I just saw a video of SWTOR where the Miniboss character was applauding and saying so these are the only people that came after him such and such..
I was wondering if there is an mechanic or programming that can make the bosses react to how many players is in its vicinity and fight accordingly. isn't there a code which you can say that if 4 player characters walked through this portal to this boss zone, boss A fights with these and these skills and flee when health equals 10%
and if 1 player character was registered , Boss A summons minions B and C and fights till his health is equal to 50 %
and if 10 player was registered, Boss A summons Minions X and Y and a certain buff is used to make him tougher against tougher opponents
This would solve the whole creating Solo and Group content or the whole solo vs group, since you can do everything either solo or group and the mobs seems to react well to your playstyle, since all zones are instanced anyways, why won't they use the instance to create the appropriate contents for all players.
And we can always have passage ways that open up to have a zerg of minions that can make an event harder when more people is in it. And instead of equipment loot, have them drop craft items that gets easier to get the harder the event is, but solo can still get it, probably through more tries, but thats for another discussion on equipment for solo vs group.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
But you miss the point, the pro-groupers don't want *ANY* solo content whatsoever, they don't want you to be able to complete *ANY* content unless you're in a group and they have said, time and time again, that they vehemently oppose any scalable content, which is what you describe.
Good idea, I like it. Pro-groupers would oppose it simply because it allows soloing in any way, shape or form.
The main flaw is if you accept that either is superior to another (be it group or solo play), then pandora box is open and next thing you know it will be Epic-raids, PvP-slugfest, or tetris-vengeance that will be superior to whatever you enjoy doing in a game.
In theory (a very nice country btw), you need everything supported to be supported equally.
The next steps, are usually one of the 2 following logics:
A - Everything been equally supported brings equal rewards, so every player will do merely what they care for and get to the point they enjoy before changing focus to another game. (EVERYONE IS GOOD AT EVERYTHING if they focus enought)
B- Everything been equally supported brings rewards nearly exclusively to the activity linked to it...when the player is done with whatever he cares for, he may then start doing other activities as he isn't advance there yet, or switch games never been interested in this aspect of the game (aka, rewards make you good at this activity but not other, a sword good at PvP would never be given in PvE...yet an armor good for PvE would never be given in PvP...and so on) (GOOD SOLOERS ARE SOLOING, GOOD GROUPERS ARE GROUPING, GOOD PVPers are PVPing)
Most games would focus on 1 gameplay and screw all other (old EQ have you raid or you would never be as wanted in group as peoples who do raid...or DAoC have you do some realms fights...or...) or have it the other way completely (CoX, you do whatever and you are good at everything...yet with later design they change it to have peoples do task forces...which back then make me quite happy, yet it was just as badly "encouraging" 1 gameplay over other).
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
One of the problems with solo-ers is that they tend not to know what they are doing when it comes to groups. I'm not talking tanks here, who don't really need to know what they are doing since all they need to do is attack stuff. if you have a 6 player group and the person who is use to solo-ing isn't targeting what everyone else is, isn't healing when he could be, and trying to do what he normally does when solo-ing and not using group tactics is the way alot of groups fail, sometimes epically.
I prefer to group with people who know what they are doing. I don't want to have to teach a high level what they should be doing, because if they got to their level only solo-ing, then the game is somewhat flawed. The game should force some grouping at all levels, considering that its a MMORPG, not a single player game. You want to solo, go play a single player game like Oblivion.
With that said, I've been solo-ing in DDO, and having alot of fun. Hey, I like to solo. Listen to what I said, not what I'm doing. :
========================== The game is dead not, this game is good we make it and Romania Tv give it 5 goat heads, this is good rating for game.
^ You've pretty much described why I skip most "must have a group" content in mmorpgs, and instead just solo + roleplay/socialize in-game. I don't like being the person who has "let the group down" even at beginner levels. But I also would rather not have to spend hours watching youtube and reading tutorials to learn the content, as that's kind of...not fun. For me at least.
I would have to say that my favourite "middle" route has been with Rift's public grouping during world rifts/invasions/footholds, where the grouping simply happens out of both vicinity and need, without being organized or forced.
GW2's ideas sound nice on paper (we have to experience it for a while to see how itll work in practice):
- Scaling content that raises difficulty when more players participate and also changes player level if they are too high lvl for that content (their dynamic event system). So no lame encounters because you have a high lvl groupmember that one shots everything. Also if you dont want to group, you can do this content anyway as soloplayer.
- But also some content specifically made as groupchallenge. This content is more difficult, has interesting rewards, but not mandatory. (their dungeons in explore mode).
I find lvl scaling very important in any lvl based MMO. Either through a mentoring system like in CoH or the way that GW2 offers. I usually start a new MMO with friends of mine and really dont like having to lvl on my own all the time just because we have not all the same amount of time to play.
I also hate groupcontent with rare drops that require you to repeat it endlessly if you happen to be unlucky with your rolls. I find this system the worst and rarely group in games that use this.
Solo play was killed when RMT gold farmers decided MMO maps were a good place to make money. You see it in every game that has solo content. Macro farming destroys any ingame value the content provides. Most games now have a gold farmer exchange rate befoe they even leave Beta and it revolves around the critical aspect of an MMO, the replay value or grind that usually gets saturated by bots and macros. Game companies need to combat the undermarket.
In my early MMO days, I grouped 90% of the time. It was fun and rewarding. As I've gotten older and my available playing time has been reduced, I find myself soloing 90% of the time. About the only time I group is if it's with friends, or if it's an auto-grouped situation (battlegrounds) or a random invite while I'm doing something (both on same quest, public quest, etc). I can understand both sides of the argument.
To me, being able to solo is very important for players with time constraints of families. If you only have 30 minutes to play, you can't spend half of it looking for a group. And you can't expect groups to be happy when you disband 20 minutes into a session and they have to find a replacement. Solo players add to the community, noone wants to play in an empty world. So I think it's very important to support them, and to offer them ways in which they can compete with those with more time. But it should be a more difficult path.
But on the flip side, I also think that grouping and the social aspect is where MMOs are at their best. It helps to bring the community together. If you ask old school players from the early games about other characters on their server, they almost certainly can recall the other players of the same race/starting area. Even with a level gap, they were often aware of one another. At some point you had probably grouped with, or knew someone who had grouped with other players who were in your level range. Post-wow that isn't the case. Now you only generally know people in your guild. There's little reason for players to interact until they max level. And that's a big problem that has emerged with solo play becoming the primary form of leveling in most games.
I think the solution is to keep solo as a viable option, but to give players strong incentives to group. I'm not talking about a ridiculous experience bonus, which in essence punishes players for not grouping. What I'm talking about are things like public quests and pvp versions of them, which put players into situations where they can all share the rewards, and have incentive to work together with other players under a common goal. These types of things need to more prevalent and more random.
I always solo all the way up in level as I possibly can. I really start losing interest at the point at with I have to have a group to succeed. It's not really planned, it just always happens. Solo play is far more exciting, because it's all about how great and powerful your character is.
I just thought of something, it might sound crazy or impossible, but what if...and I mean what if we have a SOLO LEVEL and a GROUP LEVEL
GROUP LEVELS opens group skills and SOLO levels opens SOLO survival skills, and when you are in a group you don't get to use SOLO skills, when you do SOLO you don't get to use your group skills.
This way everyone can get to do anything and everything, but if you want to survive SOLO EPIC Raid like content you have to be good at being solo, if you want to do GROUP RAID Content you have to be good at Groups. This way the contents are distinguished and it satisfied the both extremes.
Those that wanted to do both can experience both, and there will be enough content for everyone. What i also mean is that each dungeon has Solo version and Group version same boss but different mechanics build for each different play.
Its more work for developers, but isn't that what they are suppose to do, create something unique and innovative for gamers to get interested in. So more work = more money invested = more players interested = more profits returns. ITs good business
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
My point of view is quite basic NOBODY should be forced to play in a particular style. The advantage of being in a group should be as simple as by grouping you can face content sooner get the gear earlier than someone who tried to do it solo. For example a low level dungeon that can be taken by a group at level say 5 but to solo it would require you to be level say 8 or higher.
One of the things i feel that is being over done is the use of increased stat mobs, most modern games seem to be doing it. To make n encounter "group only" they take the basic mob and multiply its hitpoints quadruple its damage etc. I actually liked how EQ1 had ir yes there were special mobs there were the planes which was filled with group only and there were the special raid zones where the mobs were seriously stacked. But the normal dungeons could be soloed and in the early days you would get the loot.. The special buffed up monsters were few and far between and reserved for things like dragons.
In a group you leveled fast you got the good gear quickly and when it was most useful. If you soloed you leveled slower and the gear was sometimed obselete byt he time you got it BUT you still managed to get it.
What this meant was people grouped when they could but even when the coudn't they could still work on something meaningful. For example the gem drops needed for the epic armour or those long camps for that much needed magic item (feathered cloak, hero bracers etc).
Group play should never be forced it. it should be encouraged in places where its useful dungeons and the like but there also needs to be meaningiful content and the rewards should be worthwhile for people when they solo as well. Because in my opinion solo and group play is something everyone does at some point.
I have said this many times, although I am generally fighting with pk junkies when i say it.
A game is meant to be fun. No one plays a game because it is a real challenge, or actually hard. Some people get their kicks being ganged up on and doing the same to others. Some get their jollies grinding for 10 hours straight. Some like quests, some like the social aspects. Some just want to kill time and couldn't care less how they do it.
So there is no right answer, and no single way of playing a game is better than another because everyone's idea of a good time is different.
Before I make my comments, I should say where I am coming from. My first videogame was Pong on an Atari console. I did Commodore 64, then moved on to PC gaming. The main focus were combat sims (IE flight sims and the like) RPGs, FPS and strategy games, with a few RTS thrown in. I did also do quite a bit of PnP RPGs as well.
My first exposure to the MMO concept was through fiction... the Cyberpunk genre and similar stories. You could say that what I think of as the ideal MMO is the Matrix (but hopefully without the rest of the crap that went with it).
My first play experience in an actual MMO was EQ1. Although I had watched friends play DIKU MUDs and UO I wasn't really drawn to play them. EQ1 lasted for me about 3 months... until I had a really bad run in with that game's death penalty system, which gave me 6 hours to read through the game's forums and see how the company chose to respond to flaws that their customers had pointed out in their game. Well, the gist was "This is how we want it, bugger off". I decided that with that kind of game design and that kind of attitude, Sony Online Entertainment did not deserve my money anymore, ever again.
I was convinced by a IRL friend to try DaoC early in 2002, joined a really good guild there, and stayed with that guild through DaoC till 2004, moved with them to WoW in 2004, stayed in WoW till approx March of this year. Tried Rift beta, played Rift till ~May. Went back to DaoC, which is where I am now.
I've done the solo play, group play, PvP in both a solo and group context, and been a hard core progression raider, clearing WoW heroic raid content.
With that said, I am not a fan of forced grouping. I am also not a fan of one particular avenue being the ONLY way to advance your character's abilities. Why? Because it actually is detrimental to the formation of a good community. Why? Because forcing people to do something that they don't really want to do tends to make people unhappy campers, and unhappy campers are less social.
People are going to bring the exact same behavior and procedures that they use in their normal life to make friends into the game world. Reserved people will be reserved, gregarious will be gregarious.
Yes, game design can influence whether it makes sense to group or not outside of dungeons, but not whether people really want to. Taking WoW as an example, in most cases grouping up for quests makes sense, because if it is a 'kill x type mob' you're not going to be competing for the same spawns if you're grouped, and the quest reward itself is a really large percentage of the overall experience. Unfortunately, if you happen to be in the random dungeon finder you can't join another group or it kicks you out of the queue. Silly, I know.
I agree with what some of the folks in this thread have brought up on the topic of seriously doubting that any non-Asian developer is going to use forced grouping outside of instances as part of the leveling process again, if only because once the initial rush is over, it will tend to stop new players in their tracks. A crappy solo-only option will do the same thing. Pissing people off early is not good business.
As far as the whole meaning of multiplayer thing goes, some of you folks seem to think it means the same thing as co-op play, and only co-op play. Multiplayer honestly does only mean 'more than one person playing'. Thats been the usuage of it since before computer gaming even started. Co-op play is a form of multiplayer, but generally MMORPGs encompass the whole spectrum.
Group quests are always awesome but only if the game is fairly new. If that's the case then every questing area will be crowded with people so it's pretty easy finding someone to help you kill an elite mob or something.
If the game is somewhat older, then group quests can be pain in the ass (Nagrand anyone?)
Also, if doing dailies on max level or just grinding reputation or something, I prefer doing it in group because you achiev more with less time consumed and you also have more fun then doing it by yourself.
As for leveling, I always use the fastest way to max level, either with group of people (Battle of Immortals, Forsaken World) or solo (WoW, Rift, Allods)
No, group quests are always horrible, speciflcally because of people like you who are racing to max level and just want to race through the quest, killing as fast as possible, so you can get to the boss, get the loot and go do it again. Those of us who are in no hurry to get to end-game, who want to take our time and go through each and every quest slowly and carefully, never have any fun in group quests. That's why we don't do them.
No, group quests are always horrible, speciflcally because of people like you who are racing to max level and just want to race through the quest, killing as fast as possible, so you can get to the boss, get the loot and go do it again. Those of us who are in no hurry to get to end-game, who want to take our time and go through each and every quest slowly and carefully, never have any fun in group quests. That's why we don't do them.
It's not racing if u have to grind your way to the next level so you take the fastest road. It's just common sense. If you ever played Perfect World or Two Moons you would know what I'm talking about.
As for Rift and WoW, I never rushed through those games. I enjoyed every aspect of those games and I liked when I had someone in a party to enjoy it with me. It took me 7 or 8 months to raise my first wow char to lvl 70 in BC.
Now, I do it the faster way since I really cba wasting time leveling when I have raids waiting on lvl85.
For those of us who have no interest in ever raiding, max level means nothing except retiring the character and starting over. Thus, we're in no hurry to level up, period. 7-8 months to max level? I've played games where I've taken 2-3 years to get there.
Nope, I do it like everyone else does If you're smarter then the rest of the gaming world, then my hat's off to you kind sir
Heck I've been playing MMO's since about 2000 and never made it to end game on any of them. Even WoW, played on and off almost since launch and have never made it to the end, highest I ever got was a 67 druid. Pretty much for the reasons Cerideth said - they just get boring at the top.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
They're boring at the top because there's no content for solo players once you get there.
The devs should be thankful there are solo players out there who are willing to take their time during the levelling process, otherwise they'd have less subscriptions to draw from.
They're boring at the top because there's no content for solo players once you get there.
The devs should be thankful there are solo players out there who are willing to take their time during the levelling process, otherwise they'd have less subscriptions to draw from.
Raiders should be thankful for the subsidy.
What games are you playing that have no content for solo players at max level? Every MMO I have ever played has more content for the pure soloist than anything else. Crafting, harvesting, dailies, story-line quests...all solo activities. You're typical MMO might have 5 to 10 group oriented dungeons per expansion but the soloer will have hundreds if not thousands of quests. So far Cataclysm has produced an outrageous 7 new five-man dungeons and 5 new raid dungeons.
Comments
I just saw a video of SWTOR where the Miniboss character was applauding and saying so these are the only people that came after him such and such..
I was wondering if there is an mechanic or programming that can make the bosses react to how many players is in its vicinity and fight accordingly. isn't there a code which you can say that if 4 player characters walked through this portal to this boss zone, boss A fights with these and these skills and flee when health equals 10%
and if 1 player character was registered , Boss A summons minions B and C and fights till his health is equal to 50 %
and if 10 player was registered, Boss A summons Minions X and Y and a certain buff is used to make him tougher against tougher opponents
This would solve the whole creating Solo and Group content or the whole solo vs group, since you can do everything either solo or group and the mobs seems to react well to your playstyle, since all zones are instanced anyways, why won't they use the instance to create the appropriate contents for all players.
And we can always have passage ways that open up to have a zerg of minions that can make an event harder when more people is in it. And instead of equipment loot, have them drop craft items that gets easier to get the harder the event is, but solo can still get it, probably through more tries, but thats for another discussion on equipment for solo vs group.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
But you miss the point, the pro-groupers don't want *ANY* solo content whatsoever, they don't want you to be able to complete *ANY* content unless you're in a group and they have said, time and time again, that they vehemently oppose any scalable content, which is what you describe.
Good idea, I like it. Pro-groupers would oppose it simply because it allows soloing in any way, shape or form.
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
Same debate...same argument...same conflicts.
The main flaw is if you accept that either is superior to another (be it group or solo play), then pandora box is open and next thing you know it will be Epic-raids, PvP-slugfest, or tetris-vengeance that will be superior to whatever you enjoy doing in a game.
In theory (a very nice country btw), you need everything supported to be supported equally.
The next steps, are usually one of the 2 following logics:
A - Everything been equally supported brings equal rewards, so every player will do merely what they care for and get to the point they enjoy before changing focus to another game. (EVERYONE IS GOOD AT EVERYTHING if they focus enought)
B- Everything been equally supported brings rewards nearly exclusively to the activity linked to it...when the player is done with whatever he cares for, he may then start doing other activities as he isn't advance there yet, or switch games never been interested in this aspect of the game (aka, rewards make you good at this activity but not other, a sword good at PvP would never be given in PvE...yet an armor good for PvE would never be given in PvP...and so on) (GOOD SOLOERS ARE SOLOING, GOOD GROUPERS ARE GROUPING, GOOD PVPers are PVPing)
Most games would focus on 1 gameplay and screw all other (old EQ have you raid or you would never be as wanted in group as peoples who do raid...or DAoC have you do some realms fights...or...) or have it the other way completely (CoX, you do whatever and you are good at everything...yet with later design they change it to have peoples do task forces...which back then make me quite happy, yet it was just as badly "encouraging" 1 gameplay over other).
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
One of the problems with solo-ers is that they tend not to know what they are doing when it comes to groups. I'm not talking tanks here, who don't really need to know what they are doing since all they need to do is attack stuff. if you have a 6 player group and the person who is use to solo-ing isn't targeting what everyone else is, isn't healing when he could be, and trying to do what he normally does when solo-ing and not using group tactics is the way alot of groups fail, sometimes epically.
I prefer to group with people who know what they are doing. I don't want to have to teach a high level what they should be doing, because if they got to their level only solo-ing, then the game is somewhat flawed. The game should force some grouping at all levels, considering that its a MMORPG, not a single player game. You want to solo, go play a single player game like Oblivion.
With that said, I've been solo-ing in DDO, and having alot of fun. Hey, I like to solo. Listen to what I said, not what I'm doing.
:
==========================
The game is dead not, this game is good we make it and Romania Tv give it 5 goat heads, this is good rating for game.
^ You've pretty much described why I skip most "must have a group" content in mmorpgs, and instead just solo + roleplay/socialize in-game. I don't like being the person who has "let the group down" even at beginner levels. But I also would rather not have to spend hours watching youtube and reading tutorials to learn the content, as that's kind of...not fun. For me at least.
I would have to say that my favourite "middle" route has been with Rift's public grouping during world rifts/invasions/footholds, where the grouping simply happens out of both vicinity and need, without being organized or forced.
GW2's ideas sound nice on paper (we have to experience it for a while to see how itll work in practice):
- Scaling content that raises difficulty when more players participate and also changes player level if they are too high lvl for that content (their dynamic event system). So no lame encounters because you have a high lvl groupmember that one shots everything. Also if you dont want to group, you can do this content anyway as soloplayer.
- But also some content specifically made as groupchallenge. This content is more difficult, has interesting rewards, but not mandatory. (their dungeons in explore mode).
I find lvl scaling very important in any lvl based MMO. Either through a mentoring system like in CoH or the way that GW2 offers. I usually start a new MMO with friends of mine and really dont like having to lvl on my own all the time just because we have not all the same amount of time to play.
I also hate groupcontent with rare drops that require you to repeat it endlessly if you happen to be unlucky with your rolls. I find this system the worst and rarely group in games that use this.
Solo play was killed when RMT gold farmers decided MMO maps were a good place to make money. You see it in every game that has solo content. Macro farming destroys any ingame value the content provides. Most games now have a gold farmer exchange rate befoe they even leave Beta and it revolves around the critical aspect of an MMO, the replay value or grind that usually gets saturated by bots and macros. Game companies need to combat the undermarket.
a game should balance both solo and group play.
solo-play = easier mobs, less loot, but loot is all yours
group-play = harder mobs, more loot, but not all loot are yours.
My Blog About Hellgate Global, an ARPG/FPS hybrid MMO:
http://kashiewannaplay.wordpress.com/
Hellgate Global Official Fan Blog
http://t3funhellgate.wordpress.com/
Currently Playing: Hellgate Global, LoL, Skyrim, Morrowind
Recently Played: Cardmon Hero, Cabal, Oblivion
In my early MMO days, I grouped 90% of the time. It was fun and rewarding. As I've gotten older and my available playing time has been reduced, I find myself soloing 90% of the time. About the only time I group is if it's with friends, or if it's an auto-grouped situation (battlegrounds) or a random invite while I'm doing something (both on same quest, public quest, etc). I can understand both sides of the argument.
To me, being able to solo is very important for players with time constraints of families. If you only have 30 minutes to play, you can't spend half of it looking for a group. And you can't expect groups to be happy when you disband 20 minutes into a session and they have to find a replacement. Solo players add to the community, noone wants to play in an empty world. So I think it's very important to support them, and to offer them ways in which they can compete with those with more time. But it should be a more difficult path.
But on the flip side, I also think that grouping and the social aspect is where MMOs are at their best. It helps to bring the community together. If you ask old school players from the early games about other characters on their server, they almost certainly can recall the other players of the same race/starting area. Even with a level gap, they were often aware of one another. At some point you had probably grouped with, or knew someone who had grouped with other players who were in your level range. Post-wow that isn't the case. Now you only generally know people in your guild. There's little reason for players to interact until they max level. And that's a big problem that has emerged with solo play becoming the primary form of leveling in most games.
I think the solution is to keep solo as a viable option, but to give players strong incentives to group. I'm not talking about a ridiculous experience bonus, which in essence punishes players for not grouping. What I'm talking about are things like public quests and pvp versions of them, which put players into situations where they can all share the rewards, and have incentive to work together with other players under a common goal. These types of things need to more prevalent and more random.
https://www.therepopulation.com - Sci Fi Sandbox.
I always solo all the way up in level as I possibly can. I really start losing interest at the point at with I have to have a group to succeed. It's not really planned, it just always happens. Solo play is far more exciting, because it's all about how great and powerful your character is.
I just thought of something, it might sound crazy or impossible, but what if...and I mean what if we have a SOLO LEVEL and a GROUP LEVEL
GROUP LEVELS opens group skills and SOLO levels opens SOLO survival skills, and when you are in a group you don't get to use SOLO skills, when you do SOLO you don't get to use your group skills.
This way everyone can get to do anything and everything, but if you want to survive SOLO EPIC Raid like content you have to be good at being solo, if you want to do GROUP RAID Content you have to be good at Groups. This way the contents are distinguished and it satisfied the both extremes.
Those that wanted to do both can experience both, and there will be enough content for everyone. What i also mean is that each dungeon has Solo version and Group version same boss but different mechanics build for each different play.
Its more work for developers, but isn't that what they are suppose to do, create something unique and innovative for gamers to get interested in. So more work = more money invested = more players interested = more profits returns. ITs good business
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
My point of view is quite basic NOBODY should be forced to play in a particular style. The advantage of being in a group should be as simple as by grouping you can face content sooner get the gear earlier than someone who tried to do it solo. For example a low level dungeon that can be taken by a group at level say 5 but to solo it would require you to be level say 8 or higher.
One of the things i feel that is being over done is the use of increased stat mobs, most modern games seem to be doing it. To make n encounter "group only" they take the basic mob and multiply its hitpoints quadruple its damage etc. I actually liked how EQ1 had ir yes there were special mobs there were the planes which was filled with group only and there were the special raid zones where the mobs were seriously stacked. But the normal dungeons could be soloed and in the early days you would get the loot.. The special buffed up monsters were few and far between and reserved for things like dragons.
In a group you leveled fast you got the good gear quickly and when it was most useful. If you soloed you leveled slower and the gear was sometimed obselete byt he time you got it BUT you still managed to get it.
What this meant was people grouped when they could but even when the coudn't they could still work on something meaningful. For example the gem drops needed for the epic armour or those long camps for that much needed magic item (feathered cloak, hero bracers etc).
Group play should never be forced it. it should be encouraged in places where its useful dungeons and the like but there also needs to be meaningiful content and the rewards should be worthwhile for people when they solo as well. Because in my opinion solo and group play is something everyone does at some point.
Enough Rambling
Gadareth
I strongly prefer to only group with other soloers. :P
I have said this many times, although I am generally fighting with pk junkies when i say it.
A game is meant to be fun. No one plays a game because it is a real challenge, or actually hard. Some people get their kicks being ganged up on and doing the same to others. Some get their jollies grinding for 10 hours straight. Some like quests, some like the social aspects. Some just want to kill time and couldn't care less how they do it.
So there is no right answer, and no single way of playing a game is better than another because everyone's idea of a good time is different.
Acidhedz - Music For Maniacs and Weirdos.
Before I make my comments, I should say where I am coming from. My first videogame was Pong on an Atari console. I did Commodore 64, then moved on to PC gaming. The main focus were combat sims (IE flight sims and the like) RPGs, FPS and strategy games, with a few RTS thrown in. I did also do quite a bit of PnP RPGs as well.
My first exposure to the MMO concept was through fiction... the Cyberpunk genre and similar stories. You could say that what I think of as the ideal MMO is the Matrix (but hopefully without the rest of the crap that went with it).
My first play experience in an actual MMO was EQ1. Although I had watched friends play DIKU MUDs and UO I wasn't really drawn to play them. EQ1 lasted for me about 3 months... until I had a really bad run in with that game's death penalty system, which gave me 6 hours to read through the game's forums and see how the company chose to respond to flaws that their customers had pointed out in their game. Well, the gist was "This is how we want it, bugger off". I decided that with that kind of game design and that kind of attitude, Sony Online Entertainment did not deserve my money anymore, ever again.
I was convinced by a IRL friend to try DaoC early in 2002, joined a really good guild there, and stayed with that guild through DaoC till 2004, moved with them to WoW in 2004, stayed in WoW till approx March of this year. Tried Rift beta, played Rift till ~May. Went back to DaoC, which is where I am now.
I've done the solo play, group play, PvP in both a solo and group context, and been a hard core progression raider, clearing WoW heroic raid content.
With that said, I am not a fan of forced grouping. I am also not a fan of one particular avenue being the ONLY way to advance your character's abilities. Why? Because it actually is detrimental to the formation of a good community. Why? Because forcing people to do something that they don't really want to do tends to make people unhappy campers, and unhappy campers are less social.
People are going to bring the exact same behavior and procedures that they use in their normal life to make friends into the game world. Reserved people will be reserved, gregarious will be gregarious.
Yes, game design can influence whether it makes sense to group or not outside of dungeons, but not whether people really want to. Taking WoW as an example, in most cases grouping up for quests makes sense, because if it is a 'kill x type mob' you're not going to be competing for the same spawns if you're grouped, and the quest reward itself is a really large percentage of the overall experience. Unfortunately, if you happen to be in the random dungeon finder you can't join another group or it kicks you out of the queue. Silly, I know.
I agree with what some of the folks in this thread have brought up on the topic of seriously doubting that any non-Asian developer is going to use forced grouping outside of instances as part of the leveling process again, if only because once the initial rush is over, it will tend to stop new players in their tracks. A crappy solo-only option will do the same thing. Pissing people off early is not good business.
As far as the whole meaning of multiplayer thing goes, some of you folks seem to think it means the same thing as co-op play, and only co-op play. Multiplayer honestly does only mean 'more than one person playing'. Thats been the usuage of it since before computer gaming even started. Co-op play is a form of multiplayer, but generally MMORPGs encompass the whole spectrum.
Group quests are always awesome but only if the game is fairly new. If that's the case then every questing area will be crowded with people so it's pretty easy finding someone to help you kill an elite mob or something.
If the game is somewhat older, then group quests can be pain in the ass (Nagrand anyone?)
Also, if doing dailies on max level or just grinding reputation or something, I prefer doing it in group because you achiev more with less time consumed and you also have more fun then doing it by yourself.
As for leveling, I always use the fastest way to max level, either with group of people (Battle of Immortals, Forsaken World) or solo (WoW, Rift, Allods)
No, group quests are always horrible, speciflcally because of people like you who are racing to max level and just want to race through the quest, killing as fast as possible, so you can get to the boss, get the loot and go do it again. Those of us who are in no hurry to get to end-game, who want to take our time and go through each and every quest slowly and carefully, never have any fun in group quests. That's why we don't do them.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
It's not racing if u have to grind your way to the next level so you take the fastest road. It's just common sense. If you ever played Perfect World or Two Moons you would know what I'm talking about.
As for Rift and WoW, I never rushed through those games. I enjoyed every aspect of those games and I liked when I had someone in a party to enjoy it with me. It took me 7 or 8 months to raise my first wow char to lvl 70 in BC.
Now, I do it the faster way since I really cba wasting time leveling when I have raids waiting on lvl85.
For those of us who have no interest in ever raiding, max level means nothing except retiring the character and starting over. Thus, we're in no hurry to level up, period. 7-8 months to max level? I've played games where I've taken 2-3 years to get there.
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
You're doing it wrong then
No, but maybe you 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
Nope, I do it like everyone else does
If you're smarter then the rest of the gaming world, then my hat's off to you kind sir
Heck I've been playing MMO's since about 2000 and never made it to end game on any of them. Even WoW, played on and off almost since launch and have never made it to the end, highest I ever got was a 67 druid. Pretty much for the reasons Cerideth said - they just get boring at the top.
Venge
They're boring at the top because there's no content for solo players once you get there.
The devs should be thankful there are solo players out there who are willing to take their time during the levelling process, otherwise they'd have less subscriptions to draw from.
Raiders should be thankful for the subsidy.
What games are you playing that have no content for solo players at max level? Every MMO I have ever played has more content for the pure soloist than anything else. Crafting, harvesting, dailies, story-line quests...all solo activities. You're typical MMO might have 5 to 10 group oriented dungeons per expansion but the soloer will have hundreds if not thousands of quests. So far Cataclysm has produced an outrageous 7 new five-man dungeons and 5 new raid dungeons.