Aoelis1973, as far as I understand, the buzz is about game design, what sort or feedback for game developers we can provide, what is an “ideal” MMO: exclusively group orientated or with solo options. I cannot agree with you that in RL a group is always more efficient than an individual or equivalent sum of individuals. I have eyewitnessed that disorganized group was less efficient than one worker, one mistake of one group member can easily zero efforts of a whole team. In my RL occupation Europeans (I worked in many different countries) are usually working as team, in NA one man – one project. I tried once to transfer my European background in US, this ended in a total mess. You cannot adopt even professionals to work in a team in one day. A group should be carefully trained for a long period, people should have specific mentality, etc.
“Shouldn’t this be a discussion about the effectiveness of grouping vs. soloing content to obtain a goal?”
And what goal is? Enjoy game play? Beat a certain boss?
Effectiveness. Gaming is not only about effectiveness, but about fun, and mainly about fun IMHO. But under fun, people understand very different things. How to create an efficient group is another story.
No where in his post did he say a group was more efficient than 1 worker. He said "we see this in every day life , a group taking on a goal's that could not possibly be achieved by a single person"
...Unless you were reading a different post, but you didnt use quotes so I am ssuming.
Of cause a group is usually more efficient than one person. Who argues that certain work can be done only by many people, a group (e.g. killing a game boss). I interpreted that so to say in a more general way. My bad. You are right, I was not that precise, sorry. I wanted to say that quality of a group is important, and a group might fail where one person might be successful. Group is not a panacea.
Your right about the social dynamics of a group and how much a group can achieve is based on how a group organizes itself in order to achieve a goal. The same social dynamics are at play when forming groups within games, often I have experience more group failures because of individuals not understand the point of working together as a group.
Your comparison between Europeans vs. North American is a good analogy from RL to game play that play styles are inherently culture base and often effectives how we socialize in game and in real life. Seriously, how effective is grouping vs. soloing content if you have a good understanding of your character class, I think the same argument can apply to how productive are online chat programs at work for work related tasks?
I do think there is enough evidence to support that developers lean toward one playing style vs. another, because we are dealing with one’s own personal preference in game play. In addition to keeping the dynamics the same in a real world application, having group content really requires an effort to organize, commit to a specific task and work (by knowing your class well enough to play it) to achieve an outcome. Soloing content is often drama free in my own personal experience.
The bias of current MMOGs is obvious; there is no MMOG availabe dedicated to solo/casual play - meaning that there are no unique, superior rewards available only to groups and raiding guilds. Also, the almost absolute lack of true and complete offline character advancement (which should always have been an option, considering that everyone pays the same amount) demonstrates that current developers cannot even comprehend the idea that gearing the game in favor of powergamers might not be a good idea; explicity requiring those who wish to excel to abandon their outside life and dedicate themselves to a video game is an invitation for trouble and abuse.
Oh no I understand that, the problem is it doesn't change that it is that simple. Forced grouping games tend to have forums filled with complaints about lack of players to group with as well as complaints about lfg for hours lol. Weather they wish to accept it or not is irrelevant, it's just the way it is. Even FFXI had to become more solo friendly to survive. It's just how it is lol.
They can be stuborn and continue to complain about people not playing their game or they can accept the facts, either way it simply won't change things. It is what it is lol.
One of the big reasons that these rabid pro-groupers want to force everyone else to group is that they think if everyone is grouping, they'll be able to get fast and easy groups any time they want them. Ultimately, it's not about grouping being somehow better, or MMOs being "about" grouping, it's a self-centered attempt to get their particular playstyle forced on everyone else so that they can personally benefit.
I do not have real statistic but from my experience a MMO group indeed has preprogrammed benefits: some areas that have unique rewards are available only for a group (e.g.WoW, RB, Aika), some story-line quests on the corresponding level can be completed only in a group (e.g.Aion, SUN).
“Self-organizing groups”. I think that’s a rare event in RL and in the chaos of MMOs the probability of efficient self-organization is nearly 0. My RL background (military, industry) points into direction of “forced” (predetermined) grouping. Unfortunately, there are no mechanisms for that in present MMOs. Everybody, developers and players are talking a lot about grouping but, unfortunately, I observe no attempts to bring any organization in the process of group formation, help players. Group play could be also created in a more advanced form e.g. elected by the program (just a player with the highest lvl) or self-declared group leader should personally receive some serious rewards when his/her group wins and special “punishment” when it looses.
Cephus404, to my great regret I have to agree you, that’s exactly what I am observing too often, but let’s talk about a “good”, idealized group.
The bias of current MMOGs is obvious; there is no MMOG availabe dedicated to solo/casual play - meaning that there are no unique, superior rewards available only to groups and raiding guilds. Also, the almost absolute lack of true and complete offline character advancement (which should always have been an option, considering that everyone pays the same amount) demonstrates that current developers cannot even comprehend the idea that gearing the game in favor of powergamers might not be a good idea; explicity requiring those who wish to excel to abandon their outside life and dedicate themselves to a video game is an invitation for trouble and abuse.
I think that is an interesting assumption that, “ the bias of current MMOs is obvious; there is no MMO available dedicated solo/causal play” it helps to site where you have encountered this bias to help others understand where this idea has sprung up over the past several years. Has an avid game player with many MMOs in which I currently play or have played in the past I’ve not seen this.
I disagree with the idea of having a “complete offline character advancement” seems a little far fetch for a MMO concept, in my opinion only, what part of massive multiplayer online game satisfies “[a] complete offline character advancement [concept]” would defeat the purpose of an MMO.
I feel that we should separate power-gamers from “current developers [thou... I image many are]” insights to design and development of game content. Power-gamers concept is no different than selecting a playing style as in grouping or soloing.
The preference to be a power-game, like grouping or soloing is an active conscience choice an individual makes to play a game, so I feel the premise to say that “current developers gear in favor of [one group of another] is not a true statement, based on the idea in which players have a choice [free will] to choose how a person wishes to a game; how much time one wishes to devote to their own character development ,are all personal [free will] preferences that an individual can actively choose to fit into the gaming world.
“explicity requiring those who wish to excel to abandon their outside life and dedicate themselves to a video game is an invitation for trouble and abuse.” ..This is not an accuracy statement to say, because no MMO makes this requirement of players in F2F or P2P.
These requirements are imposed by leaders of organizations found in games, which in turn become imposed requirements to be an active participating member of a group or society in that same game. These requirements have never been expressed or written as part of subscripting to a game or to any EULA we agree too.
Once again, “explicit” requirements only becomes the fault of the individual player, not because of developers or grouping or solo content; one has to actively make a personal choice to “excel [in every life [personal choice, hopefully the right choice]”, “abandon their outside life[ personal choice]”,”[dedicated themselves, once again hopefully to a good purpose]”
Oh no I understand that, the problem is it doesn't change that it is that simple. Forced grouping games tend to have forums filled with complaints about lack of players to group with as well as complaints about lfg for hours lol. Weather they wish to accept it or not is irrelevant, it's just the way it is. Even FFXI had to become more solo friendly to survive. It's just how it is lol.
They can be stuborn and continue to complain about people not playing their game or they can accept the facts, either way it simply won't change things. It is what it is lol.
One of the big reasons that these rabid pro-groupers want to force everyone else to group is that they think if everyone is grouping, they'll be able to get fast and easy groups any time they want them. Ultimately, it's not about grouping being somehow better, or MMOs being "about" grouping, it's a self-centered attempt to get their particular playstyle forced on everyone else so that they can personally benefit.
Cephus404,
I do agree with on [it’s not about grouping being somehow better] I think one can reasonable argue that depending on the quest and the requirements needed to make complete the quest a group might be a more appropriate solution.
I have to disagree, that [“or MMO being “about” grouping”] to a certain degree in that the idea of an MMO has always been about socializing. We would not be having this discussion if we were all playing King’s Quest I and discussing that game developer [Sierra] favors one play style or another.
MMOs offer players the ability to socialize in groups. The choice to be social or anti-social is an individual’s choice in how the player wishes to express themselves in a gaming universe.
Oh no I understand that, the problem is it doesn't change that it is that simple. Forced grouping games tend to have forums filled with complaints about lack of players to group with as well as complaints about lfg for hours lol. Weather they wish to accept it or not is irrelevant, it's just the way it is. Even FFXI had to become more solo friendly to survive. It's just how it is lol.
They can be stuborn and continue to complain about people not playing their game or they can accept the facts, either way it simply won't change things. It is what it is lol.
One of the big reasons that these rabid pro-groupers want to force everyone else to group is that they think if everyone is grouping, they'll be able to get fast and easy groups any time they want them. Ultimately, it's not about grouping being somehow better, or MMOs being "about" grouping, it's a self-centered attempt to get their particular playstyle forced on everyone else so that they can personally benefit.
Cephus404,
I do agree with on [it’s not about grouping being somehow better] I think one can reasonable argue that depending on the quest and the requirements needed to make complete the quest a group might be a more appropriate solution.
I have to disagree, that [“or MMO being “about” grouping”] to a certain degree in that the idea of an MMO has always been about socializing. We would not be having this discussion if we were all playing King’s Quest I and discussing that game developer [Sierra] favors one play style or another.
MMOs offer players the ability to socialize in groups. The choice to be social or anti-social is an individual’s choice in how the player wishes to express themselves in a gaming universe.
You don't have to be in a group to socialize, in fact I can't remember the last time I actually socialized as a part of a group, nobody wants to talk, everyone wants to run around like spastic chihuahuas killing everything they can. The time for socializing is when you're talking to your clanmates or hanging out doing nothing, chatting with people around you. The time for socializing is not when you're out committing mass mob-murder. Most groups never say a word to each other.
Therefore, socializing and grouping are two entirely different things. Trying to tie them together is destined to fail. Grouping doesn't make a social game, nor does soloing make an anti-social game. The fact of the matter is, people can play how they want and whether or not they socialize, no matter what the "standard" was a decade ago, that has nothing to do with what MMOs of today actually are.
I think that is an interesting assumption that, “ the bias of current MMOs is obvious; there is no MMO available dedicated solo/causal play” it helps to site where you have encountered this bias to help others understand where this idea has sprung up over the past several years. Has an avid game player with many MMOs in which I currently play or have played in the past I’ve not seen this.
I disagree with the idea of having a “complete offline character advancement” seems a little far fetch for a MMO concept, in my opinion only, what part of massive multiplayer online game satisfies “[a] complete offline character advancement [concept]” would defeat the purpose of an MMO.
I feel that we should separate power-gamers from “current developers [thou... I image many are]” insights to design and development of game content. Power-gamers concept is no different than selecting a playing style as in grouping or soloing.
The preference to be a power-game, like grouping or soloing is an active conscience choice an individual makes to play a game, so I feel the premise to say that “current developers gear in favor of [one group of another] is not a true statement, based on the idea in which players have a choice [free will] to choose how a person wishes to a game; how much time one wishes to devote to their own character development ,are all personal [free will] preferences that an individual can actively choose to fit into the gaming world.
“explicity requiring those who wish to excel to abandon their outside life and dedicate themselves to a video game is an invitation for trouble and abuse.” ..This is not an accuracy statement to say, because no MMO makes this requirement of players in F2F or P2P.
These requirements are imposed by leaders of organizations found in games, which in turn become imposed requirements to be an active participating member of a group or society in that same game. These requirements have never been expressed or written as part of subscripting to a game or to any EULA we agree too.
Once again, “explicit” requirements only becomes the fault of the individual player, not because of developers or grouping or solo content; one has to actively make a personal choice to “excel [in every life [personal choice, hopefully the right choice]”, “abandon their outside life[ personal choice]”,”[dedicated themselves, once again hopefully to a good purpose]”
The bias is evident in that the games are structured around the concept that powergamers get all the best gearm the best rewards and advance faster than everyone else, even though they don't pay more and are less profitable because they consume more bandwidth. Only powergamers who are also willing to group and raid can achieve the best game content; this means that the games are intrinsically structured with bias towards raiding powergamers.
That the game designers don't come out and tell the player base that "the top end content of the game cannot be achieved unless one is a raiding powergamer" is basically, IMO, a deceit, because that is the way the games are generated. Just because there is no overt policy is irrelevent when one programs the game so that no other methodology can achieve top content.
The developers have indeed explicitly stated, via how the purposefully designed the process, goals, and structure of the game, that only those who are raiding powergamers will be able to achieve the top available content. The concept that there are "other things to do" or that the player can "imagine their own goals" in the game is a deceit with everything from the physical layout of the game world, to the organization of the class, skill and talent sets, and the order and power of gear, mirrors the linear progression from A to Z, Z being a raiding powergamer.
Virtually every MMOG on the market follows this concept; design around the endgame participation of raiding powergamers, and try to throw some stuff in to ameliorate everyone else's sense of dissatisfaction, then tell them the game is what they make of it. Sorry, no sale. Why isn't there an MMOG that is entirely centered around the solo advancement and reward mechanism? Why not a system of "okay, groups can do X much sooner than a soloer, but the soloer will always be able to achieve X at some point"?
The bias is clearly showing because, ever since Everquest, grouping has always been the only way to achieve top game content in MMOGs.
Oh no I understand that, the problem is it doesn't change that it is that simple. Forced grouping games tend to have forums filled with complaints about lack of players to group with as well as complaints about lfg for hours lol. Weather they wish to accept it or not is irrelevant, it's just the way it is. Even FFXI had to become more solo friendly to survive. It's just how it is lol.
They can be stuborn and continue to complain about people not playing their game or they can accept the facts, either way it simply won't change things. It is what it is lol.
One of the big reasons that these rabid pro-groupers want to force everyone else to group is that they think if everyone is grouping, they'll be able to get fast and easy groups any time they want them. Ultimately, it's not about grouping being somehow better, or MMOs being "about" grouping, it's a self-centered attempt to get their particular playstyle forced on everyone else so that they can personally benefit.
Cephus404,
I do agree with on [it’s not about grouping being somehow better] I think one can reasonable argue that depending on the quest and the requirements needed to make complete the quest a group might be a more appropriate solution.
I have to disagree, that [“or MMO being “about” grouping”] to a certain degree in that the idea of an MMO has always been about socializing. We would not be having this discussion if we were all playing King’s Quest I and discussing that game developer [Sierra] favors one play style or another.
MMOs offer players the ability to socialize in groups. The choice to be social or anti-social is an individual’s choice in how the player wishes to express themselves in a gaming universe.
You don't have to be in a group to socialize, in fact I can't remember the last time I actually socialized as a part of a group, nobody wants to talk, everyone wants to run around like spastic chihuahuas killing everything they can. The time for socializing is when you're talking to your clanmates or hanging out doing nothing, chatting with people around you. The time for socializing is not when you're out committing mass mob-murder. Most groups never say a word to each other.
Therefore, socializing and grouping are two entirely different things. Trying to tie them together is destined to fail. Grouping doesn't make a social game, nor does soloing make an anti-social game. The fact of the matter is, people can play how they want and whether or not they socialize, no matter what the "standard" was a decade ago, that has nothing to do with what MMOs of today actually are.
100% agree. Logic dictates therefore that any game which can offer entertainment for multiple playstyles has a higher degree of probability that it will be viewed as more popular and successful than one that doesnt.
The bias is evident in that the games are structured around the concept that powergamers get all the best gearm the best rewards and advance faster than everyone else, even though they don't pay more and are less profitable because they consume more bandwidth. Only powergamers who are also willing to group and raid can achieve the best game content; this means that the games are intrinsically structured with bias towards raiding powergamers.
That the game designers don't come out and tell the player base that "the top end content of the game cannot be achieved unless one is a raiding powergamer" is basically, IMO, a deceit, because that is the way the games are generated. Just because there is no overt policy is irrelevent when one programs the game so that no other methodology can achieve top content.
Rpg have always been about the powergamers. I remember spending 200 hours in FFX to get the best weapons and the max stats. What do you suggest, turning these games more alla modern warfare where you that spent 10 hours is not worse than that who spent 100 hours? Maybe it's a good idea but we would lose that progress feeling we always had in our rpgs.
As for team players getting more than solo players. That's a common sense. A mmorpg simulates the real world and like in rl you can't do shit alone. Humans are a social specie and that has always awarded us. What can an ant do alone anyway.
The bias is evident in that the games are structured around the concept that powergamers get all the best gearm the best rewards and advance faster than everyone else, even though they don't pay more and are less profitable because they consume more bandwidth. Only powergamers who are also willing to group and raid can achieve the best game content; this means that the games are intrinsically structured with bias towards raiding powergamers.
That the game designers don't come out and tell the player base that "the top end content of the game cannot be achieved unless one is a raiding powergamer" is basically, IMO, a deceit, because that is the way the games are generated. Just because there is no overt policy is irrelevent when one programs the game so that no other methodology can achieve top content.
Rpg have always been about the powergamers. I remember spending 200 hours in FFX to get the best weapons and the max stats. What do you suggest, turning these games more alla modern warfare where you that spent 10 hours is not worse than that who spent 100 hours? Maybe it's a good idea but we would lose that progress feeling we always had in our rpgs.
As for team players getting more than solo players. That's a common sense. A mmorpg simulates the real world and like in rl you can't do shit alone. Humans are a social specie and that has always awarded us. What can an ant do alone anyway.
It’s a matter of prospective I guess if by Top end content you mean items, monies, etc then I would say so long as the game does not have crafting this is a fair advantage, to me the solo vs grouping argument fails when you have the very same top end content that competes with crafting.
When you have as part of game play the ability to create goods and items then top end content should never be (finished products) loot drops from NPC’s.
See to me this is really where the problem lies in solo vs. group, because a couple things then happens you are negating what a single player is able to do and progress because they cannot attain the goal or items unless involved in a group on top end content.
Unfortunately where ever you have a MMO it really can’t cater to both game styles many do try, some are better at it than others, it’s when you have you versus the game as opposed to you vs. another player, having both in the same game will ultimately create an imbalance, I have not seen a single game where both game styles are involved with out just that some form of imbalance.
Okay...I feel MMOs should not be "Group Only", and definitely not "Solo Only" games...
There should be SOME Solo quests, but definitely MORE Group quests...
The reason I say this is because MMOs are meant to be played socially. Player interaction includes grouping...Thats why they are MMOs and not single player RPGs...
Now, I'm not bashing the soloist, but some recent MMOs are trying too much to cater to the solo player...I do not agree with this...
Like I said, have some solo quests, actually, a healthy supply of solo quests, but not so much as to pull people away from grouping...
Grouping should be the main focus of MMOs, and soloing should be next...
It always bother me. I mean people speaking about multiplayer, as if it was TEAM multiplayer. Multiplayer game = a game where multiple players are involved. No mention of teams.
Imagine a battlefield with 20 players in pvp. I think it would be majestic. The chaos and the cruelty I could put at use, splendid!
Can't do that if there are teams. Unless you stay in groups (I hate relying on others), you will be outnumbered in a game where party is forced ( from personnal experience, I refer to WoW mostly). No way you can solo your way up.
The bias is evident in that the games are structured around the concept that powergamers get all the best gearm the best rewards and advance faster than everyone else, even though they don't pay more and are less profitable because they consume more bandwidth. Only powergamers who are also willing to group and raid can achieve the best game content; this means that the games are intrinsically structured with bias towards raiding powergamers.
That the game designers don't come out and tell the player base that "the top end content of the game cannot be achieved unless one is a raiding powergamer" is basically, IMO, a deceit, because that is the way the games are generated. Just because there is no overt policy is irrelevent when one programs the game so that no other methodology can achieve top content.
Rpg have always been about the powergamers. I remember spending 200 hours in FFX to get the best weapons and the max stats. What do you suggest, turning these games more alla modern warfare where you that spent 10 hours is not worse than that who spent 100 hours? Maybe it's a good idea but we would lose that progress feeling we always had in our rpgs.
As for team players getting more than solo players. That's a common sense. A mmorpg simulates the real world and like in rl you can't do shit alone. Humans are a social specie and that has always awarded us. What can an ant do alone anyway.
It’s a matter of prospective I guess if by Top end content you mean items, monies, etc then I would say so long as the game does not have crafting this is a fair advantage, to me the solo vs grouping argument fails when you have the very same top end content that competes with crafting.
When you have as part of game play the ability to create goods and items then top end content should never be (finished products) loot drops from NPC’s.
See to me this is really where the problem lies in solo vs. group, because a couple things then happens you are negating what a single player is able to do and progress because they cannot attain the goal or items unless involved in a group on top end content.
Unfortunately where ever you have a MMO it really can’t cater to both game styles many do try, some are better at it than others, it’s when you have you versus the game as opposed to you vs. another player, having both in the same game will ultimately create an imbalance, I have not seen a single game where both game styles are involved with out just that some form of imbalance.
I was a hardcore gamer, when I played wow. I went to the raids everyday I could (4-6 a week). I was one of the best in my guild.
I didn't see end game content.
Horrible droprates and poor server community made it that way.
If I have to hook up with the ''good'' guilds to reach end game content, it's a fail.
I remember doing instances for months to get a new weapon. Another player needed the item more than me when it did drop, but they gave me the choice, since she wasn't a casual player. I let her have it.
Moral : In order to reach end game content in MMORPG, you need to be a greedy bastard.
You don't have to be in a group to socialize, in fact I can't remember the last time I actually socialized as a part of a group, nobody wants to talk, everyone wants to run around like spastic chihuahuas killing everything they can. The time for socializing is when you're talking to your clanmates or hanging out doing nothing, chatting with people around you. The time for socializing is not when you're out committing mass mob-murder. Most groups never say a word to each other.
This is a problem with modern MMO's. New MMO's are so fast paced you don't have time to interact or type out messages to each other, because you're either pressing buttons repeatedly or you're too busy running from Quest Location A to Quest Location B. People may hate the old EQ camping, but it certainly slowed things down and allowed people to talk to each other. Also the combat in EQ was a lot slower without all the frenetic button mashing, so you could type messages even during combat.
You don't have to be in a group to socialize, in fact I can't remember the last time I actually socialized as a part of a group, nobody wants to talk, everyone wants to run around like spastic chihuahuas killing everything they can. The time for socializing is when you're talking to your clanmates or hanging out doing nothing, chatting with people around you. The time for socializing is not when you're out committing mass mob-murder. Most groups never say a word to each other.
This is a problem with modern MMO's. New MMO's are so fast paced you don't have time to interact or type out messages to each other, because you're either pressing buttons repeatedly or you're too busy running from Quest Location A to Quest Location B. People may hate the old EQ camping, but it certainly slowed things down and allowed people to talk to each other. Also the combat in EQ was a lot slower without all the frenetic button mashing, so you could type messages even during combat.
It has nothing to do with how "fast-paced" an MMO is when every player has to make a choice of what to do with their online time: advance their character, or socialize. You cannot do do both in virtually any MMOG out today. This is one of the main reasons roleplaying has disappeared from the MMO landscape; every word you spell out, and every bow and curtsy and drunken gnome run through Highpass is time not spent advancing one's character (or any of their characters).
The less time you have to devote to being online, the more precious your online time is in terms of character advancement. 24/7 character advancement, whether online or off, and solo-centric content (groups can get things faster but not exclusively), would dramatically change the social nature of MMOs and facilitate socialization by choiceand enjoyment, not by forced game mechanics.
I don't think grouping should be shoved on to people who do not wish to group. They are the kind of people who are unhappy to be there anyways. I also don't see why groupers can't have an mmo where their playstyle is the perferred method of advancement. All MMOs don't need to be the same way. Even the hardcore pvp crowd gets a bone thrown their way once in a while.
It has nothing to do with how "fast-paced" an MMO is when every player has to make a choice of what to do with their online time: advance their character, or socialize. You cannot do do both in virtually any MMOG out today.
So you're agreeing with me that Modern MMO's are too fast paced to do both. In EverQuest I was advancing my character while socializing, that was one of the best things about it. It wasn't a case of one or the other, they were both mixed because of the games pace and needed co-operation.
The less time you have to devote to being online, the more precious your online time is in terms of character advancement. 24/7 character advancement, whether online or off, and solo-centric content (groups can get things faster but not exclusively), would dramatically change the social nature of MMOs...
Sorry for cutting you off there, but surely the only dramatic change a solo-centric game would make to socializing is to kill it stone dead? Lets take for example Lord of the Rings Online. I played that game, it was a mad dash from one quest to the next with little interaction with anyone, most of the quests I could do solo and those I couldn't was just a group up and smash affair, no need for talking.
On the flipside, I recently went back to try EverQuest again and from the start I was socializing. I was soloing but there was chat in the local area, on the global channels, and when I hit a certain level (around 30ish) I started to need groups a bit more so found some great people who seemed to be levelling at the same time as me to hang out with and aid progression for each other.
See, solo-centric means you're on your own, there aren't people to talk to unless you go out of your way to find them and, as you said, you don't want to do that because it would cut down on 'advancing your character'. Whereas a group-centric game, set to the right pace, means lots of socializing /while/ advancing your character.
I don't understand how this isn't blindingly obvious.
See, solo-centric means you're on your own, there aren't people to talk to unless you go out of your way to find them and, as you said, you don't want to do that because it would cut down on 'advancing your character'. Whereas a group-centric game, set to the right pace, means lots of socializing /while/ advancing your character.
I don't understand how this isn't blindingly obvious.
It's not obvious because it's not true. Solo-centric only means that people gorup up when they want to, and with whom they prefer, not because content forces them to group up in rag-tag makeup groups or be forced to join huge, political guilds.
The other problem with socializing is that one must choose between advancing their character and socializing - by socializing, I don't mean squeezing out a few acronym-heavy sentences in chat while one watches their mana bar rise. I mean socializing - going to bars, going on drunken gnome runs, attending social events - leisurely passing the time doing fun things with friends whenever one wishes without sacrificing character advancement. Maybe even role-play and typing whole words out.
Which is why I also advocate 24/7 character advancment in MMOGs, whther the player is online or off.
Rpg have always been about the powergamers. I remember spending 200 hours in FFX to get the best weapons and the max stats. What do you suggest, turning these games more alla modern warfare where you that spent 10 hours is not worse than that who spent 100 hours? Maybe it's a good idea but we would lose that progress feeling we always had in our rpgs.
As for team players getting more than solo players. That's a common sense. A mmorpg simulates the real world and like in rl you can't do shit alone. Humans are a social specie and that has always awarded us. What can an ant do alone anyway.
Games don't have to be like real life, or follow anyone's common sense. Games can be completely unlike real life, and developers can make up their own rules. The point to developing an MMOG is to make money, not to mimick life. If there is a market for soloers and time-starved players, there's no reason to not develop a game for them and market it to them.
MMORPG-MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER online role playing game
Everyone is familair with what it stands for, and it clearly shows that MMORPGS are supposed to be played with multiple people whether thats group/ raiding or questing the concept is still the same. Therefore solo gameplay should only be used while questing and there should be no End-game/ maximum level gear attainable unless its through PvP/ Buying.
MMORPG-MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER online role playing game
Everyone is familair with what it stands for, and it clearly shows that MMORPGS are supposed to be played with multiple people whether thats group/ raiding or questing the concept is still the same. Therefore solo gameplay should only be used while questing and there should be no End-game/ maximum level gear attainable unless its through PvP/ Buying.
Your set of "rules" is completely contrived; there is no reason why developers cannot make a massively multiplayer game that was solo-centric. There is no law, ethical obligation, or limit ot coding capacity that would prevent them from making such a game; claiming that the general title for the genre should prevent any solo-centric games from being developed and marketed is absurd. If there is money to be made, it would be ridiculous for developers to say "well, massively multiplayer implies that the game revolves around groups, so we can't make a solo-centric game".
Only one "reason" exists to make any kind of game: to make money. Right now, virtually every online game is focused on a particular model: rewarding those who spend the most time at their keyboard, and rewarding those who group and raid with unique, superior content. That model is geared towards serving the interests of the raiding/powergaming community, not casual (low-time) players and soloers.
There is no significant reason not to make an MMOG that is solo-centric, and there is a very good one to do so: money. The question is, why hasn't it been done yet?
MMORPG-MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER online role playing game
Everyone is familair with what it stands for, and it clearly shows that MMORPGS are supposed to be played with multiple people whether thats group/ raiding or questing the concept is still the same. Therefore solo gameplay should only be used while questing and there should be no End-game/ maximum level gear attainable unless its through PvP/ Buying.
Your set of "rules" is completely contrived; there is no reason why developers cannot make a massively multiplayer game that was solo-centric. There is no law, ethical obligation, or limit ot coding capacity that would prevent them from making such a game; claiming that the general title for the genre should prevent any solo-centric games from being developed and marketed is absurd. If there is money to be made, it would be ridiculous for developers to say "well, massively multiplayer implies that the game revolves around groups, so we can't make a solo-centric game".
Only one "reason" exists to make any kind of game: to make money. Right now, virtually every online game is focused on a particular model: rewarding those who spend the most time at their keyboard, and rewarding those who group and raid with unique, superior content. That model is geared towards serving the interests of the raiding/powergaming community, not casual (low-time) players and soloers.
There is no significant reason not to make an MMOG that is solo-centric, and there is a very good one to do so: money. The question is, why hasn't it been done yet?
Of course they can make a solo-centric mmo game but will it sell? Most of the peoples who play a mmo play it to interact with others, to test their skill against real peoples and to collaborate with them. That's the reason most mmo players play these games. A solo-centric mmo may be accepted by only a few of these players. So no money there.
Of course they can make a solo-centric mmo game but will it sell? Most of the peoples who play a mmo play it to interact with others, to test their skill against real peoples and to collaborate with them. That's the reason most mmo players play these games. A solo-centric mmo may be accepted by only a few of these players. So no money there.
"Interacting" is not the same as "grouping". Not everyone plays MMOGs to interact with others in the same way. When I played MMOGs, I didn't like to group or raid because I simply could not devote the necessary time and attention. I would often have to leave the keyboard and attend to other matters; also, I'm just not a good enough player to put groups of people I don't know at risk because of my inadequacies. However, I still enjoyed making friends online, interacting through chat and other social activities in the game, role-playing, helping others out when I could when I came across them, and enjoyed advancing my character in a populated, living, breathing, continuously updated world.
A solo-centric game would still have grouping and raiding, but those acitivities would not yield any exclusive, superior content. IOW, whatever a soloer can do, a group or raid can do faster and sooner, but not exclusively. So such a game doesn't prevent people from grouping up and raiding up, if "interacting with others in a group or a raid" is actually the primary purpose for their involvement in such games. A solo-centric world can still have a fully developed grouping, raiding, and guild system, and a marketplace, crafting, and all sorts of social activities that aren't built around forcing people who want to achieve top game content to change their lifestyle so they can group and raid.
I suspect that the ability to group up and raid without the capacity to achieve exclusive, superior content for doing so would quickly reveal the real motivations involved for many who make the argument you do.
The fact is, a good portion of players in current MMOGs spend almost their entire career soloing because of the very reasons I've listed above - the lack of available time, attention or skill necessary to be a good, responsible member of a party or a raid. It is unreasonable to believe that there isn't a market for a game that is specifically designed for them, because as it is now there are many, many players who must resign themselves to never being more than 2nd or 3rd rate characters in games designed to leave them behind simply because, for whatever reasons, they cannot or will not group up and raid.
There is more - or, at least, can be much more - to "multiplayer", "interacting", and "socialziing" than just grouping up and raiding in an online community. Unfortunately, past and current developers seem to think that community can only be a forced commodity required by game mechanics, because their game model dictates a limit to content and character advancment unless you "interact" with others the way they demand that you do.
Which creates what we see now in much of the MMOG world: forced, contrived and hollow communities organized around psychologies that find nothing problematical about requiring others in their "communities" to abandon their outside lives and devote themselves to the game. It's a forced community that celebrates forcing others to conform, min-max, and play efficiently and obsessively.
Which is another reason a lot of us prefer soloing; we don't really want to get in a group or a guild and then get hammered about our talent or skill choices, or get ripped because we don't fulfill our "role" with maximum efficiency. We don't really get along with gulid leaders that think it's perfectly okay and normal to spend 10 hrs a day in-game. We enjoy a more laid-back experience.
I just think a game developed around and for such a playstlye could certainly be viable in the market, because we all know a considerable number of players like that inhabit other games. Why wouldn't they jump ship to a game where their playstyle can achieve - eventually - anything in the game?
Comments
No where in his post did he say a group was more efficient than 1 worker. He said "we see this in every day life , a group taking on a goal's that could not possibly be achieved by a single person"
...Unless you were reading a different post, but you didnt use quotes so I am ssuming.
Of cause a group is usually more efficient than one person. Who argues that certain work can be done only by many people, a group (e.g. killing a game boss). I interpreted that so to say in a more general way. My bad. You are right, I was not that precise, sorry. I wanted to say that quality of a group is important, and a group might fail where one person might be successful. Group is not a panacea.
Your right about the social dynamics of a group and how much a group can achieve is based on how a group organizes itself in order to achieve a goal. The same social dynamics are at play when forming groups within games, often I have experience more group failures because of individuals not understand the point of working together as a group.
Your comparison between Europeans vs. North American is a good analogy from RL to game play that play styles are inherently culture base and often effectives how we socialize in game and in real life. Seriously, how effective is grouping vs. soloing content if you have a good understanding of your character class, I think the same argument can apply to how productive are online chat programs at work for work related tasks?
I do think there is enough evidence to support that developers lean toward one playing style vs. another, because we are dealing with one’s own personal preference in game play. In addition to keeping the dynamics the same in a real world application, having group content really requires an effort to organize, commit to a specific task and work (by knowing your class well enough to play it) to achieve an outcome. Soloing content is often drama free in my own personal experience.
The bias of current MMOGs is obvious; there is no MMOG availabe dedicated to solo/casual play - meaning that there are no unique, superior rewards available only to groups and raiding guilds. Also, the almost absolute lack of true and complete offline character advancement (which should always have been an option, considering that everyone pays the same amount) demonstrates that current developers cannot even comprehend the idea that gearing the game in favor of powergamers might not be a good idea; explicity requiring those who wish to excel to abandon their outside life and dedicate themselves to a video game is an invitation for trouble and abuse.
One of the big reasons that these rabid pro-groupers want to force everyone else to group is that they think if everyone is grouping, they'll be able to get fast and easy groups any time they want them. Ultimately, it's not about grouping being somehow better, or MMOs being "about" grouping, it's a self-centered attempt to get their particular playstyle forced on everyone else so that they can personally benefit.
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 do not have real statistic but from my experience a MMO group indeed has preprogrammed benefits: some areas that have unique rewards are available only for a group (e.g.WoW, RB, Aika), some story-line quests on the corresponding level can be completed only in a group (e.g.Aion, SUN).
“Self-organizing groups”. I think that’s a rare event in RL and in the chaos of MMOs the probability of efficient self-organization is nearly 0. My RL background (military, industry) points into direction of “forced” (predetermined) grouping. Unfortunately, there are no mechanisms for that in present MMOs. Everybody, developers and players are talking a lot about grouping but, unfortunately, I observe no attempts to bring any organization in the process of group formation, help players. Group play could be also created in a more advanced form e.g. elected by the program (just a player with the highest lvl) or self-declared group leader should personally receive some serious rewards when his/her group wins and special “punishment” when it looses.
Cephus404, to my great regret I have to agree you, that’s exactly what I am observing too often, but let’s talk about a “good”, idealized group.
I think that is an interesting assumption that, “ the bias of current MMOs is obvious; there is no MMO available dedicated solo/causal play” it helps to site where you have encountered this bias to help others understand where this idea has sprung up over the past several years. Has an avid game player with many MMOs in which I currently play or have played in the past I’ve not seen this.
I disagree with the idea of having a “complete offline character advancement” seems a little far fetch for a MMO concept, in my opinion only, what part of massive multiplayer online game satisfies “[a] complete offline character advancement [concept]” would defeat the purpose of an MMO.
I feel that we should separate power-gamers from “current developers [thou... I image many are]” insights to design and development of game content. Power-gamers concept is no different than selecting a playing style as in grouping or soloing.
The preference to be a power-game, like grouping or soloing is an active conscience choice an individual makes to play a game, so I feel the premise to say that “current developers gear in favor of [one group of another] is not a true statement, based on the idea in which players have a choice [free will] to choose how a person wishes to a game; how much time one wishes to devote to their own character development ,are all personal [free will] preferences that an individual can actively choose to fit into the gaming world.
“explicity requiring those who wish to excel to abandon their outside life and dedicate themselves to a video game is an invitation for trouble and abuse.” ..This is not an accuracy statement to say, because no MMO makes this requirement of players in F2F or P2P.
These requirements are imposed by leaders of organizations found in games, which in turn become imposed requirements to be an active participating member of a group or society in that same game. These requirements have never been expressed or written as part of subscripting to a game or to any EULA we agree too.
Once again, “explicit” requirements only becomes the fault of the individual player, not because of developers or grouping or solo content; one has to actively make a personal choice to “excel [in every life [personal choice, hopefully the right choice]”, “abandon their outside life[ personal choice]”,”[dedicated themselves, once again hopefully to a good purpose]”
Cephus404,
I do agree with on [it’s not about grouping being somehow better] I think one can reasonable argue that depending on the quest and the requirements needed to make complete the quest a group might be a more appropriate solution.
I have to disagree, that [“or MMO being “about” grouping”] to a certain degree in that the idea of an MMO has always been about socializing. We would not be having this discussion if we were all playing King’s Quest I and discussing that game developer [Sierra] favors one play style or another.
MMOs offer players the ability to socialize in groups. The choice to be social or anti-social is an individual’s choice in how the player wishes to express themselves in a gaming universe.
You don't have to be in a group to socialize, in fact I can't remember the last time I actually socialized as a part of a group, nobody wants to talk, everyone wants to run around like spastic chihuahuas killing everything they can. The time for socializing is when you're talking to your clanmates or hanging out doing nothing, chatting with people around you. The time for socializing is not when you're out committing mass mob-murder. Most groups never say a word to each other.
Therefore, socializing and grouping are two entirely different things. Trying to tie them together is destined to fail. Grouping doesn't make a social game, nor does soloing make an anti-social game. The fact of the matter is, people can play how they want and whether or not they socialize, no matter what the "standard" was a decade ago, that has nothing to do with what MMOs of today actually are.
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 bias is evident in that the games are structured around the concept that powergamers get all the best gearm the best rewards and advance faster than everyone else, even though they don't pay more and are less profitable because they consume more bandwidth. Only powergamers who are also willing to group and raid can achieve the best game content; this means that the games are intrinsically structured with bias towards raiding powergamers.
That the game designers don't come out and tell the player base that "the top end content of the game cannot be achieved unless one is a raiding powergamer" is basically, IMO, a deceit, because that is the way the games are generated. Just because there is no overt policy is irrelevent when one programs the game so that no other methodology can achieve top content.
The developers have indeed explicitly stated, via how the purposefully designed the process, goals, and structure of the game, that only those who are raiding powergamers will be able to achieve the top available content. The concept that there are "other things to do" or that the player can "imagine their own goals" in the game is a deceit with everything from the physical layout of the game world, to the organization of the class, skill and talent sets, and the order and power of gear, mirrors the linear progression from A to Z, Z being a raiding powergamer.
Virtually every MMOG on the market follows this concept; design around the endgame participation of raiding powergamers, and try to throw some stuff in to ameliorate everyone else's sense of dissatisfaction, then tell them the game is what they make of it. Sorry, no sale. Why isn't there an MMOG that is entirely centered around the solo advancement and reward mechanism? Why not a system of "okay, groups can do X much sooner than a soloer, but the soloer will always be able to achieve X at some point"?
The bias is clearly showing because, ever since Everquest, grouping has always been the only way to achieve top game content in MMOGs.
100% agree. Logic dictates therefore that any game which can offer entertainment for multiple playstyles has a higher degree of probability that it will be viewed as more popular and successful than one that doesnt.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
Rpg have always been about the powergamers. I remember spending 200 hours in FFX to get the best weapons and the max stats. What do you suggest, turning these games more alla modern warfare where you that spent 10 hours is not worse than that who spent 100 hours? Maybe it's a good idea but we would lose that progress feeling we always had in our rpgs.
As for team players getting more than solo players. That's a common sense. A mmorpg simulates the real world and like in rl you can't do shit alone. Humans are a social specie and that has always awarded us. What can an ant do alone anyway.
It’s a matter of prospective I guess if by Top end content you mean items, monies, etc then I would say so long as the game does not have crafting this is a fair advantage, to me the solo vs grouping argument fails when you have the very same top end content that competes with crafting.
When you have as part of game play the ability to create goods and items then top end content should never be (finished products) loot drops from NPC’s.
See to me this is really where the problem lies in solo vs. group, because a couple things then happens you are negating what a single player is able to do and progress because they cannot attain the goal or items unless involved in a group on top end content.
Unfortunately where ever you have a MMO it really can’t cater to both game styles many do try, some are better at it than others, it’s when you have you versus the game as opposed to you vs. another player, having both in the same game will ultimately create an imbalance, I have not seen a single game where both game styles are involved with out just that some form of imbalance.
It always bother me. I mean people speaking about multiplayer, as if it was TEAM multiplayer. Multiplayer game = a game where multiple players are involved. No mention of teams.
Imagine a battlefield with 20 players in pvp. I think it would be majestic. The chaos and the cruelty I could put at use, splendid!
Can't do that if there are teams. Unless you stay in groups (I hate relying on others), you will be outnumbered in a game where party is forced ( from personnal experience, I refer to WoW mostly). No way you can solo your way up.
I was a hardcore gamer, when I played wow. I went to the raids everyday I could (4-6 a week). I was one of the best in my guild.
I didn't see end game content.
Horrible droprates and poor server community made it that way.
If I have to hook up with the ''good'' guilds to reach end game content, it's a fail.
I remember doing instances for months to get a new weapon. Another player needed the item more than me when it did drop, but they gave me the choice, since she wasn't a casual player. I let her have it.
Moral : In order to reach end game content in MMORPG, you need to be a greedy bastard.
Tell me how social is that.
You don't have to be in a group to socialize, in fact I can't remember the last time I actually socialized as a part of a group, nobody wants to talk, everyone wants to run around like spastic chihuahuas killing everything they can. The time for socializing is when you're talking to your clanmates or hanging out doing nothing, chatting with people around you. The time for socializing is not when you're out committing mass mob-murder. Most groups never say a word to each other.
This is a problem with modern MMO's. New MMO's are so fast paced you don't have time to interact or type out messages to each other, because you're either pressing buttons repeatedly or you're too busy running from Quest Location A to Quest Location B. People may hate the old EQ camping, but it certainly slowed things down and allowed people to talk to each other. Also the combat in EQ was a lot slower without all the frenetic button mashing, so you could type messages even during combat.
It has nothing to do with how "fast-paced" an MMO is when every player has to make a choice of what to do with their online time: advance their character, or socialize. You cannot do do both in virtually any MMOG out today. This is one of the main reasons roleplaying has disappeared from the MMO landscape; every word you spell out, and every bow and curtsy and drunken gnome run through Highpass is time not spent advancing one's character (or any of their characters).
The less time you have to devote to being online, the more precious your online time is in terms of character advancement. 24/7 character advancement, whether online or off, and solo-centric content (groups can get things faster but not exclusively), would dramatically change the social nature of MMOs and facilitate socialization by choice and enjoyment, not by forced game mechanics.
I don't think grouping should be shoved on to people who do not wish to group. They are the kind of people who are unhappy to be there anyways. I also don't see why groupers can't have an mmo where their playstyle is the perferred method of advancement. All MMOs don't need to be the same way. Even the hardcore pvp crowd gets a bone thrown their way once in a while.
It has nothing to do with how "fast-paced" an MMO is when every player has to make a choice of what to do with their online time: advance their character, or socialize. You cannot do do both in virtually any MMOG out today.
So you're agreeing with me that Modern MMO's are too fast paced to do both. In EverQuest I was advancing my character while socializing, that was one of the best things about it. It wasn't a case of one or the other, they were both mixed because of the games pace and needed co-operation.
The less time you have to devote to being online, the more precious your online time is in terms of character advancement. 24/7 character advancement, whether online or off, and solo-centric content (groups can get things faster but not exclusively), would dramatically change the social nature of MMOs...
Sorry for cutting you off there, but surely the only dramatic change a solo-centric game would make to socializing is to kill it stone dead? Lets take for example Lord of the Rings Online. I played that game, it was a mad dash from one quest to the next with little interaction with anyone, most of the quests I could do solo and those I couldn't was just a group up and smash affair, no need for talking.
On the flipside, I recently went back to try EverQuest again and from the start I was socializing. I was soloing but there was chat in the local area, on the global channels, and when I hit a certain level (around 30ish) I started to need groups a bit more so found some great people who seemed to be levelling at the same time as me to hang out with and aid progression for each other.
See, solo-centric means you're on your own, there aren't people to talk to unless you go out of your way to find them and, as you said, you don't want to do that because it would cut down on 'advancing your character'. Whereas a group-centric game, set to the right pace, means lots of socializing /while/ advancing your character.
I don't understand how this isn't blindingly obvious.
It's not obvious because it's not true. Solo-centric only means that people gorup up when they want to, and with whom they prefer, not because content forces them to group up in rag-tag makeup groups or be forced to join huge, political guilds.
The other problem with socializing is that one must choose between advancing their character and socializing - by socializing, I don't mean squeezing out a few acronym-heavy sentences in chat while one watches their mana bar rise. I mean socializing - going to bars, going on drunken gnome runs, attending social events - leisurely passing the time doing fun things with friends whenever one wishes without sacrificing character advancement. Maybe even role-play and typing whole words out.
Which is why I also advocate 24/7 character advancment in MMOGs, whther the player is online or off.
Games don't have to be like real life, or follow anyone's common sense. Games can be completely unlike real life, and developers can make up their own rules. The point to developing an MMOG is to make money, not to mimick life. If there is a market for soloers and time-starved players, there's no reason to not develop a game for them and market it to them.
MMORPG-MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER online role playing game
Everyone is familair with what it stands for, and it clearly shows that MMORPGS are supposed to be played with multiple people whether thats group/ raiding or questing the concept is still the same. Therefore solo gameplay should only be used while questing and there should be no End-game/ maximum level gear attainable unless its through PvP/ Buying.
Your set of "rules" is completely contrived; there is no reason why developers cannot make a massively multiplayer game that was solo-centric. There is no law, ethical obligation, or limit ot coding capacity that would prevent them from making such a game; claiming that the general title for the genre should prevent any solo-centric games from being developed and marketed is absurd. If there is money to be made, it would be ridiculous for developers to say "well, massively multiplayer implies that the game revolves around groups, so we can't make a solo-centric game".
Only one "reason" exists to make any kind of game: to make money. Right now, virtually every online game is focused on a particular model: rewarding those who spend the most time at their keyboard, and rewarding those who group and raid with unique, superior content. That model is geared towards serving the interests of the raiding/powergaming community, not casual (low-time) players and soloers.
There is no significant reason not to make an MMOG that is solo-centric, and there is a very good one to do so: money. The question is, why hasn't it been done yet?
Of course they can make a solo-centric mmo game but will it sell? Most of the peoples who play a mmo play it to interact with others, to test their skill against real peoples and to collaborate with them. That's the reason most mmo players play these games. A solo-centric mmo may be accepted by only a few of these players. So no money there.
"Interacting" is not the same as "grouping". Not everyone plays MMOGs to interact with others in the same way. When I played MMOGs, I didn't like to group or raid because I simply could not devote the necessary time and attention. I would often have to leave the keyboard and attend to other matters; also, I'm just not a good enough player to put groups of people I don't know at risk because of my inadequacies. However, I still enjoyed making friends online, interacting through chat and other social activities in the game, role-playing, helping others out when I could when I came across them, and enjoyed advancing my character in a populated, living, breathing, continuously updated world.
A solo-centric game would still have grouping and raiding, but those acitivities would not yield any exclusive, superior content. IOW, whatever a soloer can do, a group or raid can do faster and sooner, but not exclusively. So such a game doesn't prevent people from grouping up and raiding up, if "interacting with others in a group or a raid" is actually the primary purpose for their involvement in such games. A solo-centric world can still have a fully developed grouping, raiding, and guild system, and a marketplace, crafting, and all sorts of social activities that aren't built around forcing people who want to achieve top game content to change their lifestyle so they can group and raid.
I suspect that the ability to group up and raid without the capacity to achieve exclusive, superior content for doing so would quickly reveal the real motivations involved for many who make the argument you do.
The fact is, a good portion of players in current MMOGs spend almost their entire career soloing because of the very reasons I've listed above - the lack of available time, attention or skill necessary to be a good, responsible member of a party or a raid. It is unreasonable to believe that there isn't a market for a game that is specifically designed for them, because as it is now there are many, many players who must resign themselves to never being more than 2nd or 3rd rate characters in games designed to leave them behind simply because, for whatever reasons, they cannot or will not group up and raid.
There is more - or, at least, can be much more - to "multiplayer", "interacting", and "socialziing" than just grouping up and raiding in an online community. Unfortunately, past and current developers seem to think that community can only be a forced commodity required by game mechanics, because their game model dictates a limit to content and character advancment unless you "interact" with others the way they demand that you do.
Which creates what we see now in much of the MMOG world: forced, contrived and hollow communities organized around psychologies that find nothing problematical about requiring others in their "communities" to abandon their outside lives and devote themselves to the game. It's a forced community that celebrates forcing others to conform, min-max, and play efficiently and obsessively.
Which is another reason a lot of us prefer soloing; we don't really want to get in a group or a guild and then get hammered about our talent or skill choices, or get ripped because we don't fulfill our "role" with maximum efficiency. We don't really get along with gulid leaders that think it's perfectly okay and normal to spend 10 hrs a day in-game. We enjoy a more laid-back experience.
I just think a game developed around and for such a playstlye could certainly be viable in the market, because we all know a considerable number of players like that inhabit other games. Why wouldn't they jump ship to a game where their playstyle can achieve - eventually - anything in the game?