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.
Hmm, man this is a long thread and I don't feel like reading all of it right now, lol. So forgive me if I repeat what someone else said.
Soloing is *not* ruining MMO. Soloing can be one of the most rewarding experiences. Soloers that expect the game to be catered to soloing are part of the ruining of MMO. I will call these people Asshats, and I will call real soloers, Soloers of course:).
Asshats expect the ability to get the same rewards as people that group/raid. Asshats will refuse a party with you while they kill a quest mob you need right in front of you. Asshats will barge into your area and start harvesting the mats you have been on and not say a word. Asshats will refuse a grind party with you because they make .01% less experience with you in the party. Basically, they want everything a party or raid can get and they want the ability to solo it.
Soloing is/used to be for meat-eaters. Soloers never asked for solo content or for the game to be designed to be played solo. Soloers enjoy doing things solo that were not intended to be done solo. If it was intended to be done solo, many Soloers would have no interest in it, because part of the thrill of it was to do something challenging and either feel a sense of accomplishment or to show off their skills to others. That is a real Soloer; they have balls of steel, plenty of skill, they don't cry when they die, and tend to be pretty cool people.
So, basically, there will *always* be soloing, because there will always be Soloers, and that is a great thing, and is not ruining MMO. In fact I love seeing the achievements of Soloers that have done amazing things solo. Asshats are part of the problem. The vocal selfish minority(might even be the majority now, not sure) that want the game tailored to their individualistic desires in a massive multi-player online world that is fundamentally about meeting and working with others and having a good time together.
i would rather be able to solo and group not just group...i would never play another mmo like ff11 because of that....waiting 4+ hours just to lvl is pointless
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.
Why is this even an issue? Because I see threads like this every day. And the industry keeps on doing the same tired old solutions that don't work.
Why didn't we have this whole "solo versus group" conflict back in the day? I think it has to do with a lot of factors, some that design can alleviate, and some that the culture of gaming has created.
And one of those things this culture of gaming has created is intolerance for playstyles that don't particularly suit us. We see the vicissitudes of development as a "zero sum game," where in order for some playstyle to win something, some other playstyle has to lose something. And as a result, we've created shallow, myopic games where nobody is happy.
But I digress...
Whether or not we can change--as gamers--remains to be seen. What we can do, however, is to learn from each other, so we can create better systems.
So rather than assert things like "soloers must die," or "stop forcing me in groups," let's start by asking why soloers solo in today's team-heavy MMOs?
So why do they, Cephuus404?
__________________________ "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
Why is this even an issue? Because I see threads like this every day. And the industry keeps on doing the same tired old solutions that don't work.
Apparently it works because they're making money hand over fist. Why didn't we have this whole "solo versus group" conflict back in the day? I think it has to do with a lot of factors, some that design can alleviate, and some that the culture of gaming has created. Because "back in the day" games were developed for a tiny core of fanatics who lived on the games 24/7. Then developers realized that there was a massive untapped market of non-fanatic players who didn't want hardcore content, didn't want permadeath, didn't want to live the game in order to have a good time and those are the people in virtually *EVERY* game on the market that keep the games afloat. And one of those things this culture of gaming has created is intolerance for playstyles that don't particularly suit us. We see the vicissitudes of development as a "zero sum game," where in order for some playstyle to win something, some other playstyle has to lose something. And as a result, we've created shallow, myopic games where nobody is happy. Apparently, lots of people are happy because lots of people are playing. MMORPG.com is a really bad indicator of the overall health and happiness of the MMO community. So rather than assert things like "soloers must die," or "stop forcing me in groups," let's start by asking why soloers solo in today's team-heavy MMOs? So why do they, Cephuus404? You keep asserting that they're team-heavy and there's no indication of that. Just about everyone solos at least part of the time. Most people group some of the time. Very few people group all of the time. The numbers just don't add up to the claims that groupers assert.
Maybe the better question is, why do groupers group in today's solo-heavy MMOs?
Why is this even an issue? Because I see threads like this every day. And the industry keeps on doing the same tired old solutions that don't work. Apparently it works because they're making money hand over fist. Which is a huge reason why MMO's are in such a slump right now. Would it kill to see a few more hardcore games? I think many of us are tired of WOW clones. Why didn't we have this whole "solo versus group" conflict back in the day? I think it has to do with a lot of factors, some that design can alleviate, and some that the culture of gaming has created. Because "back in the day" games were developed for a tiny core of fanatics who lived on the games 24/7. Then developers realized that there was a massive untapped market of non-fanatic players who didn't want hardcore content, didn't want permadeath, didn't want to live the game in order to have a good time and those are the people in virtually *EVERY* game on the market that keep the games afloat. I don't know, FF XI was a game for hardcore group players, and even though they made the game a teensy bit more friendly to soloers and casuals, it's still extremely group oriented. Considering that FF XI has had a steady fanbase of hardcore group players around 500k subscriptions for 8 straight years, it does show that these types of games can be successful, even if they don't cater to what's popular at the time. And one of those things this culture of gaming has created is intolerance for playstyles that don't particularly suit us. We see the vicissitudes of development as a "zero sum game," where in order for some playstyle to win something, some other playstyle has to lose something. And as a result, we've created shallow, myopic games where nobody is happy. Apparently, lots of people are happy because lots of people are playing. MMORPG.com is a really bad indicator of the overall health and happiness of the MMO community. Mmmm...I'm not so sure about lots and lots of happy people. More like 50happy/50 depressed if you ask me. So rather than assert things like "soloers must die," or "stop forcing me in groups," let's start by asking why soloers solo in today's team-heavy MMOs? So why do they, Cephuus404? You keep asserting that they're team-heavy and there's no indication of that. Just about everyone solos at least part of the time. Most people group some of the time. Very few people group all of the time. The numbers just don't add up to the claims that groupers assert.
Maybe the better question is, why do groupers group in today's solo-heavy MMOs? Well, I could also say to that "why do soloers solo in group games?" I had witnessed a situation like that in the old game I used play, Silkroad Online (do not play it, it's bot infested and has untrustworthy GMs). Basically, a zealot soloist (who happened to be a cleric) ran away from someone who was dead on the ground calling to her to res him. Well, he and his buddies were pretty pissed with the soloist, and if I wasn't around, well...
IMO, developers should stop creating games that tries to cater to everyone. Look at EVE Online. They cater only to the group fans, and haven't really made the game more solo friendly since the beginning. They do that because the fans want that. The developers cater to only one group, the group players, yet look how successful it is considering they leave soloers in the dust most of the time.
Why is this even an issue? Because I see threads like this every day. And the industry keeps on doing the same tired old solutions that don't work. Apparently it works because they're making money hand over fist. Which is a huge reason why MMO's are in such a slump right now. Would it kill to see a few more hardcore games? I think many of us are tired of WOW clones. But they're not in a slump, they are more successful today than in pretty much any time in their history. You might not like what they're currently doing, that doesn't mean they aren't wildly financially successful. Why didn't we have this whole "solo versus group" conflict back in the day? I think it has to do with a lot of factors, some that design can alleviate, and some that the culture of gaming has created. Because "back in the day" games were developed for a tiny core of fanatics who lived on the games 24/7. Then developers realized that there was a massive untapped market of non-fanatic players who didn't want hardcore content, didn't want permadeath, didn't want to live the game in order to have a good time and those are the people in virtually *EVERY* game on the market that keep the games afloat. I don't know, FF XI was a game for hardcore group players, and even though they made the game a teensy bit more friendly to soloers and casuals, it's still extremely group oriented. Considering that FF XI has had a steady fanbase of hardcore group players around 500k subscriptions for 8 straight years, it does show that these types of games can be successful, even if they don't cater to what's popular at the time. 500k subs is pretty weak in the current MMO market, especially when WoW has millions. But of course, if FFXI is the kind of game groupers want to play, then they ought to go play it and stop complaining. And one of those things this culture of gaming has created is intolerance for playstyles that don't particularly suit us. We see the vicissitudes of development as a "zero sum game," where in order for some playstyle to win something, some other playstyle has to lose something. And as a result, we've created shallow, myopic games where nobody is happy. Apparently, lots of people are happy because lots of people are playing. MMORPG.com is a really bad indicator of the overall health and happiness of the MMO community. Mmmm...I'm not so sure about lots and lots of happy people. More like 50happy/50 depressed if you ask me. If the depressed people are still shelling out money for monthly subscriptions, that's their problem. The only thing that matters at the end of the day is what the bank account looks like. People who hate games but pay for them anyhow are only shooting themselves in the foot and get what they deserve. So rather than assert things like "soloers must die," or "stop forcing me in groups," let's start by asking why soloers solo in today's team-heavy MMOs? So why do they, Cephuus404? You keep asserting that they're team-heavy and there's no indication of that. Just about everyone solos at least part of the time. Most people group some of the time. Very few people group all of the time. The numbers just don't add up to the claims that groupers assert.
Maybe the better question is, why do groupers group in today's solo-heavy MMOs? Well, I could also say to that "why do soloers solo in group games?" I had witnessed a situation like that in the old game I used play, Silkroad Online (do not play it, it's bot infested and has untrustworthy GMs). Basically, a zealot soloist (who happened to be a cleric) ran away from someone who was dead on the ground calling to her to res him. Well, he and his buddies were pretty pissed with the soloist, and if I wasn't around, well...
Hate to say it but nobody owes anyone a res. It's not a public service. Not knowing the situation, I'm not going to comment other than to say that the whole entitlement nonsense is very old and tired. IMO, developers should stop creating games that tries to cater to everyone. Look at EVE Online. They cater only to the group fans, and haven't really made the game more solo friendly since the beginning. They do that because the fans want that. The developers cater to only one group, the group players, yet look how successful it is considering they leave soloers in the dust most of the time. They make enough money to stay in business and that's entirely fine. You like what they do, go play it. But for companies that actually want to make the big money, they are going to cater to the widest possible audience and that audience invariably are the soloists. They throw in grouping to placate the groupers, but grouping just isn't a big money-maker in MMOs these days.
Certainly I think group play in the widest content of the word is better than soloing, this is what I am championing. So for me if soloers get a raw deal so be it, don’t forget I solo too. I don’t see that I have to come up with a better argument than I have, this is not a discussion about dark matter. It is a discussion about preferred play styles, so how I, or anyone else here prefers to play online is the issue.
No MMO is dumping grouping, it has been effectively dumped by excessive pandering to soloers however. A biasness to them that you recognise later in your post Cephus404. Talking of which, I do not see how your own views are formed by your preference for soloing one whit less then mine are for grouping. And I see nothing wrong with that, I am arguing here for the most interesting way to play, not the ‘correct’ or somehow traditional one.
One of your constant themes is how favouring grouping is discriminating against soloing, but the cards are already all stacked your way so what are you talking about?
For all the great old times, there were bad times too, I do not live in the past. But a balance is not unachievable. Instead we got the equivalent of a game badly ported to another format. Console players were playing solo by default, put them online and they will want to still do just that. There are exceptions, well from subscription games anyway. LotR, AoC and WAR spring to mind, but they all have there flaws.
Your argument about not being reward for a choice in playstyle amuses me. Soloers are and for a long time have effectively been the most rewarded. You can go on about grouping incentives but if 90 to 95% of your time is spent soloing how do those grouping incentives matter?
Do we want MMO’s which are carbon copies of console solo games? Do we not want to try for something greater which actually uses the fact we are online together? The way things are going how long before a MMO comes out with cheat codes so you can solo that much quicker to the end?
Oh sorry, we do have them already they are called F2P (Real Micro Transaction) games.
Oh and guys when you stop quoting the quote of another persons quote I will reply to some of the arguments you have raised on page 9. Yes page nine, its amazing how so many voices which gainsay soloing are not representative of the MMO community isn’t it? Especially when they are not telling you what you want to hear.
But for companies that actually want to make the big money, they are going to cater to the widest possible audience and that audience invariably are the soloists. They throw in grouping to placate the groupers, but grouping just isn't a big money-maker in MMOs these days.
Does anyone else see anything wrong with these two sentences? I can hardly believe my eyes. Massive Multiplayer Online games are for solo play now? And people pay upwards of $20 a month to play them? Unless the only reason to play an MMO is to see other players (even though you are not interacting with them), does it not make more sense to just play a single player game? They tend to have better graphics, better story, less lag, regular patches that don't cut you off one day a week from playing, and they cost no monthly fee. Again, the only reason to solo in an MMO over a single player game is to see other players. Is that seriously worth $20 a month? $10? I am aghast.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
But for companies that actually want to make the big money, they are going to cater to the widest possible audience and that audience invariably are the soloists. They throw in grouping to placate the groupers, but grouping just isn't a big money-maker in MMOs these days.
Does anyone else see anything wrong with these two sentences? I can hardly believe my eyes. Massive Multiplayer Online games are for solo play now? And people pay upwards of $20 a month to play them? Unless the only reason to play an MMO is to see other players (even though you are not interacting with them), does it not make more sense to just play a single player game? They tend to have better graphics, better story, less lag, regular patches that don't cut you off one day a week from playing, and they cost no monthly fee. Again, the only reason to solo in an MMO over a single player game is to see other players. Is that seriously worth $20 a month? $10? I am aghast.
Where do you get the idea that soloists do not interact with other players? Raiding/grouping is just a small part of the player interaction in MMORPGs.
But for companies that actually want to make the big money, they are going to cater to the widest possible audience and that audience invariably are the soloists. They throw in grouping to placate the groupers, but grouping just isn't a big money-maker in MMOs these days.
Does anyone else see anything wrong with these two sentences? I can hardly believe my eyes. Massive Multiplayer Online games are for solo play now? And people pay upwards of $20 a month to play them? Unless the only reason to play an MMO is to see other players (even though you are not interacting with them), does it not make more sense to just play a single player game? They tend to have better graphics, better story, less lag, regular patches that don't cut you off one day a week from playing, and they cost no monthly fee. Again, the only reason to solo in an MMO over a single player game is to see other players. Is that seriously worth $20 a month? $10? I am aghast.
Where do you get the idea that soloists do not interact with other players? Raiding/grouping is just a small part of the player interaction in MMORPGs.
Exactly. Economy, PvP, chat, compare gear, ... there are a lot more than just grouping.
The problem about some of the "grouper" is that their mind is too small and cannot see that grouping is just ONE of the many interactions in a MMO.
Well at least FFXI didnt do this... Kinda >.< Fields of Valor benifits the soloers and groupers. And a lot of the game still needs to be done in a group. But yes. I aggree, soloing is killing mmos, and here is why i think so. When you solo, u tend not to interact with others, that in turn can ruin the community of an MMO, Thats why FFXI has such a nice community, because you need to cooperate with everyone. when you can solo seeing as 1 person can do everything, what will that do to the community? It will make for a very quiet inward game, which im pretty sure most of you think is bad. Soloing MMO=quiet possibly bad community. Group based MMO= Active much friendlier community,
(Srry if someone posted this, i saw this topic and didnt wanan read 40 pages of posts >.>)
Well at least FFXI didnt do this... Kinda >.< Fields of Valor benifits the soloers and groupers. And a lot of the game still needs to be done in a group. But yes. I aggree, soloing is killing mmos, and here is why i think so. When you solo, u tend not to interact with others, that in turn can ruin the community of an MMO, Thats why FFXI has such a nice community, because you need to cooperate with everyone. when you can solo seeing as 1 person can do everything, what will that do to the community? It will make for a very quiet inward game, which im pretty sure most of you think is bad. Soloing MMO=quiet possibly bad community. Group based MMO= Active much friendlier community, (Srry if someone posted this, i saw this topic and didnt wanan read 40 pages of posts >.>)
That is not consistent with surveys & subscription numbers. People LIKE solo content & rank it higher than group content (find the link in the thread .. it is somewhere).
There are MORE MMORPG players than 5, 10 years ago (WOW has a big part of that) and the market is NOT in-decline because of the mroe solo-friend offereing.
You may not like solo content but it is certainy help EXPAND the market, the opposite of killing MMOs.
But for companies that actually want to make the big money, they are going to cater to the widest possible audience and that audience invariably are the soloists. They throw in grouping to placate the groupers, but grouping just isn't a big money-maker in MMOs these days.
Does anyone else see anything wrong with these two sentences? I can hardly believe my eyes. Massive Multiplayer Online games are for solo play now? And people pay upwards of $20 a month to play them? Unless the only reason to play an MMO is to see other players (even though you are not interacting with them), does it not make more sense to just play a single player game? They tend to have better graphics, better story, less lag, regular patches that don't cut you off one day a week from playing, and they cost no monthly fee. Again, the only reason to solo in an MMO over a single player game is to see other players. Is that seriously worth $20 a month? $10? I am aghast.
Look at what you're talking about: Massively Multiplayer Online games. Nowhere in there does it mention or even allude to the term "GROUPING" or "TEAMING". They are for people who want to play with a lot of other people online. That's it. Full stop. There is absolutely zero requirement that anyone ever team up to do anything and if that's what you're asserting, you're full of crap.
What business is it of yours what other people do with their money? Being in a team is a minuscule part of any potential "interaction".
It amuses me to watch some people try to throw their own personal opinions around as if they were facts and hold everyone else accountable to them.
But for companies that actually want to make the big money, they are going to cater to the widest possible audience and that audience invariably are the soloists. They throw in grouping to placate the groupers, but grouping just isn't a big money-maker in MMOs these days.
Does anyone else see anything wrong with these two sentences? I can hardly believe my eyes. Massive Multiplayer Online games are for solo play now? And people pay upwards of $20 a month to play them? Unless the only reason to play an MMO is to see other players (even though you are not interacting with them), does it not make more sense to just play a single player game? They tend to have better graphics, better story, less lag, regular patches that don't cut you off one day a week from playing, and they cost no monthly fee. Again, the only reason to solo in an MMO over a single player game is to see other players. Is that seriously worth $20 a month? $10? I am aghast.
Look at what you're talking about: Massively Multiplayer Online games. Nowhere in there does it mention or even allude to the term "GROUPING" or "TEAMING". They are for people who want to play with a lot of other people online. That's it. Full stop. There is absolutely zero requirement that anyone ever team up to do anything and if that's what you're asserting, you're full of crap.
What business is it of yours what other people do with their money? Being in a team is a minuscule part of any potential "interaction".
It amuses me to watch some people try to throw their own personal opinions around as if they were facts and hold everyone else accountable to them.
I agreed with Cephus 100%. If there are millions of players who want to play solo content while chatting with their guildmates, or selling their stuff at auctions at the end of the day, who are you to argue with what they want to do in a GAME.
Certainly I think group play in the widest content of the word is better than soloing, this is what I am championing. So for me if soloers get a raw deal so be it, don’t forget I solo too. I don’t see that I have to come up with a better argument than I have, this is not a discussion about dark matter. It is a discussion about preferred play styles, so how I, or anyone else here prefers to play online is the issue. You're welcome to think whatever you want, but when all you're doing is espousing your own personal opinion, that doesn't mean a whole lot to people who are looking at the actual workings of the MMO market. We're glad you want to group. Go ahead. Now stop whining about it until you're able to move away from your personal opinions and give some objective input. No MMO is dumping grouping, it has been effectively dumped by excessive pandering to soloers however. A biasness to them that you recognise later in your post Cephus404. Talking of which, I do not see how your own views are formed by your preference for soloing one whit less then mine are for grouping. And I see nothing wrong with that, I am arguing here for the most interesting way to play, not the ‘correct’ or somehow traditional one. My preference is for FREEDOM, which I've posted many times before. I both solo and group. I don't think that either side should get preferential treatment and certainly don't see that either side should be so unfairly weighted as to push people on one side toward the other for greater rewards. If you want to solo, then solo. If you want to group, then group. Just stop whining about it. One of your constant themes is how favouring grouping is discriminating against soloing, but the cards are already all stacked your way so what are you talking about? How are they stacked toward soloing? Please give a detailed analysis, but don't bother claiming that the barriers that are inherent in grouping somehow mean it ought to get special treatment. When you choose a style, you choose all of the problems and benefits inherent in it. Don't like those problems and benefits, don't choose it. That's called freedom. Figure it out. Your argument about not being reward for a choice in playstyle amuses me. Soloers are and for a long time have effectively been the most rewarded. You can go on about grouping incentives but if 90 to 95% of your time is spent soloing how do those grouping incentives matter? Unsupported assertion. Demonstrate if. Do we want MMO’s which are carbon copies of console solo games? Do we not want to try for something greater which actually uses the fact we are online together? The way things are going how long before a MMO comes out with cheat codes so you can solo that much quicker to the end? What we want is, at least to some degree, irrelevant. The developers want to make back a profit on their investment. As such, whatever makes them the most money is what they ought to be doing. If MMOs stopped being profitable, then I'd entirely support developers dropping all MMO titles and going to console solo games or whatever. But then again, I understand how business works and apparently, you don't. Oh sorry, we do have them already they are called F2P (Real Micro Transaction) games. Wouldn't know, don't play them, have never spent so much as a penny on a RMT and never will. Oh and guys when you stop quoting the quote of another persons quote I will reply to some of the arguments you have raised on page 9. Yes page nine, its amazing how so many voices which gainsay soloing are not representative of the MMO community isn’t it? Especially when they are not telling you what you want to hear. Unfortunately, MMORPG.com has a really crappy quoting system that doesn't really allow nested quoting so we do the best we can with the tools we're given. Deal with it.
Do we not want to try for something greater which actually uses the fact we are online together? The way things are going how long before a MMO comes out with cheat codes so you can solo that much quicker to the end?
It is "YOU", not "WE". Obviously players like solo content (there are surveys to show that, URL posted earlier in this thread). What you think is great .. is bad by others.
And the fact that we are online together means that I can sell that epic sword to you to make 1000g. It does NOT necessarily mean that i have to play with you. There is really NOTHING you can do even if you cannot see that obvious fact.
Why is this even an issue? Because I see threads like this every day. And the industry keeps on doing the same tired old solutions that don't work. Apparently it works because they're making money hand over fist. Which is a huge reason why MMO's are in such a slump right now. Would it kill to see a few more hardcore games? I think many of us are tired of WOW clones. But they're not in a slump, they are more successful today than in pretty much any time in their history. You might not like what they're currently doing, that doesn't mean they aren't wildly financially successful. Yeah, but you have to admit, MMO's really aren't as great as they were before. They may be financially successful now, but what happens if people finally get sick and tired of WOW clones, and that's most of what the MMO's are at the time? Why didn't we have this whole "solo versus group" conflict back in the day? I think it has to do with a lot of factors, some that design can alleviate, and some that the culture of gaming has created. Because "back in the day" games were developed for a tiny core of fanatics who lived on the games 24/7. Then developers realized that there was a massive untapped market of non-fanatic players who didn't want hardcore content, didn't want permadeath, didn't want to live the game in order to have a good time and those are the people in virtually *EVERY* game on the market that keep the games afloat. I don't know, FF XI was a game for hardcore group players, and even though they made the game a teensy bit more friendly to soloers and casuals, it's still extremely group oriented. Considering that FF XI has had a steady fanbase of hardcore group players around 500k subscriptions for 8 straight years, it does show that these types of games can be successful, even if they don't cater to what's popular at the time. 500k subs is pretty weak in the current MMO market, especially when WoW has millions. But of course, if FFXI is the kind of game groupers want to play, then they ought to go play it and stop complaining. 500k subs weak? For 8 straight years? And it's not a WOW clone? You're setting your standards for a game being successful a little too high. Sure, it's not WOW level subscriptioins or Aion, but for a hardcore group game, 500k subs for 8 straight years is in my opinion successful and profiting. Setting the standards to WOW is way too big a stretch and is unrealistic. And one of those things this culture of gaming has created is intolerance for playstyles that don't particularly suit us. We see the vicissitudes of development as a "zero sum game," where in order for some playstyle to win something, some other playstyle has to lose something. And as a result, we've created shallow, myopic games where nobody is happy. Apparently, lots of people are happy because lots of people are playing. MMORPG.com is a really bad indicator of the overall health and happiness of the MMO community. Mmmm...I'm not so sure about lots and lots of happy people. More like 50happy/50 depressed if you ask me. If the depressed people are still shelling out money for monthly subscriptions, that's their problem. The only thing that matters at the end of the day is what the bank account looks like. People who hate games but pay for them anyhow are only shooting themselves in the foot and get what they deserve. Well, I consider myself in a slump because two of the greatest hardcore group games are P2P (can't afford right now, need to save for college or trade school in future), and SE doesn't seem to be getting the point that making FF XIV more solo centric will alienate the FF XI crowd and could lead FF XIV to becoming another EQ2 all over again (game fails because group player crowd from previous game were alienated by a casual sequel, and game didn't attract enough casuals to do well). By the way, by "depressed" I didn't actually mean the person is real-life depressed, just that they think the MMORPG genre is sucking at the moment. So rather than assert things like "soloers must die," or "stop forcing me in groups," let's start by asking why soloers solo in today's team-heavy MMOs? So why do they, Cephuus404? You keep asserting that they're team-heavy and there's no indication of that. Just about everyone solos at least part of the time. Most people group some of the time. Very few people group all of the time. The numbers just don't add up to the claims that groupers assert.
Maybe the better question is, why do groupers group in today's solo-heavy MMOs? Well, I could also say to that "why do soloers solo in group games?" I had witnessed a situation like that in the old game I used play, Silkroad Online (do not play it, it's bot infested and has untrustworthy GMs). Basically, a zealot soloist (who happened to be a cleric) ran away from someone who was dead on the ground calling to her to res him. Well, he and his buddies were pretty pissed with the soloist, and if I wasn't around, well...
Hate to say it but nobody owes anyone a res. It's not a public service. Not knowing the situation, I'm not going to comment other than to say that the whole entitlement nonsense is very old and tired. Yes, it's not a public service. But it's a bit odd that a cleric with the ability to res doesn't res someone in need (and I later found out that the two never met each other, so this wasn't a grudge being held from before).
It's not what they said, but it's very close, and I'll show you exactly how that situation went down.
Setting: A group player is dead on the ground, and is calling for help. He notices a cleric nearby.
Group player: Oh thank the heavens! Please, you have to help me, can you quickly res me?
Solo player:...
Group player: Oh, um, I'll pay you 10k gold if you res me, if you charge res...
Solo player:...
Group player: Please, can you please res me?
(Solo player runs away)
There's more to that situation, but basically the group player went back to town, lost alot of xp, and if I wasn't around at the time the group player along with his friends were going to waste the cleric out in the fields.
Now, if that's how a soloist acted to a group player in need of help in a group-centric game, then brrrr....I have one more reason to try to find more hardcore group games. IMO, developers should stop creating games that tries to cater to everyone. Look at EVE Online. They cater only to the group fans, and haven't really made the game more solo friendly since the beginning. They do that because the fans want that. The developers cater to only one group, the group players, yet look how successful it is considering they leave soloers in the dust most of the time. They make enough money to stay in business and that's entirely fine. You like what they do, go play it. But for companies that actually want to make the big money, they are going to cater to the widest possible audience and that audience invariably are the soloists. They throw in grouping to placate the groupers, but grouping just isn't a big money-maker in MMOs these days. Hmmm...a good point. There will be a time when grouping becomes popular again, and I hope that time is soon (because I'm getting sick of solo-centric WOW clones). Then again, we do have FF XI and EVE Online, but then again, that's really only two games (two awesome games, but still only two).
Yes, it's not a public service. But it's a bit odd that a cleric with the ability to res doesn't res someone in need (and I later found out that the two never met each other, so this wasn't a grudge being held from before).
Yeah, but you have to admit, MMO's really aren't as great as they were before. They may be financially successful now, but what happens if people finally get sick and tired of WOW clones, and that's most of what the MMO's are at the time? I don't have to admit that because I don't think it's necessarily true. There was a time when MMOs were new. That doesn't mean they were great, they were just new. Lots of people have convenient memories of things when they are new. Yes, there are tons of WoW clones out there and most of them are crappy, which is why I don't play them. Obviously though, lots and lots of people think they are fun and put their money where their mouth is and those are the games, whether you like them or not, that are going to keep getting made. Did you ever think that maybe it isn't the games that exist that are crappy, but maybe your taste in games today? 500k subs weak? For 8 straight years? And it's not a WOW clone? You're setting your standards for a game being successful a little too high. Sure, it's not WOW level subscriptioins or Aion, but for a hardcore group game, 500k subs for 8 straight years is in my opinion successful and profiting. Setting the standards to WOW is way too big a stretch and is unrealistic. I don't know that it is all that unrealistic, any MMO company out there would give it's eye teeth for 20% of WoW's success and I don't blame them. The name of the game, like it or not, is making money. Well, I consider myself in a slump because two of the greatest hardcore group games are P2P (can't afford right now, need to save for college or trade school in future), and SE doesn't seem to be getting the point that making FF XIV more solo centric will alienate the FF XI crowd and could lead FF XIV to becoming another EQ2 all over again (game fails because group player crowd from previous game were alienated by a casual sequel, and game didn't attract enough casuals to do well). By the way, by "depressed" I didn't actually mean the person is real-life depressed, just that they think the MMORPG genre is sucking at the moment. Sorry, that's not really a credible issue. These are pay-to-play games, if you cannot or do not want to pay to play them, that's your problem. I don't buy into the whole entitlement nonsense anyhow. I didn't mean "depressed" in the real-life sense either, but everyone has their own opinions and games cannot cater to all of them. They're going to cater to the ones, no surprise, that make them the most money. It's not what they said, but it's very close, and I'll show you exactly how that situation went down.
Setting: A group player is dead on the ground, and is calling for help. He notices a cleric nearby.
Group player: Oh thank the heavens! Please, you have to help me, can you quickly res me?
Solo player:...
Group player: Oh, um, I'll pay you 10k gold if you res me, if you charge res...
Solo player:...
Group player: Please, can you please res me?
(Solo player runs away)
There's more to that situation, but basically the group player went back to town, lost alot of xp, and if I wasn't around at the time the group player along with his friends were going to waste the cleric out in the fields.
Now, if that's how a soloist acted to a group player in need of help in a group-centric game, then brrrr....I have one more reason to try to find more hardcore group games. So what? You're still expecting someone to be REQUIRED to help you just because they can and that's not how the world works. Clerics are not resurrection-machines-on-legs. They don't "owe" you a damn thing if they choose not to do it and it doesn't matter if it's a solo-centric or a group-centric game. People get to choose what they do, whether you like that fact or not. Hmmm...a good point. There will be a time when grouping becomes popular again, and I hope that time is soon (because I'm getting sick of solo-centric WOW clones). Then again, we do have FF XI and EVE Online, but then again, that's really only two games (two awesome games, but still only two). I don't think that time will ever come, sorry. That's like saying there will be a time when horse-drawn carriages become popular again. Sure, in small, limited areas they might be, but as a mainstream mode of transportation, forget it. You can get sick of WoW all you want but the fact is, it's still gathering steam, it's not dying off. I'm sick of WoW too, I'd never go back and play it again, but I'll be the first one to say, they're damn successful and they are how the forseeable future is going to be, like it or not.
Maybe you ought to just move on entirely from the MMO market if you're going to get so upset that the current reality is reality.
There is a fundamental difference between mine and Cephus’s views on this, which goes beyond the issues. Just because the majority are happy to do something one way does not make it right. He consistently uses the argument that’s the way MMO’s are as if that shows they are perfect. There was a time before we had social networking, then innovation occurred, things can and do change.
While I understand the importance of the business model in MMO’s he seems to have a slavish devotion to it. I don’t know if he has noticed or not, but this is not the internal forum of a MMO company and he is not the head of our finance department. Thinking outside that box may give your views some of the freedom you laud about so much.
Gamers in MMO’s do not have true freedom, nor would I expect them to be able to. It is your use of value weighted words like this that obscures the issues. If people are being forced into soloing by the structure of the game where is the freedom in that? This is a question of design choice and what play styles gamers want. You can either call it what it is, or ramp up the rhetoric as you seem to be doing.
I was asked to give a detailed analysis of my assertion that soloing takes up so much of our gaming time that any benefits to grouping would have a marginal impact. Oh please, get real, do I ask you to write a dissertation about every statement you make? And as virtually the lone voice for soloing here on this thread you have made quite a few! That said, I would not want this to be just a one view thread, we need an alternative view.
Of course the validity of my statement is not consistent over all MMO’s. I ask readers to think back over their play experience of the last five years. Do you think anyone was grouping enough to get a serious advantage over solo’s? If you do Cephus give me an example. Raids are a special case, here part of a MMO was designed for teamwork, an anathema to you soloers I know. So here you could say you are disadvantaged. But in the rest of the MMO, which is designed for soloing, grouping is not at a disadvantage? How much more one sided an argument could you get for soloing than that?
Cephus can you stop going on about how you understand business models. Just because some of us disagree with the current crop of MMO's does not mean we can't see the industry is still making money. What is being proposed is a rebalancing, many of the ideas are already out there and won’t cost anything to incorporate. Try to get your business head around this; customers respond to choice, it invigorates sales. MMO’s are increasingly as you say yourself becoming clones. Where is the good business model in that? How long do you think players are going to be expected to pay to play a game which is far more expensive than a solo game for no extra functionality?
Look at how different Battlefield 2 and Civilization is solo play to online play. Not amazingly different just utilizing the fact we are online together that’s all. And with MMO’s we cant even do as good as that? It’s tragic.
A few posters have mentioned how people in surveys say they prefer soling, well in a MMO set up to solo, grouping is hardly going to be your first choice is it? I am sure I would find grouping a pain there too.
Another poster mentioned the other ways we interact in MMO’s, lets try to put this in context. I do not think that grouping is the best or only way we should be interacting. It has been the most exciting part of my MMO play, so I want to see more of it obviously. When it comes to interaction, grouping is a good tool for that; but so are a sound economy, good chat channels and places where people can build their own home. But the soloer’s mentality is to avoid interaction and get on levelling. I really doubt that many soloers out there are building homes, becoming expert at their craft or hobby, learning a race language by being around when it is spoken and so on. It just interferes too much with the leveling.
Two games launch simultaneously - One forced grouping and one solo friendly (I say solo friendly because 90% of the people I know who solo only prefer it and do want to group with friends occasionally). Which one will be the bigger market success? Today's game devs want the most $$$ from their games and will design to the money every time.
Personally, I'd rather see several smaller games that fill the niches instead of huge games that try to cater to everyone. You want forced grouping/interaction? Play game(s) A and B. Want solo friendly? Play games X and Y.
Yes, it's not a public service. But it's a bit odd that a cleric with the ability to res doesn't res someone in need (and I later found out that the two never met each other, so this wasn't a grudge being held from before).
Yeah, but you have to admit, MMO's really aren't as great as they were before. They may be financially successful now, but what happens if people finally get sick and tired of WOW clones, and that's most of what the MMO's are at the time? I don't have to admit that because I don't think it's necessarily true. There was a time when MMOs were new. That doesn't mean they were great, they were just new. Lots of people have convenient memories of things when they are new. Yes, there are tons of WoW clones out there and most of them are crappy, which is why I don't play them. Obviously though, lots and lots of people think they are fun and put their money where their mouth is and those are the games, whether you like them or not, that are going to keep getting made. Did you ever think that maybe it isn't the games that exist that are crappy, but maybe your taste in games today? Mmmm...no, I think it's more of the games that exist that are crappy. Also, you do realize I'm not the only one that hates WOW clones. 500k subs weak? For 8 straight years? And it's not a WOW clone? You're setting your standards for a game being successful a little too high. Sure, it's not WOW level subscriptioins or Aion, but for a hardcore group game, 500k subs for 8 straight years is in my opinion successful and profiting. Setting the standards to WOW is way too big a stretch and is unrealistic. I don't know that it is all that unrealistic, any MMO company out there would give it's eye teeth for 20% of WoW's success and I don't blame them. The name of the game, like it or not, is making money. They would, but I'll use a real example for this. An average joe decides he wants to go into the NFL, even though it's unlikely he would make it there. However, he is good at golf (amateur, but is getting close to pro level). How that applies to FF XI subscriptions is this. 500k is alot of money, and it's apparently enough to profit SE, stay afloat for 8 years, and give SE the green light to creating another mmorpg. Is that the 8+ million subscriptions that WOW has? No, but FF XI has lasted for so long. Setting the standards to WOW is a balsy move, but so far the only game that seems to be able to compare to WOW may be Aion. So, it's quite too steep a goal to try to reach WOW standards. Well, I consider myself in a slump because two of the greatest hardcore group games are P2P (can't afford right now, need to save for college or trade school in future), and SE doesn't seem to be getting the point that making FF XIV more solo centric will alienate the FF XI crowd and could lead FF XIV to becoming another EQ2 all over again (game fails because group player crowd from previous game were alienated by a casual sequel, and game didn't attract enough casuals to do well). By the way, by "depressed" I didn't actually mean the person is real-life depressed, just that they think the MMORPG genre is sucking at the moment. Sorry, that's not really a credible issue. These are pay-to-play games, if you cannot or do not want to pay to play them, that's your problem. I don't buy into the whole entitlement nonsense anyhow. I didn't mean "depressed" in the real-life sense either, but everyone has their own opinions and games cannot cater to all of them. They're going to cater to the ones, no surprise, that make them the most money. Ah, so you did get what I meant by "depressed." I just had to type that to make sure. I'm not sure what you mean by "entitlement," but if you're talking about what I stated about FF XIV in the previous paragraph, then I shall see you on the FF XIV threads for more discussion.
Also, the MMO genre does seem like it's in a slump right now. Hopefully, Earthrise and FF XIV changes that. It's not what they said, but it's very close, and I'll show you exactly how that situation went down.
Setting: A group player is dead on the ground, and is calling for help. He notices a cleric nearby.
Group player: Oh thank the heavens! Please, you have to help me, can you quickly res me?
Solo player:...
Group player: Oh, um, I'll pay you 10k gold if you res me, if you charge res...
Solo player:...
Group player: Please, can you please res me?
(Solo player runs away)
There's more to that situation, but basically the group player went back to town, lost alot of xp, and if I wasn't around at the time the group player along with his friends were going to waste the cleric out in the fields.
Now, if that's how a soloist acted to a group player in need of help in a group-centric game, then brrrr....I have one more reason to try to find more hardcore group games. So what? You're still expecting someone to be REQUIRED to help you just because they can and that's not how the world works. Clerics are not resurrection-machines-on-legs. They don't "owe" you a damn thing if they choose not to do it and it doesn't matter if it's a solo-centric or a group-centric game. People get to choose what they do, whether you like that fact or not. I don't know, a cleric is a group centric type of character usually. And inside Silkroad Online, that was an indefinite case (though you could work on it as a subclass, but then it wouldn't be nearly as effective as a main cleric). So, when a cleric that could res people decides to ignore someone in need, that just doesn't give me a good impression about soloists in group-centric games. Yeah, the cleric didn't have to do a thing. But all she had to sacrifice was a few mana points, yet she decided to give a stranger in need the cold shoulder. When you're a cleric inside that game, it's pretty much an unspoken law that a cleric should at all times try to help someone out (unless his corspe is in the middle of an angry mob, but the dead person would understand and just go back to town). Hmmm...a good point. There will be a time when grouping becomes popular again, and I hope that time is soon (because I'm getting sick of solo-centric WOW clones). Then again, we do have FF XI and EVE Online, but then again, that's really only two games (two awesome games, but still only two). I don't think that time will ever come, sorry. That's like saying there will be a time when horse-drawn carriages become popular again. Sure, in small, limited areas they might be, but as a mainstream mode of transportation, forget it. You can get sick of WoW all you want but the fact is, it's still gathering steam, it's not dying off. I'm sick of WoW too, I'd never go back and play it again, but I'll be the first one to say, they're damn successful and they are how the forseeable future is going to be, like it or not.
Maybe you ought to just move on entirely from the MMO market if you're going to get so upset that the current reality is reality. It's not exactly WOW, it's the clones the game has spawned that I have problems with. WOW won't go away, I already know that. But, it would be nice to start seeing more original games that aren't WOW clones. That is why FF XIV looks so appealing to me. SE has even announced they are going to try to avoid becoming a WOW clone (although I'm not so certain about the solo aspects). So, come September, hopefully a beta version comes out on the PS3, and I can finally see how the game might turn out. Also, no, I'm not moving away from MMO's. I'm just a person wishing for a good hardcore group-centric game, and unfortunately, it seem I will have to wait till September (I think) to see whether that game will be awesome or not.
Comments
case and point
Hmm, man this is a long thread and I don't feel like reading all of it right now, lol. So forgive me if I repeat what someone else said.
Soloing is *not* ruining MMO. Soloing can be one of the most rewarding experiences. Soloers that expect the game to be catered to soloing are part of the ruining of MMO. I will call these people Asshats, and I will call real soloers, Soloers of course:).
Asshats expect the ability to get the same rewards as people that group/raid. Asshats will refuse a party with you while they kill a quest mob you need right in front of you. Asshats will barge into your area and start harvesting the mats you have been on and not say a word. Asshats will refuse a grind party with you because they make .01% less experience with you in the party. Basically, they want everything a party or raid can get and they want the ability to solo it.
Soloing is/used to be for meat-eaters. Soloers never asked for solo content or for the game to be designed to be played solo. Soloers enjoy doing things solo that were not intended to be done solo. If it was intended to be done solo, many Soloers would have no interest in it, because part of the thrill of it was to do something challenging and either feel a sense of accomplishment or to show off their skills to others. That is a real Soloer; they have balls of steel, plenty of skill, they don't cry when they die, and tend to be pretty cool people.
So, basically, there will *always* be soloing, because there will always be Soloers, and that is a great thing, and is not ruining MMO. In fact I love seeing the achievements of Soloers that have done amazing things solo. Asshats are part of the problem. The vocal selfish minority(might even be the majority now, not sure) that want the game tailored to their individualistic desires in a massive multi-player online world that is fundamentally about meeting and working with others and having a good time together.
i would rather be able to solo and group not just group...i would never play another mmo like ff11 because of that....waiting 4+ hours just to lvl is pointless
Why is this even an issue? Because I see threads like this every day. And the industry keeps on doing the same tired old solutions that don't work.
Why didn't we have this whole "solo versus group" conflict back in the day? I think it has to do with a lot of factors, some that design can alleviate, and some that the culture of gaming has created.
And one of those things this culture of gaming has created is intolerance for playstyles that don't particularly suit us. We see the vicissitudes of development as a "zero sum game," where in order for some playstyle to win something, some other playstyle has to lose something. And as a result, we've created shallow, myopic games where nobody is happy.
But I digress...
Whether or not we can change--as gamers--remains to be seen. What we can do, however, is to learn from each other, so we can create better systems.
So rather than assert things like "soloers must die," or "stop forcing me in groups," let's start by asking why soloers solo in today's team-heavy MMOs?
So why do they, Cephuus404?
__________________________
"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
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
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
Certainly I think group play in the widest content of the word is better than soloing, this is what I am championing. So for me if soloers get a raw deal so be it, don’t forget I solo too. I don’t see that I have to come up with a better argument than I have, this is not a discussion about dark matter. It is a discussion about preferred play styles, so how I, or anyone else here prefers to play online is the issue.
No MMO is dumping grouping, it has been effectively dumped by excessive pandering to soloers however. A biasness to them that you recognise later in your post Cephus404. Talking of which, I do not see how your own views are formed by your preference for soloing one whit less then mine are for grouping. And I see nothing wrong with that, I am arguing here for the most interesting way to play, not the ‘correct’ or somehow traditional one.
One of your constant themes is how favouring grouping is discriminating against soloing, but the cards are already all stacked your way so what are you talking about?
For all the great old times, there were bad times too, I do not live in the past. But a balance is not unachievable. Instead we got the equivalent of a game badly ported to another format. Console players were playing solo by default, put them online and they will want to still do just that. There are exceptions, well from subscription games anyway. LotR, AoC and WAR spring to mind, but they all have there flaws.
Your argument about not being reward for a choice in playstyle amuses me. Soloers are and for a long time have effectively been the most rewarded. You can go on about grouping incentives but if 90 to 95% of your time is spent soloing how do those grouping incentives matter?
Do we want MMO’s which are carbon copies of console solo games? Do we not want to try for something greater which actually uses the fact we are online together? The way things are going how long before a MMO comes out with cheat codes so you can solo that much quicker to the end?
Oh sorry, we do have them already they are called F2P (Real Micro Transaction) games.
Oh and guys when you stop quoting the quote of another persons quote I will reply to some of the arguments you have raised on page 9. Yes page nine, its amazing how so many voices which gainsay soloing are not representative of the MMO community isn’t it? Especially when they are not telling you what you want to hear.
What is ruining mmos. Read this article and you will see how a mmo should be built and why mmo after mmo are complete and utter garbage.
www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cfm/loadFeature/3365/page/1
Does anyone else see anything wrong with these two sentences? I can hardly believe my eyes. Massive Multiplayer Online games are for solo play now? And people pay upwards of $20 a month to play them? Unless the only reason to play an MMO is to see other players (even though you are not interacting with them), does it not make more sense to just play a single player game? They tend to have better graphics, better story, less lag, regular patches that don't cut you off one day a week from playing, and they cost no monthly fee. Again, the only reason to solo in an MMO over a single player game is to see other players. Is that seriously worth $20 a month? $10? I am aghast.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Does anyone else see anything wrong with these two sentences? I can hardly believe my eyes. Massive Multiplayer Online games are for solo play now? And people pay upwards of $20 a month to play them? Unless the only reason to play an MMO is to see other players (even though you are not interacting with them), does it not make more sense to just play a single player game? They tend to have better graphics, better story, less lag, regular patches that don't cut you off one day a week from playing, and they cost no monthly fee. Again, the only reason to solo in an MMO over a single player game is to see other players. Is that seriously worth $20 a month? $10? I am aghast.
Where do you get the idea that soloists do not interact with other players? Raiding/grouping is just a small part of the player interaction in MMORPGs.
Does anyone else see anything wrong with these two sentences? I can hardly believe my eyes. Massive Multiplayer Online games are for solo play now? And people pay upwards of $20 a month to play them? Unless the only reason to play an MMO is to see other players (even though you are not interacting with them), does it not make more sense to just play a single player game? They tend to have better graphics, better story, less lag, regular patches that don't cut you off one day a week from playing, and they cost no monthly fee. Again, the only reason to solo in an MMO over a single player game is to see other players. Is that seriously worth $20 a month? $10? I am aghast.
Where do you get the idea that soloists do not interact with other players? Raiding/grouping is just a small part of the player interaction in MMORPGs.
Exactly. Economy, PvP, chat, compare gear, ... there are a lot more than just grouping.
The problem about some of the "grouper" is that their mind is too small and cannot see that grouping is just ONE of the many interactions in a MMO.
Well at least FFXI didnt do this... Kinda >.< Fields of Valor benifits the soloers and groupers. And a lot of the game still needs to be done in a group. But yes. I aggree, soloing is killing mmos, and here is why i think so. When you solo, u tend not to interact with others, that in turn can ruin the community of an MMO, Thats why FFXI has such a nice community, because you need to cooperate with everyone. when you can solo seeing as 1 person can do everything, what will that do to the community? It will make for a very quiet inward game, which im pretty sure most of you think is bad. Soloing MMO=quiet possibly bad community. Group based MMO= Active much friendlier community,
(Srry if someone posted this, i saw this topic and didnt wanan read 40 pages of posts >.>)
That is not consistent with surveys & subscription numbers. People LIKE solo content & rank it higher than group content (find the link in the thread .. it is somewhere).
There are MORE MMORPG players than 5, 10 years ago (WOW has a big part of that) and the market is NOT in-decline because of the mroe solo-friend offereing.
You may not like solo content but it is certainy help EXPAND the market, the opposite of killing MMOs.
Does anyone else see anything wrong with these two sentences? I can hardly believe my eyes. Massive Multiplayer Online games are for solo play now? And people pay upwards of $20 a month to play them? Unless the only reason to play an MMO is to see other players (even though you are not interacting with them), does it not make more sense to just play a single player game? They tend to have better graphics, better story, less lag, regular patches that don't cut you off one day a week from playing, and they cost no monthly fee. Again, the only reason to solo in an MMO over a single player game is to see other players. Is that seriously worth $20 a month? $10? I am aghast.
Look at what you're talking about: Massively Multiplayer Online games. Nowhere in there does it mention or even allude to the term "GROUPING" or "TEAMING". They are for people who want to play with a lot of other people online. That's it. Full stop. There is absolutely zero requirement that anyone ever team up to do anything and if that's what you're asserting, you're full of crap.
What business is it of yours what other people do with their money? Being in a team is a minuscule part of any potential "interaction".
It amuses me to watch some people try to throw their own personal opinions around as if they were facts and hold everyone else accountable to them.
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
Does anyone else see anything wrong with these two sentences? I can hardly believe my eyes. Massive Multiplayer Online games are for solo play now? And people pay upwards of $20 a month to play them? Unless the only reason to play an MMO is to see other players (even though you are not interacting with them), does it not make more sense to just play a single player game? They tend to have better graphics, better story, less lag, regular patches that don't cut you off one day a week from playing, and they cost no monthly fee. Again, the only reason to solo in an MMO over a single player game is to see other players. Is that seriously worth $20 a month? $10? I am aghast.
Look at what you're talking about: Massively Multiplayer Online games. Nowhere in there does it mention or even allude to the term "GROUPING" or "TEAMING". They are for people who want to play with a lot of other people online. That's it. Full stop. There is absolutely zero requirement that anyone ever team up to do anything and if that's what you're asserting, you're full of crap.
What business is it of yours what other people do with their money? Being in a team is a minuscule part of any potential "interaction".
It amuses me to watch some people try to throw their own personal opinions around as if they were facts and hold everyone else accountable to them.
I agreed with Cephus 100%. If there are millions of players who want to play solo content while chatting with their guildmates, or selling their stuff at auctions at the end of the day, who are you to argue with what they want to do in a GAME.
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
Do we not want to try for something greater which actually uses the fact we are online together? The way things are going how long before a MMO comes out with cheat codes so you can solo that much quicker to the end?
It is "YOU", not "WE". Obviously players like solo content (there are surveys to show that, URL posted earlier in this thread). What you think is great .. is bad by others.
And the fact that we are online together means that I can sell that epic sword to you to make 1000g. It does NOT necessarily mean that i have to play with you. There is really NOTHING you can do even if you cannot see that obvious fact.
Wall of Text hits you for 666 damage.
Wall of Text hits you for 666 damage.
Wall of Text has become ENRAGED.
Wall of Text hits you for 66,666 damage.
You have been slain by Wall of Text.
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
There is a fundamental difference between mine and Cephus’s views on this, which goes beyond the issues. Just because the majority are happy to do something one way does not make it right. He consistently uses the argument that’s the way MMO’s are as if that shows they are perfect. There was a time before we had social networking, then innovation occurred, things can and do change.
While I understand the importance of the business model in MMO’s he seems to have a slavish devotion to it. I don’t know if he has noticed or not, but this is not the internal forum of a MMO company and he is not the head of our finance department. Thinking outside that box may give your views some of the freedom you laud about so much.
Gamers in MMO’s do not have true freedom, nor would I expect them to be able to. It is your use of value weighted words like this that obscures the issues. If people are being forced into soloing by the structure of the game where is the freedom in that? This is a question of design choice and what play styles gamers want. You can either call it what it is, or ramp up the rhetoric as you seem to be doing.
I was asked to give a detailed analysis of my assertion that soloing takes up so much of our gaming time that any benefits to grouping would have a marginal impact. Oh please, get real, do I ask you to write a dissertation about every statement you make? And as virtually the lone voice for soloing here on this thread you have made quite a few! That said, I would not want this to be just a one view thread, we need an alternative view.
Of course the validity of my statement is not consistent over all MMO’s. I ask readers to think back over their play experience of the last five years. Do you think anyone was grouping enough to get a serious advantage over solo’s? If you do Cephus give me an example. Raids are a special case, here part of a MMO was designed for teamwork, an anathema to you soloers I know. So here you could say you are disadvantaged. But in the rest of the MMO, which is designed for soloing, grouping is not at a disadvantage? How much more one sided an argument could you get for soloing than that?
Cephus can you stop going on about how you understand business models. Just because some of us disagree with the current crop of MMO's does not mean we can't see the industry is still making money. What is being proposed is a rebalancing, many of the ideas are already out there and won’t cost anything to incorporate. Try to get your business head around this; customers respond to choice, it invigorates sales. MMO’s are increasingly as you say yourself becoming clones. Where is the good business model in that? How long do you think players are going to be expected to pay to play a game which is far more expensive than a solo game for no extra functionality?
Look at how different Battlefield 2 and Civilization is solo play to online play. Not amazingly different just utilizing the fact we are online together that’s all. And with MMO’s we cant even do as good as that? It’s tragic.
A few posters have mentioned how people in surveys say they prefer soling, well in a MMO set up to solo, grouping is hardly going to be your first choice is it? I am sure I would find grouping a pain there too.
Another poster mentioned the other ways we interact in MMO’s, lets try to put this in context. I do not think that grouping is the best or only way we should be interacting. It has been the most exciting part of my MMO play, so I want to see more of it obviously. When it comes to interaction, grouping is a good tool for that; but so are a sound economy, good chat channels and places where people can build their own home. But the soloer’s mentality is to avoid interaction and get on levelling. I really doubt that many soloers out there are building homes, becoming expert at their craft or hobby, learning a race language by being around when it is spoken and so on. It just interferes too much with the leveling.
raid content can be great but only with enough players
i don't want to search a party for hrs
and in most games the groups 'r always the same combination (tank ,healer,mage)
and the rest is just a waste of space and exp
solo content can be great too
the feeling that you achieved something 'great' is fun
Two games launch simultaneously - One forced grouping and one solo friendly (I say solo friendly because 90% of the people I know who solo only prefer it and do want to group with friends occasionally). Which one will be the bigger market success? Today's game devs want the most $$$ from their games and will design to the money every time.
Personally, I'd rather see several smaller games that fill the niches instead of huge games that try to cater to everyone. You want forced grouping/interaction? Play game(s) A and B. Want solo friendly? Play games X and Y.