The problem is, the pro-groupers aren't happy that you *CAN* group, they want to force everyone to group all the time. If anyone can solo, they scream that it's a horrible, awful game.
It's really about control.
Really? That was a serious post? I thought you were more rational than that.
The real problem is that grouping is never offered as a viable alternative in modern MMO's, the main focus of design is solo play. All the mobs are simple to fight alone, the quests come quickly and are usually in a continuous chain, so if you're not doing the same quest then it's even harder to find people to team with. Not that you'd need to group as in the first reason - all the mobs are simple to fight alone so why even bother getting a group?
People take the path of least resistance. It's human nature, we're inherently lazy. So if it takes 10-15 minutes to find a few people to do a quest you can do on your own anyway, and be 4 quests further down the chain in those 15 minutes, then why gather the people at all? It's pretty much common sense. The games scream at you, "DO THIS ALONE!", so people do it alone.
Saying you 'CAN' group is like saying you 'CAN' walk up 20 flights of stairs to get to the top floor rather than take the elevator. The thing is, do you want to walk up those stairs when the easy option is a button press away?
It goes both ways.
You CAN solo in every MMORPG ever made. I can show you posts on this very forum by players that have successfully soloed to the cap in EVERY MMORPG ever made.
But if you can't solo easily to the cap, Solers cry "forced grouping".
That is the exact same, exact opposite complaint of groupers.
BOTH sides want "control" not just one.
Solo players want to control groupers, by making the game to easy for them.
Groupers want to control soloers by making the game to hard for them.
You can't change the difficulty level of the game for one, without changing it for the other.
I don't know why solo players make this retarded claim, that THEY are offering some sort of choice.
The ONLY choice they are offering, is to play a game which groupers find to easy.
In other words, solo players are saying you have a choice. To play the game exactly the way I, me, like it. Why won't you take that choice?
I fail to notice why saying 'a game with CHOICES (solo or group) is popular'' is not answering the question.
Can you group in most MMOs? Yes.
Can you solo in most MMOs? Yes
There are choices and you are not penalized but rewarded if you group up. Heck even WoW gives you loot/gold/exp for group content that are superior than solo questing.
Defining what an 'MMO' is to one's opinion and forcing a certain playstyle is what I would call selfish. Why not offer both and let the player choose?
If one playstyle is popular and the other isn't, that's not the game's fault as long as the game doesn't penalize you for grouping. Which no contemporary MMORPG does.
No, but most MMOs penalize you for soloing at the endgame.
Many MMOs today put a heavy emphasis on gear. Effectively, this means that once you reach maximum level, the only appeciable way to continue to progress your character is by getting better gear. And since the majority of MMOs lock that gear away in group-only instances, the soloer's progress comes to a halt. This is what really bugs me about MMOs. They're happy to let you solo until the endgame, and then it's group up or give up any meaningful progression.
Let's say the level cap in a game is 50. Since better gear=progression at endgame, the current design says 'if you group up, you can get to level 60 (effectively)". But if you solo, reroll or seeya later.
Why can't their be meaningful soloable content at endgame?
I don't want easy, I don't want handouts, and I don't want a fasttrack. I'm content with having a solo alternative take much longer than the group path. Just make it possible. It's not that difficult. If you are a raider, you go to your instance, kill some trash mobs, fight some bosses, and maybe to get some loot (as an individual). Then, you are locked out of that instance for awhile. Why not offer the exact same thing for soloers? Only make it a non-guarantee that a sweet item will drop, only have it be a percentage chance.
This way, the grouper has a path, and the soloer has a path. Those who want to group can do so, and those who want to solo can do so. There's nothing wrong with having both methods in a game. The problem lies with groupers who say "Our way or NO way!", and then point to the MMORPG acronym as if that somehow supports their demand. I wonder if these groupers also roleplay, after all, it's in the title.
- You coming for the raid tonight, Bob?
- Naw, Rob, the misses and I are visiting her parents this evening. Sorry.
- Aww, that's too bad, Bob. Let's hope the Sacred Shield of Warforged doesnt drop tonight...
- That's alright, I soloed it this morning. Thanks for caring, Rob.
- Oh yeah, they implemented that solo thing now... Oh, come to think of it, I think the raid's been cancelled.
- oh? Why?
- Everybody's soloing their gear of choice, I belive. In fact, all future raids have been cancelled Actually, so has my subscription.
I fail to notice why saying 'a game with CHOICES (solo or group) is popular'' is not answering the question.
Can you group in most MMOs? Yes.
Can you solo in most MMOs? Yes
There are choices and you are not penalized but rewarded if you group up. Heck even WoW gives you loot/gold/exp for group content that are superior than solo questing.
Defining what an 'MMO' is to one's opinion and forcing a certain playstyle is what I would call selfish. Why not offer both and let the player choose?
If one playstyle is popular and the other isn't, that's not the game's fault as long as the game doesn't penalize you for grouping. Which no contemporary MMORPG does.
No, but most MMOs penalize you for soloing at the endgame.
Many MMOs today put a heavy emphasis on gear. Effectively, this means that once you reach maximum level, the only appeciable way to continue to progress your character is by getting better gear. And since the majority of MMOs lock that gear away in group-only instances, the soloer's progress comes to a halt. This is what really bugs me about MMOs. They're happy to let you solo until the endgame, and then it's group up or give up any meaningful progression.
Let's say the level cap in a game is 50. Since better gear=progression at endgame, the current design says 'if you group up, you can get to level 60 (effectively)". But if you solo, reroll or seeya later.
Why can't their be meaningful soloable content at endgame?
I don't want easy, I don't want handouts, and I don't want a fasttrack. I'm content with having a solo alternative take much longer than the group path. Just make it possible. It's not that difficult. If you are a raider, you go to your instance, kill some trash mobs, fight some bosses, and maybe to get some loot (as an individual). Then, you are locked out of that instance for awhile. Why not offer the exact same thing for soloers? Only make it a non-guarantee that a sweet item will drop, only have it be a percentage chance.
This way, the grouper has a path, and the soloer has a path. Those who want to group can do so, and those who want to solo can do so. There's nothing wrong with having both methods in a game. The problem lies with groupers who say "Our way or NO way!", and then point to the MMORPG acronym as if that somehow supports their demand. I wonder if these groupers also roleplay, after all, it's in the title.
- You coming for the raid tonight, Bob?
- Naw, Rob, the misses and I are visiting her parents this evening. Sorry.
- Aww, that's too bad, Bob. Let's hope the Sacred Shield of Warforged doesnt drop tonight...
- That's alright, I soloed it this morning. Thanks for caring, Rob.
- Oh yeah, they implemented that solo thing now... Oh, come to think of it, I think the raid's been cancelled.
- oh? Why?
- Everybody's soloing their gear of choice, I belive. In fact, all future raids have been cancelled Actually, so has my subscription.
This reply seems out of context with what SwampRob posted. It doesn't take into account solo'ers having to play twice as long or even ten times as long to acquire the same gear a group of six can get in one go. There are rewards to grouping, i.e. time, which is precious to everyone.
So saying that, "Oh, no thanks, I solo'ed it this morning" isn't quite what is meant. Maybe more along the lines, "I spent ten days of my vacation last month to grind for it."...
That might very well be so, and I was by no means trying to hide that I was exaggerating. However, lots of players these days seem to play mmorpgs as a "vivid, varied single player" game. We've already given them a finger, and now they've taken the arm. They are going for the jugular next, and who can blame them?
Solo players want to "have meaningful content to play while only being online for an hour". If the devs can make more money catering to every housewife, I'm sure we'd have lots of F2P knitting mmos where you can play for 10 minutes at a time so you can break to feed your baby, and at the same time earn great rewards (rainbow yarn +10).
I'm sure some people want only to be able to grind solo for something that will take 10 times longer than to raid for it. I'm also pretty sure that if many of the soloers in present day mmos got the option, they would much rather earn that item in a couple of hours soloing their way through the content. If that is what sells, then who can blame the devs, eh?
That might very well be so, and I was by no means trying to hide that I was exaggerating. However, lots of players these days seem to play mmorpgs as a "vivid, varied single player" game. We've already given them a finger, and now they've taken the arm. They are going for the jugular next, and who can blame them?
Solo players want to "have meaningful content to play while only being online for an hour". If the devs can make more money catering to every housewife, I'm sure we'd have lots of F2P knitting mmos where you can play for 10 minutes at a time so you can break to feed your baby, and at the same time earn great rewards (rainbow yarn +10).
I'm sure some people want only to be able to grind solo for something that will take 10 times longer than to raid for it. I'm also pretty sure that if many of the soloers in present day mmos got the option, they would much rather earn that item in a couple of hours soloing their way through the content. If that is what sells, then who can blame the devs, eh?
WTB INDIE EM EM MOOOO WITH GROUP PLAY PLX!
The logic of this post fails to acknowledge that a game that has 'Solo' content doens't mean it has no 'Group' content and vice versa.
If we take WoW as an example (cause everyone has played it or know what it is) then we see a game that offers both.
Can you group and do 5mans/raids? yep
Can you go out and solo quests? yep
Can you grind rep for some gear? Yep (can be done solo or group)
Does the game acknowledge that group content is harder (organizing a group and actual content) by awarding better gear/xp/gold? Yep.
So... what's the issue?
As I keep on saying, offering a variety of choices and letting the players decide what they want is better than forcing them to do it in a certain way.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
If people really didn't want to play with someone then why force them to?
And as I asked before, if they don't want to play with someone else, why the hell are they buying a Multiplayer Game? If you don't want to play with someone else then there are thousands of single player games to play, why does the MMO genre have to be changed to suit a playstyle that shouldn't even be there?
Your entire objection is based on the use of a specific letter in a wide-ranging genre. MMOs aren't about roleplaying either, perhaps they never have been, I don't see many people complaining about that. MMORPG is a label, nothing more. Stop acting like it defines every game on the market.
You CAN solo in every MMORPG ever made. I can show you posts on this very forum by players that have successfully soloed to the cap in EVERY MMORPG ever made.
But if you can't solo easily to the cap, Solers cry "forced grouping".
That is the exact same, exact opposite complaint of groupers.
BOTH sides want "control" not just one.
Solo players want to control groupers, by making the game to easy for them.
Groupers want to control soloers by making the game to hard for them.
You can't change the difficulty level of the game for one, without changing it for the other.
I don't know why solo players make this retarded claim, that THEY are offering some sort of choice.
The ONLY choice they are offering, is to play a game which groupers find to easy.
In other words, solo players are saying you have a choice. To play the game exactly the way I, me, like it. Why won't you take that choice?
Because it's not a real choice.
The problem is, most groupers are entirely fine with a system where content scales depending on the number of people involved. If you bring 10 people to a battle, it's scaled for 10 people. If you bring 2, it's scaled for 2. It's the groupers who don't want that, they only want it to be scaled for 10 people no matter how many actually are there. In fact, groupers continually shoot themselves in the foot when games try to make it easier for grouping to occur. WoW made it easier to find groups. Who complained? The groupers!
Copied from another site with a far more healthy dialogue on this subject:
---
Solo-friendly and solo-centric are two very different things.
Solo-friendly means players can hop in and be entertained on their own for a while without a group. This is very GOOD for MMO sustainability.
Solo-centric means the game can be played solo from start to finish without relying on anyone else. This is very BAD for MMO sustainability.
The big differentiator is progression - how far and how quickly can you progress solo versus in a group? It is my opinion that the value (defined as reward:time ratio) of playing an MMO solo should never exceede or come close to exceeding the value of playing in a group.
If it takes you an hour to find a group, the value of playing with that group should quickly outpace the time lost looking for it (although a savvy player will have spent that hour soloing while looking for a group, and an even more savvy player will have built a network of friends to draw upon).
I entirely agree that groups ought to be able to make much, much more XP and get much better drops, simply because they can take on harder content. In AO, we used to run out to Shadowlands as a group and take on groups of hecks far, far above us in level, we could do 5-6 levels per hour if we just ran between them as they regenerated. That's something you simply can't do as a solo player, nor would I expect you to.
However, lots of pro-groupers want grouping to be required to play the game at all and I entirely disagree with that. Grouping allows one to get through content faster and easier, or to take on more challenging content, it should not allow them to do content that nobody else can do, just because they dragged a couple of people along.
Originally posted by Cephus404 However, lots of pro-groupers want grouping to be required to play the game at all and I entirely disagree with that.
This never-ending discussion always runs in Cycles--in EQ1, one of the most-oft-complained about aspects of the early days of that game was "forced grouping". It was a despicable, evil thing that generated many forum posts.
Here we are a decade later, same topic.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I entirely agree that groups ought to be able to make much, much more XP and get much better drops.....
simply because they can take on harder content.
To answer the first part of this; if an MMO restricts the top quality gear to one playstyle, it effectively screws the other playstyle. RPGs are all about progression; it can be story alone, but in most MMOs loot is the motivating factor. People start their characters with very poor gear and through completing content, progress to better and better gear. If you have a game that says 'both playstyles can progress to this point, and then only one gets to progress further'; you've effecitvely given the finger to one playstyle. You might as well say 'soloers have a level cap of 40, where groupers can get to 50', because that's exactly what you're doing to their progress.
In essence, you are saying we'll allow you to solo in our group game, but only to a point. At that point, you MUST group to progress. But of course, it's your choice....
The choices offered are: - roll an alt and repeat the content you've already done, switch to a playstyle you don't enjoy, or quit.
.
To answer the second part, that's is completely unproven and untrue. The content can be made as easy or as hard as the designers wish it to be. I will grant that in most MMOs, there's very little challenging solo content, but that does not mean there can't be.
When playing, each person is controlling a single character. So, whether soloing or in a raid, the actual level of challenge is based upon requiring the individual to do certain actions at certain times. In a group setting, one individual can do nothing wrong and the group still wipes because of another member of the group. That does not make the challenge of that encounter any more difficult for the first individual, just frustrating. The player who did not err merely has to do the exact same thing again next time and hope his friend doesn't screw up, he is not challenged any further.
It is the same for the soloer, he has to do certain actions at certain times. Granted, he cannot fail because of another, but nor can he be helped by that other. At best then, we can say that raiding can be more frustrating than soloing, but it certainly isn't automatically harder.
When playing, each person is controlling a single character.
Well, you've just hit on the reason why solo play is generally less rewarded.
Designing solo content that's hard-as-hell isn't difficult at all.
Designing content that's hard-as-hell without being impossible for one or more of your classes is a horse of an entirely different color. Squishy healers cannot complete the same content that burly warriors defeat with ease.
"Challenging" solo content requires individualized capability design.
In short, not cost-effective for a developer's time.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
When playing, each person is controlling a single character.
Well, you've just hit on the reason why solo play is generally less rewarded. Designing solo content that's hard-as-hell isn't difficult at all. Designing content that's hard-as-hell without being impossible for one or more of your classes is a horse of an entirely different color. Squishy healers cannot complete the same content that burly warriors defeat with ease. "Challenging" solo content requires individualized capability design. In short, not cost-effective for a developer's time.
You don't need to do this. If all the classes are roughly balanced, the good players will find a way to cope regardless of the class they're playing.
Also, it doesn't have to be 'hard-as-hell', it just has to be as difficult as it is to the individual raider.
Originally posted by SwampRobIf all the classes are roughly balanced, the good players will find a way to cope regardless of the class they're playing.
Only if "roughly balanced" means "exactly the same abilities".
There are few games where healers (of any variety) can put out really significant DPS, for example. A boss balanced against a finely tuned and high-output DPS player on an enrage timer (this is supposed to be hard, remember?) can't possibly be downed--in time--by a healer's damage output.
Solo content of any variety is much more daunting to design than most people have ever bothered considering. In a great MMO with a lot of variance in class abilities, and real variety in what each of the classes is capable of, it's nearly impossible.
Given how many players have requested it for the last dozen years, surely someone would have delivered on the mythical "hard solo content" dream, if it were an easy thing to do?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I play an indie space simm MMO that has figured out a good way to allow people to compete in solo play, but not be overpowered. You basically are able to play solo, but the time it takes to give orders to to crew and certain bonuses you receive for being in a group are not given. Say you want to run cargo but don't want a human crew to have to split your earnings with. YOu load up your alts and give them voice commands to control your ship which takes longer and is limited by the AI. COmapred to a fully maneed ship you would be at a disadvantage. I think this is fair. I don't see any reason why a solo player in an MMO should be on even ground against a group.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Originally posted by SwampRobIf all the classes are roughly balanced, the good players will find a way to cope regardless of the class they're playing.
Only if "roughly balanced" means "exactly the same abilities".
There are few games where healers (of any variety) can put out really significant DPS, for example. A boss balanced against a finely tuned and high-output DPS player on an enrage timer (this is supposed to be hard, remember?) can't possibly be downed--in time--by a healer's damage output.
Solo content of any variety is much more daunting to design than most people have ever bothered considering. In a great MMO with a lot of variance in class abilities, and real variety in what each of the classes is capable of, it's nearly impossible.
Given how many players have requested it for the last dozen years, surely someone would have delivered on the mythical "hard solo content" dream, if it were an easy thing to do?
How many single player games are there? Many of them have hard solo content. It's not hard in the least little bit.
As for balance, no, I mean roughly balanced. In Wow, you can solo as, say a rogue or a priest. Sure your rogue will do more damage, has stealth abilities, and will generally kill the mob must faster than the priest. However, the priest can self-heal and has less downtime between fights, and that's a healing specced one. Unless a dev foolishly creates an encounter where one specific ability is required, like stealth, you do not need to worry about balancing it for all classes. If a warrior and a rogue can do it, then so can a mage or a priest or whatever.
Stop using the 'it's too hard to do' argument as an excuse to not have soloable endgame content. It certainly can be done.
Originally posted by SwampRobIf all the classes are roughly balanced, the good players will find a way to cope regardless of the class they're playing.
Only if "roughly balanced" means "exactly the same abilities".
There are few games where healers (of any variety) can put out really significant DPS, for example. A boss balanced against a finely tuned and high-output DPS player on an enrage timer (this is supposed to be hard, remember?) can't possibly be downed--in time--by a healer's damage output.
Solo content of any variety is much more daunting to design than most people have ever bothered considering. In a great MMO with a lot of variance in class abilities, and real variety in what each of the classes is capable of, it's nearly impossible.
Given how many players have requested it for the last dozen years, surely someone would have delivered on the mythical "hard solo content" dream, if it were an easy thing to do?
How many single player games are there? Many of them have hard solo content. It's not hard in the least little bit.
As for balance, no, I mean roughly balanced. In Wow, you can solo as, say a rogue or a priest. Sure your rogue will do more damage, has stealth abilities, and will generally kill the mob must faster than the priest. However, the priest can self-heal and has less downtime between fights, and that's a healing specced one. Unless a dev foolishly creates an encounter where one specific ability is required, like stealth, you do not need to worry about balancing it for all classes. If a warrior and a rogue can do it, then so can a mage or a priest or whatever.
Stop using the 'it's too hard to do' argument as an excuse to not have soloable endgame content. It certainly can be done.
Rome can also be built in a day if you write about it.
The amount of numbers behind on balancing said content is probably beyond the dev's time.
How much HP should a warrior have and do how much dps?
What about the healing priest or dps rogue?
Should gear matter? If so how much gear?
Should buff/potion/consumables matter? if so how much?
Should it be trivialized if you have a priest and warrior? If not how do you stop it? Soloable instances?
How much HP difference bettween a priest and warrior should there be? what about gear?
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
To answer the first part of this; if an MMO restricts the top quality gear to one playstyle, it effectively screws the other playstyle. RPGs are all about progression; it can be story alone, but in most MMOs loot is the motivating factor. People start their characters with very poor gear and through completing content, progress to better and better gear. If you have a game that says 'both playstyles can progress to this point, and then only one gets to progress further'; you've effecitvely given the finger to one playstyle. You might as well say 'soloers have a level cap of 40, where groupers can get to 50', because that's exactly what you're doing to their progress.
Why is there even an expectation for a solo playstyle to be acceptable in an MMO? Surely everyone knows what they're getting into when they enter an MMO, that there will be group quests, there will be raid content, there will be Multiplayer content, there will be things you can't do alone. That's part of the draw of MMO's for me, that there will be things I could never do alone. If I can go into a dungeon solo and defeat an Ancient Dragon then I might as well be playing a single player game. I play MMO's to be a part of a team fighting creatures that could squish me without a second thought.
What I don't get is why people want to soloize MMO's so they can just get the best loot? What if, at 50th Level, there was an instance that everyone could go in that contained nothing but a massive treasure chest that had all the best gear in the game for your class? You now have the best equipment in game. There are still raids and group instances that can be played again and again, defeat a Dragon, fight the Lich King, battle through the Caverns of Oblivion and so on, but everyone has the best equipment so it's done for fun. Would this be acceptable to soloers? Congratulations. You've got to max level, you have the best gear, but now you have nothing to do but craft and chat while the groups continue to battle content for fun.
Would you quit and restart? Would you whine because the groups have something to do and you don't? Everyone is equal to everyone else except that repeatable content still exists.
To answer the first part of this; if an MMO restricts the top quality gear to one playstyle, it effectively screws the other playstyle. RPGs are all about progression; it can be story alone, but in most MMOs loot is the motivating factor. People start their characters with very poor gear and through completing content, progress to better and better gear. If you have a game that says 'both playstyles can progress to this point, and then only one gets to progress further'; you've effecitvely given the finger to one playstyle. You might as well say 'soloers have a level cap of 40, where groupers can get to 50', because that's exactly what you're doing to their progress.
In essence, you are saying we'll allow you to solo in our group game, but only to a point. At that point, you MUST group to progress. But of course, it's your choice....
I never said anything like that, I said that groupers will be able to tackle harder content earier and thus may end up with better gear earlier in the game than soloers, simply because they've been able to go get it. I'm fine with that. I don't think there ought to be any gear whatsoever that soloers cannot get, it just might take them longer.
The go to game for solo players in the near future is Guild Wars 2.
At end game we will be able to acquire gear that is equal statistically to that which is acquired by groupers, and there will even be goals that we can acheive and receive recognition for such as for soloing dungeons.
The glass ceiling is about to be broken, the previously entitled will be miffed about that, but like the men who were caught unawares by the nineteenth amendment, they will eventually learn that their rights are no more important than the rights of others, even if by recognizing such rights, their own are somewhat dilluted.
I find that when I'm online, my guild/squad/corporation/whatever, is usually not online; so planned grouping is pretty much useless. This is the primary reason I hate raiding, instanced dungeons, etc. And I don't like taking orders from unemployed bums, or children.
To answer the first part of this; if an MMO restricts the top quality gear to one playstyle, it effectively screws the other playstyle. RPGs are all about progression; it can be story alone, but in most MMOs loot is the motivating factor. People start their characters with very poor gear and through completing content, progress to better and better gear. If you have a game that says 'both playstyles can progress to this point, and then only one gets to progress further'; you've effecitvely given the finger to one playstyle. You might as well say 'soloers have a level cap of 40, where groupers can get to 50', because that's exactly what you're doing to their progress.
Why is there even an expectation for a solo playstyle to be acceptable in an MMO? Surely everyone knows what they're getting into when they enter an MMO, that there will be group quests, there will be raid content, there will be Multiplayer content, there will be things you can't do alone. That's part of the draw of MMO's for me, that there will be things I could never do alone. If I can go into a dungeon solo and defeat an Ancient Dragon then I might as well be playing a single player game. I play MMO's to be a part of a team fighting creatures that could squish me without a second thought.
What I don't get is why people want to soloize MMO's so they can just get the best loot? What if, at 50th Level, there was an instance that everyone could go in that contained nothing but a massive treasure chest that had all the best gear in the game for your class? You now have the best equipment in game. There are still raids and group instances that can be played again and again, defeat a Dragon, fight the Lich King, battle through the Caverns of Oblivion and so on, but everyone has the best equipment so it's done for fun. Would this be acceptable to soloers? Congratulations. You've got to max level, you have the best gear, but now you have nothing to do but craft and chat while the groups continue to battle content for fun.
Would you quit and restart? Would you whine because the groups have something to do and you don't? Everyone is equal to everyone else except that repeatable content still exists.
As has been said over and over...just because there are other people in the world doen't mean you want to group with them.
Just because there can be group content does not mean everything needs to be group content.
I like to play MMOs largely solo because they have more content, I like having a virtual economy to play in, I like socializing in non-combat areas (Yes, essentially using the game as a single player game with an attached chatroom) and occasionally dong group quests, and PvPing.
What I don't like is grouping in PvE for hours at a time, putting up with the stupidity and mistakes of others that prevents me from completing PvE content, dealing with no-life or little kid players, dealing with boyfriend/girlfriend drama in a raid, etc. etc.
There are a lot of features of an MMO that are enjoyable...grouping in PvE content isn't one of them.
Well games should have alot of solo and group content. So those who want solo can solo and those who want group can group as well. Group quests, etc shoudl have better rewards because if not noone will do them. That's a fact.
Nowadays new MMO's have almost exclusively solo content only (apart from dungeons and raids) and this solo content is usually also stupidly I would even say insultingly easy. Too easy.
What I don't like is when in a game there is some grup content , solo players start QQ that they want group quests "soloized" so they can do them too, even if they can aquire enough xp by doing solo quests/ content. I really dont understand that. It is ruining game for those who want to have some group only content.
I want the ability to solo to cap- limited free time so can't wait for groups. But i don't want to be able to solo or use minions on what should be group content, or cross-server groups, I want it to be a social event or I may as well play a single player game, which would undoubtably have a far more engrossing storyline than an MMO.
Well games should have alot of solo and group content. So those who want solo can solo and those who want group can group as well. Group quests, etc shoudl have better rewards because if not noone will do them. That's a fact.
Nowadays new MMO's have almost exclusively solo content only (apart from dungeons and raids) and this solo content is usually also stupidly I would even say insultingly easy. Too easy.
What I don't like is when in a game there is some grup content , solo players start QQ that they want group quests "soloized" so they can do them too, even if they can aquire enough xp by doing solo quests/ content. I really dont understand that. It is ruining game for those who want to have some group only content.
If something will only be done for the reward...doesn't that suggest that you should work to make it fun instead of having to give people something for doing it?
How does it "ruin" anything if you can group to do it or I can do it solo. You get to do it your way and I get to do it mine. You get what you like and I get what I like.
There's too much "if someone else gets something then that hurts me!" mentality in MMOs.
Comments
It goes both ways.
You CAN solo in every MMORPG ever made. I can show you posts on this very forum by players that have successfully soloed to the cap in EVERY MMORPG ever made.
But if you can't solo easily to the cap, Solers cry "forced grouping".
That is the exact same, exact opposite complaint of groupers.
BOTH sides want "control" not just one.
Solo players want to control groupers, by making the game to easy for them.
Groupers want to control soloers by making the game to hard for them.
You can't change the difficulty level of the game for one, without changing it for the other.
I don't know why solo players make this retarded claim, that THEY are offering some sort of choice.
The ONLY choice they are offering, is to play a game which groupers find to easy.
In other words, solo players are saying you have a choice. To play the game exactly the way I, me, like it. Why won't you take that choice?
Because it's not a real choice.
- You coming for the raid tonight, Bob?
- Naw, Rob, the misses and I are visiting her parents this evening. Sorry.
- Aww, that's too bad, Bob. Let's hope the Sacred Shield of Warforged doesnt drop tonight...
- That's alright, I soloed it this morning. Thanks for caring, Rob.
- Oh yeah, they implemented that solo thing now... Oh, come to think of it, I think the raid's been cancelled.
- oh? Why?
- Everybody's soloing their gear of choice, I belive. In fact, all future raids have been cancelled
Actually, so has my subscription.
This reply seems out of context with what SwampRob posted. It doesn't take into account solo'ers having to play twice as long or even ten times as long to acquire the same gear a group of six can get in one go. There are rewards to grouping, i.e. time, which is precious to everyone.
So saying that, "Oh, no thanks, I solo'ed it this morning" isn't quite what is meant. Maybe more along the lines, "I spent ten days of my vacation last month to grind for it."...
Good day.
That might very well be so, and I was by no means trying to hide that I was exaggerating. However, lots of players these days seem to play mmorpgs as a "vivid, varied single player" game. We've already given them a finger, and now they've taken the arm. They are going for the jugular next, and who can blame them?
Solo players want to "have meaningful content to play while only being online for an hour". If the devs can make more money catering to every housewife, I'm sure we'd have lots of F2P knitting mmos where you can play for 10 minutes at a time so you can break to feed your baby, and at the same time earn great rewards (rainbow yarn +10).
I'm sure some people want only to be able to grind solo for something that will take 10 times longer than to raid for it. I'm also pretty sure that if many of the soloers in present day mmos got the option, they would much rather earn that item in a couple of hours soloing their way through the content. If that is what sells, then who can blame the devs, eh?
WTB INDIE EM EM MOOOO WITH GROUP PLAY PLX!
The logic of this post fails to acknowledge that a game that has 'Solo' content doens't mean it has no 'Group' content and vice versa.
If we take WoW as an example (cause everyone has played it or know what it is) then we see a game that offers both.
Can you group and do 5mans/raids? yep
Can you go out and solo quests? yep
Can you grind rep for some gear? Yep (can be done solo or group)
Does the game acknowledge that group content is harder (organizing a group and actual content) by awarding better gear/xp/gold? Yep.
So... what's the issue?
As I keep on saying, offering a variety of choices and letting the players decide what they want is better than forcing them to do it in a certain way.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Your entire objection is based on the use of a specific letter in a wide-ranging genre. MMOs aren't about roleplaying either, perhaps they never have been, I don't see many people complaining about that. MMORPG is a label, nothing more. Stop acting like it defines every game on the market.
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 problem is, most groupers are entirely fine with a system where content scales depending on the number of people involved. If you bring 10 people to a battle, it's scaled for 10 people. If you bring 2, it's scaled for 2. It's the groupers who don't want that, they only want it to be scaled for 10 people no matter how many actually are there. In fact, groupers continually shoot themselves in the foot when games try to make it easier for grouping to occur. WoW made it easier to find groups. Who complained? The groupers!
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
Copied from another site with a far more healthy dialogue on this subject:
---
Solo-friendly and solo-centric are two very different things.
Solo-friendly means players can hop in and be entertained on their own for a while without a group. This is very GOOD for MMO sustainability.
Solo-centric means the game can be played solo from start to finish without relying on anyone else. This is very BAD for MMO sustainability.
The big differentiator is progression - how far and how quickly can you progress solo versus in a group? It is my opinion that the value (defined as reward:time ratio) of playing an MMO solo should never exceede or come close to exceeding the value of playing in a group.
If it takes you an hour to find a group, the value of playing with that group should quickly outpace the time lost looking for it (although a savvy player will have spent that hour soloing while looking for a group, and an even more savvy player will have built a network of friends to draw upon).
I entirely agree that groups ought to be able to make much, much more XP and get much better drops, simply because they can take on harder content. In AO, we used to run out to Shadowlands as a group and take on groups of hecks far, far above us in level, we could do 5-6 levels per hour if we just ran between them as they regenerated. That's something you simply can't do as a solo player, nor would I expect you to.
However, lots of pro-groupers want grouping to be required to play the game at all and I entirely disagree with that. Grouping allows one to get through content faster and easier, or to take on more challenging content, it should not allow them to do content that nobody else can do, just because they dragged a couple of people along.
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
Here we are a decade later, same topic.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
To answer the first part of this; if an MMO restricts the top quality gear to one playstyle, it effectively screws the other playstyle. RPGs are all about progression; it can be story alone, but in most MMOs loot is the motivating factor. People start their characters with very poor gear and through completing content, progress to better and better gear. If you have a game that says 'both playstyles can progress to this point, and then only one gets to progress further'; you've effecitvely given the finger to one playstyle. You might as well say 'soloers have a level cap of 40, where groupers can get to 50', because that's exactly what you're doing to their progress.
In essence, you are saying we'll allow you to solo in our group game, but only to a point. At that point, you MUST group to progress. But of course, it's your choice....
The choices offered are: - roll an alt and repeat the content you've already done, switch to a playstyle you don't enjoy, or quit.
.
To answer the second part, that's is completely unproven and untrue. The content can be made as easy or as hard as the designers wish it to be. I will grant that in most MMOs, there's very little challenging solo content, but that does not mean there can't be.
When playing, each person is controlling a single character. So, whether soloing or in a raid, the actual level of challenge is based upon requiring the individual to do certain actions at certain times. In a group setting, one individual can do nothing wrong and the group still wipes because of another member of the group. That does not make the challenge of that encounter any more difficult for the first individual, just frustrating. The player who did not err merely has to do the exact same thing again next time and hope his friend doesn't screw up, he is not challenged any further.
It is the same for the soloer, he has to do certain actions at certain times. Granted, he cannot fail because of another, but nor can he be helped by that other. At best then, we can say that raiding can be more frustrating than soloing, but it certainly isn't automatically harder.
Well, you've just hit on the reason why solo play is generally less rewarded.Designing solo content that's hard-as-hell isn't difficult at all.
Designing content that's hard-as-hell without being impossible for one or more of your classes is a horse of an entirely different color. Squishy healers cannot complete the same content that burly warriors defeat with ease.
"Challenging" solo content requires individualized capability design.
In short, not cost-effective for a developer's time.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
You don't need to do this. If all the classes are roughly balanced, the good players will find a way to cope regardless of the class they're playing.
Also, it doesn't have to be 'hard-as-hell', it just has to be as difficult as it is to the individual raider.
Only if "roughly balanced" means "exactly the same abilities".
There are few games where healers (of any variety) can put out really significant DPS, for example. A boss balanced against a finely tuned and high-output DPS player on an enrage timer (this is supposed to be hard, remember?) can't possibly be downed--in time--by a healer's damage output.
Solo content of any variety is much more daunting to design than most people have ever bothered considering. In a great MMO with a lot of variance in class abilities, and real variety in what each of the classes is capable of, it's nearly impossible.
Given how many players have requested it for the last dozen years, surely someone would have delivered on the mythical "hard solo content" dream, if it were an easy thing to do?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I play an indie space simm MMO that has figured out a good way to allow people to compete in solo play, but not be overpowered. You basically are able to play solo, but the time it takes to give orders to to crew and certain bonuses you receive for being in a group are not given. Say you want to run cargo but don't want a human crew to have to split your earnings with. YOu load up your alts and give them voice commands to control your ship which takes longer and is limited by the AI. COmapred to a fully maneed ship you would be at a disadvantage. I think this is fair. I don't see any reason why a solo player in an MMO should be on even ground against a group.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
How many single player games are there? Many of them have hard solo content. It's not hard in the least little bit.
As for balance, no, I mean roughly balanced. In Wow, you can solo as, say a rogue or a priest. Sure your rogue will do more damage, has stealth abilities, and will generally kill the mob must faster than the priest. However, the priest can self-heal and has less downtime between fights, and that's a healing specced one. Unless a dev foolishly creates an encounter where one specific ability is required, like stealth, you do not need to worry about balancing it for all classes. If a warrior and a rogue can do it, then so can a mage or a priest or whatever.
Stop using the 'it's too hard to do' argument as an excuse to not have soloable endgame content. It certainly can be done.
Rome can also be built in a day if you write about it.
The amount of numbers behind on balancing said content is probably beyond the dev's time.
How much HP should a warrior have and do how much dps?
What about the healing priest or dps rogue?
Should gear matter? If so how much gear?
Should buff/potion/consumables matter? if so how much?
Should it be trivialized if you have a priest and warrior? If not how do you stop it? Soloable instances?
How much HP difference bettween a priest and warrior should there be? what about gear?
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Why is there even an expectation for a solo playstyle to be acceptable in an MMO? Surely everyone knows what they're getting into when they enter an MMO, that there will be group quests, there will be raid content, there will be Multiplayer content, there will be things you can't do alone. That's part of the draw of MMO's for me, that there will be things I could never do alone. If I can go into a dungeon solo and defeat an Ancient Dragon then I might as well be playing a single player game. I play MMO's to be a part of a team fighting creatures that could squish me without a second thought.
What I don't get is why people want to soloize MMO's so they can just get the best loot? What if, at 50th Level, there was an instance that everyone could go in that contained nothing but a massive treasure chest that had all the best gear in the game for your class? You now have the best equipment in game. There are still raids and group instances that can be played again and again, defeat a Dragon, fight the Lich King, battle through the Caverns of Oblivion and so on, but everyone has the best equipment so it's done for fun. Would this be acceptable to soloers? Congratulations. You've got to max level, you have the best gear, but now you have nothing to do but craft and chat while the groups continue to battle content for fun.
Would you quit and restart? Would you whine because the groups have something to do and you don't? Everyone is equal to everyone else except that repeatable content still exists.
I never said anything like that, I said that groupers will be able to tackle harder content earier and thus may end up with better gear earlier in the game than soloers, simply because they've been able to go get it. I'm fine with that. I don't think there ought to be any gear whatsoever that soloers cannot get, it just might take them longer.
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 go to game for solo players in the near future is Guild Wars 2.
At end game we will be able to acquire gear that is equal statistically to that which is acquired by groupers, and there will even be goals that we can acheive and receive recognition for such as for soloing dungeons.
The glass ceiling is about to be broken, the previously entitled will be miffed about that, but like the men who were caught unawares by the nineteenth amendment, they will eventually learn that their rights are no more important than the rights of others, even if by recognizing such rights, their own are somewhat dilluted.
I find that when I'm online, my guild/squad/corporation/whatever, is usually not online; so planned grouping is pretty much useless. This is the primary reason I hate raiding, instanced dungeons, etc. And I don't like taking orders from unemployed bums, or children.
As has been said over and over...just because there are other people in the world doen't mean you want to group with them.
Just because there can be group content does not mean everything needs to be group content.
I like to play MMOs largely solo because they have more content, I like having a virtual economy to play in, I like socializing in non-combat areas (Yes, essentially using the game as a single player game with an attached chatroom) and occasionally dong group quests, and PvPing.
What I don't like is grouping in PvE for hours at a time, putting up with the stupidity and mistakes of others that prevents me from completing PvE content, dealing with no-life or little kid players, dealing with boyfriend/girlfriend drama in a raid, etc. etc.
There are a lot of features of an MMO that are enjoyable...grouping in PvE content isn't one of them.
Well games should have alot of solo and group content. So those who want solo can solo and those who want group can group as well. Group quests, etc shoudl have better rewards because if not noone will do them. That's a fact.
Nowadays new MMO's have almost exclusively solo content only (apart from dungeons and raids) and this solo content is usually also stupidly I would even say insultingly easy. Too easy.
What I don't like is when in a game there is some grup content , solo players start QQ that they want group quests "soloized" so they can do them too, even if they can aquire enough xp by doing solo quests/ content. I really dont understand that. It is ruining game for those who want to have some group only content.
I want the ability to solo to cap- limited free time so can't wait for groups. But i don't want to be able to solo or use minions on what should be group content, or cross-server groups, I want it to be a social event or I may as well play a single player game, which would undoubtably have a far more engrossing storyline than an MMO.
Chins
If something will only be done for the reward...doesn't that suggest that you should work to make it fun instead of having to give people something for doing it?
How does it "ruin" anything if you can group to do it or I can do it solo. You get to do it your way and I get to do it mine. You get what you like and I get what I like.
There's too much "if someone else gets something then that hurts me!" mentality in MMOs.