You can, but people won't. There's no incentive to group with other people, and having so many instances means you won't be running into random people.
So, its going to be more akin to Diablo, where you join a common server with some real life friends and run through a coop dungeon. That doesn't spell MMORPG to me.
Bullshit. But keep trying though.
Spoken in general, I always love posts from people abandoning all common sense in their posts trying so hard to prove a point. Those are the kind of posts I like to quote most after a while when it's proven how hilarious their stance was
Just like any other MMO, SW TOR will have the usual MMO aspects with them. Since we're referring to devs' statements, they've mentioned again and again that SW TOR is NOT a singleplayer game experience, that it will have all the aspects that a MMO has, and that they'll build in mechanisms to encourage and stimulate group play. What they also said is that of course you can play SW TOR solo up to the end levels, but that you'll be missing out on content that is directed towards groups. Just like in any other MMO.
As the report showed, teamplay is possible and fun right from the start.
Precisely. Just because content is soloable, doesn't mean that there won't be incentives to group up. An MMO doesn't have to enforce grouping, it can be encouraged instead by offering rewards and incentives to do so.
I get the distinct impression that Garvon is one of "those" people who would only be truely happy in a totally group enforced MMO.
Nice reading and while I'm on your side of the argument as I expect Bioware to succeed I have to disagree with the topic title, no one knows how anything anyone says about a video game will turn out especially mmo's until we simply see them happen until then we just don't know.
I've seen many comments about TOR will be the next "WOW" and I agree if for no other reason than it will come closest to WOW in the number of people who will be able to get into the experience,enjoy it, and immerse themselves in the world provided by Bioware.
But at the end of the day I can say I've seen far too many of these interviews by devs where what they may talk about somehow doesn't turn out the way they say if it even turns up at all so I just am going to take with a grain of salt any specifics revealed about systems and such.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Have you ever gone with elewynn forest? Ever group up with someone to get through it alittle quicker? I have, so im sure some other peole have too. You do not get any extra rewards from doing except maybe getting through it quicker. But honestly, not everyone needs a reward to do something. Maybe someone will actually try to be social .
Nice reading and while I'm on your side of the argument as I expect Bioware to succeed I have to disagree with the topic title, no one knows how anything anyone says about a video game will turn out especially mmo's until we simply see them happen until then we just don't know.
But at the end of the day I can say I've seen far too many of these interviews by devs where what they may talk about somehow doesn't turn out the way they say if it even turns up at all so I just am going to take with a grain of salt any specifics revealed about systems and such.
I've never been burnt by false expectations or believing everything devs and game directors say, so I don't feel the need to be fully 100% sceptic about what devs say now. I tend to think of my view regarding games as moderate, a 'going along with what devs state if it isn't overly farfetched and until proven differently'; I usually reserve any judgement for when beta arrives and I can see for myself.
To think that SW:TOR would be nothing more than a singleplayer game experience and not a MMO as some do, that's a view too ludicrous to be taken seriously and coming straight out of the loony bin.
Also the report at least to me reaffirmed of what devs stated elsewhere, that group play is very much possible straight from the beginning.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
You can, but people won't. There's no incentive to group with other people, and having so many instances means you won't be running into random people.
So, its going to be more akin to Diablo, where you join a common server with some real life friends and run through a coop dungeon. That doesn't spell MMORPG to me.
Bullshit. But keep trying though.
Spoken in general, I always love posts from people abandoning all common sense in their posts trying so hard to prove a point. Those are the kind of posts I like to quote most after a while when it's proven how hilarious their stance was
Just like any other MMO, SW TOR will have the usual MMO aspects with them. Since we're referring to devs' statements, they've mentioned again and again that SW TOR is NOT a singleplayer game experience, that it will have all the aspects that a MMO has, and that they'll build in mechanisms to encourage and stimulate group play. What they also said is that of course you can play SW TOR solo up to the end levels, but that you'll be missing out on content that is directed towards groups. Just like in any other MMO.
As the report showed, teamplay is possible and fun right from the start.
Precisely. Just because content is soloable, doesn't mean that there won't be incentives to group up. An MMO doesn't have to enforce grouping, it can be encouraged instead by offering rewards and incentives to do so.
I get the distinct impression that Garvon is one of "those" people who would only be truely happy in a totally group enforced MMO.
I've been playing for MMORPGs for 11 years now.
For the past 5 years it has been nearly impossible to find a group just for the sake of grouping up and killing things while talking. That is a direct result of the new solo focused arcade MMORPGs, and the audience they brought in.
The last time I had a group just for the sake of socializing and exploring with a random person I had never met before, was in Vanguard. Vanguard was the last of the real virtual world MMOs from what I've seen, the last of that old community feeling original MMOs had.
I've tried and tried and tried in games like Lord of the Rings online to find groups of people that just want to socialize, closest I ever get is a group of 3 or so people that form up for a group step, run to the boss mob spawn, then instantly disband and get their quest reward.
You can have grouping as an option all you want, but when all the action is completed solo in instances, you aren't going to get groups. I've played MMOs enough to know the trend now.
For the past 5 years it has been nearly impossible to find a group just for the sake of grouping up and killing things while talking. That is a direct result of the new solo focused arcade MMORPGs, and the audience they brought in.
The last time I had a group just for the sake of socializing and exploring with a random person I had never met before, was in Vanguard. Vanguard was the last of the real virtual world MMOs from what I've seen, the last of that old community feeling original MMOs had.
I've tried and tried and tried in games like Lord of the Rings online to find groups of people that just want to socialize, closest I ever get is a group of 3 or so people that form up for a group step, run to the boss mob spawn, then instantly disband and get their quest reward.
You can have grouping as an option all you want, but when all the action is completed solo in instances, you aren't going to get groups. I've played MMOs enough to know the trend now.
So, I was right, you ARE in favour of enforced grouping thorughout a game. And if you are wanting to group up more, ever thought of joining a guild? Don't you think that you're being a little unreasonable to assume that people you haven't met before will want to hang out with you permanently? Seriously? Would you expect people to do that in real life having only met you 30 mins previously?
Look, just because SOME games catered for soloing as a major part of the leveling process DOENS'T mean that there can't also be strong incentives to group as well. Even WoW has such incentives. And some people really enjoy going into the dungeons at the lower levels as part of the overall game experience in WoW. So I think you're exaggerating a little about the impossibility of grouping. Either that or you're not a member of a guild.
However, there's only so much that devs can do to provide incentives before they have to resign to the fact that, regardless of incentives, SOME people would rather level up via soloing than hang around at any one level for long. But that's not the fault of the game, that's just how people are. And if devs reduced the amount of soloable content considerably JUST to encourage grouping, then all people are left with is "the grind". And trust me, that is NOT a good option.
Just look at Aion for evidence of how grinding can adversely affect the popularity of an MMO.
So what options are available to encourage grouping? Well, devs could either slow the leveling progress right down to a crawl (thus keeping large portions of players in the same level bracket), or they could remove the leveling process altogether thus everyone is ALWAYS in the same level range (i.e. like in a "Sandbox" game).
Some would perhaps suggest removing soloing COMPLETELY and enforce grouping. That would be impractical. Removing the ability to solo in MMO's would do NOTHING to improve the ability to group up, and would in fact make things worse. Why? Because it would drive away a large portion of players who want to solo (that includes some group'ers too).
And whilst some may selfishishly say "good we don't need them in OUR game", in actual fact you need them a lot. Not just as candidates for grouping, BUT ALSO to help make the game world feel more inhabited. Without them, people would be moaning about how the gameworld feels empty because a lot of people aren't playing it. Just look at the rocky launch of EQ2 for an example of what happened when people found out you couldn't solo / duo beyond L25 ish.
In Conclusion
You also cannot FORCE people to do anything that they wouldn't want to do, especially when they are having to pay for the priveledge. If devs fail to cater for a certain demographic (either by accident or deliberately) then they will do nothing but drive them away. Enforced grouping counters the very prosperity of the whole MMO industry, just to suit the whim of a certain percentage of players who want EVERYTHING to be their way, and only their way. ALL playstyles need to be catered for if a product has the greatest chance of being seen as successful in the eyes of the players (that includes solo'ing, grouping, raiding AND pvp).
Lastly, ask yourself something, why do people solo so much? Well, the fact is that the world has changed in the last 10 years, and so have peoples tastes and needs. You cannot blame any MMO for that. 10 years ago people didn't necessarily have families and jobs which demanded a large portion of their time. They can no longer spend 14+ hours per day on an MMO just camping one spot for a potential group. This contributes to the problem but you cannot change it. So in all probability, reducing the amount of solo'able content purely to encourage grouping would have very little (if any at all) effect on the potential to group up. It would only serve to drive people away from the game you are playing. This is what devs have to accept. Having soloable content in an MMO hasn't directly caused a reduction in grouping, the changes in peoples lives have.
So rather than advocating a reduction in solo'able content in order to facilitate grouping, why not just join a guild of players who enjoy playing the way you do?
The Devs have talked about how they want mechanics to encourage grouping and good community. It's pretty clear they want solo content as an option of course, but that doesn't mean there won't be good reasons for grouping.
Forced grouping for all content is rather silly, imho.
The Devs have talked about how they want mechanics to encourage grouping and good community. It's pretty clear they want solo content as an option of course, but that doesn't mean there won't be good reasons for grouping.
Forced grouping for all content is rather silly, imho.
Encouraged grouping = "forced" grouping.
Just depends on the amount of "encouragement" and each player tends to have a different threshold before they scream "forced" grouping.
there arent' any games that prevent you from soloing to the cap, like if you don't group you instantly die and cannot gain xp.
But some games "encourage" grouping more than others, making it easier to group to the cap.
WoW "encourages" grouping very little. The difference in grouping to the cap versus solo is so small, most people will just solo to the cap.
EQ "encourages" grouping a lot. The difference in soloing to the cap versus grouping to the cap was so great when I played, that most people preferred to group to the cap.
I've never seen a game that forces grouping for all content, as in you can't play the game unless you group because it's impossible ot make 1 xp point solo.
I don't think anyone actually means that when they say "forced" grouping.
They usually mean they can't solo to the cap almost as fast as grouping, and they dont' like that.
Precisely. Just because content is soloable, doesn't mean that there won't be incentives to group up. An MMO doesn't have to enforce grouping, it can be encouraged instead by offering rewards and incentives to do so.
The devil is in the details.
If you don't offer enough "incentive", then it's a solo fest to the cap, where people group occaisionally, like WoW.
If you offer to much "incentive" to group, then the group makes progress so much faster the solo players cry "forced grouping" like in EQ.
Precisely. Just because content is soloable, doesn't mean that there won't be incentives to group up. An MMO doesn't have to enforce grouping, it can be encouraged instead by offering rewards and incentives to do so.
The devil is in the details.
If you don't offer enough "incentive", then it's a solo fest to the cap, where people group occaisionally, like WoW.
If you offer to much "incentive" to group, then the group makes progress so much faster the solo players cry "forced grouping" like in EQ.
You appear to be making an assumption that incentive = an increased rate of progression (e.g. an increase in the rate of XP gain compared to soloing). But you'd be wrong. XP increase is just one type of incentive, there are others too, which I will get to in a moment. However, you HAVE highlighted the very reason why using a progression rate increase (whatever that might be) is a BAD idea as an incentive to group. Simply because it can create gross imbalances in the rate of progression betwen the playstyles. And THAT can have a knock-on effect right the way through the game.
As I mentioned earlier, there can be other incentives, for instance:
Rare higher grade items (armour and weaponry) that cannot be obtained elsewhere.
Crafting recipes.
Rare materials for crafting, where more common materials are found outside.
"Base" items which can then be upgraded or sold ("Base" meaning an item that can be "upgraded" to be better).
Other specific rewards that can only be attained from such a group instance.
What these do is provide an incentive without directly affecting the rate of progression. And also, if such rewards are actually "consumable" items (e.g. like materials used in crafting), then that also provides additional incentives to revisit them time and time again. This has worked before. Of course, this implies that a crafting mechanic can support the use of "rare materials", but they often do. Plus by allowing such mechanics, the game as a whole becomes enriched as a result of it.
So as you can see, contrary to what you believe, "encouraging" grouping DOES NOT mean "enforcing" it upon people. Give people the choice with the necessary incentives, and allow THEM to decide.
After all, who are YOU or I to dictate to people how they should play?
WoW "encourages" grouping very little. The difference in grouping to the cap versus solo is so small, most people will just solo to the cap.
You are quite incorrect about WoW with regards to encouraging grouping. Even to this day WoW encourages grouping in the rewards you can get from the group dungeons. Dungeons that AREN'T necessarily at the end game either. Just look how popular the "Random Dungeon Finder" is now. WoW is an example of encouraged grouping without having to force it on people.
Furthermore, enforced grouping throughout an MMO would actually do NOTHING to elleviate any problems concerning finding a group (which Garvon used is an excuse earlier). In fact, it would only serve to exaggerate the problem because whilst the same number of group'ers would be in the game, those who don't like to group as much as others would be driven away. What follows then is people bitching about how the world feels empty.
People have lives and families now, they can't dedicate as much time to an MMO any more. And they certainly won't tolerate camping out in an MMO city for hours, just looking for a group. Times have changed, and so have MMO players needs. And the MMO industry is trying to cater for those needs. Because if they dont, then they lose customers.
The Devs have talked about how they want mechanics to encourage grouping and good community. It's pretty clear they want solo content as an option of course, but that doesn't mean there won't be good reasons for grouping.
Forced grouping for all content is rather silly, imho.
Encouraged grouping = "forced" grouping.
Just depends on the amount of "encouragement" and each player tends to have a different threshold before they scream "forced" grouping.
there arent' any games that prevent you from soloing to the cap, like if you don't group you instantly die and cannot gain xp.
But some games "encourage" grouping more than others, making it easier to group to the cap.
WoW "encourages" grouping very little. The difference in grouping to the cap versus solo is so small, most people will just solo to the cap.
EQ "encourages" grouping a lot. The difference in soloing to the cap versus grouping to the cap was so great when I played, that most people preferred to group to the cap.
I've never seen a game that forces grouping for all content, as in you can't play the game unless you group because it's impossible ot make 1 xp point solo.
I don't think anyone actually means that when they say "forced" grouping.
They usually mean they can't solo to the cap almost as fast as grouping, and they dont' like that.
WoW actually punishes grouping most of the time. You run out of quests, you face zero challenges (lowers fun), and the mob supply means that you get less experience in general (even if some quests are faster, others are much slower and even more boring due to random drops). A LOT of MMOs are like this.
I am not familiar with any MMO where grouping either isn't punished fairly severely or rewarded lavishly. The former means a lot of people solo, the latter means soloing takes so long it is worthwile waiting an hour or so for a group (which is bad game design). I believe TOR is aiming for something a lot more reasonable here, but it will probably be a bit of a tricky goal to reach.
Precisely. Just because content is soloable, doesn't mean that there won't be incentives to group up. An MMO doesn't have to enforce grouping, it can be encouraged instead by offering rewards and incentives to do so.
The devil is in the details.
If you don't offer enough "incentive", then it's a solo fest to the cap, where people group occaisionally, like WoW.
If you offer to much "incentive" to group, then the group makes progress so much faster the solo players cry "forced grouping" like in EQ.
You appear to be making an assumption that incentive = an increased rate of progression (e.g. an increase in the rate of XP gain compared to soloing). But you'd be wrong. XP increase is just one type of incentive, there are others too, which I will get to in a moment. However, you HAVE highlighted the very reason why using a progression rate increase (whatever that might be) is a BAD idea as an incentive to group. Simply because it can create gross imbalances in the rate of progression betwen the playstyles. And THAT can have a knock-on effect right the way through the game.
As I mentioned earlier, there can be other incentives, for instance:
Rare higher grade items (armour and weaponry) that cannot be obtained elsewhere.
Crafting recipes.
Rare materials for crafting, where more common materials are found outside.
"Base" items which can then be upgraded or sold ("Base" meaning an item that can be "upgraded" to be better).
Other specific rewards that can only be attained from such a group instance.
What these do is provide an incentive without directly affecting the rate of progression. And also, if such rewards are actually "consumable" items (e.g. like materials used in crafting), then that also provides additional incentives to revisit them time and time again. This has worked before. Of course, this implies that a crafting mechanic can support the use of "rare materials", but they often do. Plus by allowing such mechanics, the game as a whole becomes enriched as a result of it.
So as you can see, contrary to what you believe, "encouraging" grouping DOES NOT mean "enforcing" it upon people. Give people the choice with the necessary incentives, and allow THEM to decide.
After all, who are YOU or I to dictate to people how they should play?
If none of the the things you listed help you gain XP faster, then they are worthless, unless you want to play a crafting game. Personally, I don't craft. I don't mind if others do, but I'm not going to craft. But if the weap[ons and armor you're talking about dont' help me, then why would I want them? If they do help me, won't that be because they help me kill bigger or more Mobs, which means more XP? Or you mean just for PvP? Or you mean the Weapons don't help do anything, but they look shiny?
So you're right back where I started with my original post.
Your last statement makes no sense.
You have just dictated how you would dictate people play the game, and then say you shouldnt' do that. Which one is it?
Forcing everyone to progress at the same rate, grouped or solo, is dictating how people play.
But you said, who are YOU or I to dictate to people how they should play?
So, again, which one is it?
You going to force people to level at the same rate, or you're going to allow them to play how they want to?
WoW "encourages" grouping very little. The difference in grouping to the cap versus solo is so small, most people will just solo to the cap.
You are quite incorrect about WoW with regards to encouraging grouping. Even to this day WoW encourages grouping in the rewards you can get from the group dungeons. Dungeons that AREN'T necessarily at the end game either. Just look how popular the "Random Dungeon Finder" is now. WoW is an example of encouraged grouping without having to force it on people.
Furthermore, enforced grouping throughout an MMO would actually do NOTHING to elleviate any problems concerning finding a group (which Garvon used is an excuse earlier). In fact, it would only serve to exaggerate the problem because whilst the same number of group'ers would be in the game, those who don't like to group as much as others would be driven away. What follows then is people bitching about how the world feels empty.
People have lives and families now, they can't dedicate as much time to an MMO any more. And they certainly won't tolerate camping out in an MMO city for hours, just looking for a group. Times have changed, and so have MMO players needs. And the MMO industry is trying to cater for those needs. Because if they dont, then they lose customers.
In my opinion, the value, the fun, the worth, if you will, of grouping is the concern.
I've never found it difficult to find groups in solo games like WoW.
the problem is never finding a group, but finding a game where grouping is actually fun, because it is a worthwhile endeavour.
So what in the world does having a family have to do with that?
I don't know how old this thread is, but I just came across an article online where they were talking to producer Blaine Christine and he makes the point that it's primarily a single player game. Read through the thread here:
I'll point out the one thing that stood out the most for me:
VideoGamer.com: Is the idea that you want players to be able to solo everything?
BC: Yes. It is in fact a goal.
Though it does seem like you'll have side quests that are group specific, as stated here:
VideoGamer.com: In a traditional MMORPG you might have a five person group that goes into an instanced area, one that would not be able to be defeated if you try it on your own. Are you suggesting then that you would be able to go into that instance with five people or on your own and it would scale accordingly?
BC: Let me put this a different way. We will have group-specific content. So there may be certain things, but that's mostly going to be things that are additional to the main story.
It sounds to me a lot like the way LOTRO does things. Primarily everything is soloable with a few other group quests to remind people you're in an MMO. Though it differs from LOTRO in that the main storyline will be completely soloable, whereas in LOTRO it was mostly group based.
It looks like I'll be staying away from this one until I've heard a fair few reviews, I'm so tired of all these single player MMO's.
I don't know how old this thread is, but I just came across an article online where they were talking to producer Blaine Christine and he makes the point that it's primarily a single player game. Read through the thread here:
I'll point out the one thing that stood out the most for me:
VideoGamer.com: Is the idea that you want players to be able to solo everything?
BC: Yes. It is in fact a goal.
Though it does seem like you'll have side quests that are group specific, as stated here:
VideoGamer.com: In a traditional MMORPG you might have a five person group that goes into an instanced area, one that would not be able to be defeated if you try it on your own. Are you suggesting then that you would be able to go into that instance with five people or on your own and it would scale accordingly?
BC: Let me put this a different way. We will have group-specific content. So there may be certain things, but that's mostly going to be things that are additional to the main story.
It sounds to me a lot like the way LOTRO does things. Primarily everything is soloable with a few other group quests to remind people you're in an MMO. Though it differs from LOTRO in that the main storyline will be completely soloable, whereas in LOTRO it was mostly group based.
It looks like I'll be staying away from this one until I've heard a fair few reviews, I'm so tired of all these single player MMO's.
Sweet mother of jesus EA are giving them $150 million to make a single player game with multiplayer tacked on. Bloody Bioware. Anyone that played Dragon gae or even to that affetc ME2 will tell you the amount of cutscenes and breaks in actaully playing and the horendous amount of voice acting was the most tediuos thing ever. it was hey lets speak to this guy, 10 mins later his still tlaking, you knpw what I will go make a tea and have a shit, come back, and his still talking, ok lketme make a decision, you know what 99% of the decisions led you to thesame path anyway. Sweet jesus was there anything even more linear then their maps for Dragon age? Was like invisible walls galore.
Another thing I forgot to mention, and one thing I really hate in modern MMO's, is the use of instances. To keep their 'single player game' feel, they're really going overboard on the instances.
The producer comments:
"Throughout the course of each one of the class stories,there are significant choices as there would be in other BioWare games, that do have a dramatic impact on the outcome of your story. A lot of the way that's driven is through instancing. A lot of your key decisions and key characters you interact with may occur in instances. That way we're able to control what you're seeing as a player."
And...
"What you'll see is we're using those instances maybe more and in different ways than what you would normally think of."
And lastly:
VideoGamer.com: Do you intend for The Old Republic to be a BioWare game that's also an MMO, in that order?
BC: Let me put it this way, we intend for it to be a Star Wars game that is also a BioWare game, probably somewhere in that order but those are fairly equal, because storytelling is just as important to LucasArts as it is to us. That's the approach. Coming at it from that and then, yes it is an MMO.
Translated as, it's a Star Wars game, it's a Bioware game, oh yeah, it's also an MMO.
Lovely. I can't wait to start paying a subscription for single player games.
-I just find it sad that the most anticipated, expensive and hyped triple times triple AAA MMO, the so-called wow killer has to prove that it IS an MMO...along with all those other proofs(space combat, crafting, fun, awesomeness, diversity, fluid combat...)
-Kinda crawls in head dont ya think??
I think I actually spent way more time reading and theorycrafting about MMOs than playing them
Comments
Precisely. Just because content is soloable, doesn't mean that there won't be incentives to group up. An MMO doesn't have to enforce grouping, it can be encouraged instead by offering rewards and incentives to do so.
I get the distinct impression that Garvon is one of "those" people who would only be truely happy in a totally group enforced MMO.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
Nice reading and while I'm on your side of the argument as I expect Bioware to succeed I have to disagree with the topic title, no one knows how anything anyone says about a video game will turn out especially mmo's until we simply see them happen until then we just don't know.
I've seen many comments about TOR will be the next "WOW" and I agree if for no other reason than it will come closest to WOW in the number of people who will be able to get into the experience,enjoy it, and immerse themselves in the world provided by Bioware.
But at the end of the day I can say I've seen far too many of these interviews by devs where what they may talk about somehow doesn't turn out the way they say if it even turns up at all so I just am going to take with a grain of salt any specifics revealed about systems and such.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Have you ever gone with elewynn forest? Ever group up with someone to get through it alittle quicker? I have, so im sure some other peole have too. You do not get any extra rewards from doing except maybe getting through it quicker. But honestly, not everyone needs a reward to do something. Maybe someone will actually try to be social
.
nice post btw
Thanks
I've never been burnt by false expectations or believing everything devs and game directors say, so I don't feel the need to be fully 100% sceptic about what devs say now. I tend to think of my view regarding games as moderate, a 'going along with what devs state if it isn't overly farfetched and until proven differently'; I usually reserve any judgement for when beta arrives and I can see for myself.
To think that SW:TOR would be nothing more than a singleplayer game experience and not a MMO as some do, that's a view too ludicrous to be taken seriously and coming straight out of the loony bin.
Also the report at least to me reaffirmed of what devs stated elsewhere, that group play is very much possible straight from the beginning.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I've been playing for MMORPGs for 11 years now.
For the past 5 years it has been nearly impossible to find a group just for the sake of grouping up and killing things while talking. That is a direct result of the new solo focused arcade MMORPGs, and the audience they brought in.
The last time I had a group just for the sake of socializing and exploring with a random person I had never met before, was in Vanguard. Vanguard was the last of the real virtual world MMOs from what I've seen, the last of that old community feeling original MMOs had.
I've tried and tried and tried in games like Lord of the Rings online to find groups of people that just want to socialize, closest I ever get is a group of 3 or so people that form up for a group step, run to the boss mob spawn, then instantly disband and get their quest reward.
You can have grouping as an option all you want, but when all the action is completed solo in instances, you aren't going to get groups. I've played MMOs enough to know the trend now.
So, I was right, you ARE in favour of enforced grouping thorughout a game. And if you are wanting to group up more, ever thought of joining a guild? Don't you think that you're being a little unreasonable to assume that people you haven't met before will want to hang out with you permanently? Seriously? Would you expect people to do that in real life having only met you 30 mins previously?
Look, just because SOME games catered for soloing as a major part of the leveling process DOENS'T mean that there can't also be strong incentives to group as well. Even WoW has such incentives. And some people really enjoy going into the dungeons at the lower levels as part of the overall game experience in WoW. So I think you're exaggerating a little about the impossibility of grouping. Either that or you're not a member of a guild.
However, there's only so much that devs can do to provide incentives before they have to resign to the fact that, regardless of incentives, SOME people would rather level up via soloing than hang around at any one level for long. But that's not the fault of the game, that's just how people are. And if devs reduced the amount of soloable content considerably JUST to encourage grouping, then all people are left with is "the grind". And trust me, that is NOT a good option.
Just look at Aion for evidence of how grinding can adversely affect the popularity of an MMO.
So what options are available to encourage grouping? Well, devs could either slow the leveling progress right down to a crawl (thus keeping large portions of players in the same level bracket), or they could remove the leveling process altogether thus everyone is ALWAYS in the same level range (i.e. like in a "Sandbox" game).
Some would perhaps suggest removing soloing COMPLETELY and enforce grouping. That would be impractical. Removing the ability to solo in MMO's would do NOTHING to improve the ability to group up, and would in fact make things worse. Why? Because it would drive away a large portion of players who want to solo (that includes some group'ers too).
And whilst some may selfishishly say "good we don't need them in OUR game", in actual fact you need them a lot. Not just as candidates for grouping, BUT ALSO to help make the game world feel more inhabited. Without them, people would be moaning about how the gameworld feels empty because a lot of people aren't playing it. Just look at the rocky launch of EQ2 for an example of what happened when people found out you couldn't solo / duo beyond L25 ish.
In Conclusion
You also cannot FORCE people to do anything that they wouldn't want to do, especially when they are having to pay for the priveledge. If devs fail to cater for a certain demographic (either by accident or deliberately) then they will do nothing but drive them away. Enforced grouping counters the very prosperity of the whole MMO industry, just to suit the whim of a certain percentage of players who want EVERYTHING to be their way, and only their way. ALL playstyles need to be catered for if a product has the greatest chance of being seen as successful in the eyes of the players (that includes solo'ing, grouping, raiding AND pvp).
Lastly, ask yourself something, why do people solo so much? Well, the fact is that the world has changed in the last 10 years, and so have peoples tastes and needs. You cannot blame any MMO for that. 10 years ago people didn't necessarily have families and jobs which demanded a large portion of their time. They can no longer spend 14+ hours per day on an MMO just camping one spot for a potential group. This contributes to the problem but you cannot change it. So in all probability, reducing the amount of solo'able content purely to encourage grouping would have very little (if any at all) effect on the potential to group up. It would only serve to drive people away from the game you are playing. This is what devs have to accept. Having soloable content in an MMO hasn't directly caused a reduction in grouping, the changes in peoples lives have.
So rather than advocating a reduction in solo'able content in order to facilitate grouping, why not just join a guild of players who enjoy playing the way you do?
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
The Devs have talked about how they want mechanics to encourage grouping and good community. It's pretty clear they want solo content as an option of course, but that doesn't mean there won't be good reasons for grouping.
Forced grouping for all content is rather silly, imho.
Encouraged grouping = "forced" grouping.
Just depends on the amount of "encouragement" and each player tends to have a different threshold before they scream "forced" grouping.
there arent' any games that prevent you from soloing to the cap, like if you don't group you instantly die and cannot gain xp.
But some games "encourage" grouping more than others, making it easier to group to the cap.
WoW "encourages" grouping very little. The difference in grouping to the cap versus solo is so small, most people will just solo to the cap.
EQ "encourages" grouping a lot. The difference in soloing to the cap versus grouping to the cap was so great when I played, that most people preferred to group to the cap.
I've never seen a game that forces grouping for all content, as in you can't play the game unless you group because it's impossible ot make 1 xp point solo.
I don't think anyone actually means that when they say "forced" grouping.
They usually mean they can't solo to the cap almost as fast as grouping, and they dont' like that.
I've never seen such an MMORPG. Could you give an example of such a game?
The devil is in the details.
If you don't offer enough "incentive", then it's a solo fest to the cap, where people group occaisionally, like WoW.
If you offer to much "incentive" to group, then the group makes progress so much faster the solo players cry "forced grouping" like in EQ.
You appear to be making an assumption that incentive = an increased rate of progression (e.g. an increase in the rate of XP gain compared to soloing). But you'd be wrong. XP increase is just one type of incentive, there are others too, which I will get to in a moment. However, you HAVE highlighted the very reason why using a progression rate increase (whatever that might be) is a BAD idea as an incentive to group. Simply because it can create gross imbalances in the rate of progression betwen the playstyles. And THAT can have a knock-on effect right the way through the game.
As I mentioned earlier, there can be other incentives, for instance:
Rare higher grade items (armour and weaponry) that cannot be obtained elsewhere.
Crafting recipes.
Rare materials for crafting, where more common materials are found outside.
"Base" items which can then be upgraded or sold ("Base" meaning an item that can be "upgraded" to be better).
Other specific rewards that can only be attained from such a group instance.
What these do is provide an incentive without directly affecting the rate of progression. And also, if such rewards are actually "consumable" items (e.g. like materials used in crafting), then that also provides additional incentives to revisit them time and time again. This has worked before. Of course, this implies that a crafting mechanic can support the use of "rare materials", but they often do. Plus by allowing such mechanics, the game as a whole becomes enriched as a result of it.
So as you can see, contrary to what you believe, "encouraging" grouping DOES NOT mean "enforcing" it upon people. Give people the choice with the necessary incentives, and allow THEM to decide.
After all, who are YOU or I to dictate to people how they should play?
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
You are quite incorrect about WoW with regards to encouraging grouping. Even to this day WoW encourages grouping in the rewards you can get from the group dungeons. Dungeons that AREN'T necessarily at the end game either. Just look how popular the "Random Dungeon Finder" is now. WoW is an example of encouraged grouping without having to force it on people.
Furthermore, enforced grouping throughout an MMO would actually do NOTHING to elleviate any problems concerning finding a group (which Garvon used is an excuse earlier). In fact, it would only serve to exaggerate the problem because whilst the same number of group'ers would be in the game, those who don't like to group as much as others would be driven away. What follows then is people bitching about how the world feels empty.
People have lives and families now, they can't dedicate as much time to an MMO any more. And they certainly won't tolerate camping out in an MMO city for hours, just looking for a group. Times have changed, and so have MMO players needs. And the MMO industry is trying to cater for those needs. Because if they dont, then they lose customers.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
WoW actually punishes grouping most of the time. You run out of quests, you face zero challenges (lowers fun), and the mob supply means that you get less experience in general (even if some quests are faster, others are much slower and even more boring due to random drops). A LOT of MMOs are like this.
I am not familiar with any MMO where grouping either isn't punished fairly severely or rewarded lavishly. The former means a lot of people solo, the latter means soloing takes so long it is worthwile waiting an hour or so for a group (which is bad game design). I believe TOR is aiming for something a lot more reasonable here, but it will probably be a bit of a tricky goal to reach.
If none of the the things you listed help you gain XP faster, then they are worthless, unless you want to play a crafting game. Personally, I don't craft. I don't mind if others do, but I'm not going to craft. But if the weap[ons and armor you're talking about dont' help me, then why would I want them? If they do help me, won't that be because they help me kill bigger or more Mobs, which means more XP? Or you mean just for PvP? Or you mean the Weapons don't help do anything, but they look shiny?
So you're right back where I started with my original post.
Your last statement makes no sense.
You have just dictated how you would dictate people play the game, and then say you shouldnt' do that. Which one is it?
Forcing everyone to progress at the same rate, grouped or solo, is dictating how people play.
But you said, who are YOU or I to dictate to people how they should play?
So, again, which one is it?
You going to force people to level at the same rate, or you're going to allow them to play how they want to?
In my opinion, the value, the fun, the worth, if you will, of grouping is the concern.
I've never found it difficult to find groups in solo games like WoW.
the problem is never finding a group, but finding a game where grouping is actually fun, because it is a worthwhile endeavour.
So what in the world does having a family have to do with that?
I don't know how old this thread is, but I just came across an article online where they were talking to producer Blaine Christine and he makes the point that it's primarily a single player game. Read through the thread here:
http://www.videogamer.com/pc/star_wars_the_old_republic/preview-2133.html
I'll point out the one thing that stood out the most for me:
VideoGamer.com: Is the idea that you want players to be able to solo everything?
BC: Yes. It is in fact a goal.
Though it does seem like you'll have side quests that are group specific, as stated here:
VideoGamer.com: In a traditional MMORPG you might have a five person group that goes into an instanced area, one that would not be able to be defeated if you try it on your own. Are you suggesting then that you would be able to go into that instance with five people or on your own and it would scale accordingly?
BC: Let me put this a different way. We will have group-specific content. So there may be certain things, but that's mostly going to be things that are additional to the main story.
It sounds to me a lot like the way LOTRO does things. Primarily everything is soloable with a few other group quests to remind people you're in an MMO. Though it differs from LOTRO in that the main storyline will be completely soloable, whereas in LOTRO it was mostly group based.
It looks like I'll be staying away from this one until I've heard a fair few reviews, I'm so tired of all these single player MMO's.
Sweet mother of jesus EA are giving them $150 million to make a single player game with multiplayer tacked on. Bloody Bioware. Anyone that played Dragon gae or even to that affetc ME2 will tell you the amount of cutscenes and breaks in actaully playing and the horendous amount of voice acting was the most tediuos thing ever. it was hey lets speak to this guy, 10 mins later his still tlaking, you knpw what I will go make a tea and have a shit, come back, and his still talking, ok lketme make a decision, you know what 99% of the decisions led you to thesame path anyway. Sweet jesus was there anything even more linear then their maps for Dragon age? Was like invisible walls galore.
Another thing I forgot to mention, and one thing I really hate in modern MMO's, is the use of instances. To keep their 'single player game' feel, they're really going overboard on the instances.
The producer comments:
"Throughout the course of each one of the class stories,there are significant choices as there would be in other BioWare games, that do have a dramatic impact on the outcome of your story. A lot of the way that's driven is through instancing. A lot of your key decisions and key characters you interact with may occur in instances. That way we're able to control what you're seeing as a player."
And...
"What you'll see is we're using those instances maybe more and in different ways than what you would normally think of."
And lastly:
VideoGamer.com: Do you intend for The Old Republic to be a BioWare game that's also an MMO, in that order?
BC: Let me put it this way, we intend for it to be a Star Wars game that is also a BioWare game, probably somewhere in that order but those are fairly equal, because storytelling is just as important to LucasArts as it is to us. That's the approach. Coming at it from that and then, yes it is an MMO.
Translated as, it's a Star Wars game, it's a Bioware game, oh yeah, it's also an MMO.
Lovely. I can't wait to start paying a subscription for single player games.
-I just find it sad that the most anticipated, expensive and hyped triple times triple AAA MMO, the so-called wow killer has to prove that it IS an MMO...along with all those other proofs(space combat, crafting, fun, awesomeness, diversity, fluid combat...)
-Kinda crawls in head dont ya think??
I think I actually spent way more time reading and theorycrafting about MMOs than playing them