drive? Of course not. You made your choice and it comes along with all the problems and benefits inherent in that choice. You can't decide that you want all the benefits but none of the drawbacks, life doesn't work that way. So to the groupers, what other things (other than increases in loot, XP, or gold for groupers) do you think would encourage more soloers to group? To the soloers, what would it take for you to join groups more often than you do? Why is that even an issue? This isn't supposed to be about exclusivity, remember? We're not supposed to be trying to get one group to adopt the other group's method of play. We're supposed to make it accessible to all. If soloists never want to group, they should never have to group and trying to beg, force or bribe them into it ought never be an option. Stop trying to make them do something they don't want to do.
Comments
'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.
The lack of vision of players today just amazes me. Just because you can't comprehend how a developer could offer both solo and grouping, doesn't mean it can't be done. I offer, as one of many examples, reality. You see, in reality, some people choose to shoot hoops by themselves. Other people choose to play pickup games. While others join a league, and some play professionally. Some play baseball on a team, while others hit the batting cages.
People CHOOSE to play as a team when they want to, and they CHOOSE to play solo when they want to do that. Isn't that what we're all after here? The ability to make choices in game and have it actually effect the outcome? That's what this offers, that's exactly what this is.
Last night, I CHOSE to group up with a couple of guys while playing Aion. I was just hanging out, picking up a few hairpins, they needed some help on a higher level mob, and we ended up running around together for an hour. They needed to group. I chose to group. It worked out just great for everyone.
'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.
I understand that, and I wasn't alienating your favourite playing style, I was merely defending mine. The title of this thread is about soloing destroying mmos, and that is just ridiculous. I haven't seen one argument that backs that statement, even if poorly. Specially considering very successful games like EVE.
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.
The lack of vision of players today just amazes me. Just because you can't comprehend how a developer could offer both solo and grouping, doesn't mean it can't be done. I offer, as one of many examples, reality. You see, in reality, some people choose to shoot hoops by themselves. Other people choose to play pickup games. While others join a league, and some play professionally. Some play baseball on a team, while others hit the batting cages.
People CHOOSE to play as a team when they want to, and they CHOOSE to play solo when they want to do that. Isn't that what we're all after here? The ability to make choices in game and have it actually effect the outcome? That's what this offers, that's exactly what this is.
Last night, I CHOSE to group up with a couple of guys while playing Aion. I was just hanging out, picking up a few hairpins, they needed some help on a higher level mob, and we ended up running around together for an hour. They needed to group. I chose to group. It worked out just great for everyone.
You're right. There's nothing wrong with flexibility, and I play games that offer a mix of playstyles. Some people just want everything their way - the entire game has to cater to their playstyle, or they get upset and cry that the genre is doomed.
I've been playing WoW lately. I did some questing with a couple of friends, I did some dungeons with some friends and a couple of strangers, I did some soloing, and tomorrow I'll be doing end-game raiding with my level 80 druid. I'm not being forced into any of it - if I want to group, I can find a group. If I want to solo, I can find things to do solo.
The existence of group content doesn't destroy my solo play, and the existence of solo content doesn't destroy my group play. All the complaining is ridiculous. It boils down to: "People who don't play the game my way are destroying the genre. And by destroying, I mean they're not playing my way. So people who don't play my way aren't playing my way. Waaah! Make them play my way!"
That's fine. I actually misread your first comment.. I wouldn't say that it's soloing that's destroying it, but the fact that it's the only choice we seem to have in post-WoW MMO's, which isn't fault of the system itself but rather the companies that make games.
Reality is a baaaaad example, lol. It can't get anymore 'forced grouping' than that!
You can CHOOSE to not play the 'forced grouping' game, too, and rather play the 'forced solo' game instead.. so the problem here is?
Maybe the solution is group and solo instances with completely seperate progression and acheivement paths. They could even make the gear obtained in either have stats (like they did with the pvp gear in Wow) that give them a clear advantage in their specialty. Then, raiders would still have superior raid gear, and solo players would have superior solo gear.
Or take it one more step further... separate games for both groups o_0! That way soloers would get twice as much content and groupers as well, since the devs wouldn't have to do content for 2 separate groups of players at once.
Or take it one more step further... separate games for both groups o_0! That way soloers would get twice as much content and groupers as well, since the devs wouldn't have to do content for 2 separate groups of players at once.
With the divide that exists between the various playstyles, that's probably an inevitability.
Using television as an example, in it's early days the networks had massive audience numbers (like WoW's subscriber base now), but as consumer appetites grew and became more specialised, cable and satellite arrived and supplied specialty channels for the various niche markets. Of course, HBO, SyFy etc. don't have the money to spend that the networks do, but their fans are happy with the product, and those specialty channels are profitable as a result of catering to their client base.
Raid, Solo, PvP, RP.......there's four niche MMO markets that a small to mid sized dev could cater to and profit from right off the bat.
I don't think its one group of player styles thats ruining the games. Its the developers who are trying to cater and make everyone happy at the same time. If they would just make up their mind on one play style and concentrate all their energy on it people would be a little happier. What we have now is this mixed up wishy wash hybrid clones that try to make everyone happy. They need to stick with one and go with it. If someone wants a certain type of play style go play that game. Don't infiltrate a game just because you think your personal play style is what everyone will want. Keep thy play style to thyself. No one is forcing you to play a game, don't force others to play your game.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
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.
I don't "force" you to do anything. You can group until the cows come home if that's what you want to do, nobody is stopping you. However, you get the pro-groupers who have an emotional reaction to other's ability to solo at all. "Waaah, we're not being made to feel special!" It's a load of nonsense.
There is a middleground, you just don't like it and the reality is, there just aren't enough people willing to play a group-only game to make it financially viable to a mainstream audience. I guess we'll just have to put up with the endless pro-group whining here.
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
What makes you think MMOs are "superior"? They're just different. Forced grouping isn't a "feature" that "defines" MMOs, apparently it's something that kills them because the majority of people who play MMOs simply don't want it.
The problem is, your point of view doesn't make any sense. You want your way or the highway, but people who share your view represent a minuscule percentage of MMO players. You claim that grouping, and by this you mean forced, take-it-or-gtfo grouping, brings features that soloing doesn't, that doesn't mean it's something most people want any more than hardcore permadeath is something most people want even if it does have a tiny following. You keep claiming these features are wonderful, you and your very small number of pro-grouping advocates seem to be the only ones that think so.
Everyone else thinks the idea is nuts.
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
A good argument. Which is why developers should stop trying to create games that cater to both soloers and group people. Let's face it, no one has created a powerhouse game that effectively combines solo and group aspects. Some may have been successful enough to survive and profit their companies a little, but no one has created a purely awesome game that combines solo and group aspects.
Look at EVE Online (a game that, sadly, I cannot play for now because I do need to focus on the future of which trade I should pick up and what technical school I should join, the bills that come with that, basically real life, and FF XIV does look interesting in the future). It caters mostly to group aspects, and it's very difficult to solo in that game on some particular points (soloer vs. group of raiders = soloer losing 24/7 unless being raided by a pack of noobs). EVE Online is technically a niche game, yet it is a very successful niche game. It refuses to change the main aspects, and keeps delivering what the fans want.
I wish to see more games with that kind of style that EVE Online has. It focuses greatly on one party, and caters to make that playstyle awesome in that game.
A good argument. Which is why developers should stop trying to create games that cater to both soloers and group people. Let's face it, no one has created a powerhouse game that effectively combines solo and group aspects. Some may have been successful enough to survive and profit their companies a little, but no one has created a purely awesome game that combines solo and group aspects.
Look at EVE Online (a game that, sadly, I cannot play for now because I do need to focus on the future of which trade I should pick up and what technical school I should join, the bills that come with that, basically real life, and FF XIV does look interesting in the future). It caters mostly to group aspects, and it's very difficult to solo in that game on some particular points (soloer vs. group of raiders = soloer losing 24/7 unless being raided by a pack of noobs). EVE Online is technically a niche game, yet it is a very successful niche game. It refuses to change the main aspects, and keeps delivering what the fans want.
I wish to see more games with that kind of style that EVE Online has. It focuses greatly on one party, and caters to make that playstyle awesome in that game.
I know. They should just stick with one idea and go with it instead of getting a loyal playerbase and making a complete 180 degree change down the road because they think more players will join. They shouldn't pull the rug out from under people just because of something someone might have said online.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
What a tonne a E waste...
Getting old is mandatory...growing up is optional.
It's the evolution of the genre. MMOs started group-heavy, but they didn't break out into the mainstream with millions of subscribers until developers recognized that soloable material was what the vast majority of players wanted. It's survival of the fittest and group-only games are largely going extinct because they cannot sustain their own financial weight.
That's the way the cookie crumbles.
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
Your conception of ‘MMO evolution’ is totally off base, MMOs have devolved to the lowest common player base. MMO’s started of as grouping games, on the PC.
How did this “developers recognized that soloable material was what the vast majority of players wanted” happen? How do you realise that a genre wants something before it is implemented? What happened was that the gaming style of solo games was copied for MMO’s, developers did not know that’s what we wanted but it seemed to work with the kiddies playing solo games.
The teen/pre teen market was and is a huge business, that model was forced on us. So you either stick with a MMO that is over five years old or you accept the new dumbed down solo version of MMO’s. WoW and consoles coming into MMO’s were key turning points in this sorry tale.
We already had solo games, we gained an online grouping genre. Now they have online solo games and you call that evolution? This is devolution to the simplest, easiest format. Yes that format attracts more players because of the teenies are now playing but that gives us a very boring MMO world.
It is like letting kids take over every playing field in the world because they only like skateboarding. We no longer play football, ruby, cricket or whatever. Just one dimensional solo games.
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
I suspect that the reason there is more solo activity today is because grouping has become a more complicated affair.
1) There was a time when there were very few limitations on group size. SWG allowed you to have 20 in a group, which meant you could afford to bring along whomever you wanted. These days, the standard is 8, which means you can't bring along just anyone like you could in the old days. Since the group sizes are smaller, groups tend to become a bit more picky with whom they choose. Because they are more picky with whom they choose, more people are going to be left out. Because more people are going to be left out, there has to be more of a game for them to play.
2) There was a time when people weren't so picky about voicechat. These days, people tend to prefer those who accept their communication preferences, which means those who use TS only will insist on its use, those who use vent only will insist on its use, and those who only chat longhand will insist that chat be done longhand. Because people insist on a particular communications standard, those who won't use the standard will be left out. Because more people will be left out, there has to be more of a game for them to play.
3) There was a time when people used to enter and leave groups at will. These days, entering or leaving a group durring the middle of a scaled instance or raid instance messes up the experience for everyone. Either the game doesn't allow new people to enter a group in the middle of a raid or encounter, or if it does, it throws off the balance. Because the game forces groups to remain cohesive for extended periods of time, people unable or unwilling to commit to the parameters will be left out. Because people will be left out, there has to be more of a game for them to play.
So you see, I don't see the rise of solo options in MMOs as a function of an increase in antisocial players. I see it as a function of the ever-increasing barriers to group play. And those barriers are a combination of smaller group sizes, the increasing prerequisites to gain admittance into a group, and the increasing demands that groups remain cohesive for the entirety of an encounter. These factors place players into the solo game who wouldn't have ordinarily been placed into the solo game in past games, where the barriers to grouping weren't so numerous.
Therefore, I think the way to solve the solo/group problem isn't to force players to conform to the present system. The way to solve it is to lower the accessability barriers to group play.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
The teen/pre teen market was and is a huge business, that model was forced on us. So you either stick with a MMO that is over five years old or you accept the new dumbed down solo version of MMO’s. WoW and consoles coming into MMO’s were key turning points in this sorry tale.
This argument is a clutch for people who don't like the more casual MMO market trend and it is not even true.
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001365.php
And I quote:
From the survey data, the average age of the WoW player is 28.3 (SD = 8.4). 84% of players are male. 16% are female. Female players are significantly older (M = 32.5, SD = 10.0) than male players (M = 28.0, SD = 8.4). On average, they spend 22.7 (SD = 14.1) hours per week playinFrom the survey data, the average age of the WoW player is 28.3 (SD = 8.4). 84% of players are male. 16% are female. Female players are significantly older (M = 32.5, SD = 10.0) than male players (M = 28.0, SD = 8.4). On average, they spend 22.7 (SD = 14.1) hours per week playing WoW. There are no gender differences in hours played per week.g WoW. There are no gender differences in hours played per week.
There are plenty of games where those barriers don't exist, outside of a limited number of people on a team and I think that one really works because otherwise, you don't have a team, you've got a gang. I'll have to say I've never once been asked if I had voicechat, I don't and I don't care. If I've wanted to get into a team, it hasn't been a matter of picky players but of not enough people wanting to do the same thing at the same time.
The simple reality is, there are barriers to grouping, but most of them are inherent in grouping itself. Finding *ANYONE* who wants to group and do what you want to do. Getting everyone to the same place in a reasonable amount of time. Playing with idiots who either don't know how to play their character or who only want to use the group as a means for mondo-XP. These are all things that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the game and everything to do with grouping itself.
There might be ways around it, I suppose, especially the getting people to one place. If you used a teleporting system where as soon as you joined the team, you were instantly teleported to wherever they are and play could resume immediately, that would certainly help but I can see a lot of problems with it as well as a lot of complaining about how unrealistic it is. Otherwise, these are problems that will never go away because that's just what grouping requires. Far too many people, as you pointed out, want to punish people who choose not to group, rather than simply accept that there are inherent barriers to their chosen playstyle and that's life.
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
I accept that grouping mechanics can be a rod for their own back, but that’s an argument for a better way of grouping, not to dump grouping. Public Quests are a way forward, there are good ideas already in play out there.
I never said that WoW was a preteen game, only that it helped shape MMO’s to looking for a younger market. Also my argument is not that only preteens or teenagers play these games, as I said that model was forced on us. We, the people over the age of 19, are being forced to play games modelled for those under 20. So it is no surprise to me that the average age of a WoW player is 28.
I do not want to punish soloers, but the need in my eyes to reward groupers may make it seem that way. I have argued elsewhere that maybe we just need to play different games or on ‘grouping servers’. But that is defeatist, I just can’t get my head around how we can let the opportunity to play as groups and teams and guilds pass us by. If you want to play solo, stick to solo games. Fallout and GTA are better at solo play than any MMO on the market.
Realm defence in DAOC, seiges in AoC, mini raids in LotR, unexpected battles against the Horde in WoW, these have been my best MMO times.
So why come online and just run round on your own, this is just madness to me?
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
You two (Cephus404 and Scot) have a lot of differences in perspective, and I think they both are valid ones. But I think the differences have to do with viewing the solo/group debate as an exclusivity issue, rather than as an accessability issue.
In my opinion, before we can even talk about relative rewards, we have to talk about accessability. Because it seems that the problems that groupers and soloers have with one another have to do with the "goodies" that are earned in encounters. But that doesn't solve the soloer's problem that grouping is too much of a hassle, and that doesn't solve the grouper's problem that there's nobody around to help with content. All that focusing on the rewards each group "should" get just puts the two groups at odds, when they should be finding common ground. We all like these games and we all want them to succeed.
So to the groupers, what other things (other than increases in loot, XP, or gold for groupers) do you think would encourage more soloers to group?
To the soloers, what would it take for you to join groups more often than you do?
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
For groupers
Soloing is ruining the MMORPG market! A few reasons: One, solo'ers shouldnt be able to get the same gear as groupers because groupers are doing more work. Us groupers are fighting harder enemies that obviously require a group to kill signifying that the monster is not solo'able. So why should a solo'er get the same ranking gear from something much easier to kill / do?
Plus, solo'ing isn't fun, you don't meet new people and have very limiting social interaction. As well as breeding negative socialization with groupers by 'using' groups to get that one thing done for themselves then bail out of the party. It is very annoying and I've seen a lot of it in games that it shouldn't be happening in.
For solo'ers
Soloing is very fun. Soloing through a game by yourself in a world full of other players changing in and one manning to the the top can be fun. A lot of groupers haven't done that but blow it away anyway. Even in games like DDO, where soloing is hated by most groupers... soloing is even then still recognized as a challenge and an accomplishment in certain quests.
What does this argument come down to?
In my opinion this entire argument comes down to the community of the game. I talk alot about DDO because, one I love it, and two, the community. If you are a solo'er, thats great and I feel you if you wanna solo through a game. But when you go into a game and revolt against the rest of the community about their game being too group oriented, well thats the way the game was made and how the community plays it. If people are having fun, and you're not having fun, it doesnt give you the right to try to revolt against the game.
DDO is becoming a solo friendly game, and a lot of founders don't like it. I don't really mind because I know you can't solo certain things and you'll never be able to. And a lot of people are gonna have fun, I won't solo so I'll still be having fun. I'm not gonna yell at someone because they have some good gear and got it by themselves, who cares? Worry about yourself, and if you're not having fun, stop playing,
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