Seems like a lot of back and forth on the forced grouping thing still. If you really want to see people flock to group content, just make that group content incredibly attractive. Sure keep the solo content for when you only have an hour or two to play, or you simply can't schedule a groups going (you'll need to keep it anyway to be profitable).
But always keep that amazing zone, that surreal adventure out there as the one everyone talks about and wants to play. Sure, it's the one that has the difficult challenges, but build in little incentives and lures people to try just a little bit as a group, then a little more.... That's the way to get people to group and stay grouped. Simply put, make the grouped content the best and most interesting in the game.
All you're describing is bribing people to play your way. If you have to do that, then clearly, your playstyle is a failure.
I dunno -- I think that's how most of these games work anyway -- there has to be something interesting to explore or you wouldn't go there. I am not recommending grouping as the only way or even the best way, but if you want to promote groups, you need to havea maguffin or hook that draws people to group. Strongarming isn't very interesting. The hook could be a visual, and interesting quest/storyline, a tough foe, rare crafting items, pure exploration, lots of things. I'm not talking about a hard loot bribe here, and those things could be part of a solo path as well.
Seems like a lot of back and forth on the forced grouping thing still. If you really want to see people flock to group content, just make that group content incredibly attractive. Sure keep the solo content for when you only have an hour or two to play, or you simply can't schedule a groups going (you'll need to keep it anyway to be profitable).
But always keep that amazing zone, that surreal adventure out there as the one everyone talks about and wants to play. Sure, it's the one that has the difficult challenges, but build in little incentives and lures people to try just a little bit as a group, then a little more.... That's the way to get people to group and stay grouped. Simply put, make the grouped content the best and most interesting in the game.
All you're describing is bribing people to play your way. If you have to do that, then clearly, your playstyle is a failure.
I dunno -- I think that's how most of these games work anyway -- there has to be something interesting to explore or you wouldn't go there. I am not recommending grouping as the only way or even the best way, but if you want to promote groups, you need to havea maguffin or hook that draws people to group. Strongarming isn't very interesting. The hook could be a visual, and interesting quest/storyline, a tough foe, rare crafting items, pure exploration, lots of things. I'm not talking about a hard loot bribe here, and those things could be part of a solo path as well.
Why would you want to promote anything at all? Here are your options. Go do what you want. Play the way you want to play. If you have to promote a means of gameplay, clearly there aren't a lot of people who are choosing it on their own.
Seems like a lot of back and forth on the forced grouping thing still. If you really want to see people flock to group content, just make that group content incredibly attractive. Sure keep the solo content for when you only have an hour or two to play, or you simply can't schedule a groups going (you'll need to keep it anyway to be profitable).
But always keep that amazing zone, that surreal adventure out there as the one everyone talks about and wants to play. Sure, it's the one that has the difficult challenges, but build in little incentives and lures people to try just a little bit as a group, then a little more.... That's the way to get people to group and stay grouped. Simply put, make the grouped content the best and most interesting in the game.
All you're describing is bribing people to play your way. If you have to do that, then clearly, your playstyle is a failure.
I dunno -- I think that's how most of these games work anyway -- there has to be something interesting to explore or you wouldn't go there. I am not recommending grouping as the only way or even the best way, but if you want to promote groups, you need to havea maguffin or hook that draws people to group. Strongarming isn't very interesting. The hook could be a visual, and interesting quest/storyline, a tough foe, rare crafting items, pure exploration, lots of things. I'm not talking about a hard loot bribe here, and those things could be part of a solo path as well.
Why would you want to promote anything at all? Here are your options. Go do what you want. Play the way you want to play. If you have to promote a means of gameplay, clearly there aren't a lot of people who are choosing it on their own.
So grouping is an option. So is doing stuff solo. Why do you have a problem with that? And why would you have a problem with making both of those choices interesting?
Because that's a completely different genre, maybe? That's like criticizing an MMO that doesn't let you jump by pointing to platformers.
Seriously, you're not actually making this argument, are you?
They're both multiplayer games, MMO's, online shooters, they both incorporate bringing multiple players together. In the case of the Battlefields of the world, they're what you would describe as 'forced grouping', you have to be a part of a team. Play lonewolf on that team and the team as a whole suffers. So it might be a different style of gaming, but the theory is still the same, people are 'forced' to work together, and yet they're incredibly popular.
So why do you think that the same idea in an MMO would be a failure? Because WoW allowed you to solo most of its content, soloers have taken it upon themselves to believe that MMO's are single player games with multiplayer components. Sadly, recent developers have followed the same path. What they're missing is the core principle of a multiplayer game - the other players.
Why do you think WoW is still so popular? It's not the solo levelling process, I can guarantee you that, it's all the multiplayer dungeons and raids at the end game. As has been said before, people sit in cities and queue up for the dungeons, they don't even bother with the solo content.
So grouping is an option. So is doing stuff solo. Why do you have a problem with that? And why would you have a problem with making both of those choices interesting?
It's pointless trying to discuss grouping with Cephus, he has this strange idea that people will naturally group for the fun of grouping. He obviously doesn't understand human nature. Cephus, go to a park and sit down for a while, watch the people - you'll see that they stay in their own little worlds, some might have friends or partners with them, but there is little to no interaction between different groups. Now, go push a four year old into the lake (I don't really want you to do this) and watch how those people gather to try and help, they interact with each other, make suggestions, work out who the best swimmer is and who will likely drag the four year old down with them...
See, if you allow people to just continue on their own, they will continue doing things on their own. Give people a reason to group, a reason to reach out to other people, and they'll do exactly that. And that is the idea behind 'forced grouping', because without it, people will just continue walking the dog through the park.
Except he's right. That is currenty exactly what happens.
Solo and Group play are both rewarded, albeit group slightly more.
In today's games those that want to group are, those that want to solo are. They are doing them simply because they like them. Both are rewarded.
@ortwig I don't think cephus was saying not to make both interesting. He is saying if you reward one but not the other you are just bribing people to do something they don't want to do in the first place.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
So grouping is an option. So is doing stuff solo. Why do you have a problem with that? And why would you have a problem with making both of those choices interesting?
It's pointless trying to discuss grouping with Cephus, he has this strange idea that people will naturally group for the fun of grouping. He obviously doesn't understand human nature. Cephus, go to a park and sit down for a while, watch the people - you'll see that they stay in their own little worlds, some might have friends or partners with them, but there is little to no interaction between different groups. Now, go push a four year old into the lake (I don't really want you to do this) and watch how those people gather to try and help, they interact with each other, make suggestions, work out who the best swimmer is and who will likely drag the four year old down with them...
See, if you allow people to just continue on their own, they will continue doing things on their own. Give people a reason to group, a reason to reach out to other people, and they'll do exactly that. And that is the idea behind 'forced grouping', because without it, people will just continue walking the dog through the park.
Makes sense -- I guess my definition of "forced grouping" is a borg analogy (you can't do ANYTHING unless you group), while I think of good grouping as more of an incentive activity. Sure, saving the baby would be "forced" due to the situation, but I don't think that would work in all situations, and would get boring after awhile. I also think of an unexplored hostile territory (Mt. Everest) as a challenge that some would be attracted to trying to do and some not -- and that's okay.
UO is by all means the perfect mmorpg to use as an example for a game that gets everything right. If UO was in 3D like many current games I believe more people would be playing this title.
UO catered to every type of player whether it be group, solo, crafting etc. etc. the game is still running since 1996 how many other games can say the same?
Games that force players to have to group usually are never successful. Vice versa with games that force players to go solo with very limited options of grouping.
For me, the question all comes down to character progression. How far can your player progress without being forced into a playstyle they don't enjoy.
If a player can only get so far through solo play, and then is required to group up to continue character progression, then that's design fail to me.
I think it's fine to have some content limited to groups only, but if the best-in-slot gear can only be obtained through group play (see almost every MMO in existence), then I consider that game design failure as well.
Alternate paths to the same goal.
It's simple: RPGs need progressively more challenging content that offers progressively better rewards. And it needs to do this for both Solo and Group play. One form of play might be faster, but neither should have exclusively better rewards.
I wonder why multiplayer games such as Battlefield and Call of Duty are so popular then. And I'm talking of the multiplayer component, not the 3 hour solo campaign. You'd think it would chase the soloers away due to its niche design, yet they're the biggest franchises around. Huh.
Because that's a completely different genre, maybe? That's like criticizing an MMO that doesn't let you jump by pointing to platformers.
Seriously, you're not actually making this argument, are you?
Yeah, golly gee....Planetside2 is such an incredibly different experience from Battlefield....after-all ones an MMO and ones a FPS...completely different thing going on there. You really got him.
For me, the question all comes down to character progression. How far can your player progress without being forced into a playstyle they don't enjoy.
If a player can only get so far through solo play, and then is required to group up to continue character progression, then that's design fail to me.
I think it's fine to have some content limited to groups only, but if the best-in-slot gear can only be obtained through group play (see almost every MMO in existence), then I consider that game design failure as well.
Alternate paths to the same goal.
It's simple: RPGs need progressively more challenging content that offers progressively better rewards. And it needs to do this for both Solo and Group play. One form of play might be faster, but neither should have exclusively better rewards.
I think games simply need to be clear about what thier design goals are and who thier intended audiences are...
It's the old... try to please everyone, end up pleasing no one syndrome.
That might have been very doable 10 years ago with only a few options on the market....but there is no point in being that game when there are 300 other games already on the market doing the exact same thing.
There is actualy nothing wrong with a game saying "Yeah we allow you to solo some very basic content when you've got no one else around to play with...but we're really a group focused game so to do anything significant you'll need a group....but it has to set that expectation up in the player from the start...or really even before purchase....so they know they are getting a game that matches up with thier play preferences."
Same thing in reverse for group oriented players....it's not cool to set the player up with the expectation that grouping is an important feature of play when it's a tacked on optional feature which less then 1 percent of the content is geared toward.
UO is by all means the perfect mmorpg to use as an example for a game that gets everything right. If UO was in 3D like many current games I believe more people would be playing this title.
UO catered to every type of player whether it be group, solo, crafting etc. etc. the game is still running since 1996 how many other games can say the same?
Games that force players to have to group usually are never successful. Vice versa with games that force players to go solo with very limited options of grouping.
There is no such thing as a perfect MMO. If you cater to everyone, you end up making no one happy.
UO was not perfect by any stretch of the imagination - it was mediocre with it all. I haven't found an MMO yet that had it all - I don't think there will ever be such a thing.
If a player can only get so far through solo play, and then is required to group up to continue character progression, then that's design fail to me.
What I don't understand is why people expect to be able to solo their way through the entirety of a multiplayer game. Really, it just blows my mind to think that people are playing multiplayer games as single player games and then whining when people playing the multiplayer game with multiple players are getting more content. It's like.. Wow. Just how dumb are you? Didn't you read the label?
You don't buy Skyrim expecting to battle alongside other players, why are you buying an MMO and expecting to be able to single player your way through the entire game? Is it just me who finds that ridiculous?
So grouping is an option. So is doing stuff solo. Why do you have a problem with that? And why would you have a problem with making both of those choices interesting?
I don't have a problem with it. Grouping is an option. Soloing is an option. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Just stop trying to build one up to be better than the other and let the people playing the game decide what they want to do.
They're both multiplayer games, MMO's, online shooters, they both incorporate bringing multiple players together. In the case of the Battlefields of the world, they're what you would describe as 'forced grouping', you have to be a part of a team. Play lonewolf on that team and the team as a whole suffers. So it might be a different style of gaming, but the theory is still the same, people are 'forced' to work together, and yet they're incredibly popular.
So why do you think that the same idea in an MMO would be a failure? Because WoW allowed you to solo most of its content, soloers have taken it upon themselves to believe that MMO's are single player games with multiplayer components. Sadly, recent developers have followed the same path. What they're missing is the core principle of a multiplayer game - the other players.
Why do you think WoW is still so popular? It's not the solo levelling process, I can guarantee you that, it's all the multiplayer dungeons and raids at the end game. As has been said before, people sit in cities and queue up for the dungeons, they don't even bother with the solo content.
They're both games that have multiple players in them. What you don't seem to understand is that MMOs only put lots of people together in the same world, they do not require, nor should they require, that you play with all of them. In fact, you will never play with the overwhelming majority of people in an MMO. That is unlike most FPS, where the game matches only a small number of people together to play, then shoves them onto a map to play together. They are incredibly popular with a different crowd of people than those who play MMOs.
I don't know where you get the idea that just because one genre of game is popular, that what they are doing will be equally popular in another genre of game. Hey, Angry Birds is really popular too, let's get out the slingshots and throw things around in MMOs! It must be a hit!
So grouping is an option. So is doing stuff solo. Why do you have a problem with that? And why would you have a problem with making both of those choices interesting?
It's pointless trying to discuss grouping with Cephus, he has this strange idea that people will naturally group for the fun of grouping.
Yeah, what a stupid idea, right? People who find the idea of grouping fun will go out and do it, just because it's fun! How asinine! Because, you know, people who find playing baseball fun tend to go play baseball, people who like playing poker will get together and play poker, etc. The idea is utterly without merit.
If a player can only get so far through solo play, and then is required to group up to continue character progression, then that's design fail to me.
What I don't understand is why people expect to be able to solo their way through the entirety of a multiplayer game. Really, it just blows my mind to think that people are playing multiplayer games as single player games and then whining when people playing the multiplayer game with multiple players are getting more content. It's like.. Wow. Just how dumb are you? Didn't you read the label?
You don't buy Skyrim expecting to battle alongside other players, why are you buying an MMO and expecting to be able to single player your way through the entire game? Is it just me who finds that ridiculous?
I don't feel that MMO is the same as Must Group Up For Combat To Progress. Nor should it be, IMO.
I don't mind that some content is group only. I do very much mind when the best items, ie maximum character progression, is locked behind group-only content.
That said, there's nothing wrong with having SOME games like that. I just also wish that there were many MMOs where maximum progression could be obtained through solo play as well. As I said, I don't dislike grouping, but I hate it being mandatory.
That said, there's nothing wrong with having SOME games like that. I just also wish that there were many MMOs where maximum progression could be obtained through solo play as well. As I said, I don't dislike grouping, but I hate it being mandatory.
That's what your Skyrims are for, there are a million and one single player games out there that let you do exactly what you're asking for, a multiplayer game is supposed to have multiplayer content, it's supposed to offer more than a single player game can offer. Why would any developer waste their money creating servers, multiplayer code, class balancing, engine optimizations, and a host of other things, when what you're asking for can be done as a single player game?
It's pointless trying to discuss grouping with Cephus, he has this strange idea that people will naturally group for the fun of grouping.
Yeah, what a stupid idea, right? People who find the idea of grouping fun will go out and do it, just because it's fun! How asinine! Because, you know, people who find playing baseball fun tend to go play baseball, people who like playing poker will get together and play poker, etc. The idea is utterly without merit.
Yep, see, he still doesn't get it. What you're talking about are games that involve multiple players, baseball, poker, whatever it might be. We're talking about grouping in a game that is largely based on being able to do everything alone. If an MMO was designed where a team was required, just like baseball, then that to you would be 'forced grouping'.
So while you say people who like the idea of grouping will go and do it because it's fun, then sure, they really will, but only if the game supports it, just like baseball. People who want to group can't do that when the game is Solitaire and nobody wants to play Poker.
Well I guess it's a good thing for you that no MMO exists like that today. Every single one of them has group content that people like to and do group up for regularly.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
It is very frustrating to have content in the game gated by phasing/quest lines that require I am at the exact smae spot in the game to help someone on.
I am also additionally annoyed by level restrictions. Some of my favorite grouping systems have included city of heroes with its sidekicking features and Final Fantasy 11 skill chains.
The average game nowdays is easier and more rewarding for the solo player then the group player. And yet so many in this thread want even more.
I already feel incredibly punished for wanting to group so much so that even friends that would love to group would rather split up and do content solo for the speed, efficiency and the convenience of it.
It is very frustrating to have content in the game gated by phasing/quest lines that require I am at the exact smae spot in the game to help someone on.
I am also additionally annoyed by level restrictions. Some of my favorite grouping systems have included city of heroes with its sidekicking features and Final Fantasy 11 skill chains.
The average game nowdays is easier and more rewarding for the solo player then the group player. And yet so many in this thread want even more.
I already feel incredibly punished for wanting to group so much so that even friends that would love to group would rather split up and do content solo for the speed, efficiency and the convenience of it.
The average game these days have made it possible for you to get a group in minutes and you get far more loot, far better xp and far ore coin for being in a group.
Grouping has substantial benefits over soloing in every game on the market.
Getting a group is easier and more rewarding than ever before.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The average game these days have made it possible for you to get a group in minutes and you get far more loot, far better xp and far ore coin for being in a group.
Grouping has substantial benefits over soloing in every game on the market.
Getting a group is easier and more rewarding than ever before.
That said, there's nothing wrong with having SOME games like that. I just also wish that there were many MMOs where maximum progression could be obtained through solo play as well. As I said, I don't dislike grouping, but I hate it being mandatory.
That's what your Skyrims are for, there are a million and one single player games out there that let you do exactly what you're asking for, a multiplayer game is supposed to have multiplayer content, it's supposed to offer more than a single player game can offer. Why would any developer waste their money creating servers, multiplayer code, class balancing, engine optimizations, and a host of other things, when what you're asking for can be done as a single player game?
So you feel that EVERY MMO that's ever created or ever will be created MUST have grouping as the ONLY method of endgame progression? You feel that this is a law cast in stone by the game gods and can never be any other way for all time?
Even to a soloer, MMOs offer lots of things that single player games never will. There is a big difference between soloing in Skyrim vs soloing in Wow that has nothing to do with gameplay.
The average game these days have made it possible for you to get a group in minutes and you get far more loot, far better xp and far ore coin for being in a group.
Grouping has substantial benefits over soloing in every game on the market.
Getting a group is easier and more rewarding than ever before.
Falsehood Detected!
Not at all, everything I stated is completely true.
Virtually every modern MMO today makes it very easy to get into groups. Grouping does give faster xp, better loot and more coin.
Getting a group in virtually every modern MMO just takes a few minutes.
If you can't get a group than that says more about you than the game.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
I dunno -- I think that's how most of these games work anyway -- there has to be something interesting to explore or you wouldn't go there. I am not recommending grouping as the only way or even the best way, but if you want to promote groups, you need to havea maguffin or hook that draws people to group. Strongarming isn't very interesting. The hook could be a visual, and interesting quest/storyline, a tough foe, rare crafting items, pure exploration, lots of things. I'm not talking about a hard loot bribe here, and those things could be part of a solo path as well.
Why would you want to promote anything at all? Here are your options. Go do what you want. Play the way you want to play. If you have to promote a means of gameplay, clearly there aren't a lot of people who are choosing it on their own.
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
So grouping is an option. So is doing stuff solo. Why do you have a problem with that? And why would you have a problem with making both of those choices interesting?
They're both multiplayer games, MMO's, online shooters, they both incorporate bringing multiple players together. In the case of the Battlefields of the world, they're what you would describe as 'forced grouping', you have to be a part of a team. Play lonewolf on that team and the team as a whole suffers. So it might be a different style of gaming, but the theory is still the same, people are 'forced' to work together, and yet they're incredibly popular.
So why do you think that the same idea in an MMO would be a failure? Because WoW allowed you to solo most of its content, soloers have taken it upon themselves to believe that MMO's are single player games with multiplayer components. Sadly, recent developers have followed the same path. What they're missing is the core principle of a multiplayer game - the other players.
Why do you think WoW is still so popular? It's not the solo levelling process, I can guarantee you that, it's all the multiplayer dungeons and raids at the end game. As has been said before, people sit in cities and queue up for the dungeons, they don't even bother with the solo content.
It's pointless trying to discuss grouping with Cephus, he has this strange idea that people will naturally group for the fun of grouping. He obviously doesn't understand human nature. Cephus, go to a park and sit down for a while, watch the people - you'll see that they stay in their own little worlds, some might have friends or partners with them, but there is little to no interaction between different groups. Now, go push a four year old into the lake (I don't really want you to do this) and watch how those people gather to try and help, they interact with each other, make suggestions, work out who the best swimmer is and who will likely drag the four year old down with them...
See, if you allow people to just continue on their own, they will continue doing things on their own. Give people a reason to group, a reason to reach out to other people, and they'll do exactly that. And that is the idea behind 'forced grouping', because without it, people will just continue walking the dog through the park.
Except he's right. That is currenty exactly what happens.
Solo and Group play are both rewarded, albeit group slightly more.
In today's games those that want to group are, those that want to solo are. They are doing them simply because they like them. Both are rewarded.
@ortwig I don't think cephus was saying not to make both interesting. He is saying if you reward one but not the other you are just bribing people to do something they don't want to do in the first place.
Makes sense -- I guess my definition of "forced grouping" is a borg analogy (you can't do ANYTHING unless you group), while I think of good grouping as more of an incentive activity. Sure, saving the baby would be "forced" due to the situation, but I don't think that would work in all situations, and would get boring after awhile. I also think of an unexplored hostile territory (Mt. Everest) as a challenge that some would be attracted to trying to do and some not -- and that's okay.
UO is by all means the perfect mmorpg to use as an example for a game that gets everything right. If UO was in 3D like many current games I believe more people would be playing this title.
UO catered to every type of player whether it be group, solo, crafting etc. etc. the game is still running since 1996 how many other games can say the same?
Games that force players to have to group usually are never successful. Vice versa with games that force players to go solo with very limited options of grouping.
For me, the question all comes down to character progression. How far can your player progress without being forced into a playstyle they don't enjoy.
If a player can only get so far through solo play, and then is required to group up to continue character progression, then that's design fail to me.
I think it's fine to have some content limited to groups only, but if the best-in-slot gear can only be obtained through group play (see almost every MMO in existence), then I consider that game design failure as well.
Alternate paths to the same goal.
It's simple: RPGs need progressively more challenging content that offers progressively better rewards. And it needs to do this for both Solo and Group play. One form of play might be faster, but neither should have exclusively better rewards.Yeah, golly gee....Planetside2 is such an incredibly different experience from Battlefield....after-all ones an MMO and ones a FPS...completely different thing going on there. You really got him.
I think games simply need to be clear about what thier design goals are and who thier intended audiences are...
It's the old... try to please everyone, end up pleasing no one syndrome.
That might have been very doable 10 years ago with only a few options on the market....but there is no point in being that game when there are 300 other games already on the market doing the exact same thing.
There is actualy nothing wrong with a game saying "Yeah we allow you to solo some very basic content when you've got no one else around to play with...but we're really a group focused game so to do anything significant you'll need a group....but it has to set that expectation up in the player from the start...or really even before purchase....so they know they are getting a game that matches up with thier play preferences."
Same thing in reverse for group oriented players....it's not cool to set the player up with the expectation that grouping is an important feature of play when it's a tacked on optional feature which less then 1 percent of the content is geared toward.
There is no such thing as a perfect MMO. If you cater to everyone, you end up making no one happy.
UO was not perfect by any stretch of the imagination - it was mediocre with it all. I haven't found an MMO yet that had it all - I don't think there will ever be such a thing.
What I don't understand is why people expect to be able to solo their way through the entirety of a multiplayer game. Really, it just blows my mind to think that people are playing multiplayer games as single player games and then whining when people playing the multiplayer game with multiple players are getting more content. It's like.. Wow. Just how dumb are you? Didn't you read the label?
You don't buy Skyrim expecting to battle alongside other players, why are you buying an MMO and expecting to be able to single player your way through the entire game? Is it just me who finds that ridiculous?
I don't have a problem with it. Grouping is an option. Soloing is an option. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Just stop trying to build one up to be better than the other and let the people playing the game decide what they want to do.
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
They're both games that have multiple players in them. What you don't seem to understand is that MMOs only put lots of people together in the same world, they do not require, nor should they require, that you play with all of them. In fact, you will never play with the overwhelming majority of people in an MMO. That is unlike most FPS, where the game matches only a small number of people together to play, then shoves them onto a map to play together. They are incredibly popular with a different crowd of people than those who play MMOs.
I don't know where you get the idea that just because one genre of game is popular, that what they are doing will be equally popular in another genre of game. Hey, Angry Birds is really popular too, let's get out the slingshots and throw things around in MMOs! It must be a hit!
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
Yeah, what a stupid idea, right? People who find the idea of grouping fun will go out and do it, just because it's fun! How asinine! Because, you know, people who find playing baseball fun tend to go play baseball, people who like playing poker will get together and play poker, etc. The idea is utterly without merit.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I don't feel that MMO is the same as Must Group Up For Combat To Progress. Nor should it be, IMO.
I don't mind that some content is group only. I do very much mind when the best items, ie maximum character progression, is locked behind group-only content.
That said, there's nothing wrong with having SOME games like that. I just also wish that there were many MMOs where maximum progression could be obtained through solo play as well. As I said, I don't dislike grouping, but I hate it being mandatory.
That's what your Skyrims are for, there are a million and one single player games out there that let you do exactly what you're asking for, a multiplayer game is supposed to have multiplayer content, it's supposed to offer more than a single player game can offer. Why would any developer waste their money creating servers, multiplayer code, class balancing, engine optimizations, and a host of other things, when what you're asking for can be done as a single player game?
Yep, see, he still doesn't get it. What you're talking about are games that involve multiple players, baseball, poker, whatever it might be. We're talking about grouping in a game that is largely based on being able to do everything alone. If an MMO was designed where a team was required, just like baseball, then that to you would be 'forced grouping'.
So while you say people who like the idea of grouping will go and do it because it's fun, then sure, they really will, but only if the game supports it, just like baseball. People who want to group can't do that when the game is Solitaire and nobody wants to play Poker.
It is very frustrating to have content in the game gated by phasing/quest lines that require I am at the exact smae spot in the game to help someone on.
I am also additionally annoyed by level restrictions. Some of my favorite grouping systems have included city of heroes with its sidekicking features and Final Fantasy 11 skill chains.
The average game nowdays is easier and more rewarding for the solo player then the group player. And yet so many in this thread want even more.
I already feel incredibly punished for wanting to group so much so that even friends that would love to group would rather split up and do content solo for the speed, efficiency and the convenience of it.
The average game these days have made it possible for you to get a group in minutes and you get far more loot, far better xp and far ore coin for being in a group.
Grouping has substantial benefits over soloing in every game on the market.
Getting a group is easier and more rewarding than ever before.
Falsehood Detected!
So you feel that EVERY MMO that's ever created or ever will be created MUST have grouping as the ONLY method of endgame progression? You feel that this is a law cast in stone by the game gods and can never be any other way for all time?
Even to a soloer, MMOs offer lots of things that single player games never will. There is a big difference between soloing in Skyrim vs soloing in Wow that has nothing to do with gameplay.
Not at all, everything I stated is completely true.
Virtually every modern MMO today makes it very easy to get into groups. Grouping does give faster xp, better loot and more coin.
Getting a group in virtually every modern MMO just takes a few minutes.
If you can't get a group than that says more about you than the game.