Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Group-lovers: the REAL freaks in the MMO world...?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Ihmotepp says it about once every three days.
No, he doesn't.
He said it a couple of times in that other thread yesterday and the day before.
Let's wait 'til tomorrow and see who's right.
(I actually thought I was being charitable when I said "three days")
Can't recall, but if it's true in that case he's wrong.
In Everquest and DAoC classic, you COULD solo, all the way to the level cap. And I had no problem with that at all because both games had very strong grouping content.
My opinion is that if you can solo to the level cap just as fast as grouping, that the group content will not be very good, not be very challenging, and certainly not be worth the "overhead" as some have called it, the time it takes to group and organize that group so they can actually be effective.
Ilvaldyr has suggested that if he simply has two zones side by side, one with group content, and one with solo content, and both give the same xp and rewards, that this fixes the problem. I get together a full group, and we go to Zone A, spend 1 hour, we get 500 xp and each get a +1 sword. OR, each of us could go to Zone B, spend one hour and we all get 500 xp and a +1 sword.
I'm telling Ilvaldyr as much as I love grouping games, and as fun as I think grouping is, in that game I'm going to Zone B and I'm going to solo, and those people that were going to group with me can come to and we can chat while we all solo.
What I have tried to explain to Ilvaldyr is that moving something to a different zone doesn't move it out of the game, so it's really irrelevant that you created a zone for it.
IMO, it's the same as if you go, ok, some players want to level quickly. So I'm going to create a zone where Mobs drop 1,000x the xp they normally do.
But this ONLY changes the game for people that want to go to that zone! So the people that think this is going to really imbalance the game, well they just dont' go to those zones and it works for everyone! Because, you know, it's in another ZONE! which is like it only exists for people that go to that zone!
I think all players would agree that the game now has Mobs that drop 1,000x xp in it, and that the game has been substantially changed for ALL players, NOT just the players that go to said zone.
JUST LIKE if you make a solo zone you have no just changed the game for ONLY the players that go to the solo zone, but for ALL players.
The genre hasn't been ruined. There are more people playing MMOs than there ever have been. Developers are falling over themselves to make their mark in the genre.
We're in the golden age of MMOs right now.
There are MMOs out there that offer good, challenging group content. Adding solo content to those MMOs serve only to give players more options and the ability to enjoy the game during times when groups are not available.
The only way that soloers can "ruin" the game for you is if you're incapable of enjoying yourself while other people are enjoying themselves in a different way.
Really?
Let's say some players find the game to difficult, like say 6 year olds. So the devs decide to make an easy version for them. They make a "zone" that drops 1,000 times the xp, and the mobs can be killed with just one hit. And any player can go to this zone if they want to, of course they will finish the game in 3 days tops.
Are you really, really, seriously going to tell me that this will not change the game at all?
Are you really, really, seriously going to say it only changes the game if people are incapable of enjoying themselves while other people enjoy themselves in a different way?
If not, then this applies to your "solo" game as well.
EVERY PLAYER is subject to the rules of the game.
Rules don't cease to exist just because you pretend they are not there.
Why would I play a game where I have to pretend the rules are different to enjoy it?
As I said to you yesterday (and the day before) .. pulling extreme hypothetical scenarios out of thin air and attempting to use them to support your viewpoint is not worthy of response.
Reward both playstyles equally. If the grouping playstyle has problems then fix them.
That's the sensible response.
Ignoring the problems and "compensating" with bonus XP, or penalising other playstyles (or refusing to support them completely, in your case) to make grouping more attractive is bad.
You should be demanding game changes to improve your preferred playstyle by reducing LFG times, level disparity and the reliance on rigid class requirements to fulfil necessary group roles.
Why aren't you doing that?
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
The genre hasn't been ruined. There are more people playing MMOs than there ever have been.
No. The genre is dead because is a endless repeating of tired cliches, and almost all, if not all, are really poor games, with zero fun on it. Even lame cheap "AA" ( not AAA) RPG games are more fun what the travesty we call MMORPG games.
Why Borderlands is fun and Hellgate London closed? are almost the same game. Is because this enfasys on MMORPG games on the wrong thing, that diluted the feel of "world" and "weapons". MMORPG are soo gamey gamey gamey, that is really hard to care.. and the mechanics are more boring, than a boring job.
As I said to you yesterday (and the day before) .. pulling extreme hypothetical scenarios out of thin air and attempting to use them to support your viewpoint is not worthy of response.
Reward both playstyles equally. If the grouping playstyle has problems then fix them.
That's the sensible response.
Ignoring the problems and "compensating" with bonus XP, or penalising other playstyles (or refusing to support them completely, in your case) to make grouping more attractive is bad.
You should be demanding game changes to improve your preferred playstyle by reducing LFG times, level disparity and the reliance on rigid class requirements to fulfil necessary group roles.
Why aren't you doing that?
Why is my hypothetical extreme, but yours is not?
Answer: Your hypothetical is not extreme because in your hypothetical you are designing a solo game that is not fun for groupers, and you LIKE solo games.
That's it. You refuse to accept it, but that's pretty much your answer.
My hypo is extreme, because you don't like that game play, but your hypo is not extreme because you like solo play. That's not much of a response or explanation, except Mine is good, yours is bad!
You think Players dont' talk AFTER they form a group?
What about discussing Need Before Greed and dividing items? What about deciding which quest to do next? What about deciding where to go grind? What about deciding whether or not to go back to town to drop off junk loot? What about deciding who should pull if there are two tanks, and on, and on, and on.
No, of course you dont'o think abou tthose things, because you solo.
As I said to you yesterday (and the day before) .. pulling extreme hypothetical scenarios out of thin air and attempting to use them to support your viewpoint is not worthy of response.
Reward both playstyles equally. If the grouping playstyle has problems then fix them.
That's the sensible response.
Ignoring the problems and "compensating" with bonus XP, or penalising other playstyles (or refusing to support them completely, in your case) to make grouping more attractive is bad.
You should be demanding game changes to improve your preferred playstyle by reducing LFG times, level disparity and the reliance on rigid class requirements to fulfil necessary group roles.
Why aren't you doing that?
your idea of EQual, is reward the solo player, not the group players.
That is not equal, that is a solo game.
I've never had a big problem with LFG times. I dont think they need to be reduced.
MMOs are fine.
Could have sworn you have said something as inane as "I should be rewarded for waiting".
The genre hasn't been ruined. There are more people playing MMOs than there ever have been.
No. The genre is dead because is a endless repeating of tired cliches, and almost all, if not all, are really poor games, with zero fun on it. Even lame cheap "AA" ( not AAA) RPG games are more fun what the travesty we call MMORPG games.
Why Borderlands is fun and Hellgate London closed? are almost the same game. Is because this enfasys on MMORPG games on the wrong thing, that diluted the feel of "world" and "weapons". MMORPG are soo gamey gamey gamey, that is really hard to care.. and the mechanics are more boring, than a boring job.
The genre is far from "dead" .. that's just melodrama.
You might not be happy with the genre; but the genre doesn't need your happiness (or mine) to survive. Providing that millions of players are willing to pay subscription fees every month to log into an MMO and have fun, the opinions of a couple of forum dwellers is incalculably insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
As I said to you yesterday (and the day before) .. pulling extreme hypothetical scenarios out of thin air and attempting to use them to support your viewpoint is not worthy of response.
Reward both playstyles equally. If the grouping playstyle has problems then fix them.
That's the sensible response.
Ignoring the problems and "compensating" with bonus XP, or penalising other playstyles (or refusing to support them completely, in your case) to make grouping more attractive is bad.
You should be demanding game changes to improve your preferred playstyle by reducing LFG times, level disparity and the reliance on rigid class requirements to fulfil necessary group roles.
Why aren't you doing that?
Why is my hypothetical extreme, but yours is not?
Answer: Your hypothetical is not extreme because in your hypothetical you are designing a solo game that is not fun for groupers, and you LIKE solo games.
That's it. You refuse to accept it, but that's pretty much your answer.
No.. my answer is "what hypothetical?" .. I didn't state one in the above post.
My hypo is extreme, because you don't like that game play, but your hypo is not extreme because you like solo play. That's not much of a response or explanation, except Mine is good, yours is bad!
You think Players dont' talk AFTER they form a group?
But "There is no problem with the group playstyle"!
What about discussing Need Before Greed and dividing items? What about deciding which quest to do next? What about deciding where to go grind? What about deciding whether or not to go back to town to drop off junk loot? What about deciding who should pull if there are two tanks, and on, and on, and on.
No, of course you dont'o think abou tthose things, because you solo.
But "There is no problem with the group playstyle"!
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Sufferin' stereotype, Batman. And an angry one at that. Someone piss in your cheerios or something?
So you believe people who prefer grouping automatically want to race to end game? Seriously?
I love grouping but I also want the journey to level cap to take as long as possible. Same goes for many people I know. Damn.. what have we all been doing wrong all this time?
You have to be a "grouper" to enjoy raids, PvP or Arena? Really? Ruh roh, Raggy... I need to talk to a number of people I know who prefer soloing, but still enjoy those activities as well.
Seriously guy... you are painting in *far* too broad strokes there. Are there people who fit your description? Sure. Is it accurate to group *everyone* who enjoys grouping into those categories? Nope. Not even close.
For the record... I've met soloers who *solo* because they want to get to level cap as fast as possible and believe having a group only slows them down. Where would they fit in your little stereotypical bubble?
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
As I said to you yesterday (and the day before) .. pulling extreme hypothetical scenarios out of thin air and attempting to use them to support your viewpoint is not worthy of response.
Reward both playstyles equally. If the grouping playstyle has problems then fix them.
That's the sensible response.
Ignoring the problems and "compensating" with bonus XP, or penalising other playstyles (or refusing to support them completely, in your case) to make grouping more attractive is bad.
You should be demanding game changes to improve your preferred playstyle by reducing LFG times, level disparity and the reliance on rigid class requirements to fulfil necessary group roles.
Why aren't you doing that?
your idea of EQual, is reward the solo player, not the group players.
That is not equal, that is a solo game.
I've never had a big problem with LFG times. I dont think they need to be reduced.
No, my idea of equal is to reward both players equally.
And if you don't have a problem with LFG times, then you accept that they don't need to be factored into the calculation of equal reward. Progress!
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
As I said to you yesterday (and the day before) .. pulling extreme hypothetical scenarios out of thin air and attempting to use them to support your viewpoint is not worthy of response.
Reward both playstyles equally. If the grouping playstyle has problems then fix them.
That's the sensible response.
Ignoring the problems and "compensating" with bonus XP, or penalising other playstyles (or refusing to support them completely, in your case) to make grouping more attractive is bad.
You should be demanding game changes to improve your preferred playstyle by reducing LFG times, level disparity and the reliance on rigid class requirements to fulfil necessary group roles.
Why aren't you doing that?
your idea of EQual, is reward the solo player, not the group players.
That is not equal, that is a solo game.
I've never had a big problem with LFG times. I dont think they need to be reduced.
No, my idea of equal is to reward both players equally.
And if you don't have a problem with LFG times, then you accept that they don't need to be factored into the calculation of equal reward. Progress!
That is a solo game.
I don't have a problem with solo games like WoW, I just dont' like to play them. I don't mind if other people like to play solo games.
Why would you mind if I want to play a group based game?
What you are designing is a solo game.
Why do you insist that I like a solo game? I dont' insist that you like grouping games. I accept you don't like grouping games, and I don't mind.
Wait here for an hour. Why?
I will give you 100 dollars.
Wait here for an hour. Why?
No reason.
you keep insisting these are exactly the same, and exactly equal. That's just silly.
I'll say again. A game that:
Contains good, challenging group content.
Contains good, challenging solo content.
Rewards both equally.
This is not a "solo" game. It supports both playstyles.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
As I said to you yesterday (and the day before) .. pulling extreme hypothetical scenarios out of thin air and attempting to use them to support your viewpoint is not worthy of response.
Reward both playstyles equally. If the grouping playstyle has problems then fix them.
That's the sensible response.
Ignoring the problems and "compensating" with bonus XP, or penalising other playstyles (or refusing to support them completely, in your case) to make grouping more attractive is bad.
You should be demanding game changes to improve your preferred playstyle by reducing LFG times, level disparity and the reliance on rigid class requirements to fulfil necessary group roles.
Why aren't you doing that?
Why is my hypothetical extreme, but yours is not?
Answer: Your hypothetical is not extreme because in your hypothetical you are designing a solo game that is not fun for groupers, and you LIKE solo games.
That's it. You refuse to accept it, but that's pretty much your answer.
My hypo is extreme, because you don't like that game play, but your hypo is not extreme because you like solo play. That's not much of a response or explanation, except Mine is good, yours is bad!
You think Players dont' talk AFTER they form a group?
What about discussing Need Before Greed and dividing items? What about deciding which quest to do next? What about deciding where to go grind? What about deciding whether or not to go back to town to drop off junk loot? What about deciding who should pull if there are two tanks, and on, and on, and on.
No, of course you dont'o think abou tthose things, because you solo.
The problem with current MMOs isnt the fact that group content isnt there or the group mechanic as a whole is broken. The problem with grouping in MMOs is that the hardcore days of group centric games have come and gone. MMOs are now designed with content aimed at both the solo and group themes. Only thing bad about this is the hardcore grouper (as seen in these disscussions) feels slighted and does blame the soloer for their woes.
In most every MMO, Grouping is given bonuses to XP gained when in a full group (the max number of players in the group). In most every MMO out there, Grouping (through design of the game or design of the player) requires a set range of players for an *optimal* group - ie: Tank, Healer, CC, DPS. In most every MMO certain classes/specs are passed over in favor of the better class/spec. In some MMOs it comes down to gear. When this happens there will be players who get fed up with not being able to enjoy content because they somehow dont fit in with design or player expectations of what is needed for the optimal group. Before games became solo friendly, these players would end up rerolling to one of the acceptable classes/specs and starting over, or just all together leave the game.
This changed when developers started adding solo friendly content to MMOs. Now those players can progress without the need for a group, and experience a lot more content than they once could. Now people with limited playtime can accomplish something other than sitting in an LFG channel for the majority of their playtime. Grouping still happens, the group content is still the same and groups can still camp mob spawns and grind XP like they did back in the day. They still get the same XP benefits for having full groups. The only difference is grouping is no longer the focus or the main force behind progression in the early game of the MMO as it once was. There is no longer a need to have a group to grind mob camps for hours on end because players can now run quests instead.
In current MMOs players who group will and do level at a faster rate than those who solo. They still have access to better weapons and items as well as harder content. So the argument that the soloer has an easier/faster time with progression based on XP gain is false. When it comes to downtime then maybe yes, the soloer might have a faster progression experience because they dont have to deal with the waiting, seeking, waiting, afking, waiting that happens when looking for a group or waiting for each member to be ready.
If the group playstyle player has any issue with the current state of grouping in MMOs, its not the soloers fault. The grouper needs to look at the players within their own to see where the problem is. Blame the people within the group playstyle for the woes of grouping, with all their gear checks, pidgeon-holing and oft time elitisms as the reason for the current state of grouping to be well below subpar.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
You can't "fix" people.
You can't "fix" people.
You can't? I shall demand a refund from my psychiatrist forthwith.
I'm talking about fixing the problems with the playstyle, not the players.
I.e. if a group needs a tank/healer to function and that's leading to excessive LFG times, then make more classes capable of filling the "tank/healer" role.
If you can't group with your friends because they outlevelled you then put incorporate mentoring so that you can contribute to their group.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
You can't "fix" people.
You can't? I shall demand a refund from my psychiatrist forthwith.
I'm talking about fixing the problems with the playstyle, not the players.
I.e. if a group needs a tank/healer to function and that's leading to excessive LFG times, then make more classes capable of filling the "tank/healer" role.
If you can't group with your friends because they outlevelled you then put incorporate mentoring so that you can contribute to their group.
The problem with the playstyle is the players.
The problem you described needs be fixed as well, but it's not the only problem.
Just when I thought that the majority of people out here are complete FTARDs there comes a post like this that gives me hope that there are still some real gamers out here left.
Great post and couldn't be any more true to the point.
Why should subscribers be forced to group to be able to play a game, it's BS.
The whole point of mmorpg's is to give players a choice, not force them to play one type of way.
I'll say again. A game that:
Contains good, challenging group content.
Contains good, challenging solo content.
Rewards both equally.
This is not a "solo" game. It supports both playstyles.
yes, I would call that EQ or DAoC.
The games peolpe called "forced grouping".
Are you agreeing with me, or the people that yell forced grouping?
Just when I thought that the majority of people out here are complete FTARDs there comes a post like this that gives me hope that there are still some real gamers out here left.
Great post and couldn't be any more true to the point.
Why should subscribers be forced to group to be able to play a game, it's BS.
The whole point of mmorpg's is to give players a choice, not force them to play one type of way.
The only problem is, Groupers arent' asking to form groups.
What groupers do you think are asking for that?
I mean, your post seems to show how silly this is.
If you CAN group in every game, and you CAN, then why would people be asking for a feature that let's you group when they already ahve that?
Wouldn't it seem like no one is actually asking for something they already have? If that's the case, then what's your point?
You can't "fix" people.
You can't? I shall demand a refund from my psychiatrist forthwith.
I'm talking about fixing the problems with the playstyle, not the players.
I.e. if a group needs a tank/healer to function and that's leading to excessive LFG times, then make more classes capable of filling the "tank/healer" role.
If you can't group with your friends because they outlevelled you then put incorporate mentoring so that you can contribute to their group.
The problem with the playstyle is the players.
The problem you described needs be fixed as well, but it's not the only problem.
Most people that like grouping games, arent' really asking for a Zerg sort of combat style.
You can replace the tank healer thing with a zerg, sure. But is there anyone really asking for that?
If you're going to put in place a Zerg combat style, then why "group"?
We can just both attack the mob at the same time, we dont' really need to see each others health bars, and we can just use the local chat channel, we dont' really need a "group" chat window.
What we really need, is a way to teach people how to play in a group. The problem nowdays, to make groups, is that most people don't know how to play in a group. On games with the classic style, the DPS's steal agro, the healer don't heal, and the tank lose agro. We need something like a "Grouping University". Maybe a mmo that teach the MMO population how to work in a group.
:-)
Something that used to work, but that nowdays is almost dead, is the existence of the tipical long and interesting dungeon. Dungeons and groups need each another.
Other thing that we need, is different game mechanics, something different than the old style, and old trinity, maybe new roles, and new advancement styles. New ideas that work and are better than the current cliches.
Just when I thought that the majority of people out here are complete FTARDs there comes a post like this that gives me hope that there are still some real gamers out here left.
Great post and couldn't be any more true to the point.
Why should subscribers be forced to group to be able to play a game, it's BS.
The whole point of mmorpg's is to give players a choice, not force them to play one type of way.
The only problem is, Groupers arent' asking to form groups.
What groupers do you think are asking for that?
I mean, your post seems to show how silly this is.
If you CAN group in every game, and you CAN, then why would people be asking for a feature that let's you group when they already ahve that?
Wouldn't it seem like no one is actually asking for something they already have? If that's the case, then what's your point?
The problem, to be frank, is that grouping mechanics in many newer MMOs suck. Also, many people are too self-centered (how much DPS are *they* doing, what drops are *they* getting) to make grouping work well, because for grouping to work well, everyone has to realize they're there to benefit the group - not for themself. In that light, I can understand why people would just prefer to solo. Because grouping mechanics do suck, and many people are greedy and self-centered.
Outside of raid instances, much of what grouping amounts to is "more people = faster kills = easier questing". There's no sort of strategy to it and, frankly, when mobs go down in seconds, there's little need for it.
So, what the genre *needs* are more MMOs, like FFXI, where group mechanics are actually a thought-out and well-implemented mechanic of the game that benefits the party members... not "something players can do as a group, but could just as well do solo", tacked on as an after-thought.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
You can't "fix" people.
You can't? I shall demand a refund from my psychiatrist forthwith.
lulz