I kind of agree with the OP. If the developers designed the communities to help one another rather than compete against one another, therefore you would be grouping without even realizing it, it might work. Public quests with purpose beyond mere loot rewards would be nice to see. As long as they changed frequently (area and objective) and were not completely static as in Warhammer.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
This will probably sound like a silly thing to say but oddly enough the reason I tend to avoid grouping with people is because it breaks what little sense of immersion I can get out of an MMO. If an MMO insists on telling me a story and guiding me through it then what the hell have all those other people running around got to do with it? I mean.....the npcs have their place and purpose in the world......but xxKillaSnipaxx who says "wanna do an instance and farm some phat loot?" is kinda out of place.
I think the only reason I am drawn to MMOs is because it feels less lonely while I play what is essentially just a watered down single player game alongside everyone else. I also have the option in most mmos to do a bit of pvp if the fancy takes me which is something I cant get from a single player game obviously. Grouping can of course sometimes be fun (if I meet someone who makes an effort to roleplay a character for example) but usually I just find it ruins my experience of the game because of the immersion breaking thing. Generally once a particular quest or objective is achieved then we go our seperate ways.....and then I go back to playing the game on my own while occasionally typing stuff in general chat. I dont really want to have conversations with people about who has what quests, the best stats, the latest piece of gear someone found, the number of times they have beaten the quest on their alts, the number of alts they have and the best way to do things. All of that just contributes to reminding me of how pointless and silly the game I'm playing is (ie immersion breaking).
What I might find interesting is if an MMO didnt have a general chat channel, so you had to actually meet people to talk to them (as in real life). If the world was really big then meeting people out in the wilderness would perhaps have more importance. On top of that if the game was actually really difficult and challenging, with monsters and other denizens that were a real threat to my character then yeah sure I would feel more inclined to talk to the people I meet. I also expect there would be more respect for each other too as an ally would be a valuable asset in a harsh game world. I'm wondering if Mortal Online will be able to offer this......although I have severe doubts about that. Its more likely that it will just be full of people wanting to kill each other and steal each others stuff.
I'm currently playing Fallen Earth which by MMO standards is rather good. However apart from typing in general chat, I havent actually spoken to a single player. The game just hasnt given me any reason to at all. Oh....no....I tell a lie. I did talk to someone earlier. I got to a harvesting node to harvest some scrap copper before another player did and he said "Damn you" to me and I replied "You love it". Thats the only interaction I've had with any fellow players. I could of course team up with some complete stranger but why would I bother when I can do stuff on my own and ask anyone for help in the help channel?
Most people are both. In fact I would dare-say that most people would much rather group than play solo. The reason for solo-friendly games is that most games make forming a group to be a pain. The time it takes forming a group, holding a group together and everything else that comes with it, is time wasted that could be spent playing the game. Once you get a group together, you may advance faster, but in the mean-time those that are soloing are still playing the game. I've found myself in this situation many times. I want a group to go do something, but I don't want to put up with that hassle. So, I go and play solo. I have fun, where instead I'd just be sitting around waiting for that "key person" to join the group. If grouping was quick, easy, and painless you'd see ALOT more people playing in groups who would otherwise solo. Also, if there was more group oriented content you'd see alot more people playing group. As it is, if you make a very solo game, that's not easy to group together, guess what. People will solo. For a game to be good for grouping you need a 50/50 split in content, both that will reach the top, and that combination of content should not just be Solo content, and harder variation for the group.
Impatent you are, bad MMO the devs will make for you, yes...
Reson number 41 why Devs make crappy games. all you kids want it now *waaa* want it now! gotta level faster and faster.
Ever think of just sittin back and enjoying the game? just because you arn't in the heat of combat doesn't mean you can have fun (And if that is the case MMO's are NOT the game for you)
I play'd FFXI for 2 years, most people would say that was the most group orented game out there, and even more would say it had/has some of the longest wait times for groups.
I don't know how many times I would spend 4 hours waiting for a group, the people that we did have would just sit around and craft, or just chat. or kill lower level mobs even if it wasn't awsome XP.
But this whole WoW-expectation that you have, that if you don't level cap in 4 months and have the most leet gear in 7 months that you suck, is just garbage.
learn to enjoy the game, if more people would just take there time and enjoy the game the Devs would make better games they would say, "hey alot of people are just sitting around chatting while waiting for a group, why don't we make group finding easier, and a better chat system"
And "wow everyone likes crafting and they are doing it alot, lets spend more time making a awsome crafting system"
But instead we get impatent little kids like you who just came off of WoWs assembly line and are like "OMG I havn't level yet today, I need to!!!!! and heaven forbid if you have to spend more then 2 minutes walking to where you level"
If you can't acknowledge that it takes money to make a good game and that money has to be either fronted by someone who cares knowing they will never get it back and accepting that fact or from investing expecting that money back plus a lot of profit post launch, then I'm sorry. Conversation is over. I mean seriously, DFO did what they did with around $30 million and that is a bare sandbox game. To do group PvE like you are wanting takes a ton of time and money to make. The game doesn't need WoW like subscribers but it does have to have enough mass appeal for 300k-500k subscribers for the investors to even have a chance at getting their money and profit back in a reasonable amount of time. For $50 million to make your game, with 300k subscribers, splitting the $15 a month between investor and dev team, it would take 23 months for principal alone.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
One problem with making competent groups is the amount of customization available in certain games. Let's say WoW had a system where you could toggle on LFG with a display of which classes/archetypes you needed. So, if you needed a healer...
And you've already hit the biggest problem, intrinsic to class-based game design. The more a group *needs* specific classes, the more a group is going to be exclusionary. This detracts from grouping for many people.
Well, for open world questing, you don't have to fill specific slots. You can have a group of five Mages if you like. Instances are obviously less tolerant of unusual groupings.
The developer has to weigh which their audience wants more - the ability to group up for adventure or adventures that only specific groups can complete. The number of players that want the latter is far fewer than the number of players that simply want to be able to adventure with others.
I disagree.
Instances which are doable by any five-man group would have to be considerably dumbed-down. Which is certainly the way WoW is moving.
Not to mention that the archetypes comprise the 'role' of 'role playing game'.
I dislike classless games because a world of jacks of all trades is less interesting to me that one populated by strong iconic personalities.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
If you can't acknowledge that it takes money to make a good game and that money has to be either fronted by someone who cares knowing they will never get it back and accepting that fact or from investing expecting that money back plus a lot of profit post launch, then I'm sorry. Conversation is over. I mean seriously, DFO did what they did with around $30 million and that is a bare sandbox game. To do group PvE like you are wanting takes a ton of time and money to make. The game doesn't need WoW like subscribers but it does have to have enough mass appeal for 300k-500k subscribers for the investors to even have a chance at getting their money and profit back in a reasonable amount of time. For $50 million to make your game, with 300k subscribers, splitting the $15 a month between investor and dev team, it would take 23 months for principal alone.
I see no problems there.
The majority of people on these forums support good grouping games. If they wanted a solo friendly game like WoW pre-raid they could easily go play one.
The developer has to weigh which their audience wants more - the ability to group up for adventure or adventures that only specific groups can complete. The number of players that want the latter is far fewer than the number of players that simply want to be able to adventure with others.
I disagree.
Instances which are doable by any five-man group would have to be considerably dumbed-down. Which is certainly the way WoW is moving.
But... we just agreed, no?
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
If you can't acknowledge that it takes money to make a good game and that money has to be either fronted by someone who cares knowing they will never get it back and accepting that fact or from investing expecting that money back plus a lot of profit post launch, then I'm sorry. Conversation is over. I mean seriously, DFO did what they did with around $30 million and that is a bare sandbox game. To do group PvE like you are wanting takes a ton of time and money to make. The game doesn't need WoW like subscribers but it does have to have enough mass appeal for 300k-500k subscribers for the investors to even have a chance at getting their money and profit back in a reasonable amount of time. For $50 million to make your game, with 300k subscribers, splitting the $15 a month between investor and dev team, it would take 23 months for principal alone.
I see no problems there.
The majority of people on these forums support good grouping games. If they wanted a solo friendly game like WoW pre-raid they could easily go play one.
If a game is good enough they will make there money. AoC what are they at now 5,000 subs? <---not making there money
WAR 10,000 subs<---- not making there money
FFXI 500,000subs x 7 years <-----Making money!!
you dont' need WoW numbers, you just need a good game.
(And dont' forget in your calculation that most of the developing cost are off-set with the $60 box price tag. Say 500,000 people buy the game thats 30 million right there, and even with sucky games like AoC they sold alot of games. even if there subs arn't that high)
I think players want complicated and interesting group content. That would likely preclude instances which cater to free-form groups.
I think group content which doesn't require some semblance of organization and assigned roles would by nature be bland and dull. Might as well solo, then.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I think players want complicated and interesting group content. That would likely preclude instances which cater to free-form groups.
I think group content which doesn't require some semblance of organization and assigned roles would by nature be bland and dull. Might as well solo, then.
I agree. It becomes a zerg, only about numbers not cooperation and coordination.
If you can't acknowledge that it takes money to make a good game and that money has to be either fronted by someone who cares knowing they will never get it back and accepting that fact or from investing expecting that money back plus a lot of profit post launch, then I'm sorry. Conversation is over. I mean seriously, DFO did what they did with around $30 million and that is a bare sandbox game. To do group PvE like you are wanting takes a ton of time and money to make. The game doesn't need WoW like subscribers but it does have to have enough mass appeal for 300k-500k subscribers for the investors to even have a chance at getting their money and profit back in a reasonable amount of time. For $50 million to make your game, with 300k subscribers, splitting the $15 a month between investor and dev team, it would take 23 months for principal alone.
I see no problems there.
The majority of people on these forums support good grouping games. If they wanted a solo friendly game like WoW pre-raid they could easily go play one.
If a game is good enough they will make there money. AoC what are they at now 5,000 subs? <---not making there money
WAR 10,000 subs<---- not making there money
FFXI 500,000subs x 7 years <-----Making money!!
you dont' need WoW numbers, you just need a good game.
(And dont' forget in your calculation that most of the developing cost are off-set with the $60 box price tag. Say 500,000 people buy the game thats 30 million right there, and even with sucky games like AoC they sold alot of games. even if there subs arn't that high)
And the calculation also requires knowing how much the development costs are.
Tabula Rasa spent 100 million dollars in development. That's a recipe for disaster unless you get WoW numbers.
Development costs can vary tremendously depending on numerous factors.
Make good game with low costs and high sub numbers are not required to make a profit.
IMO, costs will continue to come down as engines like the Hero Engine are more widely used and the developers of that engine see competition in the market place, but have already recouped their costs.
IMO, costs will continue to come down as engines like the Hero Engine are more widely used and the developers of that engine see competition in the market place, but have already recouped their costs.
I'd like to think that was going to happen, but with players screaming for more and more graphical tricks, rather than better gameplay, costs will be artificially inflated.
If players were satisfied with WoW-quality graphics (as I am), we might well have several great MMOs now, as resources could be spent on other things.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I kind of agree with the OP. If the developers designed the communities to help one another rather than compete against one another, therefore you would be grouping without even realizing it, it might work. Public quests with purpose beyond mere loot rewards would be nice to see. As long as they changed frequently (area and objective) and were not completely static as in Warhammer.
Yeah I agree. Public quests are perhaps a good way to go.......but like you said as long as they arent like what we saw in WAR.
There should be large-scale achievable goals that alter the game world which players can work towards. For example cities, villages, buildings, locations etc in games could deteriorate over time if they are left alone or certain negative actions are taken......such as killing town guards, completing quests that are detrimental to the location (eg stealing from townsfolk to help the local bandits, plundering the houses as a favour to a nearby goblin etc). In contrast they could improve if positive helpful things are done (eg hunting down those pesky bandits, helping to supply the town with food and raw materials etc).
As these places deteriorate or improve their "states" would change accordingly.......and those states would determine what quests, mobs, events etc are occuring in the surrounding area (like switches). In this way we could have a continually changing gameworld where the quests arent static and the players can take actions to change the world and cause certain events to occur. Of course the quests actually ARE static but each and every one would be getting turned on or off depending on what the players are doing.
This would also provide a gameworld where ALL the players can contribute and take part. Advanced and beginning characters would all be able to work together to get things done. The super hard Orc warchief is at the city gates with his warband and he's too tough for you and your fledgling companions? Well maybe its time to ask that hardened adventurer you met earlier to come and help deal with the threat.
No more players being divided due to what level they are. If an event gets triggered which causes a massive epic balrog to appear under your home city (damn that bungling mage and his friends for completing that summoning quest!) then although you might personally not be capable of taking it down, you will still be able to have a damn good go alongside your more powerful allies.
You might log in one day and find that the city you were in has really gone downhill. Now all of the npcs are complaining about gobin infestations and corrupt guards and generally asking for help with things close to home, whereas before they were seeking adventurers to venture into other lands to reclaim lost treasures and escort merchants to other towns.
All of this would give players a reason to rally together and help each other........and also oppose each other too. Various goals and objectives would be open to everyone all the time just like in real life.......and those goals would be achievable as well. Players would actually get to watch the world around them change as they worked together to achieve stuff.......and as other players worked together to undo the fine work they have done. It would also encourage (if not enforce) roleplaying, which is the entire bloody point of a massively multiplayer online ROLEPLAYING GAME. Roleplaying games arent supposed to tell you a story. You are supposed to be dictating what happens through your actions as a player. I would certainly feel more inclined to roleplay in MMO's and form adventuring groups with like-minded players if I knew that doing so made a difference to something. That would be awesome.
All of this is something we will NEVER see in games while they continue to be rigid stories that are immune to player intervention. They are partway there though. What they need to do is cut those stories up into "situations" which can appear and disappear depending on what gets achieved. At the moment MMOs have a start and finish point which is silly. You should not be able to complete the story (as there shouldnt really be one as such) of an MMO and yet we can. Currently we get to the end and then.....thats it. The stories over. Time to go off to the repeating end game land.
If you can't acknowledge that it takes money to make a good game and that money has to be either fronted by someone who cares knowing they will never get it back and accepting that fact or from investing expecting that money back plus a lot of profit post launch, then I'm sorry. Conversation is over. I mean seriously, DFO did what they did with around $30 million and that is a bare sandbox game. To do group PvE like you are wanting takes a ton of time and money to make. The game doesn't need WoW like subscribers but it does have to have enough mass appeal for 300k-500k subscribers for the investors to even have a chance at getting their money and profit back in a reasonable amount of time. For $50 million to make your game, with 300k subscribers, splitting the $15 a month between investor and dev team, it would take 23 months for principal alone.
I see no problems there.
The majority of people on these forums support good grouping games. If they wanted a solo friendly game like WoW pre-raid they could easily go play one.
If a game is good enough they will make there money. AoC what are they at now 5,000 subs? <---not making there money
WAR 10,000 subs<---- not making there money
FFXI 500,000subs x 7 years <-----Making money!!
you dont' need WoW numbers, you just need a good game.
(And dont' forget in your calculation that most of the developing cost are off-set with the $60 box price tag. Say 500,000 people buy the game thats 30 million right there, and even with sucky games like AoC they sold alot of games. even if there subs arn't that high)
And the calculation also requires knowing how much the development costs are.
Tabula Rasa spent 100 million dollars in development. That's a recipe for disaster unless you get WoW numbers.
Development costs can vary tremendously depending on numerous factors.
Make good game with low costs and high sub numbers are not required to make a profit.
IMO, costs will continue to come down as engines like the Hero Engine are more widely used and the developers of that engine see competition in the market place, but have already recouped their costs.
Well take SE for instance with FFXI they spent 2-3 billion yen (which was 17-23 million dollers at the time) And that was back in 04' i'm sure things have gotten cheaper since then.
So I really don't think they have to have multimilion subs to have a good game, and I deffinitly don't think you need a budget of 100million to make that good game.
And I wish more devs would look at that for a refrence. I mean if HALF of the devs where (hmmm we dont' need WoW subs, lets build a good game that WE wanna make, and aim for 400k-700k subs. I think we would end up with alot better games)
Most people are both. In fact I would dare-say that most people would much rather group than play solo. The reason for solo-friendly games is that most games make forming a group to be a pain. The time it takes forming a group, holding a group together and everything else that comes with it, is time wasted that could be spent playing the game. Once you get a group together, you may advance faster, but in the mean-time those that are soloing are still playing the game. I've found myself in this situation many times. I want a group to go do something, but I don't want to put up with that hassle. So, I go and play solo. I have fun, where instead I'd just be sitting around waiting for that "key person" to join the group. If grouping was quick, easy, and painless you'd see ALOT more people playing in groups who would otherwise solo. Also, if there was more group oriented content you'd see alot more people playing group. As it is, if you make a very solo game, that's not easy to group together, guess what. People will solo. For a game to be good for grouping you need a 50/50 split in content, both that will reach the top, and that combination of content should not just be Solo content, and harder variation for the group.
Impatent you are, bad MMO the devs will make for you, yes...
Reson number 41 why Devs make crappy games. all you kids want it now *waaa* want it now! gotta level faster and faster.
Ever think of just sittin back and enjoying the game? just because you arn't in the heat of combat doesn't mean you can have fun (And if that is the case MMO's are NOT the game for you)
I play'd FFXI for 2 years, most people would say that was the most group orented game out there, and even more would say it had/has some of the longest wait times for groups.
I don't know how many times I would spend 4 hours waiting for a group, the people that we did have would just sit around and craft, or just chat. or kill lower level mobs even if it wasn't awsome XP.
But this whole WoW-expectation that you have, that if you don't level cap in 4 months and have the most leet gear in 7 months that you suck, is just garbage.
learn to enjoy the game, if more people would just take there time and enjoy the game the Devs would make better games they would say, "hey alot of people are just sitting around chatting while waiting for a group, why don't we make group finding easier, and a better chat system"
And "wow everyone likes crafting and they are doing it alot, lets spend more time making a awsome crafting system"
But instead we get impatent little kids like you who just came off of WoWs assembly line and are like "OMG I havn't level yet today, I need to!!!!! and heaven forbid if you have to spend more then 2 minutes walking to where you level"
Gosh people like you make me sick...
How little you truly know. I've been playing MMO's since pre-kunark EQ. I've played more than my fair share of MMO's, including a nice long period of time on FF11. I do not enjoy waiting for groups. I enjoy playing a game. It's like telling me that I'm an idiot because I would much rather spend my time in a concert than waiting in line for the tickets.
My time is valuable to me, and I would much rather use it PLAYING THE GAME than waiting to get a group together. I don't mind waiting 20 min for a group, but wasting much more than that is just pointless to me.
I will not address the rest of your rant (post is too generous a word) as it is off topic, and a buch of assumptions that show exactly how good of a person you truly are.
IMO, costs will continue to come down as engines like the Hero Engine are more widely used and the developers of that engine see competition in the market place, but have already recouped their costs.
I'd like to think that was going to happen, but with players screaming for more and more graphical tricks, rather than better gameplay, costs will be artificially inflated.
If players were satisfied with WoW-quality graphics (as I am), we might well have several great MMOs now, as resources could be spent on other things.
That is the problem. What is the number one complaint of CO? It's a game that can be played on a huge variety of systems but people don't like it because of the graphics. To me, gameplay > graphics. Unfortunately, I'm in the vast minority on this issue. That is why the costs associated with developing an MMORPG keep going through the roof. There is an unnamed MMORPG from I believe Bethesda in the works and from what I heard it has a $200 million budget. For that comany's sake, I hope it's the next WoW or that game will bankrupt the company.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
I am a big fan of PQs. They weren't perfect, but (in lower tiers at least) they were quite fun and much more varied than just grinding mobs.
The shared PQ in Dwarf/Greenskins T1, and the Norse Landing one in Empire T1 were quite good with the right number of players (that's the trick, though).
You just need a steady supply of new toons to play in them. The right design can provide them.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
IMO, costs will continue to come down as engines like the Hero Engine are more widely used and the developers of that engine see competition in the market place, but have already recouped their costs.
I'd like to think that was going to happen, but with players screaming for more and more graphical tricks, rather than better gameplay, costs will be artificially inflated.
If players were satisfied with WoW-quality graphics (as I am), we might well have several great MMOs now, as resources could be spent on other things.
That is the problem. What is the number one complaint of CO? It's a game that can be played on a huge variety of systems but people don't like it because of the graphics. To me, gameplay > graphics. Unfortunately, I'm in the vast minority on this issue. That is why the costs associated with developing an MMORPG keep going through the roof. There is an unnamed MMORPG from I believe Bethesda in the works and from what I heard it has a $200 million budget. For that comany's sake, I hope it's the next WoW or that game will bankrupt the company.
Not to mention the tons of money BioWare is wasting on voiceovers for SW:ToR. Sheer idiocy, when that money could have been used for other things.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Most people are both. In fact I would dare-say that most people would much rather group than play solo. The reason for solo-friendly games is that most games make forming a group to be a pain. The time it takes forming a group, holding a group together and everything else that comes with it, is time wasted that could be spent playing the game. Once you get a group together, you may advance faster, but in the mean-time those that are soloing are still playing the game. I've found myself in this situation many times. I want a group to go do something, but I don't want to put up with that hassle. So, I go and play solo. I have fun, where instead I'd just be sitting around waiting for that "key person" to join the group. If grouping was quick, easy, and painless you'd see ALOT more people playing in groups who would otherwise solo. Also, if there was more group oriented content you'd see alot more people playing group. As it is, if you make a very solo game, that's not easy to group together, guess what. People will solo. For a game to be good for grouping you need a 50/50 split in content, both that will reach the top, and that combination of content should not just be Solo content, and harder variation for the group.
You can also throw in raiding and pvp for me. I like to do them all, but dislike being forced to do any.
"Those who dislike things based only on the fact that they are popular are just as shallow and superficial as those who only like them for the same reason."
Impatent you are, bad MMO the devs will make for you, yes...
Reson number 41 why Devs make crappy games. all you kids want it now *waaa* want it now! gotta level faster and faster. Ever think of just sittin back and enjoying the game? just because you arn't in the heat of combat doesn't mean you can have fun (And if that is the case MMO's are NOT the game for you) I play'd FFXI for 2 years, most people would say that was the most group orented game out there, and even more would say it had/has some of the longest wait times for groups. I don't know how many times I would spend 4 hours waiting for a group, the people that we did have would just sit around and craft, or just chat. or kill lower level mobs even if it wasn't awsome XP. But this whole WoW-expectation that you have, that if you don't level cap in 4 months and have the most leet gear in 7 months that you suck, is just garbage. learn to enjoy the game, if more people would just take there time and enjoy the game the Devs would make better games they would say, "hey alot of people are just sitting around chatting while waiting for a group, why don't we make group finding easier, and a better chat system" And "wow everyone likes crafting and they are doing it alot, lets spend more time making a awsome crafting system" But instead we get impatent little kids like you who just came off of WoWs assembly line and are like "OMG I havn't level yet today, I need to!!!!! and heaven forbid if you have to spend more then 2 minutes walking to where you level" Gosh people like you make me sick...
Waiting 4 hours for a group is not fun. What enjoyment is there to be had grinding mobs that give you nothing of value? Soloing in a group based game is always boring. That was the reason why I quit FFXI. I spent an entire weekend LFG for Qufim and I had started playing at NA launch. Being completely unable to advance or enjoy the game as intended because I can't find someone to play with is a huge turnoff. When/if you finally manage to find a group, typically 15-30 minutes in the healer leaves and you're back to LFG. I quit the game after that weekend and never looked back.
Forced grouping for advancement is a poor design choice for exactly this reason. Being able to play solo when you can't find a group is necessary. Both playstyles should be a valid choice in any MMO.
IMO, costs will continue to come down as engines like the Hero Engine are more widely used and the developers of that engine see competition in the market place, but have already recouped their costs.
I'd like to think that was going to happen, but with players screaming for more and more graphical tricks, rather than better gameplay, costs will be artificially inflated.
If players were satisfied with WoW-quality graphics (as I am), we might well have several great MMOs now, as resources could be spent on other things.
That is the problem. What is the number one complaint of CO? It's a game that can be played on a huge variety of systems but people don't like it because of the graphics. To me, gameplay > graphics. Unfortunately, I'm in the vast minority on this issue. That is why the costs associated with developing an MMORPG keep going through the roof. There is an unnamed MMORPG from I believe Bethesda in the works and from what I heard it has a $200 million budget. For that comany's sake, I hope it's the next WoW or that game will bankrupt the company.
Not to mention the tons of money BioWare is wasting on voiceovers for SW:ToR. Sheer idiocy, when that money could have been used for other things.
*Goes into shock*
Holy crap.... I have always loved bethesda's games....but holy crap!
Most people are both. In fact I would dare-say that most people would much rather group than play solo. The reason for solo-friendly games is that most games make forming a group to be a pain. The time it takes forming a group, holding a group together and everything else that comes with it, is time wasted that could be spent playing the game. Once you get a group together, you may advance faster, but in the mean-time those that are soloing are still playing the game. I've found myself in this situation many times. I want a group to go do something, but I don't want to put up with that hassle. So, I go and play solo. I have fun, where instead I'd just be sitting around waiting for that "key person" to join the group. If grouping was quick, easy, and painless you'd see ALOT more people playing in groups who would otherwise solo. Also, if there was more group oriented content you'd see alot more people playing group. As it is, if you make a very solo game, that's not easy to group together, guess what. People will solo. For a game to be good for grouping you need a 50/50 split in content, both that will reach the top, and that combination of content should not just be Solo content, and harder variation for the group.
I think that the old holy trinity class system (tank, healer, dps) makes grouping more difficult yes, because of the waiting for a keyclass like you described.
But another problem in getting a group going, is that 9 out of 10 players dont want to start a group but only join one. Its easier to tag along and critizise the groupleader.
Forced grouping for advancement is a poor design choice for exactly this reason. Being able to play solo when you can't find a group is necessary. Both playstyles should be a valid choice in any MMO.
I agree, but define "valid".
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Impatent you are, bad MMO the devs will make for you, yes...
Reson number 41 why Devs make crappy games. all you kids want it now *waaa* want it now! gotta level faster and faster. Ever think of just sittin back and enjoying the game? just because you arn't in the heat of combat doesn't mean you can have fun (And if that is the case MMO's are NOT the game for you) I play'd FFXI for 2 years, most people would say that was the most group orented game out there, and even more would say it had/has some of the longest wait times for groups. I don't know how many times I would spend 4 hours waiting for a group, the people that we did have would just sit around and craft, or just chat. or kill lower level mobs even if it wasn't awsome XP. But this whole WoW-expectation that you have, that if you don't level cap in 4 months and have the most leet gear in 7 months that you suck, is just garbage. learn to enjoy the game, if more people would just take there time and enjoy the game the Devs would make better games they would say, "hey alot of people are just sitting around chatting while waiting for a group, why don't we make group finding easier, and a better chat system" And "wow everyone likes crafting and they are doing it alot, lets spend more time making a awsome crafting system" But instead we get impatent little kids like you who just came off of WoWs assembly line and are like "OMG I havn't level yet today, I need to!!!!! and heaven forbid if you have to spend more then 2 minutes walking to where you level" Gosh people like you make me sick...
Waiting 4 hours for a group is not fun. What enjoyment is there to be had grinding mobs that give you nothing of value? Soloing in a group based game is always boring. That was the reason why I quit FFXI. I spent an entire weekend LFG for Qufim and I had started playing at NA launch. Being completely unable to advance or enjoy the game as intended because I can't find someone to play with is a huge turnoff. When/if you finally manage to find a group, typically 15-30 minutes in the healer leaves and you're back to LFG. I quit the game after that weekend and never looked back.
Forced grouping for advancement is a poor design choice for exactly this reason. Being able to play solo when you can't find a group is necessary. Both playstyles should be a valid choice in any MMO.
I find this extreamly hard to beleive, unless you where a complete d1ck to everyone. I normaly spend anywhere from 10 minutes -3 hours LFG, and the average group would/could last from 1-6 hours.
and I enjoy'd that part where you are like "What enjoyment is there to be had grinding mobs that give you nothing of value?" HAHAHA dude, in what game EVER do you get somthign of value? unless you are playing games in Vegas. I lol at you.
99.99% of people play MMO's/games to have a good time and to waist time. not to "get somthing of value" So I really don't have any clue what you are talking about.
And serously...if you need to be "fighting" in your little world 24/7 I would recomend you look into playing some FPS games, or at least a single player RPG. clearly MMO's are not for you.
Comments
I kind of agree with the OP. If the developers designed the communities to help one another rather than compete against one another, therefore you would be grouping without even realizing it, it might work. Public quests with purpose beyond mere loot rewards would be nice to see. As long as they changed frequently (area and objective) and were not completely static as in Warhammer.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
This will probably sound like a silly thing to say but oddly enough the reason I tend to avoid grouping with people is because it breaks what little sense of immersion I can get out of an MMO. If an MMO insists on telling me a story and guiding me through it then what the hell have all those other people running around got to do with it? I mean.....the npcs have their place and purpose in the world......but xxKillaSnipaxx who says "wanna do an instance and farm some phat loot?" is kinda out of place.
I think the only reason I am drawn to MMOs is because it feels less lonely while I play what is essentially just a watered down single player game alongside everyone else. I also have the option in most mmos to do a bit of pvp if the fancy takes me which is something I cant get from a single player game obviously. Grouping can of course sometimes be fun (if I meet someone who makes an effort to roleplay a character for example) but usually I just find it ruins my experience of the game because of the immersion breaking thing. Generally once a particular quest or objective is achieved then we go our seperate ways.....and then I go back to playing the game on my own while occasionally typing stuff in general chat. I dont really want to have conversations with people about who has what quests, the best stats, the latest piece of gear someone found, the number of times they have beaten the quest on their alts, the number of alts they have and the best way to do things. All of that just contributes to reminding me of how pointless and silly the game I'm playing is (ie immersion breaking).
What I might find interesting is if an MMO didnt have a general chat channel, so you had to actually meet people to talk to them (as in real life). If the world was really big then meeting people out in the wilderness would perhaps have more importance. On top of that if the game was actually really difficult and challenging, with monsters and other denizens that were a real threat to my character then yeah sure I would feel more inclined to talk to the people I meet. I also expect there would be more respect for each other too as an ally would be a valuable asset in a harsh game world. I'm wondering if Mortal Online will be able to offer this......although I have severe doubts about that. Its more likely that it will just be full of people wanting to kill each other and steal each others stuff.
I'm currently playing Fallen Earth which by MMO standards is rather good. However apart from typing in general chat, I havent actually spoken to a single player. The game just hasnt given me any reason to at all. Oh....no....I tell a lie. I did talk to someone earlier. I got to a harvesting node to harvest some scrap copper before another player did and he said "Damn you" to me and I replied "You love it". Thats the only interaction I've had with any fellow players. I could of course team up with some complete stranger but why would I bother when I can do stuff on my own and ask anyone for help in the help channel?
Impatent you are, bad MMO the devs will make for you, yes...
Reson number 41 why Devs make crappy games. all you kids want it now *waaa* want it now! gotta level faster and faster.
Ever think of just sittin back and enjoying the game? just because you arn't in the heat of combat doesn't mean you can have fun (And if that is the case MMO's are NOT the game for you)
I play'd FFXI for 2 years, most people would say that was the most group orented game out there, and even more would say it had/has some of the longest wait times for groups.
I don't know how many times I would spend 4 hours waiting for a group, the people that we did have would just sit around and craft, or just chat. or kill lower level mobs even if it wasn't awsome XP.
But this whole WoW-expectation that you have, that if you don't level cap in 4 months and have the most leet gear in 7 months that you suck, is just garbage.
learn to enjoy the game, if more people would just take there time and enjoy the game the Devs would make better games they would say, "hey alot of people are just sitting around chatting while waiting for a group, why don't we make group finding easier, and a better chat system"
And "wow everyone likes crafting and they are doing it alot, lets spend more time making a awsome crafting system"
But instead we get impatent little kids like you who just came off of WoWs assembly line and are like "OMG I havn't level yet today, I need to!!!!! and heaven forbid if you have to spend more then 2 minutes walking to where you level"
Gosh people like you make me sick...
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
If you can't acknowledge that it takes money to make a good game and that money has to be either fronted by someone who cares knowing they will never get it back and accepting that fact or from investing expecting that money back plus a lot of profit post launch, then I'm sorry. Conversation is over. I mean seriously, DFO did what they did with around $30 million and that is a bare sandbox game. To do group PvE like you are wanting takes a ton of time and money to make. The game doesn't need WoW like subscribers but it does have to have enough mass appeal for 300k-500k subscribers for the investors to even have a chance at getting their money and profit back in a reasonable amount of time. For $50 million to make your game, with 300k subscribers, splitting the $15 a month between investor and dev team, it would take 23 months for principal alone.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
And you've already hit the biggest problem, intrinsic to class-based game design. The more a group *needs* specific classes, the more a group is going to be exclusionary. This detracts from grouping for many people.
Well, for open world questing, you don't have to fill specific slots. You can have a group of five Mages if you like. Instances are obviously less tolerant of unusual groupings.
The developer has to weigh which their audience wants more - the ability to group up for adventure or adventures that only specific groups can complete. The number of players that want the latter is far fewer than the number of players that simply want to be able to adventure with others.
I disagree.
Instances which are doable by any five-man group would have to be considerably dumbed-down. Which is certainly the way WoW is moving.
Not to mention that the archetypes comprise the 'role' of 'role playing game'.
I dislike classless games because a world of jacks of all trades is less interesting to me that one populated by strong iconic personalities.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I see no problems there.
The majority of people on these forums support good grouping games. If they wanted a solo friendly game like WoW pre-raid they could easily go play one.
I disagree.
Instances which are doable by any five-man group would have to be considerably dumbed-down. Which is certainly the way WoW is moving.
But... we just agreed, no?
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I think everyone believes that most people are NOT soloers or groupers.
All games, including the game everyone called "forced grouping" Everquest, have both types of players, soloers and groupers, always have.
The debate has always been which side do you cater to the most, solo play or group play, even though the game will have both players.
EQ catered more to the group, but some people preferred to solo that game and did.
WoW pre-raid caters to the solo player, but some people prefer to mostly group in that game and do.
it can't be Everquest/WoW, at least no developer has ever done that so far.
That would mean you made it hard to solo and easy to group and easy to solo and hard to group at the same time.
How are you going to do that?
I see no problems there.
The majority of people on these forums support good grouping games. If they wanted a solo friendly game like WoW pre-raid they could easily go play one.
If a game is good enough they will make there money. AoC what are they at now 5,000 subs? <---not making there money
WAR 10,000 subs<---- not making there money
FFXI 500,000subs x 7 years <-----Making money!!
you dont' need WoW numbers, you just need a good game.
(And dont' forget in your calculation that most of the developing cost are off-set with the $60 box price tag. Say 500,000 people buy the game thats 30 million right there, and even with sucky games like AoC they sold alot of games. even if there subs arn't that high)
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
Hmmm...I don't think so.
I think players want complicated and interesting group content. That would likely preclude instances which cater to free-form groups.
I think group content which doesn't require some semblance of organization and assigned roles would by nature be bland and dull. Might as well solo, then.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Hmmm...I don't think so.
I think players want complicated and interesting group content. That would likely preclude instances which cater to free-form groups.
I think group content which doesn't require some semblance of organization and assigned roles would by nature be bland and dull. Might as well solo, then.
I agree. It becomes a zerg, only about numbers not cooperation and coordination.
I see no problems there.
The majority of people on these forums support good grouping games. If they wanted a solo friendly game like WoW pre-raid they could easily go play one.
If a game is good enough they will make there money. AoC what are they at now 5,000 subs? <---not making there money
WAR 10,000 subs<---- not making there money
FFXI 500,000subs x 7 years <-----Making money!!
you dont' need WoW numbers, you just need a good game.
(And dont' forget in your calculation that most of the developing cost are off-set with the $60 box price tag. Say 500,000 people buy the game thats 30 million right there, and even with sucky games like AoC they sold alot of games. even if there subs arn't that high)
And the calculation also requires knowing how much the development costs are.
Tabula Rasa spent 100 million dollars in development. That's a recipe for disaster unless you get WoW numbers.
Development costs can vary tremendously depending on numerous factors.
Make good game with low costs and high sub numbers are not required to make a profit.
IMO, costs will continue to come down as engines like the Hero Engine are more widely used and the developers of that engine see competition in the market place, but have already recouped their costs.
I'd like to think that was going to happen, but with players screaming for more and more graphical tricks, rather than better gameplay, costs will be artificially inflated.
If players were satisfied with WoW-quality graphics (as I am), we might well have several great MMOs now, as resources could be spent on other things.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Yeah I agree. Public quests are perhaps a good way to go.......but like you said as long as they arent like what we saw in WAR.
There should be large-scale achievable goals that alter the game world which players can work towards. For example cities, villages, buildings, locations etc in games could deteriorate over time if they are left alone or certain negative actions are taken......such as killing town guards, completing quests that are detrimental to the location (eg stealing from townsfolk to help the local bandits, plundering the houses as a favour to a nearby goblin etc). In contrast they could improve if positive helpful things are done (eg hunting down those pesky bandits, helping to supply the town with food and raw materials etc).
As these places deteriorate or improve their "states" would change accordingly.......and those states would determine what quests, mobs, events etc are occuring in the surrounding area (like switches). In this way we could have a continually changing gameworld where the quests arent static and the players can take actions to change the world and cause certain events to occur. Of course the quests actually ARE static but each and every one would be getting turned on or off depending on what the players are doing.
This would also provide a gameworld where ALL the players can contribute and take part. Advanced and beginning characters would all be able to work together to get things done. The super hard Orc warchief is at the city gates with his warband and he's too tough for you and your fledgling companions? Well maybe its time to ask that hardened adventurer you met earlier to come and help deal with the threat.
No more players being divided due to what level they are. If an event gets triggered which causes a massive epic balrog to appear under your home city (damn that bungling mage and his friends for completing that summoning quest!) then although you might personally not be capable of taking it down, you will still be able to have a damn good go alongside your more powerful allies.
You might log in one day and find that the city you were in has really gone downhill. Now all of the npcs are complaining about gobin infestations and corrupt guards and generally asking for help with things close to home, whereas before they were seeking adventurers to venture into other lands to reclaim lost treasures and escort merchants to other towns.
All of this would give players a reason to rally together and help each other........and also oppose each other too. Various goals and objectives would be open to everyone all the time just like in real life.......and those goals would be achievable as well. Players would actually get to watch the world around them change as they worked together to achieve stuff.......and as other players worked together to undo the fine work they have done. It would also encourage (if not enforce) roleplaying, which is the entire bloody point of a massively multiplayer online ROLEPLAYING GAME. Roleplaying games arent supposed to tell you a story. You are supposed to be dictating what happens through your actions as a player. I would certainly feel more inclined to roleplay in MMO's and form adventuring groups with like-minded players if I knew that doing so made a difference to something. That would be awesome.
All of this is something we will NEVER see in games while they continue to be rigid stories that are immune to player intervention. They are partway there though. What they need to do is cut those stories up into "situations" which can appear and disappear depending on what gets achieved. At the moment MMOs have a start and finish point which is silly. You should not be able to complete the story (as there shouldnt really be one as such) of an MMO and yet we can. Currently we get to the end and then.....thats it. The stories over. Time to go off to the repeating end game land.
Tis bollocks.
I see no problems there.
The majority of people on these forums support good grouping games. If they wanted a solo friendly game like WoW pre-raid they could easily go play one.
If a game is good enough they will make there money. AoC what are they at now 5,000 subs? <---not making there money
WAR 10,000 subs<---- not making there money
FFXI 500,000subs x 7 years <-----Making money!!
you dont' need WoW numbers, you just need a good game.
(And dont' forget in your calculation that most of the developing cost are off-set with the $60 box price tag. Say 500,000 people buy the game thats 30 million right there, and even with sucky games like AoC they sold alot of games. even if there subs arn't that high)
And the calculation also requires knowing how much the development costs are.
Tabula Rasa spent 100 million dollars in development. That's a recipe for disaster unless you get WoW numbers.
Development costs can vary tremendously depending on numerous factors.
Make good game with low costs and high sub numbers are not required to make a profit.
IMO, costs will continue to come down as engines like the Hero Engine are more widely used and the developers of that engine see competition in the market place, but have already recouped their costs.
Well take SE for instance with FFXI they spent 2-3 billion yen (which was 17-23 million dollers at the time) And that was back in 04' i'm sure things have gotten cheaper since then.
So I really don't think they have to have multimilion subs to have a good game, and I deffinitly don't think you need a budget of 100million to make that good game.
And I wish more devs would look at that for a refrence. I mean if HALF of the devs where (hmmm we dont' need WoW subs, lets build a good game that WE wanna make, and aim for 400k-700k subs. I think we would end up with alot better games)
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
Impatent you are, bad MMO the devs will make for you, yes...
Reson number 41 why Devs make crappy games. all you kids want it now *waaa* want it now! gotta level faster and faster.
Ever think of just sittin back and enjoying the game? just because you arn't in the heat of combat doesn't mean you can have fun (And if that is the case MMO's are NOT the game for you)
I play'd FFXI for 2 years, most people would say that was the most group orented game out there, and even more would say it had/has some of the longest wait times for groups.
I don't know how many times I would spend 4 hours waiting for a group, the people that we did have would just sit around and craft, or just chat. or kill lower level mobs even if it wasn't awsome XP.
But this whole WoW-expectation that you have, that if you don't level cap in 4 months and have the most leet gear in 7 months that you suck, is just garbage.
learn to enjoy the game, if more people would just take there time and enjoy the game the Devs would make better games they would say, "hey alot of people are just sitting around chatting while waiting for a group, why don't we make group finding easier, and a better chat system"
And "wow everyone likes crafting and they are doing it alot, lets spend more time making a awsome crafting system"
But instead we get impatent little kids like you who just came off of WoWs assembly line and are like "OMG I havn't level yet today, I need to!!!!! and heaven forbid if you have to spend more then 2 minutes walking to where you level"
Gosh people like you make me sick...
How little you truly know. I've been playing MMO's since pre-kunark EQ. I've played more than my fair share of MMO's, including a nice long period of time on FF11. I do not enjoy waiting for groups. I enjoy playing a game. It's like telling me that I'm an idiot because I would much rather spend my time in a concert than waiting in line for the tickets.
My time is valuable to me, and I would much rather use it PLAYING THE GAME than waiting to get a group together. I don't mind waiting 20 min for a group, but wasting much more than that is just pointless to me.
I will not address the rest of your rant (post is too generous a word) as it is off topic, and a buch of assumptions that show exactly how good of a person you truly are.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
I'd like to think that was going to happen, but with players screaming for more and more graphical tricks, rather than better gameplay, costs will be artificially inflated.
If players were satisfied with WoW-quality graphics (as I am), we might well have several great MMOs now, as resources could be spent on other things.
That is the problem. What is the number one complaint of CO? It's a game that can be played on a huge variety of systems but people don't like it because of the graphics. To me, gameplay > graphics. Unfortunately, I'm in the vast minority on this issue. That is why the costs associated with developing an MMORPG keep going through the roof. There is an unnamed MMORPG from I believe Bethesda in the works and from what I heard it has a $200 million budget. For that comany's sake, I hope it's the next WoW or that game will bankrupt the company.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
I am a big fan of PQs. They weren't perfect, but (in lower tiers at least) they were quite fun and much more varied than just grinding mobs.
The shared PQ in Dwarf/Greenskins T1, and the Norse Landing one in Empire T1 were quite good with the right number of players (that's the trick, though).
You just need a steady supply of new toons to play in them. The right design can provide them.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I'd like to think that was going to happen, but with players screaming for more and more graphical tricks, rather than better gameplay, costs will be artificially inflated.
If players were satisfied with WoW-quality graphics (as I am), we might well have several great MMOs now, as resources could be spent on other things.
That is the problem. What is the number one complaint of CO? It's a game that can be played on a huge variety of systems but people don't like it because of the graphics. To me, gameplay > graphics. Unfortunately, I'm in the vast minority on this issue. That is why the costs associated with developing an MMORPG keep going through the roof. There is an unnamed MMORPG from I believe Bethesda in the works and from what I heard it has a $200 million budget. For that comany's sake, I hope it's the next WoW or that game will bankrupt the company.
Not to mention the tons of money BioWare is wasting on voiceovers for SW:ToR. Sheer idiocy, when that money could have been used for other things.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
You can also throw in raiding and pvp for me. I like to do them all, but dislike being forced to do any.
"Those who dislike things based only on the fact that they are popular are just as shallow and superficial as those who only like them for the same reason."
Waiting 4 hours for a group is not fun. What enjoyment is there to be had grinding mobs that give you nothing of value? Soloing in a group based game is always boring. That was the reason why I quit FFXI. I spent an entire weekend LFG for Qufim and I had started playing at NA launch. Being completely unable to advance or enjoy the game as intended because I can't find someone to play with is a huge turnoff. When/if you finally manage to find a group, typically 15-30 minutes in the healer leaves and you're back to LFG. I quit the game after that weekend and never looked back.
Forced grouping for advancement is a poor design choice for exactly this reason. Being able to play solo when you can't find a group is necessary. Both playstyles should be a valid choice in any MMO.
I'd like to think that was going to happen, but with players screaming for more and more graphical tricks, rather than better gameplay, costs will be artificially inflated.
If players were satisfied with WoW-quality graphics (as I am), we might well have several great MMOs now, as resources could be spent on other things.
That is the problem. What is the number one complaint of CO? It's a game that can be played on a huge variety of systems but people don't like it because of the graphics. To me, gameplay > graphics. Unfortunately, I'm in the vast minority on this issue. That is why the costs associated with developing an MMORPG keep going through the roof. There is an unnamed MMORPG from I believe Bethesda in the works and from what I heard it has a $200 million budget. For that comany's sake, I hope it's the next WoW or that game will bankrupt the company.
Not to mention the tons of money BioWare is wasting on voiceovers for SW:ToR. Sheer idiocy, when that money could have been used for other things.
*Goes into shock*
Holy crap.... I have always loved bethesda's games....but holy crap!
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
I think that the old holy trinity class system (tank, healer, dps) makes grouping more difficult yes, because of the waiting for a keyclass like you described.
But another problem in getting a group going, is that 9 out of 10 players dont want to start a group but only join one. Its easier to tag along and critizise the groupleader.
I agree, but define "valid".
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Waiting 4 hours for a group is not fun. What enjoyment is there to be had grinding mobs that give you nothing of value? Soloing in a group based game is always boring. That was the reason why I quit FFXI. I spent an entire weekend LFG for Qufim and I had started playing at NA launch. Being completely unable to advance or enjoy the game as intended because I can't find someone to play with is a huge turnoff. When/if you finally manage to find a group, typically 15-30 minutes in the healer leaves and you're back to LFG. I quit the game after that weekend and never looked back.
Forced grouping for advancement is a poor design choice for exactly this reason. Being able to play solo when you can't find a group is necessary. Both playstyles should be a valid choice in any MMO.
I find this extreamly hard to beleive, unless you where a complete d1ck to everyone. I normaly spend anywhere from 10 minutes -3 hours LFG, and the average group would/could last from 1-6 hours.
and I enjoy'd that part where you are like "What enjoyment is there to be had grinding mobs that give you nothing of value?" HAHAHA dude, in what game EVER do you get somthign of value? unless you are playing games in Vegas. I lol at you.
99.99% of people play MMO's/games to have a good time and to waist time. not to "get somthing of value" So I really don't have any clue what you are talking about.
And serously...if you need to be "fighting" in your little world 24/7 I would recomend you look into playing some FPS games, or at least a single player RPG. clearly MMO's are not for you.
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos