edit: On a more practical note, Imhotepp your view is so extreme I seriously doubt there are enough of you to make any game any money. And so your only choices are to leave the genre, continue to grumble and complain and be unhappy about everything or compromise.
So your argument is that this is a great design, grouping games like DaoC and EQ, and you fully support it and you wish there were more games like this for me to play, but you're simply worried for the profits of Developers?
I'm starting to think you have some reading comprehension difficulties. My argument was made above that statement, this was as stated on a more practical note, nor was it about profit although that factors into it. The argument is there needs to be a market to sustain that. Your extreme is not what EQ and DaoC were, because you could solo to level cap in both of those.
By your own statement, if I can solo to cap why would I group. Your view is extreme, you want a game where there is no soloing at all, because if there is then you are playing a solo game - You have stated this many many times - this type of mentality is not shared by by many people at all, and I seriously doubt there are enough of you to suppot a game, therefore a game would not be made because it would be a money losing proposition and no company wants to lose money. Since you could solo in EQ and DaoC I guess those are solo games.
Once again was that my only comment, no, read please, that was just a practical one.
Venge Sunsoar
this has got me thinking.
One, the pro-groups are stating that they can not have fun unless everyone on the server groups. Granted most us do not have a clue how that could affect their personal game experience but never the less there it is.
Two, the pro-gamers are implying that if its possible to get level cap by soloing then most people would do that which begs the question, is grouping fun and practical as a full time game experience in the first place? For example, I like crafting, its not forced on me I do it becuase its fun. If it has to be forced maybe its not as much fun in the long run as people think
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Does it really have to be totally black and white? 100% solo content for a game? or 100% group content? Why is choice bad?
Problems arise because the raid gear is nearly always "better" then the small group, solo, or even crafted gear.
And also if you are in a raiding guild, a decent one that actually completes raid content, getting raid gear is rather easy to do, you just have to get lucky with drops and not suck SO bad that your raid-hardened guild-mates can't carry you through.
So if you don't have the desire or means to raid, you will never be able to get the "best" gear in the game. This is a problem for a lot of people.
"Why can't I get as good of rewards from solo or small group or crafting?"
This goes back to how a MMO defines "challenge."
And unfortunately, the modern MMO followed the EQ example of what "challenge" is by a simple formula -
Challenge = higher numbers (health, damage) = more players
This is true not just in raiding or group content but in all aspects of level based and gear dependent MMOs.
Even in a "sandbox" skill grind party-up-and-kill-mobs type of game like FFXI or old school EQ, the formula was always challenge = higher numbers and the answer to solving the equation was either bringing more players or gaining more levels or getting better gear.
Does it really have to be totally black and white? 100% solo content for a game? or 100% group content? Why is choice bad?
Problems arise because the raid gear is nearly always "better" then the small group, solo, or even crafted gear.
And also if you are in a raiding guild, a decent one that actually completes raid content, getting raid gear is rather easy to do, you just have to get lucky with drops and not suck SO bad that your raid-hardened guild-mates can't carry you through.
So if you don't have the desire or means to raid, you will never be able to get the "best" gear in the game. This is a problem for a lot of people.
"Why can't I get as good of rewards from solo or small group or crafting?"
This goes back to how a MMO defines "challenge."
And unfortunately, the modern MMO followed the EQ example of what "challenge" is by a simple formula -
Challenge = higher numbers (health, damage) = more players
I think it’s a myth that the majority of the player base in any game are obsessed with getting the best gear possible. In fact, other that the extreme absolute end game there is always gear that is better in a different ‘type’ of access. In other words a crafter might be able to craft a better weapon that you can get at your current level on raids but after you get to the next level then your access would be better than his etc. The ONLY time your argument would apply is at the absolute end game.
Oh and I think the largest part of the player base simply do what they enjoy doing. They craft because they like it, or raid becuase they like it. If you have to create a manitory reason for doing something one has to ask the question, is it really fun then?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
edit: On a more practical note, Imhotepp your view is so extreme I seriously doubt there are enough of you to make any game any money. And so your only choices are to leave the genre, continue to grumble and complain and be unhappy about everything or compromise.
So your argument is that this is a great design, grouping games like DaoC and EQ, and you fully support it and you wish there were more games like this for me to play, but you're simply worried for the profits of Developers?
I'm starting to think you have some reading comprehension difficulties. My argument was made above that statement, this was as stated on a more practical note, nor was it about profit although that factors into it. The argument is there needs to be a market to sustain that. Your extreme is not what EQ and DaoC were, because you could solo to level cap in both of those.
By your own statement, if I can solo to cap why would I group. Your view is extreme, you want a game where there is no soloing at all, because if there is then you are playing a solo game - You have stated this many many times - this type of mentality is not shared by by many people at all, and I seriously doubt there are enough of you to suppot a game, therefore a game would not be made because it would be a money losing proposition and no company wants to lose money. Since you could solo in EQ and DaoC I guess those are solo games.
Once again was that my only comment, no, read please, that was just a practical one.
Venge Sunsoar
YOu can solo to the level cap in every MMORPG.
I don't know of one game where that is not possible.
If you think EQ and DAoC were fine as game designs, when it comes to group vs solo balance, then we are in agreement.
I dont' have any desire to stop people from soloing to the level cap.
People did that just fine in DAoC and EQ.
I would never do it, because it would be pretty darn boring for me, but certainly people did it all the time.
I'm saying WoW is a solo game, because it's so EASY to solo to the top, that grouping in that game is pointless. Group and bash some mobs, dont' group and bash mobs, it makes the same difference. It's a solo game.
DAOC is a grouping game, because grouping was important. You felt a real difference in a group compared to playing solo, in game play, and leveling speed, etc.
WoW? Feels like some other players health bars are on my screen, nothing else has changed.
edit: On a more practical note, Imhotepp your view is so extreme I seriously doubt there are enough of you to make any game any money. And so your only choices are to leave the genre, continue to grumble and complain and be unhappy about everything or compromise.
So your argument is that this is a great design, grouping games like DaoC and EQ, and you fully support it and you wish there were more games like this for me to play, but you're simply worried for the profits of Developers?
I'm starting to think you have some reading comprehension difficulties. My argument was made above that statement, this was as stated on a more practical note, nor was it about profit although that factors into it. The argument is there needs to be a market to sustain that. Your extreme is not what EQ and DaoC were, because you could solo to level cap in both of those.
By your own statement, if I can solo to cap why would I group. Your view is extreme, you want a game where there is no soloing at all, because if there is then you are playing a solo game - You have stated this many many times - this type of mentality is not shared by by many people at all, and I seriously doubt there are enough of you to suppot a game, therefore a game would not be made because it would be a money losing proposition and no company wants to lose money. Since you could solo in EQ and DaoC I guess those are solo games.
Once again was that my only comment, no, read please, that was just a practical one.
Venge Sunsoar
YOu can solo to the level cap in every MMORPG.
I don't know of one game where that is not possible.
If you think EQ and DAoC were fine as game designs, when it comes to group vs solo balance, then we are in agreement.
I dont' have any desire to stop people from soloing to the level cap.
People did that just fine in DAoC and EQ.
I would never do it, because it would be pretty darn boring for me, but certainly people did it all the time.
I'm saying WoW is a solo game, because it's so EASY to solo to the top, that grouping in that game is pointless. Group and bash some mobs, dont' group and bash mobs, it makes the same difference. It's a solo game.
DAOC is a grouping game, because grouping was important. You felt a real difference in a group compared to playing solo, in game play, and leveling speed, etc.
WoW? Feels like some other players health bars are on my screen, nothing else has changed.
ah, yes that does clear up your point I think.
I think the solution is simply harder games or games with different balance etc. I think there are problems with MMO's and I think there are solutions, I just dont think 'forced grouping' is one of the soultions, even for the group crowd.
I do think that Darkfall is a good example of a game that is hard and has features that are impossible to do with a group, although in fairness in the context of those groups we are talking around 20-30 people which is a large group.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
A game where you can solo to the top killing mobs below your level for very limited and slow experience gain, and/or you don't have quests with bonus experience appropriate for your level is a forced grouping game.
It's not that solo isn't an option, it certainly is, but it is SO harshly penalized in comparison to grouping that it does "feel" forced (since Ihmotepp is talking about feelings.)
A game where you can solo to the top killing same level or slightly higher mobs for moderate/fair experience gain, and/or you have quests with bonus experience appropriate for your level is a solo game.
It's not that grouping isn't an option, it certainly is, but it is SO poorly awarded in comparison to solo that it does "feel" pointless to group.
I know I'd like to see a happy medium.
Where you can make decent progress solo, but better (however not extremely so) progress with others in a group setting.
Or simply make them equal. Solo quests, group quests, same in number and reward and accessibility etc. Or use dynamic scaling. Etc. etc. there are options.
I just did to with my druid to 50 in Wow. I'm currently playing Ryzom and can do that, great xp solo, more with groups. CoH did a pretty good job (now that AE is worked out).
Istaria - Soloing was the main thing, grindy. But not more more xp grouping, still grindy. But you can do anything. So they are compareable anyway.
Venge Sunsoar
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
edit: On a more practical note, Imhotepp your view is so extreme I seriously doubt there are enough of you to make any game any money. And so your only choices are to leave the genre, continue to grumble and complain and be unhappy about everything or compromise.
So your argument is that this is a great design, grouping games like DaoC and EQ, and you fully support it and you wish there were more games like this for me to play, but you're simply worried for the profits of Developers?
I'm starting to think you have some reading comprehension difficulties. My argument was made above that statement, this was as stated on a more practical note, nor was it about profit although that factors into it. The argument is there needs to be a market to sustain that. Your extreme is not what EQ and DaoC were, because you could solo to level cap in both of those.
By your own statement, if I can solo to cap why would I group. Your view is extreme, you want a game where there is no soloing at all, because if there is then you are playing a solo game - You have stated this many many times - this type of mentality is not shared by by many people at all, and I seriously doubt there are enough of you to suppot a game, therefore a game would not be made because it would be a money losing proposition and no company wants to lose money. Since you could solo in EQ and DaoC I guess those are solo games.
Once again was that my only comment, no, read please, that was just a practical one.
Venge Sunsoar
this has got me thinking.
One, the pro-groups are stating that they can not have fun unless everyone on the server groups. Granted most us do not have a clue how that could affect their personal game experience but never the less there it is.
Two, the pro-gamers are implying that if its possible to get level cap by soloing then most people would do that which begs the question, is grouping fun and practical as a full time game experience in the first place? For example, I like crafting, its not forced on me I do it becuase its fun. If it has to be forced maybe its not as much fun in the long run as people think
I'll give it a shot, but I doubt you'll get it.
I dont' want to force YOU to group. That's the first thing you have to wrap your mind around.
I want challenging game play for ME. Has nothing to do with YOU, what YOU do, how YOU play the game, NOthing, nothing nothing at all.
If you think that, you're way, way, way off base, don't get it, wont' get it.
What I want to do, is enter the Tour De France, and compete with Lance Armstrong.
What you are saying is you can't rid a bike that long. You'd liek to change the rules.
you'd like the Tour De France to be a couple of blocks long.
And you're saying, changing the tour de France to a couple of blocks, becuase you can't ride for hundreds of miles, should not affect lance Armstrong at all.
In fact, you're going to let him still ride for hundreds of miles, if he wants to.
He doesn't have to, becuase the race is only a few blocks long now. But you're all about choice! And people can CHOOSE to ride a couple of blocks, or the they can CHOOSE to ride a few hundred miles.
And Lance Armstrong should be happy, because the fact that you're going to ride a few blocks doesn't change anything for him, becuase you're going to LET him ride a few hundred milles. If he wants to.
And what if Lance Armstrong decides he doesn't want to ride a few hundred miles for a race taht is two blocks long?
Well, I guess Lance didnt' really LIKE racing after all, did he?
Becaues if he LIKED it, he'd go ride that hundred milles while you do a few blocks, wouldn't he?
After all, you haven't affected HIM at all. Oh no, you've just added CHOICE to the Tour De France!
edit: On a more practical note, Imhotepp your view is so extreme I seriously doubt there are enough of you to make any game any money. And so your only choices are to leave the genre, continue to grumble and complain and be unhappy about everything or compromise.
So your argument is that this is a great design, grouping games like DaoC and EQ, and you fully support it and you wish there were more games like this for me to play, but you're simply worried for the profits of Developers?
I'm starting to think you have some reading comprehension difficulties. My argument was made above that statement, this was as stated on a more practical note, nor was it about profit although that factors into it. The argument is there needs to be a market to sustain that. Your extreme is not what EQ and DaoC were, because you could solo to level cap in both of those.
By your own statement, if I can solo to cap why would I group. Your view is extreme, you want a game where there is no soloing at all, because if there is then you are playing a solo game - You have stated this many many times - this type of mentality is not shared by by many people at all, and I seriously doubt there are enough of you to suppot a game, therefore a game would not be made because it would be a money losing proposition and no company wants to lose money. Since you could solo in EQ and DaoC I guess those are solo games.
Once again was that my only comment, no, read please, that was just a practical one.
Venge Sunsoar
this has got me thinking.
One, the pro-groups are stating that they can not have fun unless everyone on the server groups. Granted most us do not have a clue how that could affect their personal game experience but never the less there it is.
Two, the pro-gamers are implying that if its possible to get level cap by soloing then most people would do that which begs the question, is grouping fun and practical as a full time game experience in the first place? For example, I like crafting, its not forced on me I do it becuase its fun. If it has to be forced maybe its not as much fun in the long run as people think
I'll give it a shot, but I doubt you'll get it.
I dont' want to force YOU to group. That's the first thing you have to wrap your mind around.
I want challenging game play for ME. Has nothing to do with YOU, what YOU do, how YOU play the game, NOthing, nothing nothing at all.
If you think that, you're way, way, way off base, don't get it, wont' get it.
What I want to do, is enter the Tour De France, and compete with Lance Armstrong.
What you are saying is you can't rid a bike that long. You'd liek to change the rules.
you'd like the Tour De France to be a couple of blocks long.
And you're saying, changing the tour de France to a couple of blocks, becuase you can't ride for hundreds of miles, should not affect lance Armstrong at all.
In fact, you're going to let him still ride for hundreds of miles, if he wants to.
He doesn't have to, becuase the race is only a few blocks long now. But you're all about choice! And people can CHOOSE to ride a couple of blocks, or the they can CHOOSE to ride a few hundred miles.
And Lance Armstrong should be happy, because the fact that you're going to ride a few blocks doesn't change anything for him, becuase you're going to LET him ride a few hundred milles. If he wants to.
And what if Lance Armstrong decides he doesn't want to ride a few hundred miles for a race taht is two blocks long?
Well, I guess Lance didnt' really LIKE racing after all, did he?
Becaues if he LIKED it, he'd go ride that hundred milles while you do a few blocks, wouldn't he?
After all, you haven't affected HIM at all. Oh no, you've just added CHOICE to the Tour De France!
You have stated repeatedly that if soloing is an option thats no fun for you. Therefore the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is you want a game with no soloing, which means by default that everyone that playes it must be forced to group.
Your biking analogy is seriously flawed. Biking is a solo sport. Yes there are many teams in the Tour De France, but they are competing with each other as well, and yes there are support but only one person gets on the bike and pedals. A better analogy would be soloers are the Tour the normal way, you are coming along and saying if you are on the bike yourself thats too easy and boring for me. Everyone must at least be on a tandem.
Venge Sunsoar
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
edit: On a more practical note, Imhotepp your view is so extreme I seriously doubt there are enough of you to make any game any money. And so your only choices are to leave the genre, continue to grumble and complain and be unhappy about everything or compromise.
So your argument is that this is a great design, grouping games like DaoC and EQ, and you fully support it and you wish there were more games like this for me to play, but you're simply worried for the profits of Developers?
I'm starting to think you have some reading comprehension difficulties. My argument was made above that statement, this was as stated on a more practical note, nor was it about profit although that factors into it. The argument is there needs to be a market to sustain that. Your extreme is not what EQ and DaoC were, because you could solo to level cap in both of those.
By your own statement, if I can solo to cap why would I group. Your view is extreme, you want a game where there is no soloing at all, because if there is then you are playing a solo game - You have stated this many many times - this type of mentality is not shared by by many people at all, and I seriously doubt there are enough of you to suppot a game, therefore a game would not be made because it would be a money losing proposition and no company wants to lose money. Since you could solo in EQ and DaoC I guess those are solo games.
Once again was that my only comment, no, read please, that was just a practical one.
Venge Sunsoar
this has got me thinking.
One, the pro-groups are stating that they can not have fun unless everyone on the server groups. Granted most us do not have a clue how that could affect their personal game experience but never the less there it is.
Two, the pro-gamers are implying that if its possible to get level cap by soloing then most people would do that which begs the question, is grouping fun and practical as a full time game experience in the first place? For example, I like crafting, its not forced on me I do it becuase its fun. If it has to be forced maybe its not as much fun in the long run as people think
I'll give it a shot, but I doubt you'll get it.
I dont' want to force YOU to group. That's the first thing you have to wrap your mind around.
I want challenging game play for ME. Has nothing to do with YOU, what YOU do, how YOU play the game, NOthing, nothing nothing at all.
If you think that, you're way, way, way off base, don't get it, wont' get it.
What I want to do, is enter the Tour De France, and compete with Lance Armstrong.
What you are saying is you can't rid a bike that long. You'd liek to change the rules.
you'd like the Tour De France to be a couple of blocks long.
And you're saying, changing the tour de France to a couple of blocks, becuase you can't ride for hundreds of miles, should not affect lance Armstrong at all.
In fact, you're going to let him still ride for hundreds of miles, if he wants to.
He doesn't have to, becuase the race is only a few blocks long now. But you're all about choice! And people can CHOOSE to ride a couple of blocks, or the they can CHOOSE to ride a few hundred miles.
And Lance Armstrong should be happy, because the fact that you're going to ride a few blocks doesn't change anything for him, becuase you're going to LET him ride a few hundred milles. If he wants to.
And what if Lance Armstrong decides he doesn't want to ride a few hundred miles for a race taht is two blocks long?
Well, I guess Lance didnt' really LIKE racing after all, did he?
Becaues if he LIKED it, he'd go ride that hundred milles while you do a few blocks, wouldn't he?
After all, you haven't affected HIM at all. Oh no, you've just added CHOICE to the Tour De France!
ah well that is a more clear although in that context 'forced' really isnt a fair word to use. But in general it sounds like you can see how it would be possible tohave game with content that makes it not possible to do without a group while at the same time providing plenty of content for solo players. That is not what I would call 'forced grouping' but I think that is what you are trying to say.
My answer: Darkfall
Darkfall provides amazing content that is literally impossible to do without groups while at the same time attracting a large player base with plenty to do solo as well.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
A game where you can solo to the top killing mobs below your level for very limited and slow experience gain, and/or you don't have quests with bonus experience appropriate for your level is a forced grouping game.
It's not that solo isn't an option, it certainly is, but it is SO harshly penalized in comparison to grouping that it does "feel" forced (since Ihmotepp is talking about feelings.)
A game where you can solo to the top killing same level or slightly higher mobs for moderate/fair experience gain, and/or you have quests with bonus experience appropriate for your level is a solo game.
It's not that grouping isn't an option, it certainly is, but it is SO poorly awarded in comparison to solo that it does "feel" pointless to group.
that's pretty much it.
Solo players "feel" forced, when they don't get as much XP as groups, or almost as much.
Groupers "feel" grouping is pointless, if they dont' make significantly more xp than solo play.
I would solo WoW ot the level cap. I would not find the advantage of grouping to be worth the effort of taking one step in a different direction to join a group.
I would never solo the original DAoC to the level cap. I would find it to hard and boring.
I dont 'want to be able to group. Solo players stop telling us you'll let us group in a solo game. We know that, dont' want it.
I want to feel like there is a point to grouping, that it is necessary, and rewarding. If I can easily solo to the cap, I'm just not going to feel taht way, no matter how easy it is to get in groups, no matter if I'm in a group for the whole game, all the way to the level cap. I'll "feel" like I'm grouping through a solo game.
edit: On a more practical note, Imhotepp your view is so extreme I seriously doubt there are enough of you to make any game any money. And so your only choices are to leave the genre, continue to grumble and complain and be unhappy about everything or compromise.
So your argument is that this is a great design, grouping games like DaoC and EQ, and you fully support it and you wish there were more games like this for me to play, but you're simply worried for the profits of Developers?
I'm starting to think you have some reading comprehension difficulties. My argument was made above that statement, this was as stated on a more practical note, nor was it about profit although that factors into it. The argument is there needs to be a market to sustain that. Your extreme is not what EQ and DaoC were, because you could solo to level cap in both of those.
By your own statement, if I can solo to cap why would I group. Your view is extreme, you want a game where there is no soloing at all, because if there is then you are playing a solo game - You have stated this many many times - this type of mentality is not shared by by many people at all, and I seriously doubt there are enough of you to suppot a game, therefore a game would not be made because it would be a money losing proposition and no company wants to lose money. Since you could solo in EQ and DaoC I guess those are solo games.
Once again was that my only comment, no, read please, that was just a practical one.
Venge Sunsoar
this has got me thinking.
One, the pro-groups are stating that they can not have fun unless everyone on the server groups. Granted most us do not have a clue how that could affect their personal game experience but never the less there it is.
Two, the pro-gamers are implying that if its possible to get level cap by soloing then most people would do that which begs the question, is grouping fun and practical as a full time game experience in the first place? For example, I like crafting, its not forced on me I do it becuase its fun. If it has to be forced maybe its not as much fun in the long run as people think
I'll give it a shot, but I doubt you'll get it.
I dont' want to force YOU to group. That's the first thing you have to wrap your mind around.
I want challenging game play for ME. Has nothing to do with YOU, what YOU do, how YOU play the game, NOthing, nothing nothing at all.
If you think that, you're way, way, way off base, don't get it, wont' get it.
What I want to do, is enter the Tour De France, and compete with Lance Armstrong.
What you are saying is you can't rid a bike that long. You'd liek to change the rules.
you'd like the Tour De France to be a couple of blocks long.
And you're saying, changing the tour de France to a couple of blocks, becuase you can't ride for hundreds of miles, should not affect lance Armstrong at all.
In fact, you're going to let him still ride for hundreds of miles, if he wants to.
He doesn't have to, becuase the race is only a few blocks long now. But you're all about choice! And people can CHOOSE to ride a couple of blocks, or the they can CHOOSE to ride a few hundred miles.
And Lance Armstrong should be happy, because the fact that you're going to ride a few blocks doesn't change anything for him, becuase you're going to LET him ride a few hundred milles. If he wants to.
And what if Lance Armstrong decides he doesn't want to ride a few hundred miles for a race taht is two blocks long?
Well, I guess Lance didnt' really LIKE racing after all, did he?
Becaues if he LIKED it, he'd go ride that hundred milles while you do a few blocks, wouldn't he?
After all, you haven't affected HIM at all. Oh no, you've just added CHOICE to the Tour De France!
You have stated repeatedly that if soloing is an option thats no fun for you. Therefore the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is you want a game with no soloing, which means by default that everyone that playes it must be forced to group.
Your biking analogy is seriously flawed. Biking is a solo sport. Yes there are many teams in the Tour De France, but they are competing with each other as well, and yes there are support but only one person gets on the bike and pedals. A better analogy would be soloers are the Tour the normal way, you are coming along and saying if you are on the bike yourself thats too easy and boring for me. Everyone must at least be on a tandem.
Venge Sunsoar
I think I see the misconception here.
I am speaking for myself, and what is viable for me.
I can tell you that soloing in EQ or DAoC was not an option for me. I would never make it to the level cap solo in those games.
I'd advocating that sort of balance between solo and group play.
I am not saying that if you are not in a group, your character doesn't move in the game, and is incapacitated.
My piont about Tour De France is the ludicrous assertion, that changing the rules in a game, has no affect on the participants.
If you take EQ, and turn it into a WoW game as far as solo versus group, it's just ridiculous to say the players will not be affected in any way.
And that is the assertion of the OP.
Oh, I'm soloing, how does it affect you?
Well it doesn't if we're playing DAoC or EQ. Solo away, I won't even know you exist.
But if you take EQ and turn it into WoW so YOU will be happy soloing, then I assure you it DOEs affect me, because you have changed the rules of the game.
How are the rules of the game going to change, and affect you, but not me? It's not possible, unless we have different rules on different servers.
What I want to do, is enter the Tour De France, and compete with Lance Armstrong.
In fact, you're going to let him still ride for hundreds of miles, if he wants to.
But you're all about choice! And people can CHOOSE to ride a couple of blocks, or the they can CHOOSE to ride a few hundred miles.
And Lance Armstrong should be happy, because the fact that you're going to ride a few blocks doesn't change anything for him, becuase you're going to LET him ride a few hundred milles. If he wants to.
Becaues if he LIKED it, he'd go ride that hundred milles while you do a few blocks, wouldn't he?
After all, you haven't affected HIM at all.
See your problem here is that you are 100% focused on the reward. On the goal. On "winning." This is why your sports analogies NEVER work because MMOs are NOT all about winning. Reward and "winning" is only part of it, and when there IS direct competition in MMOs, not imaginary races between you and other people, then the rules are always designed in MMO games for balance and fairness. Just like real sports analogies...
You are stating that there is a direct competition between the solo and group player.
They are competing for the same goal, the same reward, but choose two different ways to get there.
Problem is, you've got it all wrong.
Any idiot would see that if you have two paths, both get you to max level or some piece of loot, and one path requires you to kill one mob and the other require you to kill one hundred mobs, only an idiot or masochist would choose 100.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
WE are saying, both "types" have to kill 100 mobs to get the reward, some can CHOOSE to do it alone while others can choose to do it in a group. One can be boring and a grind, the other can be a fun social experience.
Solo MMO players are not asking to level faster then you (at least they shouldn't be.) They are not asking to race only two block while you have to go for hundreds of miles.
They are only saying, "hey, I don't want to ride hundreds of miles with a team, I want to just ride hundreds of miles alone at my own pace."
The end goal is the same, to ride hundreds of miles as fast as one can (or for God sakes to ENJOY the ride) but the MEANS in which we get there is different.
Your analogy makes no goddamn sense, but I do understand your point.
Why ride hundreds of miles with a team when you could ride the same hundreds of miles alone?
You are REALLY talking about incentive. About cooperation and teamwork. About these things, cooperation and teamwork, giving you an edge over the rider who goes it alone. And that is your incentive for building a team and functioning as a unit.
I understand that, and I agree.
Now should the team beat the solo rider by a few days total ride time or a few hours? Isn't winning winning? An inch or a mile does it really matter?
I'M just saying let the solo player finish in 100 hours while your team could finish in 90 if they are good. They still won because they worked together, but not by such extreme amounts the no one would ever want to try and ride solo because they don't like riding with a team.
I dont' want to force YOU to group. That's the first thing you have to wrap your mind around.
I want challenging game play for ME. Has nothing to do with YOU, what YOU do, how YOU play the game, NOthing, nothing nothing at all.
If you think that, you're way, way, way off base, don't get it, wont' get it.
What I want to do, is enter the Tour De France, and compete with Lance Armstrong.
What you are saying is you can't rid a bike that long. You'd liek to change the rules.
you'd like the Tour De France to be a couple of blocks long.
And you're saying, changing the tour de France to a couple of blocks, becuase you can't ride for hundreds of miles, should not affect lance Armstrong at all.
In fact, you're going to let him still ride for hundreds of miles, if he wants to.
He doesn't have to, becuase the race is only a few blocks long now. But you're all about choice! And people can CHOOSE to ride a couple of blocks, or the they can CHOOSE to ride a few hundred miles.
And Lance Armstrong should be happy, because the fact that you're going to ride a few blocks doesn't change anything for him, becuase you're going to LET him ride a few hundred milles. If he wants to.
And what if Lance Armstrong decides he doesn't want to ride a few hundred miles for a race taht is two blocks long?
Well, I guess Lance didnt' really LIKE racing after all, did he?
Becaues if he LIKED it, he'd go ride that hundred milles while you do a few blocks, wouldn't he?
After all, you haven't affected HIM at all. Oh no, you've just added CHOICE to the Tour De France!
My view on the same analogy is that I am the guy who wants a challenging bike race and you are the guy insisting that it is not a 'real' race unless we juggle while doing so. To me that just seems silly and has nothing to do with why I ride a bike. On the other hand you are free to enter the race and juggle all the way through. I just will not follow your silly interpretation of what a bike race is about.
In this interpretation I am Lance Armstrong and you are a clown
edit: On a more practical note, Imhotepp your view is so extreme I seriously doubt there are enough of you to make any game any money. And so your only choices are to leave the genre, continue to grumble and complain and be unhappy about everything or compromise.
So your argument is that this is a great design, grouping games like DaoC and EQ, and you fully support it and you wish there were more games like this for me to play, but you're simply worried for the profits of Developers?
I'm starting to think you have some reading comprehension difficulties. My argument was made above that statement, this was as stated on a more practical note, nor was it about profit although that factors into it. The argument is there needs to be a market to sustain that. Your extreme is not what EQ and DaoC were, because you could solo to level cap in both of those.
By your own statement, if I can solo to cap why would I group. Your view is extreme, you want a game where there is no soloing at all, because if there is then you are playing a solo game - You have stated this many many times - this type of mentality is not shared by by many people at all, and I seriously doubt there are enough of you to suppot a game, therefore a game would not be made because it would be a money losing proposition and no company wants to lose money. Since you could solo in EQ and DaoC I guess those are solo games.
Once again was that my only comment, no, read please, that was just a practical one.
Venge Sunsoar
this has got me thinking.
One, the pro-groups are stating that they can not have fun unless everyone on the server groups. Granted most us do not have a clue how that could affect their personal game experience but never the less there it is.
Two, the pro-gamers are implying that if its possible to get level cap by soloing then most people would do that which begs the question, is grouping fun and practical as a full time game experience in the first place? For example, I like crafting, its not forced on me I do it becuase its fun. If it has to be forced maybe its not as much fun in the long run as people think
I'll give it a shot, but I doubt you'll get it.
I dont' want to force YOU to group. That's the first thing you have to wrap your mind around.
I want challenging game play for ME. Has nothing to do with YOU, what YOU do, how YOU play the game, NOthing, nothing nothing at all.
If you think that, you're way, way, way off base, don't get it, wont' get it.
What I want to do, is enter the Tour De France, and compete with Lance Armstrong.
What you are saying is you can't rid a bike that long. You'd liek to change the rules.
you'd like the Tour De France to be a couple of blocks long.
And you're saying, changing the tour de France to a couple of blocks, becuase you can't ride for hundreds of miles, should not affect lance Armstrong at all.
In fact, you're going to let him still ride for hundreds of miles, if he wants to.
He doesn't have to, becuase the race is only a few blocks long now. But you're all about choice! And people can CHOOSE to ride a couple of blocks, or the they can CHOOSE to ride a few hundred miles.
And Lance Armstrong should be happy, because the fact that you're going to ride a few blocks doesn't change anything for him, becuase you're going to LET him ride a few hundred milles. If he wants to.
And what if Lance Armstrong decides he doesn't want to ride a few hundred miles for a race taht is two blocks long?
Well, I guess Lance didnt' really LIKE racing after all, did he?
Becaues if he LIKED it, he'd go ride that hundred milles while you do a few blocks, wouldn't he?
After all, you haven't affected HIM at all. Oh no, you've just added CHOICE to the Tour De France!
You have stated repeatedly that if soloing is an option thats no fun for you. Therefore the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is you want a game with no soloing, which means by default that everyone that playes it must be forced to group.
Your biking analogy is seriously flawed. Biking is a solo sport. Yes there are many teams in the Tour De France, but they are competing with each other as well, and yes there are support but only one person gets on the bike and pedals. A better analogy would be soloers are the Tour the normal way, you are coming along and saying if you are on the bike yourself thats too easy and boring for me. Everyone must at least be on a tandem.
Venge Sunsoar
I think I see the misconception here.
I am speaking for myself, and what is viable for me.
I can tell you that soloing in EQ or DAoC was not an option for me. I would never make it to the level cap solo in those games.
I'd advocating that sort of balance between solo and group play.
I am not saying that if you are not in a group, your character doesn't move in the game, and is incapacitated.
My piont about Tour De France is the ludicrous assertion, that changing the rules in a game, has no affect on the participants.
If you take EQ, and turn it into a WoW game as far as solo versus group, it's just ridiculous to say the players will not be affected in any way.
And that is the assertion of the OP.
Oh, I'm soloing, how does it affect you?
Well it doesn't if we're playing DAoC or EQ. Solo away, I won't even know you exist.
But if you take EQ and turn it into WoW so YOU will be happy soloing, then I assure you it DOEs affect me, because you have changed the rules of the game.
How are the rules of the game going to change, and affect you, but not me? It's not possible, unless we have different rules on different servers.
How about that?
A group based server?
This is the point though. You are not advocating for both grouping and soloing in the game, or if you are it is such little soloing as to be meaningless.
This was your statement that you just made:
I want to feel like there is a point to grouping, that it is necessary, and rewarding. If I can easily solo to the cap, I'm just not going to feel taht way, no matter how easy it is to get in groups, no matter if I'm in a group for the whole game, all the way to the level cap. I'll "feel" like I'm grouping through a solo game.
This means that there can be no signficant soloing the game at all. You could solo to level cap in EQ without difficulty - longer but completely viable. How does that fact correlate with what you said above. Whether you solo or group to cap is irrelevant to your statement.
If you can solo to level cap, you feel like your grouping through a solo game. Therefore the only option is a game with no significant soloing at all.
VengeSunsoar
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
edit: On a more practical note, Imhotepp your view is so extreme I seriously doubt there are enough of you to make any game any money. And so your only choices are to leave the genre, continue to grumble and complain and be unhappy about everything or compromise.
So your argument is that this is a great design, grouping games like DaoC and EQ, and you fully support it and you wish there were more games like this for me to play, but you're simply worried for the profits of Developers?
I'm starting to think you have some reading comprehension difficulties. My argument was made above that statement, this was as stated on a more practical note, nor was it about profit although that factors into it. The argument is there needs to be a market to sustain that. Your extreme is not what EQ and DaoC were, because you could solo to level cap in both of those.
By your own statement, if I can solo to cap why would I group. Your view is extreme, you want a game where there is no soloing at all, because if there is then you are playing a solo game - You have stated this many many times - this type of mentality is not shared by by many people at all, and I seriously doubt there are enough of you to suppot a game, therefore a game would not be made because it would be a money losing proposition and no company wants to lose money. Since you could solo in EQ and DaoC I guess those are solo games.
Once again was that my only comment, no, read please, that was just a practical one.
Venge Sunsoar
this has got me thinking.
One, the pro-groups are stating that they can not have fun unless everyone on the server groups. Granted most us do not have a clue how that could affect their personal game experience but never the less there it is.
Two, the pro-gamers are implying that if its possible to get level cap by soloing then most people would do that which begs the question, is grouping fun and practical as a full time game experience in the first place? For example, I like crafting, its not forced on me I do it becuase its fun. If it has to be forced maybe its not as much fun in the long run as people think
I'll give it a shot, but I doubt you'll get it.
I dont' want to force YOU to group. That's the first thing you have to wrap your mind around.
I want challenging game play for ME. Has nothing to do with YOU, what YOU do, how YOU play the game, NOthing, nothing nothing at all.
If you think that, you're way, way, way off base, don't get it, wont' get it.
What I want to do, is enter the Tour De France, and compete with Lance Armstrong.
What you are saying is you can't rid a bike that long. You'd liek to change the rules.
you'd like the Tour De France to be a couple of blocks long.
And you're saying, changing the tour de France to a couple of blocks, becuase you can't ride for hundreds of miles, should not affect lance Armstrong at all.
In fact, you're going to let him still ride for hundreds of miles, if he wants to.
He doesn't have to, becuase the race is only a few blocks long now. But you're all about choice! And people can CHOOSE to ride a couple of blocks, or the they can CHOOSE to ride a few hundred miles.
And Lance Armstrong should be happy, because the fact that you're going to ride a few blocks doesn't change anything for him, becuase you're going to LET him ride a few hundred milles. If he wants to.
And what if Lance Armstrong decides he doesn't want to ride a few hundred miles for a race taht is two blocks long?
Well, I guess Lance didnt' really LIKE racing after all, did he?
Becaues if he LIKED it, he'd go ride that hundred milles while you do a few blocks, wouldn't he?
After all, you haven't affected HIM at all. Oh no, you've just added CHOICE to the Tour De France!
You have stated repeatedly that if soloing is an option thats no fun for you. Therefore the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is you want a game with no soloing, which means by default that everyone that playes it must be forced to group.
Your biking analogy is seriously flawed. Biking is a solo sport. Yes there are many teams in the Tour De France, but they are competing with each other as well, and yes there are support but only one person gets on the bike and pedals. A better analogy would be soloers are the Tour the normal way, you are coming along and saying if you are on the bike yourself thats too easy and boring for me. Everyone must at least be on a tandem.
Venge Sunsoar
I think I see the misconception here.
I am speaking for myself, and what is viable for me.
I can tell you that soloing in EQ or DAoC was not an option for me. I would never make it to the level cap solo in those games.
I'd advocating that sort of balance between solo and group play.
I am not saying that if you are not in a group, your character doesn't move in the game, and is incapacitated.
My piont about Tour De France is the ludicrous assertion, that changing the rules in a game, has no affect on the participants.
If you take EQ, and turn it into a WoW game as far as solo versus group, it's just ridiculous to say the players will not be affected in any way.
And that is the assertion of the OP.
Oh, I'm soloing, how does it affect you?
Well it doesn't if we're playing DAoC or EQ. Solo away, I won't even know you exist.
But if you take EQ and turn it into WoW so YOU will be happy soloing, then I assure you it DOEs affect me, because you have changed the rules of the game.
How are the rules of the game going to change, and affect you, but not me? It's not possible, unless we have different rules on different servers.
How about that?
A group based server?
This is the point though. You are not advocating for both grouping and soloing in the game, or if you are it is such little soloing as to be meaningless.
This was your statement that you just made:
I want to feel like there is a point to grouping, that it is necessary, and rewarding. If I can easily solo to the cap, I'm just not going to feel taht way, no matter how easy it is to get in groups, no matter if I'm in a group for the whole game, all the way to the level cap. I'll "feel" like I'm grouping through a solo game.
This means that there can be no signficant soloing the game at all. You could solo to level cap in EQ without difficulty - longer but completely viable. How does that fact correlate with what you said above. Whether you solo or group to cap is irrelevant to your statement.
If you can solo to level cap, you feel like your grouping through a solo game. Therefore the only option is a game with no significant soloing at all.
VengeSunsoar
If I can solo to the level cap, easily, for example like in WoW. So easy, that grouping is pointless.
IMO, it was not easy to solo to the level cap in DAoC or EQ. In fact it was way to hard for me, and I would never attempt it. I'd be dead of boredom, long before I made it to the cap.
Your mileage may vary. Perhaps you could easily solo to the cap in EQ or DAoC. Many people could. But they have much more of a tolerance for endlessly whacking mobs than I do.
People that do solo exclusively to level cap in WoW, just like EQ did so at a detriment. They will not have as good gear and therefore stats at end game. This can be overcome but it is harder for them, they have a bigger hill to climb. Same as EQ, the chances of getting that fungi tunic when they used to drop were non existant if you soloed, until you were significantly higher than was indicited.
All online games are wackamole. Haven't played one yet that wasn't. I'm typically doing the same actions whether in group or solo. Actually grouping I ususally do less actions because I will be relegated to a specific role.
So there are signifiant rewards for doing the grouping that are not available to those who level solo.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
People that do solo exclusively to level cap in WoW, just like EQ did so at a detriment. They will not have as good gear and therefore stats at end game. This can be overcome but it is harder for them, they have a bigger hill to climb. Same as EQ, the chances of getting that fungi tunic when they used to drop were non existant if you soloed, until you were significantly higher than was indicited.
All online games are wackamole. Haven't played one yet that wasn't. I'm typically doing the same actions whether in group or solo. Actually grouping I ususally do less actions because I will be relegated to a specific role.
So there are signifiant rewards for doing the grouping that are not available to those who level solo.
I dont' enjoy games that are as solo friendly as WoW. For me, they are not fun.
If a game encourages grouping as much as DAoC or EQ, I think it's fun.
I dont' want to force YOU to group. That's the first thing you have to wrap your mind around.
I want challenging game play for ME. Has nothing to do with YOU, what YOU do, how YOU play the game, NOthing, nothing nothing at all.
If you think that, you're way, way, way off base, don't get it, wont' get it.
What I want to do, is enter the Tour De France, and compete with Lance Armstrong.
What you are saying is you can't rid a bike that long. You'd liek to change the rules.
you'd like the Tour De France to be a couple of blocks long.
And you're saying, changing the tour de France to a couple of blocks, becuase you can't ride for hundreds of miles, should not affect lance Armstrong at all.
In fact, you're going to let him still ride for hundreds of miles, if he wants to.
He doesn't have to, becuase the race is only a few blocks long now. But you're all about choice! And people can CHOOSE to ride a couple of blocks, or the they can CHOOSE to ride a few hundred miles.
And Lance Armstrong should be happy, because the fact that you're going to ride a few blocks doesn't change anything for him, becuase you're going to LET him ride a few hundred milles. If he wants to.
And what if Lance Armstrong decides he doesn't want to ride a few hundred miles for a race taht is two blocks long?
Well, I guess Lance didnt' really LIKE racing after all, did he?
Becaues if he LIKED it, he'd go ride that hundred milles while you do a few blocks, wouldn't he?
After all, you haven't affected HIM at all. Oh no, you've just added CHOICE to the Tour De France!
My view on the same analogy is that I am the guy who wants a challenging bike race and you are the guy insisting that it is not a 'real' race unless we juggle while doing so. To me that just seems silly and has nothing to do with why I ride a bike. On the other hand you are free to enter the race and juggle all the way through. I just will not follow your silly interpretation of what a bike race is about.
In this interpretation I am Lance Armstrong and you are a clown
It is as I suspected all along. You are jealous because I can juggle while riding a bike, and you cannot.
Alright, I think it's time for a fresh perspective on the comparison of solo vs group being that I am not the only 30 yr old gamer who has a family. Even making time for some of my fave online games is hard enough when things can suddenly go from calm to crazy in a house with children. Then throw in the fact that I have friends wanting me to play with them, but I end up ruining their experience if I am constantly going afk for some family reason. I don't want to be forced to disappoint people because I'm not 14 anymore, or single, and I have grown up responsibilities. Sure, things will get more interesting when my son is old enough to actually play these games and play outside and such, but for gamer parents of children under 4? It can be a serious headache to try and organize groups, especially to single parents or if one or both have different/irregular work schedules (ie. evening and night shifts). Oh, and hands up for all you people who have significant others who HATE video games?
Bottom Line?
I think there should be some bonuses for people who play in groups, but if I can't play a game at my own pace and at 3 am in the morning when no friends of mine are playing, just to advance my char a little further any chance I get, I won't play it.
The fact these days, people, is that people who were gamers as children are still gamers as they grow up. I have not lost any enthusiasm for playing games and most of my IRL gamer friends are the same age. The average gamer age these days is 29-32. Forcing these people to use some of their limited time to find groups to advance when even their gamer friends have different schedules is going to alienate them.
When I get home from work or school I usually just want to relax. If there is a relaxed chill group forming I'm all for it. Otherwise I know I'm not going to be pulling my weight and just want to relax.
The weekends are often different. Then I have to time, can concentrate and am up for more challenge. So a game needs to offer a whide variety of both solo, group, easy, challenge and reward me appropriate for whatever I choose. (Unfortunately for this topic appropriately is entirely subjective).
Venge Sunsoar
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Alright, I think it's time for a fresh perspective on the comparison of solo vs group being that I am not the only 30 yr old gamer who has a family. Even making time for some of my fave online games is hard enough when things can suddenly go from calm to crazy in a house with children. Then throw in the fact that I have friends wanting me to play with them, but I end up ruining their experience if I am constantly going afk for some family reason. I don't want to be forced to disappoint people because I'm not 14 anymore, or single, and I have grown up responsibilities. Sure, things will get more interesting when my son is old enough to actually play these games and play outside and such, but for gamer parents of children under 4? It can be a serious headache to try and organize groups, especially to single parents or if one or both have different/irregular work schedules (ie. evening and night shifts). Oh, and hands up for all you people who have significant others who HATE video games?
Bottom Line?
I think there should be some bonuses for people who play in groups, but if I can't play a game at my own pace and at 3 am in the morning when no friends of mine are playing, just to advance my char a little further any chance I get, I won't play it.
The fact these days, people, is that people who were gamers as children are still gamers as they grow up. I have not lost any enthusiasm for playing games and most of my IRL gamer friends are the same age. The average gamer age these days is 29-32. Forcing these people to use some of their limited time to find groups to advance when even their gamer friends have different schedules is going to alienate them.
And I don't understand this at all.
Why would I bother to play an MMORPG solo?
Whacking mobs solo is as boring as watching paint dry. In fact, watching paint dry is much, much more exciting.
If I can't find a group, I'm not missing anything at all.
Im never "forced to group" because that is really the only thing I find entertaining about an MMORPg.
If you made the game 100% soloable, and made soloing absolutely 100% the same xp and loot as grouping, I would still never solo.
Oh, I might stand around in front of a dungeon whacking mobs waiting on a group, but I could just as easily be playing solitaire.
I certainly wouldn't bother to do any quests solo.
Now, this only applies after the early levels. Of course I'll do those solo to learn the game interface and what not, like everyone else.
OMG, if I don't find a group, I wont' be able to advance my character!
But I don't want to advance my character with boring game play. What's the point in doing that?
I just dont' see how you can be entertained whacking mobs by yourself.
Comments
this has got me thinking.
One, the pro-groups are stating that they can not have fun unless everyone on the server groups. Granted most us do not have a clue how that could affect their personal game experience but never the less there it is.
Two, the pro-gamers are implying that if its possible to get level cap by soloing then most people would do that which begs the question, is grouping fun and practical as a full time game experience in the first place? For example, I like crafting, its not forced on me I do it becuase its fun. If it has to be forced maybe its not as much fun in the long run as people think
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Problems arise because the raid gear is nearly always "better" then the small group, solo, or even crafted gear.
And also if you are in a raiding guild, a decent one that actually completes raid content, getting raid gear is rather easy to do, you just have to get lucky with drops and not suck SO bad that your raid-hardened guild-mates can't carry you through.
So if you don't have the desire or means to raid, you will never be able to get the "best" gear in the game. This is a problem for a lot of people.
"Why can't I get as good of rewards from solo or small group or crafting?"
This goes back to how a MMO defines "challenge."
And unfortunately, the modern MMO followed the EQ example of what "challenge" is by a simple formula -
Challenge = higher numbers (health, damage) = more players
This is true not just in raiding or group content but in all aspects of level based and gear dependent MMOs.
Even in a "sandbox" skill grind party-up-and-kill-mobs type of game like FFXI or old school EQ, the formula was always challenge = higher numbers and the answer to solving the equation was either bringing more players or gaining more levels or getting better gear.
I think it’s a myth that the majority of the player base in any game are obsessed with getting the best gear possible. In fact, other that the extreme absolute end game there is always gear that is better in a different ‘type’ of access. In other words a crafter might be able to craft a better weapon that you can get at your current level on raids but after you get to the next level then your access would be better than his etc. The ONLY time your argument would apply is at the absolute end game.
Oh and I think the largest part of the player base simply do what they enjoy doing. They craft because they like it, or raid becuase they like it. If you have to create a manitory reason for doing something one has to ask the question, is it really fun then?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
YOu can solo to the level cap in every MMORPG.
I don't know of one game where that is not possible.
If you think EQ and DAoC were fine as game designs, when it comes to group vs solo balance, then we are in agreement.
I dont' have any desire to stop people from soloing to the level cap.
People did that just fine in DAoC and EQ.
I would never do it, because it would be pretty darn boring for me, but certainly people did it all the time.
I'm saying WoW is a solo game, because it's so EASY to solo to the top, that grouping in that game is pointless. Group and bash some mobs, dont' group and bash mobs, it makes the same difference. It's a solo game.
DAOC is a grouping game, because grouping was important. You felt a real difference in a group compared to playing solo, in game play, and leveling speed, etc.
WoW? Feels like some other players health bars are on my screen, nothing else has changed.
ah, yes that does clear up your point I think.
I think the solution is simply harder games or games with different balance etc. I think there are problems with MMO's and I think there are solutions, I just dont think 'forced grouping' is one of the soultions, even for the group crowd.
I do think that Darkfall is a good example of a game that is hard and has features that are impossible to do with a group, although in fairness in the context of those groups we are talking around 20-30 people which is a large group.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You might want to read the OP's proposal again.
In a nutshell: grouping = advancement. Solo = no advancement. Hence, Solo = second class.
No MMO that I've played in the past 10 years have made advancement only possible via soloing.
A game where you can solo to the top killing mobs below your level for very limited and slow experience gain, and/or you don't have quests with bonus experience appropriate for your level is a forced grouping game.
It's not that solo isn't an option, it certainly is, but it is SO harshly penalized in comparison to grouping that it does "feel" forced (since Ihmotepp is talking about feelings.)
A game where you can solo to the top killing same level or slightly higher mobs for moderate/fair experience gain, and/or you have quests with bonus experience appropriate for your level is a solo game.
It's not that grouping isn't an option, it certainly is, but it is SO poorly awarded in comparison to solo that it does "feel" pointless to group.
I know I'd like to see a happy medium.
Where you can make decent progress solo, but better (however not extremely so) progress with others in a group setting.
Or simply make them equal. Solo quests, group quests, same in number and reward and accessibility etc. Or use dynamic scaling. Etc. etc. there are options.
I just did to with my druid to 50 in Wow. I'm currently playing Ryzom and can do that, great xp solo, more with groups. CoH did a pretty good job (now that AE is worked out).
Istaria - Soloing was the main thing, grindy. But not more more xp grouping, still grindy. But you can do anything. So they are compareable anyway.
Venge Sunsoar
I'll give it a shot, but I doubt you'll get it.
I dont' want to force YOU to group. That's the first thing you have to wrap your mind around.
I want challenging game play for ME. Has nothing to do with YOU, what YOU do, how YOU play the game, NOthing, nothing nothing at all.
If you think that, you're way, way, way off base, don't get it, wont' get it.
What I want to do, is enter the Tour De France, and compete with Lance Armstrong.
What you are saying is you can't rid a bike that long. You'd liek to change the rules.
you'd like the Tour De France to be a couple of blocks long.
And you're saying, changing the tour de France to a couple of blocks, becuase you can't ride for hundreds of miles, should not affect lance Armstrong at all.
In fact, you're going to let him still ride for hundreds of miles, if he wants to.
He doesn't have to, becuase the race is only a few blocks long now. But you're all about choice! And people can CHOOSE to ride a couple of blocks, or the they can CHOOSE to ride a few hundred miles.
And Lance Armstrong should be happy, because the fact that you're going to ride a few blocks doesn't change anything for him, becuase you're going to LET him ride a few hundred milles. If he wants to.
And what if Lance Armstrong decides he doesn't want to ride a few hundred miles for a race taht is two blocks long?
Well, I guess Lance didnt' really LIKE racing after all, did he?
Becaues if he LIKED it, he'd go ride that hundred milles while you do a few blocks, wouldn't he?
After all, you haven't affected HIM at all. Oh no, you've just added CHOICE to the Tour De France!
You have stated repeatedly that if soloing is an option thats no fun for you. Therefore the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is you want a game with no soloing, which means by default that everyone that playes it must be forced to group.
Your biking analogy is seriously flawed. Biking is a solo sport. Yes there are many teams in the Tour De France, but they are competing with each other as well, and yes there are support but only one person gets on the bike and pedals. A better analogy would be soloers are the Tour the normal way, you are coming along and saying if you are on the bike yourself thats too easy and boring for me. Everyone must at least be on a tandem.
Venge Sunsoar
ah well that is a more clear although in that context 'forced' really isnt a fair word to use. But in general it sounds like you can see how it would be possible tohave game with content that makes it not possible to do without a group while at the same time providing plenty of content for solo players. That is not what I would call 'forced grouping' but I think that is what you are trying to say.
My answer: Darkfall
Darkfall provides amazing content that is literally impossible to do without groups while at the same time attracting a large player base with plenty to do solo as well.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
that's pretty much it.
Solo players "feel" forced, when they don't get as much XP as groups, or almost as much.
Groupers "feel" grouping is pointless, if they dont' make significantly more xp than solo play.
I would solo WoW ot the level cap. I would not find the advantage of grouping to be worth the effort of taking one step in a different direction to join a group.
I would never solo the original DAoC to the level cap. I would find it to hard and boring.
I dont 'want to be able to group. Solo players stop telling us you'll let us group in a solo game. We know that, dont' want it.
I want to feel like there is a point to grouping, that it is necessary, and rewarding. If I can easily solo to the cap, I'm just not going to feel taht way, no matter how easy it is to get in groups, no matter if I'm in a group for the whole game, all the way to the level cap. I'll "feel" like I'm grouping through a solo game.
I think I see the misconception here.
I am speaking for myself, and what is viable for me.
I can tell you that soloing in EQ or DAoC was not an option for me. I would never make it to the level cap solo in those games.
I'd advocating that sort of balance between solo and group play.
I am not saying that if you are not in a group, your character doesn't move in the game, and is incapacitated.
My piont about Tour De France is the ludicrous assertion, that changing the rules in a game, has no affect on the participants.
If you take EQ, and turn it into a WoW game as far as solo versus group, it's just ridiculous to say the players will not be affected in any way.
And that is the assertion of the OP.
Oh, I'm soloing, how does it affect you?
Well it doesn't if we're playing DAoC or EQ. Solo away, I won't even know you exist.
But if you take EQ and turn it into WoW so YOU will be happy soloing, then I assure you it DOEs affect me, because you have changed the rules of the game.
How are the rules of the game going to change, and affect you, but not me? It's not possible, unless we have different rules on different servers.
How about that?
A group based server?
See your problem here is that you are 100% focused on the reward. On the goal. On "winning." This is why your sports analogies NEVER work because MMOs are NOT all about winning. Reward and "winning" is only part of it, and when there IS direct competition in MMOs, not imaginary races between you and other people, then the rules are always designed in MMO games for balance and fairness. Just like real sports analogies...
You are stating that there is a direct competition between the solo and group player.
They are competing for the same goal, the same reward, but choose two different ways to get there.
Problem is, you've got it all wrong.
Any idiot would see that if you have two paths, both get you to max level or some piece of loot, and one path requires you to kill one mob and the other require you to kill one hundred mobs, only an idiot or masochist would choose 100.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
WE are saying, both "types" have to kill 100 mobs to get the reward, some can CHOOSE to do it alone while others can choose to do it in a group. One can be boring and a grind, the other can be a fun social experience.
Solo MMO players are not asking to level faster then you (at least they shouldn't be.) They are not asking to race only two block while you have to go for hundreds of miles.
They are only saying, "hey, I don't want to ride hundreds of miles with a team, I want to just ride hundreds of miles alone at my own pace."
The end goal is the same, to ride hundreds of miles as fast as one can (or for God sakes to ENJOY the ride) but the MEANS in which we get there is different.
Your analogy makes no goddamn sense, but I do understand your point.
Why ride hundreds of miles with a team when you could ride the same hundreds of miles alone?
You are REALLY talking about incentive. About cooperation and teamwork. About these things, cooperation and teamwork, giving you an edge over the rider who goes it alone. And that is your incentive for building a team and functioning as a unit.
I understand that, and I agree.
Now should the team beat the solo rider by a few days total ride time or a few hours? Isn't winning winning? An inch or a mile does it really matter?
I'M just saying let the solo player finish in 100 hours while your team could finish in 90 if they are good. They still won because they worked together, but not by such extreme amounts the no one would ever want to try and ride solo because they don't like riding with a team.
My view on the same analogy is that I am the guy who wants a challenging bike race and you are the guy insisting that it is not a 'real' race unless we juggle while doing so. To me that just seems silly and has nothing to do with why I ride a bike. On the other hand you are free to enter the race and juggle all the way through. I just will not follow your silly interpretation of what a bike race is about.
In this interpretation I am Lance Armstrong and you are a clown
This is the point though. You are not advocating for both grouping and soloing in the game, or if you are it is such little soloing as to be meaningless.
This was your statement that you just made:
I want to feel like there is a point to grouping, that it is necessary, and rewarding. If I can easily solo to the cap, I'm just not going to feel taht way, no matter how easy it is to get in groups, no matter if I'm in a group for the whole game, all the way to the level cap. I'll "feel" like I'm grouping through a solo game.
This means that there can be no signficant soloing the game at all. You could solo to level cap in EQ without difficulty - longer but completely viable. How does that fact correlate with what you said above. Whether you solo or group to cap is irrelevant to your statement.
If you can solo to level cap, you feel like your grouping through a solo game. Therefore the only option is a game with no significant soloing at all.
VengeSunsoar
Stop quoting the whooooooooooooooooole back and forth lol takes up too many pages!
If I can solo to the level cap, easily, for example like in WoW. So easy, that grouping is pointless.
IMO, it was not easy to solo to the level cap in DAoC or EQ. In fact it was way to hard for me, and I would never attempt it. I'd be dead of boredom, long before I made it to the cap.
Your mileage may vary. Perhaps you could easily solo to the cap in EQ or DAoC. Many people could. But they have much more of a tolerance for endlessly whacking mobs than I do.
Yes sir! Right away Sir!
People that do solo exclusively to level cap in WoW, just like EQ did so at a detriment. They will not have as good gear and therefore stats at end game. This can be overcome but it is harder for them, they have a bigger hill to climb. Same as EQ, the chances of getting that fungi tunic when they used to drop were non existant if you soloed, until you were significantly higher than was indicited.
All online games are wackamole. Haven't played one yet that wasn't. I'm typically doing the same actions whether in group or solo. Actually grouping I ususally do less actions because I will be relegated to a specific role.
So there are signifiant rewards for doing the grouping that are not available to those who level solo.
I dont' enjoy games that are as solo friendly as WoW. For me, they are not fun.
If a game encourages grouping as much as DAoC or EQ, I think it's fun.
It is as I suspected all along. You are jealous because I can juggle while riding a bike, and you cannot.
Alright, I think it's time for a fresh perspective on the comparison of solo vs group being that I am not the only 30 yr old gamer who has a family. Even making time for some of my fave online games is hard enough when things can suddenly go from calm to crazy in a house with children. Then throw in the fact that I have friends wanting me to play with them, but I end up ruining their experience if I am constantly going afk for some family reason. I don't want to be forced to disappoint people because I'm not 14 anymore, or single, and I have grown up responsibilities. Sure, things will get more interesting when my son is old enough to actually play these games and play outside and such, but for gamer parents of children under 4? It can be a serious headache to try and organize groups, especially to single parents or if one or both have different/irregular work schedules (ie. evening and night shifts). Oh, and hands up for all you people who have significant others who HATE video games?
Bottom Line?
I think there should be some bonuses for people who play in groups, but if I can't play a game at my own pace and at 3 am in the morning when no friends of mine are playing, just to advance my char a little further any chance I get, I won't play it.
The fact these days, people, is that people who were gamers as children are still gamers as they grow up. I have not lost any enthusiasm for playing games and most of my IRL gamer friends are the same age. The average gamer age these days is 29-32. Forcing these people to use some of their limited time to find groups to advance when even their gamer friends have different schedules is going to alienate them.
I totally agree AshRomale.
When I get home from work or school I usually just want to relax. If there is a relaxed chill group forming I'm all for it. Otherwise I know I'm not going to be pulling my weight and just want to relax.
The weekends are often different. Then I have to time, can concentrate and am up for more challenge. So a game needs to offer a whide variety of both solo, group, easy, challenge and reward me appropriate for whatever I choose. (Unfortunately for this topic appropriately is entirely subjective).
Venge Sunsoar
And I don't understand this at all.
Why would I bother to play an MMORPG solo?
Whacking mobs solo is as boring as watching paint dry. In fact, watching paint dry is much, much more exciting.
If I can't find a group, I'm not missing anything at all.
Im never "forced to group" because that is really the only thing I find entertaining about an MMORPg.
If you made the game 100% soloable, and made soloing absolutely 100% the same xp and loot as grouping, I would still never solo.
Oh, I might stand around in front of a dungeon whacking mobs waiting on a group, but I could just as easily be playing solitaire.
I certainly wouldn't bother to do any quests solo.
Now, this only applies after the early levels. Of course I'll do those solo to learn the game interface and what not, like everyone else.
OMG, if I don't find a group, I wont' be able to advance my character!
But I don't want to advance my character with boring game play. What's the point in doing that?
I just dont' see how you can be entertained whacking mobs by yourself.