While I know I'm in the minority, it most certainly isn't just me. i have a lot of kindred spirits out there as evidenced by these forums, and we can only hope that one day the wheel will come back around a bit and games more catering to a group dynamic will regain popularity.
Wishful thinking but it is your prerogative to wish. Force grouping has been tried before and it failed in the marketplace.
One other thing to take into account is since EQ most mmos have been designed like off line rpg games with forced roles and forced combat. The idea of a online world has completely gone to @#$. UO had community because it offered community features. How many times did I tool around town fishing, smithing or what ever just talking to people. How many times did I pop in a dungeon beside someone and we helped each other kill the mob each of us taking a turn to loot the mob. There was more to UO then me and 5 others people group together to kill everything that moves hopeing for the phat loot to drop. Until you fix this idea (which is very true) that joining up with someone will take away from you by them not being as skill as you or by winning the phat loot that happens to drop you will never have a good community based game.
Remember, the simple ability to run around in a virtual landscape and chat with people was very new and cool in 1998. Not so much now in 2009. Also remember that UO didn't have challenging content or any sort of advanced group startegy required in PvE compared to todays MMOs. Nor did UO have all that much content that didnt' involve players Rping and making things up. Mobs were just plopped down. Dungeons were simplistic crawls. Bosses were, well, VERY simple AI or difficult if you include the bugs and greifers;) You didn't run around in UO for phat loot because there was no phat loot, no cool boss, no amazing dungeons, at least when you compared it all to EQ, at the time. It was just chatting, building a house and collecting stuff.
Last time I checked to get all the phat loot in your EQ-like games, you HAVE TO group up. WHatever phat loot you're getting solo isn't hard to get. SO grouping up doesn't hurt you. It never hurt you, unless the ONLY thing you're looking at is your EXP per hour or how fast you're leveling up, which seems odd if you're the kind of person who just wants to play with your friends. I'd find it quite odd that anyone would prefer to SOLO than play with people they enjoy playing with. If they prefer to solo, thats THEY'RE perogative. They have no right to complain about being punished by grouping. WHats more important? PLaying with friends or MIN/MAXING? The game doesnt' force you to min/max. UO forced you to MIN/MAX just to be competitive. You couldn't kill anyone if you just did whatever you wanted adn trained fishing all day. You HAD TO min/max and follow the best template or you got crushed. MMOs aren't about just winning. But some PEOPLE make MMOs about winning. MMOs just offer you the option of how fast you'd like to accomplish whatevr it is you're after. If some people want to do it all as fast as possible, thats the PEOPLE not the game.
Communites in any large MMO are going to suffer. Is NYC as nice a place per square block as some small midwest town? Hardly. But there are still fantastic communities in NYC. They're just harder to find. Thats the great thing about guilds. If you just see that as your community, then a new MMO is just as good as an old one when it comes to people. My guild in WOW was made up mostly former UO, EQ and DOAC players, so my community in WOW was just as good as in past games. If people chose not to play with like minded people and only worry about themselves, their EXP and WINNING at all costs, than thats their fault.
I'm not saying I have all the right answers simply stating what I have seen and what I think could help. The simple fact of the problem is group as it has be done in EQ since does not work. It separates and segregates the community into little clicks and now with mmo being items based caused greed to be the deciding factor or how far you can go.
If you want a mmo to be based on community you have to expand on off line group based design (holly trinity) and lessen the greed factor.
There is no problem. It is just you (and a small group of people) think there is. I have WAY more enough friendly people to socialize in my MMORPG. I do not need more. Just my guild + a few frds I make on the way is enough.
MMORPGs are GAMES. They should be game first and social scene second. If i want just to social, i can hang with my friends and no need to play a MMORP GAME.
And there is nothing wrong with greed if it provides fun for the game.
Originally posted by nariusseldon There is no problem. It is just you (and a small group of people) think there is. I have WAY more enough friendly people to socialize in my MMORPG. I do not need more. Just my guild + a few frds I make on the way is enough. MMORPGs are GAMES. Massively Multiplayer games. Not solo games. The games need better mechanics to make grouping easier and more fun, but grouping should be the greater part of the game.
They should be game first and social scene second. If i want just to social, i can hang with my friends and no need to play a MMORP GAME. If you want to play a a game by yourself, there are tons of solo games.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Originally posted by nariusseldon There is no problem. It is just you (and a small group of people) think there is. I have WAY more enough friendly people to socialize in my MMORPG. I do not need more. Just my guild + a few frds I make on the way is enough. MMORPGs are GAMES. Massively Multiplayer games. Not solo games. The games need better mechanics to make grouping easier and more fun, but grouping should be the greater part of the game.
They should be game first and social scene second. If i want just to social, i can hang with my friends and no need to play a MMORP GAME. If you want to play a a game by yourself, there are tons of solo games.
Massively Multiplayer games, NOT GROUPING games. They don't need better grouping mechanics and developers agree that solo content is important.
I want to play a solo game with my guild mates and I got that. It is good to be a customer.
I'm not saying I have all the right answers simply stating what I have seen and what I think could help. The simple fact of the problem is group as it has be done in EQ since does not work. It separates and segregates the community into little clicks and now with mmo being items based caused greed to be the deciding factor or how far you can go. If you want a mmo to be based on community you have to expand on off line group based design (holly trinity) and lessen the greed factor.
There is no problem. It is just you (and a small group of people) think there is. I have WAY more enough friendly people to socialize in my MMORPG. I do not need more. Just my guild + a few frds I make on the way is enough.
MMORPGs are GAMES. They should be game first and social scene second. If i want just to social, i can hang with my friends and no need to play a MMORP GAME.
And there is nothing wrong with greed if it provides fun for the game.
If you think community is your guild and a select few friends and greed is great for game play more power to ya. I think you are missing the bigger picture of what mmorpg should be. Sadly mmo will continue to devolve until they are multi-player dungeons until someone goes back to the basics.
If thay base the solo and grouping like thay do levels. At first level you do not need to group but at 60th leve (end cap) you need to group for all quests.
This type of game has only one problem. NO ONE would play it. Ops sorry only about 50,000 would play it. The other 15 mil post WOW gamers would not.
..its a guideline, not a rule, as players we must remember: Its a Game.
Everything I read in this thread just makes me want to play FFXI. I have never played another game where I knew so many players. Where random PuGs would join together and then stay together until everyone had the item needed.
As soon as the next group-centric game comes out I'm in.
Do we really have to be so technical by calling it Massively Grouping? Well, if I could be so candid; you don't "technically" play alongside someone now do you? Not unless you're in a group. You may randomly brush up against someone in the same sense that a gangsta (such as myself) drives slowly by his/her mark, but that isn't technically "alongside". Forgive my candor. It may come off a bit... obtuse. But really, this debate is leading no where. Rather than turning over rocks, we continue to dig deeper and deeper into the dirt, and it's not even real dirt. It's a metaphor. I just wanted to make that known in case you really thought that I thought that we were playing in the mud. Let's avoid semantics and displaying what WE believe the acronym MMORPG really stands for. It's not rocket science. It's not an unknown language. And it's not Massively Single Player either. It's Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.com.
If that's really what you're claiming the genre is about, yes. However, we just have to look at virtually any game on the market to see that's just not the case, no one is "massively grouping", the overwhelming majority of players in almost *ANY* game play solo. Anything that anyone does in a game is, by definition, play, therefore walking through a town with a lot of people in it is, also by definition, playing alongside those people.
The problem is, this isn't a debate, it's a bunch of pro-groupers making absurd assertions that they cannot back up in any way, shape or form. They are promoting their opinions as fact and presenting no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims. There's no logic, reason or critical thinking involved here, it's just the claim that their preferred playstyle is the only playstyle anyone ought to ever use.
It's a good thing developers pay no attention to that, millions of players would stop playing the games if they did.
I'm not sure what to say to this. First, I'm not sure where you're getting your sources from on who's doing what in MMOs, but I can safely say that there are still a number of people in the community who prefer teamwork. What I'm trying to get across with this is that it SHOULD be group-focused. That is what RPGs spawn from. Many people get together to participate in an adventurous fantasy of sorts. Do I understand that there are more people who prefer solo play? No. I don't know where the source is coming from, for one, and I'm not sure that their logic is even sound. On top of that, perhaps many of these soloers just had a bad experience with guilds or grouping or whatnot. My suggestion is to get some friends, grow some loyalty, and eventually start a guild of your own. Grouping is a fun part of gaming in my opinion. Otherwise, I'd just be another fly on the wall. Still solo at times, but I still enjoy grouping.
Secondly, allegations thrown by a "pro-soloer" who is also making some absurd assertions doesn't really qualify as debate either. Also, I'm not a pro-grouper. I'm a pro-MMOGer. Period. I love everything about it. The only really compelling arguments I've seen from "pro-soloers" on here is that there is better loot from grouping/raiding (not always the case), but games like SWTOR plan on fixing that to better-suit all aspects of gameplay. All-in-all, that's what I want. The ability to cater to all aspects of the MMOGing community. I love each and everyone of you equally... even if you ARE currently griefing me while remaining 20 levels higher.
And finally, the definition alongside according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: in parallel position to; at the side, close by. In a sentence: The dog walked alongside his master. Furthermore, walking alongside doesn't conclude that two or more people are "role playing" together. It doesn't give off the impression that I am playing the game with someone else. Yes, people may be around me, but that hardly constitutes as RPG. It fits the MMO aspect, but for the time being, we're really focusing on the RPG part (IMHO).
Originally posted by nariusseldon There is no problem. It is just you (and a small group of people) think there is. I have WAY more enough friendly people to socialize in my MMORPG. I do not need more. Just my guild + a few frds I make on the way is enough. MMORPGs are GAMES. Massively Multiplayer games. Not solo games. The games need better mechanics to make grouping easier and more fun, but grouping should be the greater part of the game.
They should be game first and social scene second. If i want just to social, i can hang with my friends and no need to play a MMORP GAME. If you want to play a a game by yourself, there are tons of solo games.
Massively Multiplayer games, NOT GROUPING games. They don't need better grouping mechanics and developers agree that solo content is important.
I want to play a solo game with my guild mates and I got that. It is good to be a customer.
First off, we're mainly discussing MMO Role Playing Games, which do require grouping aspects as well. As I've said before, I would prefer if both aspects could be met so that those of us who enjoy grouping do not get flushed out of the genre (we started this genre after all). It would be a win-win situation.
Now, as for solo play WITH your guild mates... that doesn't make sense. It is good to be a consumer.
First off, we're mainly discussing MMO Role Playing Games, which do require grouping aspects as well. As I've said before, I would prefer if both aspects could be met so that those of us who enjoy grouping do not get flushed out of the genre (we started this genre after all). It would be a win-win situation. Now, as for solo play WITH your guild mates... that doesn't make sense. It is good to be a consumer.
"required" by whom? YOu? Certainly not by me, developers, or 10+M players out there. You can "prefer" all you want but solo-content has been a priority of developers for quite a while now.
I highly doubt you can change that.
Does not make sense to you. Make perfect sense to me & my guildmate. If you cannot comprehend it, it is your problem. Not mine.
First off, we're mainly discussing MMO Role Playing Games, which do require grouping aspects as well. As I've said before, I would prefer if both aspects could be met so that those of us who enjoy grouping do not get flushed out of the genre (we started this genre after all). It would be a win-win situation. Now, as for solo play WITH your guild mates... that doesn't make sense. It is good to be a consumer.
"required" by whom? YOu? Certainly not by me, developers, or 10+M players out there. You can "prefer" all you want but solo-content has been a priority of developers for quite a while now.
I highly doubt you can change that.
Does not make sense to you. Make perfect sense to me & my guildmate. If you cannot comprehend it, it is your problem. Not mine.
how is solo play WITH anyone else considered solo play? If you're doing it WITH your guildmates, then it's very much a group-effort. It doesn't matter if you're just asking directions to a certain area, or how to finish a specific quest, it's still taking a group effort. Anyways, this thread is getting rather tiresome as people are assuming that I'm eluding to the fact that grouping is the only way to go. I believe, as everyone should (imo), that group-questing AND solo questing should be implemented together.
Also, if you're in a guild, then why NOT play together? What's the point in playing alone? It just seems to promote social decline, but maybe that's just my association with psychology coming out. I don't know why anyone in a guild would rather run around alone. Unless you're on a PVE server of course. I don't do PVE servers personally, so having an additional friend around to help smash any group that tries to grief is always handy. I'm sure anyone who would hate to spend 3 hours on a 30 min quest due to the opposing griefer would 100% agree with me on this.
I'm not sure what to say to this. First, I'm not sure where you're getting your sources from on who's doing what in MMOs, but I can safely say that there are still a number of people in the community who prefer teamwork. What I'm trying to get across with this is that it SHOULD be group-focused. That is what RPGs spawn from. Many people get together to participate in an adventurous fantasy of sorts. Do I understand that there are more people who prefer solo play? No. I don't know where the source is coming from, for one, and I'm not sure that their logic is even sound. On top of that, perhaps many of these soloers just had a bad experience with guilds or grouping or whatnot. My suggestion is to get some friends, grow some loyalty, and eventually start a guild of your own. Grouping is a fun part of gaming in my opinion. Otherwise, I'd just be another fly on the wall. Still solo at times, but I still enjoy grouping. There are still a number of people who want to primarily group and that's fine, but they most certainly are not in the majority evidenced by the huge number of extremely successful games that go out of their way to provide soloable content. If groupers were in the majority, would these developers create so much content that went against their financial interests? Of course not. It's a demonstrable fact that soloable, casual games vastly, vastly outnumber and outperform group-centric games. You seem to have a bad recollection of where computer RPGs came from, it wasn't tabletop play, it was actually solo-player games like Final Fantasy which started (mis)using the label RPG when they really don't fit the tabletop model. Final Fantasy and the games that came after it were not RPGs in the traditional sense because RPGs, by their tabletop definition, require FREEDOM, something FF and similar games absolutely didn't have. You followed the story whether you wanted to or not, you couldn't turn left when the story called for you to turn right. You were going to do what Square-Enix wanted you to do unless you just turned your computer/console off and said the hell with it. Secondly, allegations thrown by a "pro-soloer" who is also making some absurd assertions doesn't really qualify as debate either. Also, I'm not a pro-grouper. I'm a pro-MMOGer. Period. I love everything about it. The only really compelling arguments I've seen from "pro-soloers" on here is that there is better loot from grouping/raiding (not always the case), but games like SWTOR plan on fixing that to better-suit all aspects of gameplay. All-in-all, that's what I want. The ability to cater to all aspects of the MMOGing community. I love each and everyone of you equally... even if you ARE currently griefing me while remaining 20 levels higher. Secondly, I'm not a pro-soloer, I'm pro-freedom. Anyone can play any game any way they want to play it. It's never the soloers who want to screw over groupers, it's *ALWAYS* the groupers who want to harm the soloer's play. It's *ALWAYS* the groupers who want extra rewards, more gear, more XP and more gold just because they choose to group. It's *ALWAYS* the groupers who want to force people to group that don't want to group in the first place. I've never seen a single soloer demand that games remove their grouping mechanics so that nobody is allowed to group. It just doesn't happen. Instead, most soloers I see are for freedom. If you want to solo, you can solo. If you want to group, you can group. If you want to PvP, you can PvP. If you want to PvE, you can PvE. If you want to raid... you get the idea. The individual decides what they want to do. Why are you so against freedom? I'm not aware of any game out there, at least in the P2P MMO category, that doesn't have grouping dynamics. You are perfectly welcome to group any time you please. If you can't find anyone who wants to group with you, that's your problem. You will not fix that problem by trying to force people who do not want to group into situations where they are required to. And finally, the definition alongside according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: in parallel position to; at the side, close by. In a sentence: The dog walked alongside his master. Furthermore, walking alongside doesn't conclude that two or more people are "role playing" together. It doesn't give off the impression that I am playing the game with someone else. Yes, people may be around me, but that hardly constitutes as RPG. It fits the MMO aspect, but for the time being, we're really focusing on the RPG part (IMHO). Third, since the RPG aspect of virtually all computer games is piss-poor at best, that's a bad argument to get hung up on. You're no more "playing a role" in most MMOs than you're "roleplaying Master Chief" when you sit down to Halo. In most MMOs, you're playing an archetype, not a character. Most healers are functionally identical to other healers at the same level. Most tanks are functionally identical to other tanks at the same level. The expectations, especially in a grouping situation, is that you're going to be built especially to fill a particular role in the group dynamic and any deviation is going to find you out on your ass. Just because you get to name your particular archetype or stick some social clothing on it doesn't magically make it a roleplaying character. It's like trying to roleplay Monopoly. Just because you name the dog or the top hat doesn't make them characters.
I'm not sure what to say to this. First, I'm not sure where you're getting your sources from on who's doing what in MMOs, but I can safely say that there are still a number of people in the community who prefer teamwork. What I'm trying to get across with this is that it SHOULD be group-focused. That is what RPGs spawn from. Many people get together to participate in an adventurous fantasy of sorts. Do I understand that there are more people who prefer solo play? No. I don't know where the source is coming from, for one, and I'm not sure that their logic is even sound. On top of that, perhaps many of these soloers just had a bad experience with guilds or grouping or whatnot. My suggestion is to get some friends, grow some loyalty, and eventually start a guild of your own. Grouping is a fun part of gaming in my opinion. Otherwise, I'd just be another fly on the wall. Still solo at times, but I still enjoy grouping. There are still a number of people who want to primarily group and that's fine, but they most certainly are not in the majority evidenced by the huge number of extremely successful games that go out of their way to provide soloable content. If groupers were in the majority, would these developers create so much content that went against their financial interests? Of course not. It's a demonstrable fact that soloable, casual games vastly, vastly outnumber and outperform group-centric games. You seem to have a bad recollection of where computer RPGs came from, it wasn't tabletop play, it was actually solo-player games like Final Fantasy which started (mis)using the label RPG when they really don't fit the tabletop model. Final Fantasy and the games that came after it were not RPGs in the traditional sense because RPGs, by their tabletop definition, require FREEDOM, something FF and similar games absolutely didn't have. You followed the story whether you wanted to or not, you couldn't turn left when the story called for you to turn right. You were going to do what Square-Enix wanted you to do unless you just turned your computer/console off and said the hell with it. I'm not saying they're the majority. They're just my people. And tabletop RPGs were not ALL about freedom. That was completely upon the specific game's master to decide the amount of freedom and to create the story. MMORPGs and table-tops are a lot more alike than YOU seem to want to admit. Also, MMOs were intended to capture RPGers as a whole. Forgive me if I seem obtuse, but you're taking things and twisting their meanings around drastically to fit your personal feelings for them. The rest of your statement above is irrelevant. Secondly, allegations thrown by a "pro-soloer" who is also making some absurd assertions doesn't really qualify as debate either. Also, I'm not a pro-grouper. I'm a pro-MMOGer. Period. I love everything about it. The only really compelling arguments I've seen from "pro-soloers" on here is that there is better loot from grouping/raiding (not always the case), but games like SWTOR plan on fixing that to better-suit all aspects of gameplay. All-in-all, that's what I want. The ability to cater to all aspects of the MMOGing community. I love each and everyone of you equally... even if you ARE currently griefing me while remaining 20 levels higher. Secondly, I'm not a pro-soloer, I'm pro-freedom. Anyone can play any game any way they want to play it. It's never the soloers who want to screw over groupers, it's *ALWAYS* the groupers who want to harm the soloer's play. It's *ALWAYS* the groupers who want extra rewards, more gear, more XP and more gold just because they choose to group. It's *ALWAYS* the groupers who want to force people to group that don't want to group in the first place. I've never seen a single soloer demand that games remove their grouping mechanics so that nobody is allowed to group. It just doesn't happen. Instead, most soloers I see are for freedom. If you want to solo, you can solo. If you want to group, you can group. If you want to PvP, you can PvP. If you want to PvE, you can PvE. If you want to raid... you get the idea. The individual decides what they want to do. Why are you so against freedom? I'm not aware of any game out there, at least in the P2P MMO category, that doesn't have grouping dynamics. You are perfectly welcome to group any time you please. If you can't find anyone who wants to group with you, that's your problem. You will not fix that problem by trying to force people who do not want to group into situations where they are required to. Then you and I are a lot more alike than you care to recognize. I'm a pro-MMOer (no matter what the circumstance), but I stick by my statement that grouping on certain levels adds for further immersion into the game. And I'm not against freedom. I never screamed anti-freedom. That's absurd. I simply believe that for better story immersion (and this would depend on the lore and set up of the MMO; Champions and CoH should be single player friendly all the way), different group-based aspects should be released to give a feel of really epic combat. For instance, a PVP "battleground" should focus on people teaming up against others in an epic battle. Not because you're forced to, but because it would benefit the W. There's nothing immature in my logic. I'm saying to achieve certain goals either allow for PCs to group together with other PCs or to be given the option to group with NPCs during those instances. I'm not reaching out for group-only MMOGs. I think that would be ridiculous as I have said before that I enjoy questing alone quite often. It is apparent that we see eye to eye here and there is no need to go any further
And finally, the definition alongside according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: in parallel position to; at the side, close by. In a sentence: The dog walked alongside his master. Furthermore, walking alongside doesn't conclude that two or more people are "role playing" together. It doesn't give off the impression that I am playing the game with someone else. Yes, people may be around me, but that hardly constitutes as RPG. It fits the MMO aspect, but for the time being, we're really focusing on the RPG part (IMHO). Third, since the RPG aspect of virtually all computer games is piss-poor at best, that's a bad argument to get hung up on. You're no more "playing a role" in most MMOs than you're "roleplaying Master Chief" when you sit down to Halo. In most MMOs, you're playing an archetype, not a character. Most healers are functionally identical to other healers at the same level. Most tanks are functionally identical to other tanks at the same level. The expectations, especially in a grouping situation, is that you're going to be built especially to fill a particular role in the group dynamic and any deviation is going to find you out on your ass. Just because you get to name your particular archetype or stick some social clothing on it doesn't magically make it a roleplaying character. It's like trying to roleplay Monopoly. Just because you name the dog or the top hat doesn't make them characters. You seem to have missed my sarcasm from before. You were being overly critical about your terminology- incorrectly I might add- that I made a joke in reference. It was nothing more. I thought you had gotten it. As for what you've had to say, I'm not sure you're even realizing what you're saying. In every role playing game, I've always felt associated to the role. Maybe I'm a little nerdier than most though, yeah? Haha, no worries though. While I disagree, I will not continue digressing on this subject. It's benign in my opinion.
Finally, I hope to MMORP alongside you some day. Until then friend, I bid you happy trails. The Secret World and SWTOR are my next two choices.
I'm not saying they're the majority. They're just my people. And tabletop RPGs were not ALL about freedom. That was completely upon the specific game's master to decide the amount of freedom and to create the story. MMORPGs and table-tops are a lot more alike than YOU seem to want to admit. Also, MMOs were intended to capture RPGers as a whole. Forgive me if I seem obtuse, but you're taking things and twisting their meanings around drastically to fit your personal feelings for them. The rest of your statement above is irrelevant.
You're welcome to your people, but we both know that the amount of attention "your people" deserve is directly proportional to the amount of income you can bring to the game publishers. We all know that's really what matters, so unless the pro-grouping side can produce a significant number of players on their side, the chances of grouping rewards is slim to nil.
I do disagree entirely though, tabletop RPGs *WERE* all about freedom. They are not constructed the same way other tabletop games are. You don't have a set of rules that define game flow, turn order or direction you must take. You don't roll the dice, move the mice and try to perform pre-defined conditions for victory. That's what board games are, that's what card games are, that's not what RPGs are. They place players in control over characters and within a world constructed by the GM, they can choose what to do and what not to do. Unless you had a phenomenally bad GM who was reading a pre-written module in a monotone, you could go where you wanted to go and do what you wanted to do. In Monopoly, you can't decide your thimble is going to try to take over Park Avenue. In tabletop RPGs, you can.
MMOs were trying to capture video game players, not tabletop gamers. They were trying to attract the people who played Final Fantasy and the like first and foremost. I'm sure there was a certain amount of crossover, people who enjoyed both, but I never saw MMOs focusing their advertising, what little there was of it, toward the tabletop gamer. However, they were in video game magazines and most certainly online where gamers were more likely to be.
Then you and I are a lot more alike than you care to recognize. I'm a pro-MMOer (no matter what the circumstance), but I stick by my statement that grouping on certain levels adds for further immersion into the game. And I'm not against freedom. I never screamed anti-freedom. That's absurd. I simply believe that for better story immersion (and this would depend on the lore and set up of the MMO; Champions and CoH should be single player friendly all the way), different group-based aspects should be released to give a feel of really epic combat. For instance, a PVP "battleground" should focus on people teaming up against others in an epic battle. Not because you're forced to, but because it would benefit the W. There's nothing immature in my logic. I'm saying to achieve certain goals either allow for PCs to group together with other PCs or to be given the option to group with NPCs during those instances. I'm not reaching out for group-only MMOGs. I think that would be ridiculous as I have said before that I enjoy questing alone quite often. It is apparent that we see eye to eye here and there is no need to go any further
I never said you specifically screamed "anti-freedom" but you can't deny that a lot of pro-groupers do exactly that. They seek out ways to gain extra reward or increase game difficulty specifically to force others who wouldn't otherwise play in a group to do so. I seriously think that some of them think that, because they cannot easily find people to group with, they ought to be able to make everyone do what they want so they get their personal enjoyment, screw what everyone else wants. That's what I'm opposing. No one is stopping anyone who wants to group from doing so.
You're assuming that "immersion" is a primary motivator for most people and I don't know that it's true. You might value that and there's nothing wrong with it, but I don't think we can make the case that immersion is all that important to the majority of MMO players.
That said, I think immersion would bring better MMO loyalty. Most MMO players, both groupers and soloers alike, switch games like mad. Most people don't stick with any particular game for more than a couple of months, maybe a year or two at best. With true interaction and integration into the game world, people can stay with games for many years or even decades, I know I stuck with some text-based MU*s for more than 15 years because I truly felt like I was a part of and important to, the world and it's people. That's something that most MMO developers don't even attempt, sadly.
The only problem with your PvP example, and this is just the way the industry operates, is that every player is only out for their own personal glory. All games provide individual reward, even in a group setting. There's no point in benefiting anyone but yourself, you get nothing for it. In every group, you're still out for personal XP, loot and gold, you only have a better opportunity to get it in a group because you have a larger number of people. There's no difference in the reward between a group and a solo player, there are no such things as group rewards.
You seem to have missed my sarcasm from before. You were being overly critical about your terminology- incorrectly I might add- that I made a joke in reference. It was nothing more. I thought you had gotten it. As for what you've had to say, I'm not sure you're even realizing what you're saying. In every role playing game, I've always felt associated to the role. Maybe I'm a little nerdier than most though, yeah? Haha, no worries though. While I disagree, I will not continue digressing on this subject. It's benign in my opinion.
I don't feel associated with any role in any MMO, simply because they're all archetypes. Sure, they have different names and different clothes, but you are essentially the same as every other same-class character of the same level in the game. Most games just don't allow for real individuality, you're locked within your class, you're locked within your group dynamics, you're expected to be what you're expected to be, especially if you want to play with others. For people who solo, that's a little less true because they don't have to impress anyone else with their stats. You can be a little more individualistic, at least within the confines of the game, the only thing that matters is what you want and how you want to perform. It doesn't matter if you're carrying the Magical Sword of Ass-Kicking or not, nobody gets to choose but you.
It's not much more freedom but it's freedom nontheless.
Finally, I hope to MMORP alongside you some day. Until then friend, I bid you happy trails. The Secret World and SWTOR are my next two choices.
Not sure if I'm going to play TOR or not, I'll have to see when it comes out and has been out a significant amount of time. I never play a game until it's been "in the wild" at least 3-6 months so they can work out the inevitable bugs.
First off, we're mainly discussing MMO Role Playing Games, which do require grouping aspects as well. As I've said before, I would prefer if both aspects could be met so that those of us who enjoy grouping do not get flushed out of the genre (we started this genre after all). It would be a win-win situation. Now, as for solo play WITH your guild mates... that doesn't make sense. It is good to be a consumer.
"required" by whom? YOu? Certainly not by me, developers, or 10+M players out there. You can "prefer" all you want but solo-content has been a priority of developers for quite a while now.
I highly doubt you can change that.
Does not make sense to you. Make perfect sense to me & my guildmate. If you cannot comprehend it, it is your problem. Not mine.
how is solo play WITH anyone else considered solo play? If you're doing it WITH your guildmates, then it's very much a group-effort. It doesn't matter if you're just asking directions to a certain area, or how to finish a specific quest, it's still taking a group effort. Anyways, this thread is getting rather tiresome as people are assuming that I'm eluding to the fact that grouping is the only way to go. I believe, as everyone should (imo), that group-questing AND solo questing should be implemented together.
Also, if you're in a guild, then why NOT play together? What's the point in playing alone? It just seems to promote social decline, but maybe that's just my association with psychology coming out. I don't know why anyone in a guild would rather run around alone. Unless you're on a PVE server of course. I don't do PVE servers personally, so having an additional friend around to help smash any group that tries to grief is always handy. I'm sure anyone who would hate to spend 3 hours on a 30 min quest due to the opposing griefer would 100% agree with me on this.
I play solo while chatting with my guildies about game stuff. Or may be striking deals with others about crafting or buying stuff. That is how.
The point is i don't have to wait for them, or they wait for us to do stuff .. particularly those that can be done soloed. And I AM on a PvE server. Don't get me wrong. I do group with them when needed. But i also solo .. but in contact with them at the same time.
First off, we're mainly discussing MMO Role Playing Games, which do require grouping aspects as well. As I've said before, I would prefer if both aspects could be met so that those of us who enjoy grouping do not get flushed out of the genre (we started this genre after all). It would be a win-win situation. Now, as for solo play WITH your guild mates... that doesn't make sense. It is good to be a consumer.
"required" by whom? YOu? Certainly not by me, developers, or 10+M players out there. You can "prefer" all you want but solo-content has been a priority of developers for quite a while now.
I highly doubt you can change that.
Does not make sense to you. Make perfect sense to me & my guildmate. If you cannot comprehend it, it is your problem. Not mine.
how is solo play WITH anyone else considered solo play? If you're doing it WITH your guildmates, then it's very much a group-effort. It doesn't matter if you're just asking directions to a certain area, or how to finish a specific quest, it's still taking a group effort. Anyways, this thread is getting rather tiresome as people are assuming that I'm eluding to the fact that grouping is the only way to go. I believe, as everyone should (imo), that group-questing AND solo questing should be implemented together.
Also, if you're in a guild, then why NOT play together? What's the point in playing alone? It just seems to promote social decline, but maybe that's just my association with psychology coming out. I don't know why anyone in a guild would rather run around alone. Unless you're on a PVE server of course. I don't do PVE servers personally, so having an additional friend around to help smash any group that tries to grief is always handy. I'm sure anyone who would hate to spend 3 hours on a 30 min quest due to the opposing griefer would 100% agree with me on this.
I play solo while chatting with my guildies about game stuff. Or may be striking deals with others about crafting or buying stuff. That is how.
The point is i don't have to wait for them, or they wait for us to do stuff .. particularly those that can be done soloed. And I AM on a PvE server. Don't get me wrong. I do group with them when needed. But i also solo .. but in contact with them at the same time.
Ah, it was only a joke bud. What you had said made it seem as though you played solo with your guild mates. I mean, I just paraphrased what you said earlier.
And again, everything you're saying I fully understand. I was merely poking and prodding. PVE explains the reason you prefer to run around alone. You don't really have any issues with griefers in the PVE world.
For PVP realms, it's more "logical" to have friends close by at the very least. That's actually how my guild's solo system is set up. While it may seem like we're being demanding, it is literally left up to the member what they'd like to do next, but they will always have friends close by with that little guild text right around their name stating that they ARE of Impervium Dynasty, and they are to be reckoned with rather than griefed. There are those who are ignorant or possibly even new to our servers who attempt an attack on one of our members, yet they will only get one kill off on a member, and only if they're lucky or really good.
While groups aren't necessary, they make for a dangerous adversary in PVP combat, which is something I specialize in. It's the main reason I play MMOs anymore, aside from story immersion (solo questing) and raids/dungeons.
I'm not saying they're the majority. They're just my people. And tabletop RPGs were not ALL about freedom. That was completely upon the specific game's master to decide the amount of freedom and to create the story. MMORPGs and table-tops are a lot more alike than YOU seem to want to admit. Also, MMOs were intended to capture RPGers as a whole. Forgive me if I seem obtuse, but you're taking things and twisting their meanings around drastically to fit your personal feelings for them. The rest of your statement above is irrelevant. You're welcome to your people, but we both know that the amount of attention "your people" deserve is directly proportional to the amount of income you can bring to the game publishers. We all know that's really what matters, so unless the pro-grouping side can produce a significant number of players on their side, the chances of grouping rewards is slim to nil. I do disagree entirely though, tabletop RPGs *WERE* all about freedom. They are not constructed the same way other tabletop games are. You don't have a set of rules that define game flow, turn order or direction you must take. You don't roll the dice, move the mice and try to perform pre-defined conditions for victory. That's what board games are, that's what card games are, that's not what RPGs are. They place players in control over characters and within a world constructed by the GM, they can choose what to do and what not to do. Unless you had a phenomenally bad GM who was reading a pre-written module in a monotone, you could go where you wanted to go and do what you wanted to do. In Monopoly, you can't decide your thimble is going to try to take over Park Avenue. In tabletop RPGs, you can. MMOs were trying to capture video game players, not tabletop gamers. They were trying to attract the people who played Final Fantasy and the like first and foremost. I'm sure there was a certain amount of crossover, people who enjoyed both, but I never saw MMOs focusing their advertising, what little there was of it, toward the tabletop gamer. However, they were in video game magazines and most certainly online where gamers were more likely to be.
Then you and I are a lot more alike than you care to recognize. I'm a pro-MMOer (no matter what the circumstance), but I stick by my statement that grouping on certain levels adds for further immersion into the game. And I'm not against freedom. I never screamed anti-freedom. That's absurd. I simply believe that for better story immersion (and this would depend on the lore and set up of the MMO; Champions and CoH should be single player friendly all the way), different group-based aspects should be released to give a feel of really epic combat. For instance, a PVP "battleground" should focus on people teaming up against others in an epic battle. Not because you're forced to, but because it would benefit the W. There's nothing immature in my logic. I'm saying to achieve certain goals either allow for PCs to group together with other PCs or to be given the option to group with NPCs during those instances. I'm not reaching out for group-only MMOGs. I think that would be ridiculous as I have said before that I enjoy questing alone quite often. It is apparent that we see eye to eye here and there is no need to go any further I never said you specifically screamed "anti-freedom" but you can't deny that a lot of pro-groupers do exactly that. They seek out ways to gain extra reward or increase game difficulty specifically to force others who wouldn't otherwise play in a group to do so. I seriously think that some of them think that, because they cannot easily find people to group with, they ought to be able to make everyone do what they want so they get their personal enjoyment, screw what everyone else wants. That's what I'm opposing. No one is stopping anyone who wants to group from doing so.
You're assuming that "immersion" is a primary motivator for most people and I don't know that it's true. You might value that and there's nothing wrong with it, but I don't think we can make the case that immersion is all that important to the majority of MMO players. That said, I think immersion would bring better MMO loyalty. Most MMO players, both groupers and soloers alike, switch games like mad. Most people don't stick with any particular game for more than a couple of months, maybe a year or two at best. With true interaction and integration into the game world, people can stay with games for many years or even decades, I know I stuck with some text-based MU*s for more than 15 years because I truly felt like I was a part of and important to, the world and it's people. That's something that most MMO developers don't even attempt, sadly. The only problem with your PvP example, and this is just the way the industry operates, is that every player is only out for their own personal glory. All games provide individual reward, even in a group setting. There's no point in benefiting anyone but yourself, you get nothing for it. In every group, you're still out for personal XP, loot and gold, you only have a better opportunity to get it in a group because you have a larger number of people. There's no difference in the reward between a group and a solo player, there are no such things as group rewards.
You seem to have missed my sarcasm from before. You were being overly critical about your terminology- incorrectly I might add- that I made a joke in reference. It was nothing more. I thought you had gotten it. As for what you've had to say, I'm not sure you're even realizing what you're saying. In every role playing game, I've always felt associated to the role. Maybe I'm a little nerdier than most though, yeah? Haha, no worries though. While I disagree, I will not continue digressing on this subject. It's benign in my opinion. I don't feel associated with any role in any MMO, simply because they're all archetypes. Sure, they have different names and different clothes, but you are essentially the same as every other same-class character of the same level in the game. Most games just don't allow for real individuality, you're locked within your class, you're locked within your group dynamics, you're expected to be what you're expected to be, especially if you want to play with others. For people who solo, that's a little less true because they don't have to impress anyone else with their stats. You can be a little more individualistic, at least within the confines of the game, the only thing that matters is what you want and how you want to perform. It doesn't matter if you're carrying the Magical Sword of Ass-Kicking or not, nobody gets to choose but you. It's not much more freedom but it's freedom nontheless.
Finally, I hope to MMORP alongside you some day. Until then friend, I bid you happy trails. The Secret World and SWTOR are my next two choices.
Not sure if I'm going to play TOR or not, I'll have to see when it comes out and has been out a significant amount of time. I never play a game until it's been "in the wild" at least 3-6 months so they can work out the inevitable bugs.
Really? I thought it would have been the best pick for you. They focus a whole lot on solo play. And talk about immersion, not to mention that BioWare is developing it. Daniel Erickson, the Principle Lead Writer for the game, is a phenomenal storyteller. I'm not going to predict the destruction of WoW with the release of TOR, but I'm certainly hoping that it rattles some cages in the MMO genre. Also, I understand not wanting to buy it right out the gate, though this will be the first game in about half a decade that I will. As I said, it's BioWare. NUff said.
If you decide to join in the world of TOR, I hope you look into the Impervium Dynasty as your new home. We have two primary guilds that focus on the two principle aspects of MMOs: PVP and PVE.
As for The Secret World, I will probably wait a few months after release if I don't find the beta completely immersive.
Some people want to compete, if alone is more effective, then alone they wll play.
Others dont want to compete, and others dont want to play alone, regardless.
But then, you cant force people to play your game if it doesnt satisfy their tastes. If you enforce them, they might still not play it.
Doesnt matter if you incentivate them to socialize and do activities in group, to satisfy those who need to be hooked up, you piss of those who dont want to be hooked up.
Private soloers from whatever incentive are given to group players will make them quit.
Private the groupers from an incentive to do so, will make them quit as well.
The current solutions all fail.
My solution is to go way back to Ultima Online and realize why it evolved to be like this, what they were trying to solve by doing that and how did they ended up creating this side effect.
It's not that hard to understand if you pay attention. You are asserting that there is a single playstyle that people ought to be using and that the "The whole idea of promoting grouping is to bring everyone to the same page." Why would everyone want to be on the same page? On the one hand, you have games which give players a CHOICE whether they want to play solo or group. On the other, you seem to want to force group-think on everyone so that they'll "adopt the same philosophy on how the game should be played." Unfortunately, you haven't demonstrated that your particular philosophy is how any game "should" be played. They're your words, not mine. At least man up to them.
I never said anything about forcing players either, I dont see how my statements are any less logical then yours. It as if your takeing the worst case scenario to base your arguments off of.
At least this reply has something worth replying to, "Why would everyone want to be on the same page? Becaaausssse, They are raising and developing their character with other players, which allows them to learn how to abilities and tactics of other classes as well as teaching them about the capabilities of thier class allowing the entire group to evolve their play style together, making the group closer to being on the same page allowing for greater success through teamwork when encountering challenges across the virtual world, thus making grouping with players on the same page a far superior, and memorable experience.
I think you were referring to this line of text.
"The whole idea of promoting grouping is to bring everyone to the same page. Players leveling up with other players gives all the players a legitmate chance to adopt the same philosophy on how the game should be played."
It mentions that a philosphy to playing a game exists. It mentions that everyone should have a chance to understand the general methods and rolls of all classes, including limitations and decent etiquette .( at least that's how I meant philosophy) However, I see no where in this line of text where is says that I have a way that, on how a game should be played, exists.
While I know I'm in the minority, it most certainly isn't just me. i have a lot of kindred spirits out there as evidenced by these forums, and we can only hope that one day the wheel will come back around a bit and games more catering to a group dynamic will regain popularity.
Wishful thinking but it is your prerogative to wish. Force grouping has been tried before and it failed in the marketplace.
I would not call EQ1, DAOC and FFXI as failures in the marketplace. Many people enjoyed those games, some still do, and they have (or had) a lot of 'forced' grouping.
Sure, they don't match up to WOW numbers, but there's still a market for a 'forced' grouping game. (which btw, still had plenty to do solo)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Originally posted by Kyleran I've often thought what could be done with quest based content to make it more condusive to group dynamics, but really can't come up with anything substantial.
You could make quests as repetetive and dull as group grinding is. If all the quests in the zone require you to kill the same boars then people will group together to do it faster since noone cares which quest you are on.
Less choice forces people together while more choice spreads them out. People engaged in boring tasks will tend to socialize to relieve the boredom.
Which strangely enough, makes the game more fun at the same time, since in the end, running endless quests turns out to be just as repetitive and boring after a while, except you find yourself alone instead.
But I like the thought of making quests repetitive, perhaps imparting different bonuses for each pass through, or earning points towards some reward, so that players would be encouraged to repeat them with others. (maybe not an infinitum, but to a set number0
I cannot agree with you. I am simply not wired to consider that to be fun for an extended period. I don't mind doing simlar things for an extended period as long as there is enough of a variety in those tasks. As soon as those tasks become too alike, I get bored within 15-30 minutes. So camping the same spawn or type of spawn for an extended period puts me to sleep. I'll do it in spurts and then go do something else till I get 'unbored'.
The thing about the 'endless quests' is that there is usually enough variety in them to keep me interested for a much longer time. A new area will present a new challenge, there is a new twist to a quest formula, the mobs have new abilities I have to learn, etc.
One thing I really like about MMOs is that I can socialize with other people while still doing things on my own. AS such I do not see the logic in doing a boring task simply to socialize while I can socialize with the same people while doing something I enjoy. Now, if those people do not want to keep socializing with me once we are not doign the same task then it was just filler socializing and all they wanted to do was socialize with someone rather than me in particualar.
The idea that you need to convince people to do unfun, boring activities just so they can socaialized is to me ludicrous and backwards. The solution is for the game designers to add in more ways where socializing enhances a fun game experience rather than replacing it.
But see, I find most MMO activities unfun for the most part unless there is some social interaction to it. The issue goes beyond simply the fact you do a quests. People fail to realize the "benefit" the timesinks of the old games gave players from a social perspective.
Taking 3-5 minutes to rest up between fights, or long travel times with not a lot of actual manic acitvity gave players a lot of time to chat and enjoy themselves.
Its hard to explain, but in the end it was lots more fun than I ever realized and I guess I'm just an anchronistic dinosaur since I enjoyed them.
That is just you. By the popularity of solo/quest content, you are in the minority.
While I know I'm in the minority, it most certainly isn't just me. i have a lot of kindred spirits out there as evidenced by these forums, and we can only hope that one day the wheel will come back around a bit and games more catering to a group dynamic will regain popularity.
Everquest was a camp a spawn site game... Final Fantasy XI was a camp a spawn site game. Those two were the most extreme group oriented games I played where everyone had to Know Their Role. The biggest problem with major group focus games, were the lack of exploring or doing what "you" wanted to do more opposed to what you "had" to do in order to level and survive. So if you have any specific games in mind that catered to your profile, I'm all ears to hear it... I enjoyed both EQ classic and FFXI in the early days, but after you camp the same damned sites again toon after toon and waiting for an hour or two just for a "slot" to open where you're needed because you can't progress further, gets old man.
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
What I wouldn't give for good, old-fashioned Hell Levels to reappear in MMORPG's.
Hell Levels are great character builders ('scuse the pun). They would be a nice incentive to us soloers to group more.
What can I say, though? I like soloing. I like the challenge of killing mobs (designated as being for a Group of three or whatever) that I'm not supposed to be able to solo. I take pride in it. If i accomplish something the game would prefer I didn't, something that takes strategy, cunning, on-the-fly course direction, agro-containment and flat out friggin' skillz, then I should be rewarded for it. The game should sense that a group mob was solo'd and I should get a killer sword for my abilities.
From my experience, I think grouping is easy and I think soloing is hard. Agro is easy when you're grouped and it's a PITA when you solo.
I think there shouldn't be a single piece of gear in any game that cannot be soloed...as long as it's a challenge.
Why can't the developers just make soloers spend several hours getting to the Boss and risk losing all that time spent going back to try again if I'm killed in the process. Why can't they make me spend a LOOOOOOONG-ass time in a dungeon if I want to be crazy enough to solo something. All they have to do is make it a long journey ending with a friggin' hard Boss.
When I dream, I dream big, baby!
The only reason developers don't reward soloers for their displays of elite skillz is to foster some silly, childish sense of elitism among raiders, whom they perceive as more devoted to their game. "Ooh, look at me...I have no life...now gimme a top sword!"
So, nope. Only raiders are commensurately rewarded even though what they do is relatively simple. It's time invested they're rewarding. The propped-up egos of the lifeless are a side benefit. (I know...I used to be a raider and I had all the top gear...but it was a road to burnout.)
Like it's real hard to kill mob with a group anymore, much less a 24-toon raid. Only length of time invested is rewarded and that's why I leave (that and I don't repeat content and once I've seen/done everything I don't need to do it again unless I'm helping out someone). These games are so easy these days (thanks WoW!) I chew them up and spit them out. I make a soloable toon, solo him to the cap and look for the next game. Why stick around? Developers don't care enough about my loyalty to reward it or my skillz, so I owe don't owe them loyalty.
However, as a soloer, I realize I'm in the minority so I just deal with it and PUG here and there. That's life in the MMORPG city. These games never satisy anyone. Back in the day (sonny), when I picked up EQ1, the only class that interested me was the Ranger class because of the versatility. He could NOT be solo'd to the cap. Couldn't be done back then. Nobody could do it. So I soloed him as long as I could and then began to group. It was fun. But one can't turn back the clock, and I fully agree with the original poster that Vent and TeamSpeak have ruined these games. Too much off-topic, wrong-topic chatter...someone's bound to offend someone. Happens every time.
Really? I thought it would have been the best pick for you. They focus a whole lot on solo play. And talk about immersion, not to mention that BioWare is developing it. Daniel Erickson, the Principle Lead Writer for the game, is a phenomenal storyteller. I'm not going to predict the destruction of WoW with the release of TOR, but I'm certainly hoping that it rattles some cages in the MMO genre. Also, I understand not wanting to buy it right out the gate, though this will be the first game in about half a decade that I will. As I said, it's BioWare. NUff said.
If you decide to join in the world of TOR, I hope you look into the Impervium Dynasty as your new home. We have two primary guilds that focus on the two principle aspects of MMOs: PVP and PVE. As for The Secret World, I will probably wait a few months after release if I don't find the beta completely immersive.
Like I said, I'll take a look at it once it's been out for a while and see, I don't buy into any of the hype until I can see how the game actually performs in reality. I'm not all that happy about putting any money in George Lucas' pockets but if the game is really excellent, I might give it a shot.
While I know I'm in the minority, it most certainly isn't just me. i have a lot of kindred spirits out there as evidenced by these forums, and we can only hope that one day the wheel will come back around a bit and games more catering to a group dynamic will regain popularity.
Wishful thinking but it is your prerogative to wish. Force grouping has been tried before and it failed in the marketplace.
I would not call EQ1, DAOC and FFXI as failures in the marketplace. Many people enjoyed those games, some still do, and they have (or had) a lot of 'forced' grouping.
Sure, they don't match up to WOW numbers, but there's still a market for a 'forced' grouping game. (which btw, still had plenty to do solo)
I didn't say those games are failure. I say forced grouping is. In fact, you said it .. "which btw, still had plenty to do solo" .. and i quote. Every developer knows that it is bad to have a force groupping only game.
Comments
Wishful thinking but it is your prerogative to wish. Force grouping has been tried before and it failed in the marketplace.
.
Remember, the simple ability to run around in a virtual landscape and chat with people was very new and cool in 1998. Not so much now in 2009. Also remember that UO didn't have challenging content or any sort of advanced group startegy required in PvE compared to todays MMOs. Nor did UO have all that much content that didnt' involve players Rping and making things up. Mobs were just plopped down. Dungeons were simplistic crawls. Bosses were, well, VERY simple AI or difficult if you include the bugs and greifers;) You didn't run around in UO for phat loot because there was no phat loot, no cool boss, no amazing dungeons, at least when you compared it all to EQ, at the time. It was just chatting, building a house and collecting stuff.
Last time I checked to get all the phat loot in your EQ-like games, you HAVE TO group up. WHatever phat loot you're getting solo isn't hard to get. SO grouping up doesn't hurt you. It never hurt you, unless the ONLY thing you're looking at is your EXP per hour or how fast you're leveling up, which seems odd if you're the kind of person who just wants to play with your friends. I'd find it quite odd that anyone would prefer to SOLO than play with people they enjoy playing with. If they prefer to solo, thats THEY'RE perogative. They have no right to complain about being punished by grouping. WHats more important? PLaying with friends or MIN/MAXING? The game doesnt' force you to min/max. UO forced you to MIN/MAX just to be competitive. You couldn't kill anyone if you just did whatever you wanted adn trained fishing all day. You HAD TO min/max and follow the best template or you got crushed. MMOs aren't about just winning. But some PEOPLE make MMOs about winning. MMOs just offer you the option of how fast you'd like to accomplish whatevr it is you're after. If some people want to do it all as fast as possible, thats the PEOPLE not the game.
Communites in any large MMO are going to suffer. Is NYC as nice a place per square block as some small midwest town? Hardly. But there are still fantastic communities in NYC. They're just harder to find. Thats the great thing about guilds. If you just see that as your community, then a new MMO is just as good as an old one when it comes to people. My guild in WOW was made up mostly former UO, EQ and DOAC players, so my community in WOW was just as good as in past games. If people chose not to play with like minded people and only worry about themselves, their EXP and WINNING at all costs, than thats their fault.
I'm not saying I have all the right answers simply stating what I have seen and what I think could help. The simple fact of the problem is group as it has be done in EQ since does not work. It separates and segregates the community into little clicks and now with mmo being items based caused greed to be the deciding factor or how far you can go.
If you want a mmo to be based on community you have to expand on off line group based design (holly trinity) and lessen the greed factor.
There is no problem. It is just you (and a small group of people) think there is. I have WAY more enough friendly people to socialize in my MMORPG. I do not need more. Just my guild + a few frds I make on the way is enough.
MMORPGs are GAMES. They should be game first and social scene second. If i want just to social, i can hang with my friends and no need to play a MMORP GAME.
And there is nothing wrong with greed if it provides fun for the game.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Massively Multiplayer games, NOT GROUPING games. They don't need better grouping mechanics and developers agree that solo content is important.
I want to play a solo game with my guild mates and I got that. It is good to be a customer.
There is no problem. It is just you (and a small group of people) think there is. I have WAY more enough friendly people to socialize in my MMORPG. I do not need more. Just my guild + a few frds I make on the way is enough.
MMORPGs are GAMES. They should be game first and social scene second. If i want just to social, i can hang with my friends and no need to play a MMORP GAME.
And there is nothing wrong with greed if it provides fun for the game.
If you think community is your guild and a select few friends and greed is great for game play more power to ya. I think you are missing the bigger picture of what mmorpg should be. Sadly mmo will continue to devolve until they are multi-player dungeons until someone goes back to the basics.
If thay base the solo and grouping like thay do levels. At first level you do not need to group but at 60th leve (end cap) you need to group for all quests.
This type of game has only one problem. NO ONE would play it. Ops sorry only about 50,000 would play it. The other 15 mil post WOW gamers would not.
..its a guideline, not a rule, as players we must remember: Its a Game.
Everything I read in this thread just makes me want to play FFXI. I have never played another game where I knew so many players. Where random PuGs would join together and then stay together until everyone had the item needed.
As soon as the next group-centric game comes out I'm in.
If that's really what you're claiming the genre is about, yes. However, we just have to look at virtually any game on the market to see that's just not the case, no one is "massively grouping", the overwhelming majority of players in almost *ANY* game play solo. Anything that anyone does in a game is, by definition, play, therefore walking through a town with a lot of people in it is, also by definition, playing alongside those people.
The problem is, this isn't a debate, it's a bunch of pro-groupers making absurd assertions that they cannot back up in any way, shape or form. They are promoting their opinions as fact and presenting no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims. There's no logic, reason or critical thinking involved here, it's just the claim that their preferred playstyle is the only playstyle anyone ought to ever use.
It's a good thing developers pay no attention to that, millions of players would stop playing the games if they did.
I'm not sure what to say to this. First, I'm not sure where you're getting your sources from on who's doing what in MMOs, but I can safely say that there are still a number of people in the community who prefer teamwork. What I'm trying to get across with this is that it SHOULD be group-focused. That is what RPGs spawn from. Many people get together to participate in an adventurous fantasy of sorts. Do I understand that there are more people who prefer solo play? No. I don't know where the source is coming from, for one, and I'm not sure that their logic is even sound. On top of that, perhaps many of these soloers just had a bad experience with guilds or grouping or whatnot. My suggestion is to get some friends, grow some loyalty, and eventually start a guild of your own. Grouping is a fun part of gaming in my opinion. Otherwise, I'd just be another fly on the wall. Still solo at times, but I still enjoy grouping.
Secondly, allegations thrown by a "pro-soloer" who is also making some absurd assertions doesn't really qualify as debate either. Also, I'm not a pro-grouper. I'm a pro-MMOGer. Period. I love everything about it. The only really compelling arguments I've seen from "pro-soloers" on here is that there is better loot from grouping/raiding (not always the case), but games like SWTOR plan on fixing that to better-suit all aspects of gameplay. All-in-all, that's what I want. The ability to cater to all aspects of the MMOGing community. I love each and everyone of you equally... even if you ARE currently griefing me while remaining 20 levels higher.
And finally, the definition alongside according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: in parallel position to; at the side, close by. In a sentence: The dog walked alongside his master. Furthermore, walking alongside doesn't conclude that two or more people are "role playing" together. It doesn't give off the impression that I am playing the game with someone else. Yes, people may be around me, but that hardly constitutes as RPG. It fits the MMO aspect, but for the time being, we're really focusing on the RPG part (IMHO).
Peace.
THE Rooster Nash
Massively Multiplayer games, NOT GROUPING games. They don't need better grouping mechanics and developers agree that solo content is important.
I want to play a solo game with my guild mates and I got that. It is good to be a customer.
First off, we're mainly discussing MMO Role Playing Games, which do require grouping aspects as well. As I've said before, I would prefer if both aspects could be met so that those of us who enjoy grouping do not get flushed out of the genre (we started this genre after all). It would be a win-win situation.
Now, as for solo play WITH your guild mates... that doesn't make sense. It is good to be a consumer.
THE Rooster Nash
"required" by whom? YOu? Certainly not by me, developers, or 10+M players out there. You can "prefer" all you want but solo-content has been a priority of developers for quite a while now.
I highly doubt you can change that.
Does not make sense to you. Make perfect sense to me & my guildmate. If you cannot comprehend it, it is your problem. Not mine.
"required" by whom? YOu? Certainly not by me, developers, or 10+M players out there. You can "prefer" all you want but solo-content has been a priority of developers for quite a while now.
I highly doubt you can change that.
Does not make sense to you. Make perfect sense to me & my guildmate. If you cannot comprehend it, it is your problem. Not mine.
how is solo play WITH anyone else considered solo play? If you're doing it WITH your guildmates, then it's very much a group-effort. It doesn't matter if you're just asking directions to a certain area, or how to finish a specific quest, it's still taking a group effort. Anyways, this thread is getting rather tiresome as people are assuming that I'm eluding to the fact that grouping is the only way to go. I believe, as everyone should (imo), that group-questing AND solo questing should be implemented together.
Also, if you're in a guild, then why NOT play together? What's the point in playing alone? It just seems to promote social decline, but maybe that's just my association with psychology coming out. I don't know why anyone in a guild would rather run around alone. Unless you're on a PVE server of course. I don't do PVE servers personally, so having an additional friend around to help smash any group that tries to grief is always handy. I'm sure anyone who would hate to spend 3 hours on a 30 min quest due to the opposing griefer would 100% agree with me on this.
THE Rooster Nash
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
Finally, I hope to MMORP alongside you some day. Until then friend, I bid you happy trails. The Secret World and SWTOR are my next two choices.
THE Rooster Nash
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
"required" by whom? YOu? Certainly not by me, developers, or 10+M players out there. You can "prefer" all you want but solo-content has been a priority of developers for quite a while now.
I highly doubt you can change that.
Does not make sense to you. Make perfect sense to me & my guildmate. If you cannot comprehend it, it is your problem. Not mine.
how is solo play WITH anyone else considered solo play? If you're doing it WITH your guildmates, then it's very much a group-effort. It doesn't matter if you're just asking directions to a certain area, or how to finish a specific quest, it's still taking a group effort. Anyways, this thread is getting rather tiresome as people are assuming that I'm eluding to the fact that grouping is the only way to go. I believe, as everyone should (imo), that group-questing AND solo questing should be implemented together.
Also, if you're in a guild, then why NOT play together? What's the point in playing alone? It just seems to promote social decline, but maybe that's just my association with psychology coming out. I don't know why anyone in a guild would rather run around alone. Unless you're on a PVE server of course. I don't do PVE servers personally, so having an additional friend around to help smash any group that tries to grief is always handy. I'm sure anyone who would hate to spend 3 hours on a 30 min quest due to the opposing griefer would 100% agree with me on this.
I play solo while chatting with my guildies about game stuff. Or may be striking deals with others about crafting or buying stuff. That is how.
The point is i don't have to wait for them, or they wait for us to do stuff .. particularly those that can be done soloed. And I AM on a PvE server. Don't get me wrong. I do group with them when needed. But i also solo .. but in contact with them at the same time.
"required" by whom? YOu? Certainly not by me, developers, or 10+M players out there. You can "prefer" all you want but solo-content has been a priority of developers for quite a while now.
I highly doubt you can change that.
Does not make sense to you. Make perfect sense to me & my guildmate. If you cannot comprehend it, it is your problem. Not mine.
how is solo play WITH anyone else considered solo play? If you're doing it WITH your guildmates, then it's very much a group-effort. It doesn't matter if you're just asking directions to a certain area, or how to finish a specific quest, it's still taking a group effort. Anyways, this thread is getting rather tiresome as people are assuming that I'm eluding to the fact that grouping is the only way to go. I believe, as everyone should (imo), that group-questing AND solo questing should be implemented together.
Also, if you're in a guild, then why NOT play together? What's the point in playing alone? It just seems to promote social decline, but maybe that's just my association with psychology coming out. I don't know why anyone in a guild would rather run around alone. Unless you're on a PVE server of course. I don't do PVE servers personally, so having an additional friend around to help smash any group that tries to grief is always handy. I'm sure anyone who would hate to spend 3 hours on a 30 min quest due to the opposing griefer would 100% agree with me on this.
I play solo while chatting with my guildies about game stuff. Or may be striking deals with others about crafting or buying stuff. That is how.
The point is i don't have to wait for them, or they wait for us to do stuff .. particularly those that can be done soloed. And I AM on a PvE server. Don't get me wrong. I do group with them when needed. But i also solo .. but in contact with them at the same time.
Ah, it was only a joke bud. What you had said made it seem as though you played solo with your guild mates. I mean, I just paraphrased what you said earlier.
And again, everything you're saying I fully understand. I was merely poking and prodding. PVE explains the reason you prefer to run around alone. You don't really have any issues with griefers in the PVE world.
For PVP realms, it's more "logical" to have friends close by at the very least. That's actually how my guild's solo system is set up. While it may seem like we're being demanding, it is literally left up to the member what they'd like to do next, but they will always have friends close by with that little guild text right around their name stating that they ARE of Impervium Dynasty, and they are to be reckoned with rather than griefed. There are those who are ignorant or possibly even new to our servers who attempt an attack on one of our members, yet they will only get one kill off on a member, and only if they're lucky or really good.
While groups aren't necessary, they make for a dangerous adversary in PVP combat, which is something I specialize in. It's the main reason I play MMOs anymore, aside from story immersion (solo questing) and raids/dungeons.
THE Rooster Nash
Finally, I hope to MMORP alongside you some day. Until then friend, I bid you happy trails. The Secret World and SWTOR are my next two choices.
Not sure if I'm going to play TOR or not, I'll have to see when it comes out and has been out a significant amount of time. I never play a game until it's been "in the wild" at least 3-6 months so they can work out the inevitable bugs.
Really? I thought it would have been the best pick for you. They focus a whole lot on solo play. And talk about immersion, not to mention that BioWare is developing it. Daniel Erickson, the Principle Lead Writer for the game, is a phenomenal storyteller. I'm not going to predict the destruction of WoW with the release of TOR, but I'm certainly hoping that it rattles some cages in the MMO genre. Also, I understand not wanting to buy it right out the gate, though this will be the first game in about half a decade that I will. As I said, it's BioWare. NUff said.
If you decide to join in the world of TOR, I hope you look into the Impervium Dynasty as your new home. We have two primary guilds that focus on the two principle aspects of MMOs: PVP and PVE.
As for The Secret World, I will probably wait a few months after release if I don't find the beta completely immersive.
THE Rooster Nash
Some people want to compete, if alone is more effective, then alone they wll play.
Others dont want to compete, and others dont want to play alone, regardless.
But then, you cant force people to play your game if it doesnt satisfy their tastes. If you enforce them, they might still not play it.
Doesnt matter if you incentivate them to socialize and do activities in group, to satisfy those who need to be hooked up, you piss of those who dont want to be hooked up.
Private soloers from whatever incentive are given to group players will make them quit.
Private the groupers from an incentive to do so, will make them quit as well.
The current solutions all fail.
My solution is to go way back to Ultima Online and realize why it evolved to be like this, what they were trying to solve by doing that and how did they ended up creating this side effect.
I never said anything about forcing players either, I dont see how my statements are any less logical then yours. It as if your takeing the worst case scenario to base your arguments off of.
At least this reply has something worth replying to, "Why would everyone want to be on the same page? Becaaausssse, They are raising and developing their character with other players, which allows them to learn how to abilities and tactics of other classes as well as teaching them about the capabilities of thier class allowing the entire group to evolve their play style together, making the group closer to being on the same page allowing for greater success through teamwork when encountering challenges across the virtual world, thus making grouping with players on the same page a far superior, and memorable experience.
I think you were referring to this line of text.
"The whole idea of promoting grouping is to bring everyone to the same page. Players leveling up with other players gives all the players a legitmate chance to adopt the same philosophy on how the game should be played."
It mentions that a philosphy to playing a game exists. It mentions that everyone should have a chance to understand the general methods and rolls of all classes, including limitations and decent etiquette .( at least that's how I meant philosophy) However, I see no where in this line of text where is says that I have a way that, on how a game should be played, exists.
Add signature here.
Wishful thinking but it is your prerogative to wish. Force grouping has been tried before and it failed in the marketplace.
I would not call EQ1, DAOC and FFXI as failures in the marketplace. Many people enjoyed those games, some still do, and they have (or had) a lot of 'forced' grouping.
Sure, they don't match up to WOW numbers, but there's still a market for a 'forced' grouping game. (which btw, still had plenty to do solo)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You could make quests as repetetive and dull as group grinding is. If all the quests in the zone require you to kill the same boars then people will group together to do it faster since noone cares which quest you are on.
Less choice forces people together while more choice spreads them out. People engaged in boring tasks will tend to socialize to relieve the boredom.
Which strangely enough, makes the game more fun at the same time, since in the end, running endless quests turns out to be just as repetitive and boring after a while, except you find yourself alone instead.
But I like the thought of making quests repetitive, perhaps imparting different bonuses for each pass through, or earning points towards some reward, so that players would be encouraged to repeat them with others. (maybe not an infinitum, but to a set number0
I cannot agree with you. I am simply not wired to consider that to be fun for an extended period. I don't mind doing simlar things for an extended period as long as there is enough of a variety in those tasks. As soon as those tasks become too alike, I get bored within 15-30 minutes. So camping the same spawn or type of spawn for an extended period puts me to sleep. I'll do it in spurts and then go do something else till I get 'unbored'.
The thing about the 'endless quests' is that there is usually enough variety in them to keep me interested for a much longer time. A new area will present a new challenge, there is a new twist to a quest formula, the mobs have new abilities I have to learn, etc.
One thing I really like about MMOs is that I can socialize with other people while still doing things on my own. AS such I do not see the logic in doing a boring task simply to socialize while I can socialize with the same people while doing something I enjoy. Now, if those people do not want to keep socializing with me once we are not doign the same task then it was just filler socializing and all they wanted to do was socialize with someone rather than me in particualar.
The idea that you need to convince people to do unfun, boring activities just so they can socaialized is to me ludicrous and backwards. The solution is for the game designers to add in more ways where socializing enhances a fun game experience rather than replacing it.
But see, I find most MMO activities unfun for the most part unless there is some social interaction to it. The issue goes beyond simply the fact you do a quests. People fail to realize the "benefit" the timesinks of the old games gave players from a social perspective.
Taking 3-5 minutes to rest up between fights, or long travel times with not a lot of actual manic acitvity gave players a lot of time to chat and enjoy themselves.
Its hard to explain, but in the end it was lots more fun than I ever realized and I guess I'm just an anchronistic dinosaur since I enjoyed them.
That is just you. By the popularity of solo/quest content, you are in the minority.
While I know I'm in the minority, it most certainly isn't just me. i have a lot of kindred spirits out there as evidenced by these forums, and we can only hope that one day the wheel will come back around a bit and games more catering to a group dynamic will regain popularity.
Everquest was a camp a spawn site game... Final Fantasy XI was a camp a spawn site game. Those two were the most extreme group oriented games I played where everyone had to Know Their Role. The biggest problem with major group focus games, were the lack of exploring or doing what "you" wanted to do more opposed to what you "had" to do in order to level and survive. So if you have any specific games in mind that catered to your profile, I'm all ears to hear it... I enjoyed both EQ classic and FFXI in the early days, but after you camp the same damned sites again toon after toon and waiting for an hour or two just for a "slot" to open where you're needed because you can't progress further, gets old man.
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
What I wouldn't give for good, old-fashioned Hell Levels to reappear in MMORPG's.
Hell Levels are great character builders ('scuse the pun). They would be a nice incentive to us soloers to group more.
What can I say, though? I like soloing. I like the challenge of killing mobs (designated as being for a Group of three or whatever) that I'm not supposed to be able to solo. I take pride in it. If i accomplish something the game would prefer I didn't, something that takes strategy, cunning, on-the-fly course direction, agro-containment and flat out friggin' skillz, then I should be rewarded for it. The game should sense that a group mob was solo'd and I should get a killer sword for my abilities.
From my experience, I think grouping is easy and I think soloing is hard. Agro is easy when you're grouped and it's a PITA when you solo.
I think there shouldn't be a single piece of gear in any game that cannot be soloed...as long as it's a challenge.
Why can't the developers just make soloers spend several hours getting to the Boss and risk losing all that time spent going back to try again if I'm killed in the process. Why can't they make me spend a LOOOOOOONG-ass time in a dungeon if I want to be crazy enough to solo something. All they have to do is make it a long journey ending with a friggin' hard Boss.
When I dream, I dream big, baby!
The only reason developers don't reward soloers for their displays of elite skillz is to foster some silly, childish sense of elitism among raiders, whom they perceive as more devoted to their game. "Ooh, look at me...I have no life...now gimme a top sword!"
So, nope. Only raiders are commensurately rewarded even though what they do is relatively simple. It's time invested they're rewarding. The propped-up egos of the lifeless are a side benefit. (I know...I used to be a raider and I had all the top gear...but it was a road to burnout.)
Like it's real hard to kill mob with a group anymore, much less a 24-toon raid. Only length of time invested is rewarded and that's why I leave (that and I don't repeat content and once I've seen/done everything I don't need to do it again unless I'm helping out someone). These games are so easy these days (thanks WoW!) I chew them up and spit them out. I make a soloable toon, solo him to the cap and look for the next game. Why stick around? Developers don't care enough about my loyalty to reward it or my skillz, so I owe don't owe them loyalty.
However, as a soloer, I realize I'm in the minority so I just deal with it and PUG here and there. That's life in the MMORPG city. These games never satisy anyone. Back in the day (sonny), when I picked up EQ1, the only class that interested me was the Ranger class because of the versatility. He could NOT be solo'd to the cap. Couldn't be done back then. Nobody could do it. So I soloed him as long as I could and then began to group. It was fun. But one can't turn back the clock, and I fully agree with the original poster that Vent and TeamSpeak have ruined these games. Too much off-topic, wrong-topic chatter...someone's bound to offend someone. Happens every time.
Like I said, I'll take a look at it once it's been out for a while and see, I don't buy into any of the hype until I can see how the game actually performs in reality. I'm not all that happy about putting any money in George Lucas' pockets but if the game is really excellent, I might give it a shot.
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
Wishful thinking but it is your prerogative to wish. Force grouping has been tried before and it failed in the marketplace.
I would not call EQ1, DAOC and FFXI as failures in the marketplace. Many people enjoyed those games, some still do, and they have (or had) a lot of 'forced' grouping.
Sure, they don't match up to WOW numbers, but there's still a market for a 'forced' grouping game. (which btw, still had plenty to do solo)
I didn't say those games are failure. I say forced grouping is. In fact, you said it .. "which btw, still had plenty to do solo" .. and i quote. Every developer knows that it is bad to have a force groupping only game.