The solo crowd has plenty of MMORPGs to play AND offline RPGs as well. We who enjoy the way the games used to be only have the option of games over a decade old which are faint images of their past glory. We are stuck hoping for anything but another solo-fest, and until that type of game is released, nobody actually knows if the majority really wants complete soloing, or if they just play it because its the only decent game thats been released in the last five years.
This was a really excellent post and pretty much summarizes the situation perfectly. I'm highlighting only this portion because its the key reason why there is a disgruntled segment of the gaming market that is so vocal here at MMORPG.com.
We get told, you can group in any game, go do it. But its not the same if the game isn't designed to promote grouping like the early games were. You had to play them to understand the difference. And we can't go back to the old games, regardless of technical shortcomings, they have been changed beyond all recognition trying to cater to the casual player market and don't play the same anymore.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Well, I think the reason I quit WoW for the first time - a few months after TBC was released - was because waiting for a group took more than two hours. This was before WotLK, let alone the cross-server Dungeon Finder.
But seriously, I couldn't stand to wait that long - I believe we had a tank for the first hour, then they had to go to bed, or something along those lines (had to get their kids to bed? had work the next morning?) - so our tank left. We shortly got a healer after that, then we lost the healer, got another healer... in the end, for a Heroic, it took two hours to not get a group going.
This is an argument against grouping, I suppose - but that's simply because the tools were not readily available back then to efficiently find tanks and healers, specifically, for dungeons.
Anyway, I think what would make everything good again for WoW, is to just make every single world mob an Elite. You can usually solo elite mobs of your own level anyway, if you use a cooldown or two - but killing them with a group would be much more efficient.
And dungeons... well, dungeons contain bosses. That should be enough differentiation.
Then WoW would have to implement a decent normal "looking for group" application, like the dungeon finder, but only on one server, and perhaps a few quests selected.
*shrugs* - but yeah, that'd bring WoW back in line to the older ways of solo effectiveness < group effectiveness.
--------
As for me, I never played MMOs pre-WoW, and that makes me sad. I played Runescape, I suppose - but only very casually (never got a stat above 50) - so it doesn't could... it'd be like playing Guild Wars to level 20 and then stopping altogether - even though the game (as in, 80-90% of the game) starts there.
But I can imagine what good grouping mechanics would be like... I think EVE has some nice incentives to grouping - in that someone with fleet skills can increase the total mining yields, or total damage, or total armor or whatever else, of everyone in the group. It's like an Aura, or a group buff in WoW. Something that really brings home why being in a group is not only more socially better for you, but also statistically better.
I can't really add more to the topic - but I'll agree that games where grouping isn't really rewarded much, or is forced too heavily - are both crap. A player should be able to get by by themselves, but never really prosper without other players' help.
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
The solo crowd has plenty of MMORPGs to play AND offline RPGs as well. We who enjoy the way the games used to be only have the option of games over a decade old which are faint images of their past glory. We are stuck hoping for anything but another solo-fest, and until that type of game is released, nobody actually knows if the majority really wants complete soloing, or if they just play it because its the only decent game thats been released in the last five years.
Just so it doesn't get lost on page 28.
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
The solo crowd has plenty of MMORPGs to play AND offline RPGs as well. We who enjoy the way the games used to be only have the option of games over a decade old which are faint images of their past glory. We are stuck hoping for anything but another solo-fest, and until that type of game is released, nobody actually knows if the majority really wants complete soloing, or if they just play it because its the only decent game thats been released in the last five years.
The problem is, it doesn't matter how many solo-friendly MMOs there are out there, each playstyle earns a place depending on how much money they can bring to the table. The fact is, there will probably never be a forced permadeath game because there just aren't enough people willing to play a permadeath game to make it financially viable. Like it or not, there probably are not enough groupers to make a forced grouping game financially viable either. It has nothing to do with fairness, it has to do with money. If you want developers to listen, it's up to the groupers to make their collective voices heard and so far, it's just not happening.
The whole "fair play" argument is ludicrous. Life just doesn't work that way.
It has nothing to do with fairness, it has to do with money. If you want developers to listen, it's up to the groupers to make their collective voices heard and so far, it's just not happening.
Yeah, we needs to starts a revolution!
Let's be honest, how the hell are groupers supposed to be heard? We all write a petition to EA, make a Facebook group that nobody gives a crap about? I've heard this argument from you so often now and it's total bollocks. The only way they'll know if a game works is if they make one, and they're not going to make one because single player games sell more. Look at how many copies Modern Warfare 2 managed to sell!
And besides that, they've already seen how successful a group based game can be with EverQuest, but with the amount of effort that goes into making a game like that, with an open world that you can explore and danger at every corner. Well, it's just easier to make a 5x5 square with a path going down the middle that all the brainless soloers can follow on their quest to the +10 Ogre Slaying Longsword.
Let's be honest, how the hell are groupers supposed to be heard? We all write a petition to EA, make a Facebook group that nobody gives a crap about? I've heard this argument from you so often now and it's total bollocks. The only way they'll know if a game works is if they make one, and they're not going to make one because single player games sell more. Look at how many copies Modern Warfare 2 managed to sell!
Why should they make a game that they have no reason to think will be financially successful? Why would any developer spend the millions of dollars and long years to make a game that may well fail at the starting gates? Groupers need to prove that there are enough of them to support a modern day game. How they do so is really up to them. It may be as easy as mass-e-mailing a particular developer and asking for a game, if you can get a couple hundred thousand people together to do it. It might take an online petition. It might take a Facebook group. I don't know. That's your problem to figure out.
Amd using MW2 as an example is a bit silly, it's not an MMO, it's a FPS. Multi-player FPS are extremely successful. Grouping-heavy MMOs are not. Stop comparing apples to rutabegas.
And besides that, they've already seen how successful a group based game can be with EverQuest, but with the amount of effort that goes into making a game like that, with an open world that you can explore and danger at every corner. Well, it's just easier to make a 5x5 square with a path going down the middle that all the brainless soloers can follow on their quest to the +10 Ogre Slaying Longsword.
That's because EverQuest is over a decade old, can't you come up with a more recent example? Oh wait, you can't, that's the problem! There hasn't been a successful group-oriented game out there in more than a decade and every single successful game has been solo-friendly. So why would you expect a developer to decide to do something that, for all they know, will be a complete failure? Even if you assume that every single person who ever played EQ was still a group-advocate and was still playing MMOs, the entirety of EQ players is not enough of a pool to make a modern-day game financially viable. You need a lot more people than that to make a difference. Can you produce them? If not, then why should anyone take you seriously?
Why should they make a game that they have no reason to think will be financially successful? Why would any developer spend the millions of dollars and long years to make a game that may well fail at the starting gates?
Oh, I don't know, I just was under the crazy assumption that people actually do something without having a 3 year survey before going into it.
"Hey Developers, lets make a game. We'll call it... Grand Theft Auto!".
"Uh, hey boss, I don't think that's such a good idea, it's never been done before. And that last game where you could run over pedestrians really didn't go down well.".
"Ah, true.. any other ideas?".
And using MW2 as an example is a bit silly, it's not an MMO, it's a FPS. Multi-player FPS are extremely successful. Grouping-heavy MMOs are not. Stop comparing apples to rutabegas.
Warcraft was a single player game, real time strategy, and they decided to make an MMO out of it. Because it had the mass of followers that were single player gamers, they all jumped on board to give it a go. Hence, 10 million subscriptions. Somewhat equal to releasing a game such as MW2.
There hasn't been a successful group-oriented game out there in more than a decade and every single successful game has been solo-friendly.
And now we have all these new MMO's trying to emulate World of Warcraft with it's single player focus and they're all failing, most of them don't even get near half the subscribers that EverQuest used to have. So no, they're not successful in the slightest compared to the older games. Haven't you checked the charts before spewing your nonsense?
There's EverQuest at 550,000, and the highest population new solo-friendly game is Lord of the Rings Online, which managed a high of 200,000. And look, another group friendly game, Final Fantasy, up there at 500,000, highest was 650,000.
I'm not sure what other new solo friendly games you mean, but I'm sure that the most successful to date has been Lord of the Rings Online, and look where that is. All your fancy developers have to do to find what people want out of an MMO is to look at population charts. But oh no, they see WoW up there at 10 million and they try their best to get up there with them, but all they get is a big fail.
There hasn't been a successful group-oriented game out there in more than a decade and every single successful game has been solo-friendly.
And now we have all these new MMO's trying to emulate World of Warcraft with it's single player focus and they're all failing, most of them don't even get near half the subscribers that EverQuest used to have. So no, they're not successful in the slightest compared to the older games. Haven't you checked the charts before spewing your nonsense?
There's EverQuest at 550,000, and the highest population new solo-friendly game is Lord of the Rings Online, which managed a high of 200,000. And look, another group friendly game, Final Fantasy, up there at 500,000, highest was 650,000.
I'm not sure what other new solo friendly games you mean, but I'm sure that the most successful to date has been Lord of the Rings Online, and look where that is. All your fancy developers have to do to find what people want out of an MMO is to look at population charts. But oh no, they see WoW up there at 10 million and they try their best to get up there with them, but all they get is a big fail.
Well, that's specious reasoning.
These games are failing because they are buggy, they don't seem to deliver what players are expecting and they don't seem to have what players feel is compelling gameplay.
Whether or not they are solo friendly or not has nothing to do with it.
Lord of the Rings Online has other issue over it being solo friendly or not. It was far more group friendly at the start with many quests that were fellowship quests but people were passing on them. Including the book quests.
Now granted, in my opinion, they don't do group quests well because they are stuck in along the quest chain every few quests. That is NOT the way to do group content.
Group content needs to start with a group and end with a group. Otherwise you get people shouting for one quest in the chaing, they do the group and it's "c'ya later".
And again, wow is very solo oritented and it does fine with subs.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
....they don't seem to deliver what players are expecting and they don't seem to have what players feel is compelling gameplay.
Which is my point.
Whether or not they are solo friendly or not has nothing to do with it.
I think you'll find it is. Fantasy RPG's - hell, most RPG's - have always had limited interest. The people interested in RPG's tend to be the ones who have a roleplay background and thus are looking for group friendly games. Warcraft was never an RPG and became an MMO, so those single player gamers jumped onboard to find out what it was all about. Hence the massive subscriber base.
I think you'll find it is. Fantasy RPG's - hell, most RPG's - have always had limited interest. The people interested in RPG's tend to be the ones who have a roleplay background and thus are looking for group friendly games. Warcraft was never an RPG and became an MMO, so those single player gamers jumped onboard to find out what it was all about. Hence the massive subscriber base.
That's why MMOs, no matter what letters they have tacked on the end, are not and never have been real roleplaying games in the sense that tabletop games are. In fact, I'd point out that there has never been a real computer RPG. Square-Enix co-opted the name for their Final Fantasy games and it stuck, but you really don't have the freedom in any computer RPG that you do in a tabletop game because all of your possible actions are, by definition, pre-programmed. If you want to go left but the game wants you to go right, you go right. There is no option for going left. Games like Final Fantasy, especially after 5 or 6, did little more than drag you by the nose through an overblown story whether you wanted to go or not. You're no more playing a character in computer RPGs than you're roleplaying Master Chief when playing Halo.
Frankly, the vast majority of people who are currently playing WoW have never heard of Warcraft and have no idea that it even exists outside of the game. It wasn't the mythology of the Warcraft property that drew players, it was the MMO that appealed to a wide range of people who were looking for something to do with their fancy new broadband connection. It was in the right place at the right time and did the right things to become a wild success. Had it come along a year or two earlier or a year or two later and probably it wouldn't have ever taken off like it did.
You're desperately looking for something you can blame WoW's success on, but in reality, it was in the right place at the right time and it did what the people playing wanted it to do. It is successful because it appeals to the widest audience.
That's why MMOs, no matter what letters they have tacked on the end, are not and never have been real roleplaying games in the sense that tabletop games are. In fact, I'd point out that there has never been a real computer RPG. Square-Enix co-opted the name for their Final Fantasy games and it stuck, but you really don't have the freedom in any computer RPG that you do in a tabletop game because all of your possible actions are, by definition, pre-programmed. If you want to go left but the game wants you to go right, you go right. There is no option for going left. Games like Final Fantasy, especially after 5 or 6, did little more than drag you by the nose through an overblown story whether you wanted to go or not. You're no more playing a character in computer RPGs than you're roleplaying Master Chief when playing Halo.
Frankly, the vast majority of people who are currently playing WoW have never heard of Warcraft and have no idea that it even exists outside of the game. It wasn't the mythology of the Warcraft property that drew players, it was the MMO that appealed to a wide range of people who were looking for something to do with their fancy new broadband connection. It was in the right place at the right time and did the right things to become a wild success. Had it come along a year or two earlier or a year or two later and probably it wouldn't have ever taken off like it did.
You're desperately looking for something you can blame WoW's success on, but in reality, it was in the right place at the right time and it did what the people playing wanted it to do. It is successful because it appeals to the widest audience.
I agree with what you said there at the end. WoW was a turning point in online gaming, hell it was a turning point in the game industry as a whole. People had been playing the same types of games for a long time (EQ, DAoC, UO...etc) and WoW gave them something different. Like it or not WoW (regardless of why they began playing it) took a new spin on the MMO and gave new players and old players something different to play for a while.
Now here is where I find the fault in this arguement that has spanned on for pages and pages. People are arguing about which is better, group play or solo play. The fact of the matter is, that there will always be a crowd for both types of games. We've come to far at this point to go back to the days of EQ and all those other games, games that I personally like a lot. Instead of fighting over which is better, and continuing this arguement for ages, why don't we combine ideas and come up with a game that both types of players can enjoy. Is it really as far-fetched as you think? If WoW didn't do both groups of players right then why don't we come up with a solution to the problem rather than bickering over which is better. That would be a much more profitable idea for devs rather than one group pitching a rather one sided idea. If we can't settle on this than we should just agree to disagee...it seems like a simple solution to the problem, but it really is the only logical one.
Now here is where I find the fault in this arguement that has spanned on for pages and pages. People are arguing about which is better, group play or solo play. The fact of the matter is, that there will always be a crowd for both types of games. We've come to far at this point to go back to the days of EQ and all those other games, games that I personally like a lot. Instead of fighting over which is better, and continuing this arguement for ages, why don't we combine ideas and come up with a game that both types of players can enjoy. Is it really as far-fetched as you think? If WoW didn't do both groups of players right then why don't we come up with a solution to the problem rather than bickering over which is better. That would be a much more profitable idea for devs rather than one group pitching a rather one sided idea. If we can't settle on this than we should just agree to disagee...it seems like a simple solution to the problem, but it really is the only logical one.
I agree with you, the idea that one playstyle is better than the other is ludicrous. It's an entirely subjective determination. Some people like one. Some people like the other. Some like both, some like neither. It's all a matter of opinion, none is objectively better than any other option. That's why I keep pointing out, especially for those who are only too happy to explain "what MMOs are" that they're full of shit. They have an opinion, nothing more. That doesn't qualify them to tell everyone else how MMOs are supposed to be.
The real issue here though is that many on the pro-grouping side aren't arguing for a game where they can group, they're arguing for a game where *EVERYONE* is *FORCED* to group. They don't want a game where everyone can choose what they want to do, they want to eliminate soloing as an alternative and won't be happy until that happens. They think they are entitled to such a game, just because they want one. I keep pointing out that when you have a minority playstyle, nobody is going to cater to you because you don't represent a large enough financial sector to make such a game fiscally worthwhile. Pro-groupers need to demonstrate that they are a financial force to be reckoned with but nobody ever wants to do any work, they just want to sit back and demand their "rights" and unfortunately, those "rights" are at odds with the current MMO marketplace. I've got no problem if they can convince a developer that it's a good idea to make a group-centric game, but sitting around on a forum whining about it is not going to accomplish that goal.
The thing with solo vs group based games is that in a group based game, there is always still solo content regardless. Soloers can usually still enjoy a group based game other then the fact they have to choose single spawns, the fights take 5x as long since there 1 player instead of 6 fighting it, and most of the named mobs who drop loot are in deep dungeons surrounded by multiple spawns.
On the other hand, in a solo based game, the groupers are not awarded that same courtesey. We would find all the games content trivial when running with full groups of experienced players. If all the content was soloable, then there would be very little incentive to ever group up. There HAS to be a strong incentive or people will completely skip it.
I will use Aion as an example, since WoW is done to death. In Aion, some quests and areas were obviously group based areas. The mobs were very tough and there was multiples at a time. We could even say there was a fair mix of group and solo based content. But, what happened was, that since it was possible to solo to max level, that is all most people did. They just found a spot and soloed all day long, completely ignoring any other players, and just mindlessly hacked away until level 50. I made it to level 43 before I quit, and there was absolutely no reason to even group unless you wanted to. Which most people didn't because it would "take away from their exp" and they wouldnt get all the "phat lewts". The ONLY time people group, was to do a instance for a quest. They would all rush through it without talking at all, and then instantly disband once their quest was done. This is horrible from a community stand point, and is proof enough that sadly unless grouping yeilds both better loot and experience rates, then people will never do it unless they need to.
A group based game without quest based leveling (quests for items only), without items dropping off every single mob in the game (only from named and rare spawns), and with one difficulty for mobs (no easy mode and elite mobs) - it would create an atmosphere where people would WANT to group, instead of feeling forced to. This is why EQ was so loved. It allowed you to solo to your hearts content, and some classes were even more efficient at soloing then some groups in certain situations, but it was far from the norm. Usually solo exp was painfully slow compared to group, and you didn't have a chance at the good item drops (could still work on parts of quests that can be done solo) for example soloing the courtyard of a castle instead of getting a group and going deep into the throne room. People NEED the ability to solo when they do not have hours to log in, or if they cannot find a group, but it should be much, much worse then being in a group. Soloing should only be for a temporary amount of time, and you should always be trying to find a group instead of soloing when you have the time to.
I enjoy soloing, and I enjoy grouping. I enjoy grouping FAR more then soloing, but I understand that soloing has its place because we aren't all thirteen years old with no job any more. The game designers just need to realize that they havent been making the game difficult enough as to make people want to group in order to lessen the risk of dying. They also havent been making the difference between solo exp and group exp large enough to make someone always want to find a group if possible in order to reap better benefits and rewards.
I have faith that one day a game will come for us who want a tight knit community who remembers eachothers names for years to come. Always wanting to group with certain people because of how well you all played together and knowing you can trust them to keep your group alive when maximizing risk in order to get better rewards. But, in order to do that, there has to be a substantial risk, eg. death penalty, corpse where you died, to make people think twice about going deep into that dungeon with a sub-par group of people. It would force players to become better at playing their class. It would make them play their actual roles, instead of someone trying to tank as a rogue, or melee as a wizard. There has to be danger and dependency on others immensely. Thats what creates an amazing community of friends, of heroes.
And lastly, we all know how much fun the trading system was before auction houses and bazaars. Bring back the haggling, the trading, the bartering, and all the things that we could do when it was a player driven market in a player designated place. It just made everything feel so alive. The world was really a world.
That is what I miss. The world being an actual world, instead of just a game.
The above post has it quite well. No matter what, you can't do a game where everyone is grouping all the time. At some point, there's just not gonna be anyone around you want to play with. It happens. So, no matter what, a game needs good solo content. On the flip side, if everything is solo friendly... well... why make it a multiplayer game at all? Just throwing more people at stuff that only takes one person isn't group content. It's just smushing easy stuff. Anyone who says people should all be grouping all the time... that's stupid. But anyone who wants to solo all the time should find a new genre. That's not what MMOs are about. That's single player games. MMOs are about people playing together. Anything else is just silly.
Important facts: 1. Free to Play games are poorly made. 2. Casuals are not all idiots, but idiots call themselves casuals. 3. Great solo and group content are not mutually exclusive, but they suffer when one is shoved into the mold of the other. The same is true of PvP and PvE. 4. Community is more important than you think.
I more enjoy playing against other people then with, unless Im playing with people I know in RL. I dont play MMOs to socialize, I play for better competition then killing mindless NPCs.
Wow actualy did it right, they had alot of meaningfull group content and tons of solo content, im a player that highly favor group play and i need more then just grouping i want coopration in groups. But i also have times when i just want to solo some.
When you can level at a resonable pace in group play only(without goeing mad from the same content over and over) then you already have made a ok mmo, but that aint enuff you need a filler and i cant come up with a better filler then questing since you dont need to comitt hours for it, and haveing a few quest here and there aint good enuff you realy need to be able to lvl to maks lvl on both since you never know witch lvl u only have a few hour.
Wow has completly changed and i do not think its a good group gameplay anymore but rather a great game for mmo beginners but a few years back it had great teamplay. And was among the top games in my book even after i quit i always held it in high regards.
After seeing MMO after MMO crash and burn its time to relise that questing aint the holy grail of MMO but everyone is so stuck on that is what made WoW so great while in truth it aint, wow managed to make an awsome and challenging group gameplay but at the same time made an awsome filler.
Developers can keep to this quest based games they are makeing with VERY little teamplay and see theyr games crash time after time. Even the people that favor questing i belive stil likes to teamup now and then, just as group ppl likes to solo now and then.
I more enjoy playing against other people then with, unless Im playing with people I know in RL. I dont play MMOs to socialize, I play for better competition then killing mindless NPCs.
Then the last year have been great for you, so MANY pvp games atm.
I don't understand people who log into online gameworlds just to solo it.
Guess they are to lazy to interact....and the game engine is perhaps not helping them to co-operate...
I know in WoW you're kind of supposed to be soloing...at least to begin with...and this is what I don't get at all. Well it seems to be a popular game so guess it is working...
I don't understand people who log into online gameworlds just to solo it.
Guess they are to lazy to interact....and the game engine is perhaps not helping them to co-operate...
I know in WoW you're kind of supposed to be soloing...at least to begin with...and this is what I don't get at all. Well it seems to be a popular game so guess it is working...
Luckily, your understanding or permission is not required. Get over yourself.
I don't understand people who log into online gameworlds just to solo it.
Guess they are to lazy to interact....and the game engine is perhaps not helping them to co-operate...
I know in WoW you're kind of supposed to be soloing...at least to begin with...and this is what I don't get at all. Well it seems to be a popular game so guess it is working...
Luckily, your understanding or permission is not required. Get over yourself.
I absolutely understand him in terms of not understanding why people log into a massivle, constant gameworld and want to solo through the game. If I want to play on my own I play singleplayer games because they are much more fun to me than playing MMORPGs without grouping. I just don't get and have no idea why doing kill-/fedexquests or grinding mobs with a bad AI at a static spawn on your own is any fun.
Ever had that "i want to be alone" feeling, where you dont want to deal with other people? I have, admittedly rarely, felt like this but i also didnt want to be so alone there was no one around me. SO some soloable content, at all levels, is in my view a good thing, but to have the whole of a game soloable isn't good for the game, and those that want everything to be soloable would be better off, for everyone, playing offline.
I absolutely understand him in terms of not understanding why people log into a massivle, constant gameworld and want to solo through the game. If I want to play on my own I play singleplayer games because they are much more fun to me than playing MMORPGs without grouping. I just don't get and have no idea why doing kill-/fedexquests or grinding mobs with a bad AI at a static spawn on your own is any fun.
Could anyone explain that to me?
Unfortunately, single-player games don't last very long. A week or two at best and they're gone. Trust me, I've spent 6-months doing little more than playing single-player games and I'm out. So you go with the next best alternative, an MMO, where the world is much larger, there is much more to do and they are constantly updating the content.
Personally, I don't understand why anyone would want to play with the whining, egocentric, gear-whore communities that exist in most MMOs. Why would I want to group with people who don't share my goals? Why would I want to group with people who only care about powerleveling as fast as they can? No thanks. You play your way, I'll play mine.
Comments
Shame but its 100% truth. If they did change loot mechanics that mob drops for every person instead for one it would cut near all solo players.
This was a really excellent post and pretty much summarizes the situation perfectly. I'm highlighting only this portion because its the key reason why there is a disgruntled segment of the gaming market that is so vocal here at MMORPG.com.
We get told, you can group in any game, go do it. But its not the same if the game isn't designed to promote grouping like the early games were. You had to play them to understand the difference. And we can't go back to the old games, regardless of technical shortcomings, they have been changed beyond all recognition trying to cater to the casual player market and don't play the same anymore.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Well, I think the reason I quit WoW for the first time - a few months after TBC was released - was because waiting for a group took more than two hours. This was before WotLK, let alone the cross-server Dungeon Finder.
But seriously, I couldn't stand to wait that long - I believe we had a tank for the first hour, then they had to go to bed, or something along those lines (had to get their kids to bed? had work the next morning?) - so our tank left. We shortly got a healer after that, then we lost the healer, got another healer... in the end, for a Heroic, it took two hours to not get a group going.
This is an argument against grouping, I suppose - but that's simply because the tools were not readily available back then to efficiently find tanks and healers, specifically, for dungeons.
Anyway, I think what would make everything good again for WoW, is to just make every single world mob an Elite. You can usually solo elite mobs of your own level anyway, if you use a cooldown or two - but killing them with a group would be much more efficient.
And dungeons... well, dungeons contain bosses. That should be enough differentiation.
Then WoW would have to implement a decent normal "looking for group" application, like the dungeon finder, but only on one server, and perhaps a few quests selected.
*shrugs* - but yeah, that'd bring WoW back in line to the older ways of solo effectiveness < group effectiveness.
--------
As for me, I never played MMOs pre-WoW, and that makes me sad. I played Runescape, I suppose - but only very casually (never got a stat above 50) - so it doesn't could... it'd be like playing Guild Wars to level 20 and then stopping altogether - even though the game (as in, 80-90% of the game) starts there.
But I can imagine what good grouping mechanics would be like... I think EVE has some nice incentives to grouping - in that someone with fleet skills can increase the total mining yields, or total damage, or total armor or whatever else, of everyone in the group. It's like an Aura, or a group buff in WoW. Something that really brings home why being in a group is not only more socially better for you, but also statistically better.
I can't really add more to the topic - but I'll agree that games where grouping isn't really rewarded much, or is forced too heavily - are both crap. A player should be able to get by by themselves, but never really prosper without other players' help.
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
You all need to learn to spell.
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
You all need to learn to spell.
The problem is, it doesn't matter how many solo-friendly MMOs there are out there, each playstyle earns a place depending on how much money they can bring to the table. The fact is, there will probably never be a forced permadeath game because there just aren't enough people willing to play a permadeath game to make it financially viable. Like it or not, there probably are not enough groupers to make a forced grouping game financially viable either. It has nothing to do with fairness, it has to do with money. If you want developers to listen, it's up to the groupers to make their collective voices heard and so far, it's just not happening.
The whole "fair play" argument is ludicrous. Life just doesn't work that way.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
It has nothing to do with fairness, it has to do with money. If you want developers to listen, it's up to the groupers to make their collective voices heard and so far, it's just not happening.
Yeah, we needs to starts a revolution!
Let's be honest, how the hell are groupers supposed to be heard? We all write a petition to EA, make a Facebook group that nobody gives a crap about? I've heard this argument from you so often now and it's total bollocks. The only way they'll know if a game works is if they make one, and they're not going to make one because single player games sell more. Look at how many copies Modern Warfare 2 managed to sell!
And besides that, they've already seen how successful a group based game can be with EverQuest, but with the amount of effort that goes into making a game like that, with an open world that you can explore and danger at every corner. Well, it's just easier to make a 5x5 square with a path going down the middle that all the brainless soloers can follow on their quest to the +10 Ogre Slaying Longsword.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Why should they make a game that they have no reason to think will be financially successful? Why would any developer spend the millions of dollars and long years to make a game that may well fail at the starting gates?
Oh, I don't know, I just was under the crazy assumption that people actually do something without having a 3 year survey before going into it.
"Hey Developers, lets make a game. We'll call it... Grand Theft Auto!".
"Uh, hey boss, I don't think that's such a good idea, it's never been done before. And that last game where you could run over pedestrians really didn't go down well.".
"Ah, true.. any other ideas?".
And using MW2 as an example is a bit silly, it's not an MMO, it's a FPS. Multi-player FPS are extremely successful. Grouping-heavy MMOs are not. Stop comparing apples to rutabegas.
Warcraft was a single player game, real time strategy, and they decided to make an MMO out of it. Because it had the mass of followers that were single player gamers, they all jumped on board to give it a go. Hence, 10 million subscriptions. Somewhat equal to releasing a game such as MW2.
There hasn't been a successful group-oriented game out there in more than a decade and every single successful game has been solo-friendly.
And now we have all these new MMO's trying to emulate World of Warcraft with it's single player focus and they're all failing, most of them don't even get near half the subscribers that EverQuest used to have. So no, they're not successful in the slightest compared to the older games. Haven't you checked the charts before spewing your nonsense?
http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
There's EverQuest at 550,000, and the highest population new solo-friendly game is Lord of the Rings Online, which managed a high of 200,000. And look, another group friendly game, Final Fantasy, up there at 500,000, highest was 650,000.
I'm not sure what other new solo friendly games you mean, but I'm sure that the most successful to date has been Lord of the Rings Online, and look where that is. All your fancy developers have to do to find what people want out of an MMO is to look at population charts. But oh no, they see WoW up there at 10 million and they try their best to get up there with them, but all they get is a big fail.
Well, that's specious reasoning.
These games are failing because they are buggy, they don't seem to deliver what players are expecting and they don't seem to have what players feel is compelling gameplay.
Whether or not they are solo friendly or not has nothing to do with it.
Lord of the Rings Online has other issue over it being solo friendly or not. It was far more group friendly at the start with many quests that were fellowship quests but people were passing on them. Including the book quests.
Now granted, in my opinion, they don't do group quests well because they are stuck in along the quest chain every few quests. That is NOT the way to do group content.
Group content needs to start with a group and end with a group. Otherwise you get people shouting for one quest in the chaing, they do the group and it's "c'ya later".
And again, wow is very solo oritented and it does fine with subs.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
....they don't seem to deliver what players are expecting and they don't seem to have what players feel is compelling gameplay.
Which is my point.
Whether or not they are solo friendly or not has nothing to do with it.
I think you'll find it is. Fantasy RPG's - hell, most RPG's - have always had limited interest. The people interested in RPG's tend to be the ones who have a roleplay background and thus are looking for group friendly games. Warcraft was never an RPG and became an MMO, so those single player gamers jumped onboard to find out what it was all about. Hence the massive subscriber base.
That's why MMOs, no matter what letters they have tacked on the end, are not and never have been real roleplaying games in the sense that tabletop games are. In fact, I'd point out that there has never been a real computer RPG. Square-Enix co-opted the name for their Final Fantasy games and it stuck, but you really don't have the freedom in any computer RPG that you do in a tabletop game because all of your possible actions are, by definition, pre-programmed. If you want to go left but the game wants you to go right, you go right. There is no option for going left. Games like Final Fantasy, especially after 5 or 6, did little more than drag you by the nose through an overblown story whether you wanted to go or not. You're no more playing a character in computer RPGs than you're roleplaying Master Chief when playing Halo.
Frankly, the vast majority of people who are currently playing WoW have never heard of Warcraft and have no idea that it even exists outside of the game. It wasn't the mythology of the Warcraft property that drew players, it was the MMO that appealed to a wide range of people who were looking for something to do with their fancy new broadband connection. It was in the right place at the right time and did the right things to become a wild success. Had it come along a year or two earlier or a year or two later and probably it wouldn't have ever taken off like it did.
You're desperately looking for something you can blame WoW's success on, but in reality, it was in the right place at the right time and it did what the people playing wanted it to do. It is successful because it appeals to the widest audience.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I agree with what you said there at the end. WoW was a turning point in online gaming, hell it was a turning point in the game industry as a whole. People had been playing the same types of games for a long time (EQ, DAoC, UO...etc) and WoW gave them something different. Like it or not WoW (regardless of why they began playing it) took a new spin on the MMO and gave new players and old players something different to play for a while.
Now here is where I find the fault in this arguement that has spanned on for pages and pages. People are arguing about which is better, group play or solo play. The fact of the matter is, that there will always be a crowd for both types of games. We've come to far at this point to go back to the days of EQ and all those other games, games that I personally like a lot. Instead of fighting over which is better, and continuing this arguement for ages, why don't we combine ideas and come up with a game that both types of players can enjoy. Is it really as far-fetched as you think? If WoW didn't do both groups of players right then why don't we come up with a solution to the problem rather than bickering over which is better. That would be a much more profitable idea for devs rather than one group pitching a rather one sided idea. If we can't settle on this than we should just agree to disagee...it seems like a simple solution to the problem, but it really is the only logical one.
I agree with you, the idea that one playstyle is better than the other is ludicrous. It's an entirely subjective determination. Some people like one. Some people like the other. Some like both, some like neither. It's all a matter of opinion, none is objectively better than any other option. That's why I keep pointing out, especially for those who are only too happy to explain "what MMOs are" that they're full of shit. They have an opinion, nothing more. That doesn't qualify them to tell everyone else how MMOs are supposed to be.
The real issue here though is that many on the pro-grouping side aren't arguing for a game where they can group, they're arguing for a game where *EVERYONE* is *FORCED* to group. They don't want a game where everyone can choose what they want to do, they want to eliminate soloing as an alternative and won't be happy until that happens. They think they are entitled to such a game, just because they want one. I keep pointing out that when you have a minority playstyle, nobody is going to cater to you because you don't represent a large enough financial sector to make such a game fiscally worthwhile. Pro-groupers need to demonstrate that they are a financial force to be reckoned with but nobody ever wants to do any work, they just want to sit back and demand their "rights" and unfortunately, those "rights" are at odds with the current MMO marketplace. I've got no problem if they can convince a developer that it's a good idea to make a group-centric game, but sitting around on a forum whining about it is not going to accomplish that goal.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
The thing with solo vs group based games is that in a group based game, there is always still solo content regardless. Soloers can usually still enjoy a group based game other then the fact they have to choose single spawns, the fights take 5x as long since there 1 player instead of 6 fighting it, and most of the named mobs who drop loot are in deep dungeons surrounded by multiple spawns.
On the other hand, in a solo based game, the groupers are not awarded that same courtesey. We would find all the games content trivial when running with full groups of experienced players. If all the content was soloable, then there would be very little incentive to ever group up. There HAS to be a strong incentive or people will completely skip it.
I will use Aion as an example, since WoW is done to death. In Aion, some quests and areas were obviously group based areas. The mobs were very tough and there was multiples at a time. We could even say there was a fair mix of group and solo based content. But, what happened was, that since it was possible to solo to max level, that is all most people did. They just found a spot and soloed all day long, completely ignoring any other players, and just mindlessly hacked away until level 50. I made it to level 43 before I quit, and there was absolutely no reason to even group unless you wanted to. Which most people didn't because it would "take away from their exp" and they wouldnt get all the "phat lewts". The ONLY time people group, was to do a instance for a quest. They would all rush through it without talking at all, and then instantly disband once their quest was done. This is horrible from a community stand point, and is proof enough that sadly unless grouping yeilds both better loot and experience rates, then people will never do it unless they need to.
A group based game without quest based leveling (quests for items only), without items dropping off every single mob in the game (only from named and rare spawns), and with one difficulty for mobs (no easy mode and elite mobs) - it would create an atmosphere where people would WANT to group, instead of feeling forced to. This is why EQ was so loved. It allowed you to solo to your hearts content, and some classes were even more efficient at soloing then some groups in certain situations, but it was far from the norm. Usually solo exp was painfully slow compared to group, and you didn't have a chance at the good item drops (could still work on parts of quests that can be done solo) for example soloing the courtyard of a castle instead of getting a group and going deep into the throne room. People NEED the ability to solo when they do not have hours to log in, or if they cannot find a group, but it should be much, much worse then being in a group. Soloing should only be for a temporary amount of time, and you should always be trying to find a group instead of soloing when you have the time to.
I enjoy soloing, and I enjoy grouping. I enjoy grouping FAR more then soloing, but I understand that soloing has its place because we aren't all thirteen years old with no job any more. The game designers just need to realize that they havent been making the game difficult enough as to make people want to group in order to lessen the risk of dying. They also havent been making the difference between solo exp and group exp large enough to make someone always want to find a group if possible in order to reap better benefits and rewards.
I have faith that one day a game will come for us who want a tight knit community who remembers eachothers names for years to come. Always wanting to group with certain people because of how well you all played together and knowing you can trust them to keep your group alive when maximizing risk in order to get better rewards. But, in order to do that, there has to be a substantial risk, eg. death penalty, corpse where you died, to make people think twice about going deep into that dungeon with a sub-par group of people. It would force players to become better at playing their class. It would make them play their actual roles, instead of someone trying to tank as a rogue, or melee as a wizard. There has to be danger and dependency on others immensely. Thats what creates an amazing community of friends, of heroes.
And lastly, we all know how much fun the trading system was before auction houses and bazaars. Bring back the haggling, the trading, the bartering, and all the things that we could do when it was a player driven market in a player designated place. It just made everything feel so alive. The world was really a world.
That is what I miss. The world being an actual world, instead of just a game.
The above post has it quite well. No matter what, you can't do a game where everyone is grouping all the time. At some point, there's just not gonna be anyone around you want to play with. It happens. So, no matter what, a game needs good solo content. On the flip side, if everything is solo friendly... well... why make it a multiplayer game at all? Just throwing more people at stuff that only takes one person isn't group content. It's just smushing easy stuff. Anyone who says people should all be grouping all the time... that's stupid. But anyone who wants to solo all the time should find a new genre. That's not what MMOs are about. That's single player games. MMOs are about people playing together. Anything else is just silly.
Important facts:
1. Free to Play games are poorly made.
2. Casuals are not all idiots, but idiots call themselves casuals.
3. Great solo and group content are not mutually exclusive, but they suffer when one is shoved into the mold of the other. The same is true of PvP and PvE.
4. Community is more important than you think.
I more enjoy playing against other people then with, unless Im playing with people I know in RL. I dont play MMOs to socialize, I play for better competition then killing mindless NPCs.
Wow actualy did it right, they had alot of meaningfull group content and tons of solo content, im a player that highly favor group play and i need more then just grouping i want coopration in groups. But i also have times when i just want to solo some.
When you can level at a resonable pace in group play only(without goeing mad from the same content over and over) then you already have made a ok mmo, but that aint enuff you need a filler and i cant come up with a better filler then questing since you dont need to comitt hours for it, and haveing a few quest here and there aint good enuff you realy need to be able to lvl to maks lvl on both since you never know witch lvl u only have a few hour.
Wow has completly changed and i do not think its a good group gameplay anymore but rather a great game for mmo beginners but a few years back it had great teamplay. And was among the top games in my book even after i quit i always held it in high regards.
After seeing MMO after MMO crash and burn its time to relise that questing aint the holy grail of MMO but everyone is so stuck on that is what made WoW so great while in truth it aint, wow managed to make an awsome and challenging group gameplay but at the same time made an awsome filler.
Developers can keep to this quest based games they are makeing with VERY little teamplay and see theyr games crash time after time. Even the people that favor questing i belive stil likes to teamup now and then, just as group ppl likes to solo now and then.
Then the last year have been great for you, so MANY pvp games atm.
Double post
actually right now im not playing an mmo. im going to stay off them until old republic. in old republic i might even enjoy the pve.
I don't understand people who log into online gameworlds just to solo it.
Guess they are to lazy to interact....and the game engine is perhaps not helping them to co-operate...
I know in WoW you're kind of supposed to be soloing...at least to begin with...and this is what I don't get at all. Well it seems to be a popular game so guess it is working...
Buy Neverwinter Nights 1 here! | Unofficial NWN1 homepage | NWN1 guild on X-Fire
Luckily, your understanding or permission is not required. Get over yourself.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I absolutely understand him in terms of not understanding why people log into a massivle, constant gameworld and want to solo through the game. If I want to play on my own I play singleplayer games because they are much more fun to me than playing MMORPGs without grouping. I just don't get and have no idea why doing kill-/fedexquests or grinding mobs with a bad AI at a static spawn on your own is any fun.
Could anyone explain that to me?
Ever had that "i want to be alone" feeling, where you dont want to deal with other people? I have, admittedly rarely, felt like this but i also didnt want to be so alone there was no one around me. SO some soloable content, at all levels, is in my view a good thing, but to have the whole of a game soloable isn't good for the game, and those that want everything to be soloable would be better off, for everyone, playing offline.
F2P/P2P excellent thread.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/282517/F2P-An-Engineers-perspective.html
Unfortunately, single-player games don't last very long. A week or two at best and they're gone. Trust me, I've spent 6-months doing little more than playing single-player games and I'm out. So you go with the next best alternative, an MMO, where the world is much larger, there is much more to do and they are constantly updating the content.
Personally, I don't understand why anyone would want to play with the whining, egocentric, gear-whore communities that exist in most MMOs. Why would I want to group with people who don't share my goals? Why would I want to group with people who only care about powerleveling as fast as they can? No thanks. You play your way, I'll play mine.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None