Solo players destroy mmoprgs because mmo developer create content for them which they shouldnt those games are meant to be played with other ppl. If you want solo content go back to offline rpgs.
So, because game studios and producers listen to the people spending money on games and develop games designed to attract them it is somehow the consumer's fault?
Go tell the management of the games you play that you have single-handedly forced every solo'er to leave their game and cancel their sub...then see how long you are still playing before getting a lifetime ban.
Can you give a 100% iron-clad guarantee that your response or acceptance of any answer given will be treated with completely objective consideration and weighed equally against your own preferences, and not immediately discounted or dismissed if it doesn't fit with your personal point-of-view?
If not, then your "test" is a farce, and indulging it would be a waste of time.
Stop assuming things about me and why I asked the question, and partake of a discussion in good faith, as a gamer, as I did.
What is an example of "solo play taken too far" in gaming? Spit out a TANGIBLE, real example that might actually FOSTER meaningful discussion, instead of slogans and emo.
That's all I was getting at, and why I asked the question, and actually provided an example that could be discussed against.
"Lets try a test:
Would you say the Henchmen and Hero NPC development dynamic in Guild Wars is an example of "solo play" mechanics gone too far?"
No assumptions or "agenda" built into the question, yes? On topic, clearly stated, no slanted viewpoint or bias attached at the outset.
Allowing solo is allowing a default for the game to be playable/enjoyable in the absence of the above being successfully answered. It could be argued some modern mmorpgs have allowed solo to creep into mmorpgs as de facto rather than default, but that is tangent to the main consideraton it needs be permissible/viable option for positive reasons as Jeff Strain reasons but also for shoulder the deficiency of the above.
This brings up an interesting point, at least interesting to me.
The whole "modern MMOs have allowed solo play to creep in" thing.
Horse-hockey. While many people were playing "group or fail" in EQ1, many others were playing in an open-world (no zone walls) largely unstructured mostly sandbox named Asheron's Call. People like me. Yes, there was absolutely content that had to be grouped for. But leveling to max while solo, and obtaining damned good gear along the way, was not only possible but routine. The community rocked. (Ok, Darktide was one of the first MMORPG ffa PvP cesspools but hey, some great gaming happened there too) Player-run market towns like Arwic (before it became Charwic) were epic.
So, don't tell me you can't have a great community in a game that can be laregly solo'd. Tell me you don't know how to do that, because that's what it boils down to.
I play mostly solo now, and my MMOing at the moment is EvE and only EvE. But I ran a large guild in Asheron's Call, I co-GMd a guild in DAoC, I was a guild officer in many games along the way. I get community, I enjoy community, and I used to group constantly, now I group when I have to. I still enjoy the community, and I don't feel that designers need to give me anything I don't earn. I'm a solo'er now, deal with it.
To all of you "group or gtfo out of my MMOs because you are ruining them!" fanatics: realize that you are in the minority now, and that you were never the only game in town. MMOs are now, and have always been, businesses. If you want a modern, niche, Group or Fail game go convince a small studio to make and run one for you or roll on an EQ classic server.
The genre has moved on, for the most part, and it understands where the money is. And that's where it's going to go.
I don't think the issue has ever been that soloers or casuals destroy games. Both have existed in MMORPGs from the beginning.
The way I see it, the issue is that developers destroy games when they favor solo play to such a large degree that game mechanics for grouping and community interaction are contradicted, removed or gimped beyond usefulness.
How so?
Pretty much any MMO encourages some degree for players to group, if anything the same tools you used before are still in todays games, it's the players who decide if they want to participate the game doesn't do it for you. There is no real right answer for this type of human behavior, yes, behavior. People can list off shit like:
"Anti-social personality disorder"
"The more time a player spends alone on video games, the more that player is becoming isolated from the rest of the world. Basic social functions are forgotten, or have not been fine-tuned with experience."
"The Internet has provided a means for people to communicate, while also providing a means for isolation and anti-social behavior. New technology has introduced both positives and negatives for our society"
I don't think the issue has ever been that soloers or casuals destroy games. Both have existed in MMORPGs from the beginning.
The way I see it, the issue is that developers destroy games when they favor solo play to such a large degree that game mechanics for grouping and community interaction are contradicted, removed or gimped beyond usefulness.
How so?
Pretty much any MMO encourages some degree for players to group, if anything the same tools you used before are still in todays games, it's the players who decide if they want to participate the game doesn't do it for you. There is no real right answer for this type of human behavior, yes, behavior. People can list off shit like:
"Anti-social personality disorder"
"The more time a player spends alone on video games, the more that player is becoming isolated from the rest of the world. Basic social functions are forgotten, or have not been fine-tuned with experience."
"The Internet has provided a means for people to communicate, while also providing a means for isolation and anti-social behavior. New technology has introduced both positives and negatives for our society"
But even this still doesn't include players who probably do have good social skills but choose not to use it over the internet.
I do not think soloers destroy the games, however I think the fact that soloers are able to gear up to the same degree as groupers and raiders is what ruins the game. PvP gear is what ruins the games for me personally. Because, it is an easy way to get comparable (not quite as good but very close) to top end gear.
Secondly, I feel like the games should focus on grouping over soloing. Right now they focus on soloing then grouping it should be the other way around. As it was stated just because it focus on soloing does not mean there is not grouping. The same goes the other way around, just because it is focused on grouping does not mean you cannot solo.
Quests, I personally hate them and would prefer quests be a guide rather than a means of xp, but the main reason I hate them is because it is more efficient to solo quests than it is to perform group activities.
Using the recent SWTOR as an example, the fastest way to level up was primarily to solo. How? Most people would follow the class quest and do the quests in the planet their class quest was on. Additionally, each day they could do space missions (alone) and pvp dailies (alone if they choose) as a quick means to quest xp.
Now for me personally, by the time I hit level 50, I had not even finished my alderaan class quest. Instead I primarily focused on group flashpoints. It took much longer, but I did what I enjoyed. To me the purpose to pay and play an MMOrpg is because of the ability to do things with other people, if I preferred to do everything alone and play the game with content easily suited for my soloing, I would just stick to a single player RPG... maybe find one that allows 2 player mode so I can play with a friend. But, I would not pay to play each month.
With that, I accepted that it would take me longer to level up, despite the more difficulties I would face. But, how was the game ruined for me? Simple, each day a player could do a daily for a flashpoint. Many soloers would try to do a quick run and get out. They don't care about killing bonus bosses or hell, some of them did not even care if they needed stuff they could not even use, because they know they will not be required to group so they do not need to be a reputable player.
Getting past all of that, I got to 50 and began raiding and pvping. I could not get past the fact that PvP gear was usable in PvE. In fact, you could obtain the pvp gear much faster. Cent was comparable to tionese, champ was comparable to columni, and gladiator was comparable to gladiator. Each case the pve was slightly (very slightly) better.
This ruined the game for me, because despite the fact that I was now in end game raiding (I understand it was early still) but people who simply soloed were better geared than I was by raiding everytime I was able to.
I do not believe soloers ruin the game. Every game I have played had soloers. But in the good games, it was more efficient to group than it was to solo, unless you were just very good and even then you had to find an area that suited your solo playstyle... which was limited.
Edit: If a game focuses on soloing, then the content will be too easy for a grouper. (In this case the point of grouping is not there)
If a game focuses on grouping it will be more difficult to solo, and easier for a grouper. (In this case grouping makes it easier, but soloing will provide a challenge, this is what makes a game good. (Having options that make sense)
Allowing solo is allowing a default for the game to be playable/enjoyable in the absence of the above being successfully answered. It could be argued some modern mmorpgs have allowed solo to creep into mmorpgs as de facto rather than default, but that is tangent to the main consideraton it needs be permissible/viable option for positive reasons as Jeff Strain reasons but also for shoulder the deficiency of the above.
This brings up an interesting point, at least interesting to me.
The whole "modern MMOs have allowed solo play to creep in" thing.
Horse-hockey. While many people were playing "group or fail" in EQ1, many others were playing in an open-world (no zone walls) largely unstructured mostly sandbox named Asheron's Call. People like me. Yes, there was absolutely content that had to be grouped for. But leveling to max while solo, and obtaining damned good gear along the way, was not only possible but routine. The community rocked. (Ok, Darktide was one of the first MMORPG ffa PvP cesspools but hey, some great gaming happened there too) Player-run market towns like Arwic (before it became Charwic) were epic.
So, don't tell me you can't have a great community in a game that can be laregly solo'd. Tell me you don't know how to do that, because that's what it boils down to.
I play mostly solo now, and my MMOing at the moment is EvE and only EvE. But I ran a large guild in Asheron's Call, I co-GMd a guild in DAoC, I was a guild officer in many games along the way. I get community, I enjoy community, and I used to group constantly, now I group when I have to. I still enjoy the community, and I don't feel that designers need to give me anything I don't earn. I'm a solo'er now, deal with it.
To all of you "group or gtfo out of my MMOs because you are ruining them!" fanatics: realize that you are in the minority now, and that you were never the only game in town. MMOs are now, and have always been, businesses. If you want a modern, niche, Group or Fail game go convince a small studio to make and run one for you or roll on an EQ classic server.
The genre has moved on, for the most part, and it understands where the money is. And that's where it's going to go.
I disagree.
EQ1 was not group or gtfo. EQ1 simply made it so hardcore gamers progressed faster and easier than a casual gamer. When I first started, I was very casual... I was limited to playing once or twice a week at up to 3 hours a week. So, once I got the hang of the game, I rerolled a mage, because of the ability to solo. I soloed a lot, because if it took me 30 minutes to find a group and I have 1 hour to play, I just wasted half my xp time. So instead, I soloed in zones while LFG.
It was better xp than grouping per kill, but less efficient because I could not continuosly kill nor could I kill faster. As I was able to play more, I grouped more, even on my mage. I was content knowing I may have to go to lower level mobs to solo. I was content knowing, if I wanted to kill a named I may have to get a few levels higher than I would if I farmed it with a group...
I could have less chance of getting my item at lower level because more people are rolling for it. Or I could have a greater chance of getting it by soloing, but the downside is I have to wait until I can solo it.
What could I not do as a soloer? Raid. That is how it should be. And I should not be able to obtain raid gear quality by soloing.
You're taking the approach that the amount of solo content somehow equals developer focus, despite the fact that group / raid content is qualitatively better, more interesting and the most rewarding, while solo content tends to be dull, bland and not even remotely comeptitive in regards to rewards.
With all due respect, Isabelle, through all your ranting in that article you demonstrated one thing to me above all else. You don't seem to actually understand the real issue.
With all due respect, TP, if it's an issue to her...and an issue to other solo'ers who have encountered the "solo'ers are bad, you guys don't even belong in MMOs" attitude then she understands the issue perfectly. The fact that there are two perspectives to this...more, but certainly two in opposition...doesn't change the fact that she has a good hndle on this issue from her perspective. And, point in fact, you go to demonstrate that you have basically no respect for her view whatsoever.
You're right. In this particular column, I don't respect her view, because her view does not warrant it. It's basically a string of forum-grade rants that, beside completely missing the point, that are and have been easily rebutted many times over. As I and others have explained, she doesn't seem to understand what the actual issue is.
She's addressing the effect, not the cause.
I'm pretty sure the point here is that while she has less time to game, and with priorities that prohibit dedicated gaming sessions on a routine basis, she still loves the genre and community and still loves to play MMOs, and wants to be able to keep doing that, on her terms. Without being able to solo the end-game world boss and without the purple shinies that come with that. And also without people telling her to group or gtfo.
And I'm pretty sure you completely missed the point of my asking that.
Here's a hint: It's explained in the bits you answered out of context below.
Are you claiming that, because you have a job and children and a social life, that your gaming preferences are superior to others?
No, and it's not inferior either.
1. I neither said nor implied it was. Are you trying to put words in my mouth?
2. You're answering this out of its intended context.
3. Is your name Isabelle Parsley? If not, has she given you the go-ahead to speak on her behalf? If not, then why are you presuming to speak for her?
Are you claiming that those who perhaps haven't taken on those responsibilities yet are less deserving of an experience they would thoroughly enjoy, simply because "they haven't grown up yet"?
Nowhere did she ask to nerf grouping or group rewards or to stop designing for group/raid content. Get off your high horse. Nowhere did she ask for content to be dumbed down so she can complete group encounters.
1. Where do I say anything about her asking to nerf grouping or group rewards or to stop designing for group/raid content? Where do I claim that she asked for content to be dumbed down so she can complete group encounters? Why are you still putting words in my mouth?
2. Again, you took that bit out of context.
3. I'm not on a high horse.
What, exactly, is your point in making that argument, Isabelle?
Her point's not tough to see if you read what she wrote without a bias like you're demonstrating in your response.
1. Again, answered out of context.
2. You've been presuming to speak for Isabelle. You've been arguing strawmen and putting words in my mouth. You've individually answered questions that were intended to make a point, rather than ask a specific question.
3. I got what she said just fine and challenged her as such. I'm not the one putting words in other people's mouths here (that would be you).
I'll spell it out for you, so you don't have to keep conjuring up things I never said and then arguing against them as though I did.
Isabelle plainly states, that because she's older and has more responsibility, that she doesn't have the time she used to, 10 or 15 years ago, to spend on playing MMOs. The implication there is that because she has less time to play, that MMOs should be made more soloable because her lifestyle won't allow for extended playtime as it used to.
She ignores that there are people who do still have plenty of time to play MMOs, as she used to, and who would still like to experience more content that requires a group and doesn't come in entirely soloable 30-60 minute bite-sized pieces. She ignores that there are people for whom group participation, coordination and relevance are an important part of their MMO experience. She seems unaware, or perhaps willfully ignorant of the fact that there are people who, like her, don't have a lot of free time to play, but still prefer the more community and group oriented gameplay that MMOs used to be more about, 10 or 15 years ago when she had more time to play them.
In other words, Isabelle's entire argument in that case revolves entirely around her circumstances - her unqualified use of "we" notwithstanding. She's grown up. She has more responsibilities. She has less time to play. So, she expects MMOs should be more solo/casual friendly to suit her circumstances. That, my friend, is as clear a case of self-entitlement as I've ever seen. That is what I was calling her out on.
She didn't ask for anything for free, she doesn't want anything handed to her, she wants, as a paying customer, to be able to enjoy challenging and rewarding gameplay as a solo'er. The game studios agree with her, by the way
-sigh- Do I really need to keep repeating the same things to you? Putting words in my mouth, etc. etc.
1. I didn't say she asks for anything to be free.
2. She's entitled to what she wants as a paying consumer as much as anyone else, including those who don't share her preferences in gaming. Yet, Isabelle acknowledges only her personal circumstances, and puts them up a reason why MMOs should be more soloable. Hence, she's demonstrating a very entitled attitude. See how that works? Is the idea getting clearer?
As for gaming studios "agreeing with her". No they don't. Gaming studios agree with whatever they feel will bring them the most $$$. If heavy soloing fell out of fashion tomorrow, and group-heavy content became the rage, that's where they'd be going and what Isabelle wants would mean absolutely squat to them. Incidentally, the way Gaming Studios perceive and embrace things is actually part of the real problem.
She wrote many of her points well enough that this thread is full of people who have agreed with her. It only would have taken one of them to make this snide and shrewish remark moot. So, no, she made no such error.
Isabelle Parsley is one person, representing and speaking for herself. Just as you speak for yourself. Just as I speak for myself. The column/article is credited to Isabelle Parsley as its author, not Isabelle Parsley And The Legion of People She Represents. That there are people who share her perspective does not change that. There are plenty of people whom strongly disagree with her to varying degrees. There are people who agree with her overall view, but feel she gets it wrong on the specifics. There's myriad shades of gray in there. Isabelle Parsley speaks for Isabelle Parsley.
Bully for you. And you know, it's perfectly possible for solo'ers to be very involved in the community while not grouping. Unless you intend to throw most crafters and explorers under the bus I would exersize caution in how you reply here...
Why should I "exercise caution" in how I reply? Because someone like yourself will invariably take what I say, spin it completely out of context and twist it around into something I didn't say at all?
Allow me to burst your bubble. I don't "carefully phrase my statements" for the benefit of those types of people, nor those types of antics.
I make my points and arguments perfectly clear to anyone who actually reads them for what they are, and is honest enough to take them in their proper, intended context. You are, demonstrably, not one of those people. But that's okay. I didn't share them for your benefit. So, nothing lost there.
I'm going to guess that you value your MMO experiences based on how much you're able to achieve in whatever limited time you have to play. Achievements might be getting a level or two, finishing a quest line, acquiring some new gear, etc. Would my guess be correct?
Did you read what she wrote? Seems less likely now, based on this comment. She wrote openly about her assessment scores and that fact that she is not focused on the achiver side of the game.
My question has nothing to do with being an achiever versus any other "category" of gamer. It has to do with what criteria she uses to weigh the value of her available playtime in a given session. The two are not the same.
And anyway, I'm guessing you're still not Isabelle Parsley, right? Could you please stop trying to answer for her? It's getting kinda creepy.
Assuming it is, and I know that's the case for others, that's where I fundamentally differ from you. For me, I value my time in a game based on how much fun I had doing whatever it was I did for that time. I don't care if it's sitting in one spot, chatting with guild-mates, xp'ing for a bit but not leveling-up, or giving a dungeon a go and failing. If I had fun in the process, then it was time well-spent. I value the experience of playing the game, not "how much did I accomplish while playing it". I don't care if I didn't get that next level, because leveling up isn't my specific "goal". Logging in and having fun doing "whatever" I end up doing, preferably involving other players.
Ah, that word "assume" at work. You see, you have just pointed out that a solo'er can be experiencing and enjoying the community as well as a grouper and that you did not need to be grouping to enjoy the game experience. Also, once again, you apparently skipped over the part in her article where she describes her gaming preferences/priorities.
Sure, let's talk about that "assume" word....
Isabelle's entire article is based on one big assumption that she A) Speaks for some undefined and unqualified "we" and That she understands the core issues people have with the heavy emphasis on soloing in MMOs - which she demonstrably doesn't, at least in this particular rant/article.
Your response to me is riddled with your own assumptions that you know what Isabelle thinks or how she would respond, going so far as to answer on her behalf.
Ironically, I've made no assumption in my statement there. I've merely provided an example of another way someone might value/weigh their available playtime, despite their circumstances. I gave that as an alternative to the previous bit which was a guess and, as you might have noticed, concluded with a request to clarify if I was correct or not. In other words, I wasn't assuming to know how Isabelle values her playtime. I was making a guess based on the angle of her previous arguments/statements, and then asking for a confirmation of whether I guessed correctly or not.
You know what. I've grown completely bored with this exchange.
Your entire response up 'til now has been a rolling train-wreck of of distortions, spin-jobs, strawmen and presumption, and I've no reason to believe the remainder of it will b e any different. So, there's no point in wasting any further effort on this post, or you.
If you're planning to go another round of distorting and spinning what I've said here out of context, seriously, save yourself the time and effort. I won't be reading or replying to it. Or, go ahead and knock yourself out. I don't care.
I don't think the issue has ever been that soloers or casuals destroy games. Both have existed in MMORPGs from the beginning.
The way I see it, the issue is that developers destroy games when they favor solo play to such a large degree that game mechanics for grouping and community interaction are contradicted, removed or gimped beyond usefulness.
How so?
Pretty much any MMO encourages some degree for players to group, if anything the same tools you used before are still in todays games, it's the players who decide if they want to participate the game doesn't do it for you. There is no real right answer for this type of human behavior, yes, behavior. People can list off shit like:
"Anti-social personality disorder"
"The more time a player spends alone on video games, the more that player is becoming isolated from the rest of the world. Basic social functions are forgotten, or have not been fine-tuned with experience."
"The Internet has provided a means for people to communicate, while also providing a means for isolation and anti-social behavior. New technology has introduced both positives and negatives for our society"
But even this still doesn't include players who probably do have good social skills but choose not to use it over the internet.
I do not think soloers destroy the games, however I think the fact that soloers are able to gear up to the same degree as groupers and raiders is what ruins the game. PvP gear is what ruins the games for me personally. Because, it is an easy way to get comparable (not quite as good but very close) to top end gear.
Secondly, I feel like the games should focus on grouping over soloing. Right now they focus on soloing then grouping it should be the other way around. As it was stated just because it focus on soloing does not mean there is not grouping. The same goes the other way around, just because it is focused on grouping does not mean you cannot solo.
Quests, I personally hate them and would prefer quests be a guide rather than a means of xp, but the main reason I hate them is because it is more efficient to solo quests than it is to perform group activities.
Using the recent SWTOR as an example, the fastest way to level up was primarily to solo. How? Most people would follow the class quest and do the quests in the planet their class quest was on. Additionally, each day they could do space missions (alone) and pvp dailies (alone if they choose) as a quick means to quest xp.
Now for me personally, by the time I hit level 50, I had not even finished my alderaan class quest. Instead I primarily focused on group flashpoints. It took much longer, but I did what I enjoyed. To me the purpose to pay and play an MMOrpg is because of the ability to do things with other people, if I preferred to do everything alone and play the game with content easily suited for my soloing, I would just stick to a single player RPG... maybe find one that allows 2 player mode so I can play with a friend. But, I would not pay to play each month.
With that, I accepted that it would take me longer to level up, despite the more difficulties I would face. But, how was the game ruined for me? Simple, each day a player could do a daily for a flashpoint. Many soloers would try to do a quick run and get out. They don't care about killing bonus bosses or hell, some of them did not even care if they needed stuff they could not even use, because they know they will not be required to group so they do not need to be a reputable player.
Getting past all of that, I got to 50 and began raiding and pvping. I could not get past the fact that PvP gear was usable in PvE. In fact, you could obtain the pvp gear much faster. Cent was comparable to tionese, champ was comparable to columni, and gladiator was comparable to gladiator. Each case the pve was slightly (very slightly) better.
This ruined the game for me, because despite the fact that I was now in end game raiding (I understand it was early still) but people who simply soloed were better geared than I was by raiding everytime I was able to.
I do not believe soloers ruin the game. Every game I have played had soloers. But in the good games, it was more efficient to group than it was to solo, unless you were just very good and even then you had to find an area that suited your solo playstyle... which was limited.
Edit: If a game focuses on soloing, then the content will be too easy for a grouper. (In this case the point of grouping is not there)
If a game focuses on grouping it will be more difficult to solo, and easier for a grouper. (In this case grouping makes it easier, but soloing will provide a challenge, this is what makes a game good. (Having options that make sense)
Since you are going to use SWTOR as an example.
Optional Grouping :
-Flashpoints
-World Bosses (at various lvls)
-Heroic Missions
-Operations
-Pvp (Premades)
Again the game doesn't decide for the player, the player decides if he/she wants to participate in them with other players.
The whole "modern MMOs have allowed solo play to creep in" thing.
Horse-hockey. While many people were playing "group or fail" in EQ1, many others were playing in an open-world (no zone walls) largely unstructured mostly sandbox named Asheron's Call. People like me. Yes, there was absolutely content that had to be grouped for. But leveling to max while solo, and obtaining damned good gear along the way, was not only possible but routine. The community rocked. (Ok, Darktide was one of the first MMORPG ffa PvP cesspools but hey, some great gaming happened there too) Player-run market towns like Arwic (before it became Charwic) were epic.
So, don't tell me you can't have a great community in a game that can be laregly solo'd. Tell me you don't know how to do that, because that's what it boils down to.
I play mostly solo now, and my MMOing at the moment is EvE and only EvE. But I ran a large guild in Asheron's Call, I co-GMd a guild in DAoC, I was a guild officer in many games along the way. I get community, I enjoy community, and I used to group constantly, now I group when I have to. I still enjoy the community, and I don't feel that designers need to give me anything I don't earn. I'm a solo'er now, deal with it.
To all of you "group or gtfo out of my MMOs because you are ruining them!" fanatics: realize that you are in the minority now, and that you were never the only game in town. MMOs are now, and have always been, businesses. If you want a modern, niche, Group or Fail game go convince a small studio to make and run one for you or roll on an EQ classic server.
The genre has moved on, for the most part, and it understands where the money is. And that's where it's going to go.
I disagree.
EQ1 was not group or gtfo. EQ1 simply made it so hardcore gamers progressed faster and easier than a casual gamer. When I first started, I was very casual... I was limited to playing once or twice a week at up to 3 hours a week. So, once I got the hang of the game, I rerolled a mage, because of the ability to solo. I soloed a lot, because if it took me 30 minutes to find a group and I have 1 hour to play, I just wasted half my xp time. So instead, I soloed in zones while LFG.
It was better xp than grouping per kill, but less efficient because I could not continuosly kill nor could I kill faster. As I was able to play more, I grouped more, even on my mage. I was content knowing I may have to go to lower level mobs to solo. I was content knowing, if I wanted to kill a named I may have to get a few levels higher than I would if I farmed it with a group...
I could have less chance of getting my item at lower level because more people are rolling for it. Or I could have a greater chance of getting it by soloing, but the downside is I have to wait until I can solo it.
What could I not do as a soloer? Raid. That is how it should be. And I should not be able to obtain raid gear quality by soloing.
Well, I think you summed it up nicely.
I agree with pretty much everything you just said, so I don't know that we really disagree...except in my saying classic EQ at launch was Group or Fail...since you re-rolled into one of the few classes that actually could solo. But that really isn't much of a difference, and I completely agree with not beating raid bosses solo and not having raid-stat gear without that level of risk, complexity, and effort.
Again the game doesn't decide for the player, the player decides if he/she wants to participate in them with other players.
I agree the player decides. However, a game that makes it more efficient to solo, means the players will less likely to decide to group. That is because people will almost always go the fastest route. Does it make sense to go the slower route that is more difficult? No. The only exception to that would be pre-made pvp that one is the only one that is slower (to get in) but easier.
That, in essence, is the true and recurring theme in the loud voices being raised against soloists in MMOs. The arguments (not specifically yours...but yours as well) seem to all boil down to:
"I don't care...
...that solo players do not impact group gameplay."
...that solo players have long been able to get to max level in many MMOs, but I'll throw out the misinformation that this is somehow a new and disturbing trend."
...that community and grouping are not synonyms, but saying that soloists hurt communities is a cheap and easy argument designed to rally people at a gut level."
...that it is entirely within the realm of possibility for game studios to develop and release games that provide both soloists and those who prefer to group with challenging and rewarding gameplay. I'm going to blame the soloists for the design decisions."
...that solo and entitled are not synonyms, but tarring people who want rewarding solo gameplay with the entitlement brush is a cheap and easy argument designed to rally people at a gut level."
...that at the end of the day it is game studios and producers, responding to the market, who make the decisions to include more soloist-friendly content. It's easier for me to blame the soloists than to actually work to convince those people who are in a for-profit cutthroat business that there is a strong and vibrant market for the game designs I want."
I'm a soloer. Is that a word? Any way I always play solo or with one friend (the same one ever since Ultima Online). I have played to max level in a lot of games all by myself, Wow, Age of Conan, etc. all of these games have lots of solo content. I don't want to stand around waiting for people to show up. I want to log in and get with it. If I get to a point in a game where I can't play solo, as I did in Aion and WAR, I find another game. But if anyone now puts out an MMO without single player content then they will be cutting there player base and with the compitition the way it is now they just can't afford to do that. I would probably play more single player games but there aren't a lot of those to go around, right now I'm playing Skyrim. If there were a lot of games like this I probably would play MMOs a lot less. Right now I'm playing Age of Conan with my friend and I'm looking forward to Secrete World. One of the few games that I haven't been able to get into beta damn!!! One last thing, why in the hell can't I make paragraphs in this forum. My return key seems to do nothing here. I got one paragraph up above but have no idea how that hapened.
If you shoot a mime, do you have to use a silencer?
Please respond to the actual content of the article and not flame the writer. We will always have content that someone doesn't agree with and that is fine if it's presented in a civil manner.
The thing is that the article actually flames those that don't agree with the writer's PoV by accusing them of simply 'bitching' etc.
Having content that I don't agree with is fine, but the writer needs to watch her tone and how she refers to others IMO.
It shouldn't be acceptable for her to be able to criticise us and dismiss our views with cheap digs and us not be able to return the favour.
Though is that not what those who want mmos to be more heavily group based do, when people come into a thread refering to how solo play should still be part of the mmo playstyle. The groupers alot of the time flame, bait, and accuse the soloers of ruining the genre (which might be true for the groupers, but yet you could also say that groupers are trying to ruin or even run the soloist out of playing in mmos too.). Yet why should she or anyone watch how they speak to another when many will not do the same, it has been pretty well shown on this site as well as others that forced grouping players have a high distain for solo players. Right now when i got into a mmo there is about the same amount of content to do as a soloer or as a groouper, but the issue is that it takes a whie to get to the heavy group content, while solo content is pretty well spread out in the game universe.
I say both sides are wrong neither the grouper side or the soloer side of the arguement are right in their blame of who is ruining the mmo market, but it is the mentality of the mmos to herd the players to max/end-game content that is to be blamed for ruining the genre. With the quickness that you can attain max level in games it has pretty became nromal to avoid grouping, mostly as the more players you have to quardanate the more issues come up and the more time you have to waste not leveling. When you group you have to wait for other players either when they go afk, after wipes, and such which takes away from leveling up to max level, but yet in a game that takes months or even a year to get to the max level that is not an issue. Now in a game where people can get to max level in several weeks or less the less time you are spending grinding, gaining exp, or such is valueable time you are wasting making you get behind players that are soloing to max level, As such soloing makes you able to place your leveling rate at the rate you desire without having to worry about another player at all, and also to avoid time/enjoyment robbing drama that comes with grouping as well. For me leave the focus split evening between solo and group content, but just rework the incentives for grouping and solo playstyles to make it that doing either have worthwhile advantages that counter the disadvantages of those styles. Since you gain less experince as well as will have periods of lower or no expeirnce gain i would actually generate areas where the mobs/content as well as machanics are built to mitigate such issues fo the groupers. Such thigns would be like making elite zones where the experince you gain per mobs is higher as is the difficulty of those mobs, also maybe a exp buff that you gain from being grouped in those areas, and also higher then average rewards both item as well as exp wise from these more group centered content.
Again the game doesn't decide for the player, the player decides if he/she wants to participate in them with other players.
I agree the player decides. However, a game that makes it more efficient to solo, means the players will less likely to decide to group. That is because people will almost always go the fastest route. Does it make sense to go the slower route that is more difficult? No. The only exception to that would be pre-made pvp that one is the only one that is slower (to get in) but easier.
These types of players have been around for a long time. Years of growth more of the same type of players. Though you are obviously ruling out social behavior, go back to my previous post please.
Slower doesn't make it harder, this right here would push us back into a different agruement TOO GRINDY and TIME SINK games.
TIME SINK games imo lets you enjoy the gear you have just aquired or created much longer, the feeling of enjoying your reward much longer. Again this is my opinion not to influence those trying to read into this.
In the 3 years I played EQ 5 nights a week I came to know probably 30 other players and easily 150 by name; even more when I started to raid when I reached max level. My guild would field 70+ people for boss raids. As I leveled at anyone time I recognized by name easily 3/4 of the people at my level on my server.
In a solo game or an MMORPG played mostly in a solo mode, when you accomplish something, when you get that rare weapon or special achievement there is of course a sence of accomplishment, kind of like winning a Spider Solitare game with a low number of moves.
When you accomplish the same thing in an MMORPG where because grouping was required or you choose to group throughout leveling and thus made dozens of friends and aquaintneces the feeling is so much more rewarding. The social context at least for me greatly adds to the pleasure and happiness experinced by the acievement.
--------------
My total time playing WoW solo was roughly half the numer of hours of EQ. I would say the number of people I knew or names I recognized was literaly 1/10th of what it was with EQ.
My pleasure enjoyment, imersion , involvementand fun with WoW(and all the clones that followe,AoC,OTRO,War,Aion,EQ2) was also a fraction of what it was with EQ.
For me what makes MMORPGS different is the social aspect. The soical aspect that grouping brings. Unless grouping is required(for efficient leveling) the temptation is to great to solo to level.
These types of players have been around for a long time. Years of growth more of the same type of players. Though you are obviously ruling out social behavior, go back to my previous post please.
Slower doesn't make it harder, this right here would push us back into a different agruement TOO GRINDY and TIME SINK games.
TIME SINK games imo lets you enjoy the gear you have just aquired or created much longer, the feeling of enjoying your reward much longer. Again this is my opinion not to influence those trying to read into this.
Well, it depends on the scenerio and in this case slower is harder. Games are not really difficult, but the difficulty comes in based on the time and effort needed to obtain gear or achievements.
And I am not against players at all. I am against the games being specifically suited towards soloers. As you stated, these types of players have been around for a long time. So, they were around for grouping oriented games.
The issue here is not with old school gamers. Its new MMO gamers who do not really know what it is like.
I have played group oriented while being a soloer. You have too.
But the problem is the game devs believe that people are only interested in this themepark genre.
But the fact is, players who have only been through the themepark genre of games would not know what it was like prior. I am glad themepark mmo's introduced MMO to millions. It was great for the advertisement. Now that we have the people, we need the game for all these people. And unfortunately, for many of us who prefer grouping, the games are just not there. Grouping is becoming obsolete.
However, I think a game that was group oriented would still attract these players because they can still solo.
I can easily state I do not like themepark genre of MMO's because I have played MMO's other than a themepark MMO. But players who have only played WoW, AoC, Rift, SWTOR cannot say that they do not like anything except themepark MMO's. They cannot complain about group content ruining their game experience. I (we) can complain about solo content ruining the games for us. We cannot complain that the gamers ruin it for us because they have not experienced otherwise.
Some people may not like grouping and specifically want the themepark genre. And there are plenty for them to choose from. But it is time to create a game that the rest of us want. I believe many would evolve and adapt to understand our argument and in fact would begin to enjoy the same content we do as well.
I don't think the issue has ever been that soloers or casuals destroy games. Both have existed in MMORPGs from the beginning.
The way I see it, the issue is that developers destroy games when they favor solo play to such a large degree that game mechanics for grouping and community interaction are contradicted, removed or gimped beyond usefulness.
How so?
Pretty much any MMO encourages some degree for players to group, if anything the same tools you used before are still in todays games, it's the players who decide if they want to participate the game doesn't do it for you. There is no real right answer for this type of human behavior, yes, behavior. People can list off shit like:
"Anti-social personality disorder"
"The more time a player spends alone on video games, the more that player is becoming isolated from the rest of the world. Basic social functions are forgotten, or have not been fine-tuned with experience."
"The Internet has provided a means for people to communicate, while also providing a means for isolation and anti-social behavior. New technology has introduced both positives and negatives for our society"
But even this still doesn't include players who probably do have good social skills but choose not to use it over the internet.
I do not think soloers destroy the games, however I think the fact that soloers are able to gear up to the same degree as groupers and raiders is what ruins the game. PvP gear is what ruins the games for me personally. Because, it is an easy way to get comparable (not quite as good but very close) to top end gear.
Secondly, I feel like the games should focus on grouping over soloing. Right now they focus on soloing then grouping it should be the other way around. As it was stated just because it focus on soloing does not mean there is not grouping. The same goes the other way around, just because it is focused on grouping does not mean you cannot solo.
Quests, I personally hate them and would prefer quests be a guide rather than a means of xp, but the main reason I hate them is because it is more efficient to solo quests than it is to perform group activities.
Using the recent SWTOR as an example, the fastest way to level up was primarily to solo. How? Most people would follow the class quest and do the quests in the planet their class quest was on. Additionally, each day they could do space missions (alone) and pvp dailies (alone if they choose) as a quick means to quest xp.
Now for me personally, by the time I hit level 50, I had not even finished my alderaan class quest. Instead I primarily focused on group flashpoints. It took much longer, but I did what I enjoyed. To me the purpose to pay and play an MMOrpg is because of the ability to do things with other people, if I preferred to do everything alone and play the game with content easily suited for my soloing, I would just stick to a single player RPG... maybe find one that allows 2 player mode so I can play with a friend. But, I would not pay to play each month.
With that, I accepted that it would take me longer to level up, despite the more difficulties I would face. But, how was the game ruined for me? Simple, each day a player could do a daily for a flashpoint. Many soloers would try to do a quick run and get out. They don't care about killing bonus bosses or hell, some of them did not even care if they needed stuff they could not even use, because they know they will not be required to group so they do not need to be a reputable player.
Getting past all of that, I got to 50 and began raiding and pvping. I could not get past the fact that PvP gear was usable in PvE. In fact, you could obtain the pvp gear much faster. Cent was comparable to tionese, champ was comparable to columni, and gladiator was comparable to gladiator. Each case the pve was slightly (very slightly) better.
This ruined the game for me, because despite the fact that I was now in end game raiding (I understand it was early still) but people who simply soloed were better geared than I was by raiding everytime I was able to.
I do not believe soloers ruin the game. Every game I have played had soloers. But in the good games, it was more efficient to group than it was to solo, unless you were just very good and even then you had to find an area that suited your solo playstyle... which was limited.
Edit: If a game focuses on soloing, then the content will be too easy for a grouper. (In this case the point of grouping is not there)
If a game focuses on grouping it will be more difficult to solo, and easier for a grouper. (In this case grouping makes it easier, but soloing will provide a challenge, this is what makes a game good. (Having options that make sense)
I would saddly say that in no way is a soloer going to have gear that is the same quality as a group-player as the items, and money you gain from group content vastly out-shine the solo content items you can gain. Even in games like wow, rifts,and such which are supposedly solo heavy (that is really objective as in the end you either do group content both instance and raid or pvp which can also be a group experince as well.). Can you gain gear soloing that will allow you to enter into the grouping experince in a state that is worthwhile? Yes yet in this way the soloing merely allows the solo player to gain access to group content when they have the time, and incentive to do so without gimping the groups they join for being a soloer primearly, but yet also a group player has access to additional items as well as content that the soloer does not have access to. I will agree with you that the slight diffence in power between gear that is obtained via solo content, and group content in bothersome needing to be increased so that group content items are superior to solo gear, but than i would say you need to have gear seperated abit differently. You need both pvp as well as pve gear that is seperated, and then seperate pvp and pve gear into solo and group content gear as well. Although not making the group content gear cost more, but making it that you need a completely different way of obtaining it like two different tokens that are gained from solo or group based content or such so that you can not just grind out the difference.
As you said you chose to group to reach max level in tor, while others chose to solo to max with neither being right or wrong in their choices. This is a matter of your choice in playstyle not being the optimal method of leveling, yet really should grouping be more efficent then soloing? You have vastly more protection in a group, more viability to complete content as well as access to content, and also you are able to socailize too with a group. Yet soloing is more dangerous as you do not have the additional team-mates to protect you or help out with bad events, you have less content to do viabily, and you have less of a chance to solailize really. Most people talk about hwo they want grouping to be the focus as they remeber talking,a nd socailizing in groups , but yet you can still do that now with other players seeking such groups. Do you really think that in a forced grouping game those with you are going to socailize during the group more then they do in solo games now?
It seems your issue is the difficulty of content then with soloing as even with soloing becoming a focus you still have grooup content, and the ability to group up outside of group content, but the content in easier as soloing is the focus. Yet the opposite is true of grouping in that even with group content being the focus you havve the ablity to solo, but it is vastly harder to do. Both have the choice to slo or group yet it is a difference of difficulty not accessability to grouping or soloing that is the issue.
Also mmos are not grouping, but about interacting with other players in the living world of the mmos, and you do not need to be grouped to do this fact at all. that fact is lost on many now in this mmos era.
These types of players have been around for a long time. Years of growth more of the same type of players. Though you are obviously ruling out social behavior, go back to my previous post please.
Slower doesn't make it harder, this right here would push us back into a different agruement TOO GRINDY and TIME SINK games.
TIME SINK games imo lets you enjoy the gear you have just aquired or created much longer, the feeling of enjoying your reward much longer. Again this is my opinion not to influence those trying to read into this.
Well, it depends on the scenerio and in this case slower is harder. Games are not really difficult, but the difficulty comes in based on the time and effort needed to obtain gear or achievements.
And I am not against players at all. I am against the games being specifically suited towards soloers. As you stated, these types of players have been around for a long time. So, they were around for grouping oriented games.
The issue here is not with old school gamers. Its new MMO gamers who do not really know what it is like.
I have played group oriented while being a soloer. You have too.
But the problem is the game devs believe that people are only interested in this themepark genre.
But the fact is, players who have only been through the themepark genre of games would not know what it was like prior. I am glad themepark mmo's introduced MMO to millions. It was great for the advertisement. Now that we have the people, we need the game for all these people. And unfortunately, for many of us who prefer grouping, the games are just not there. Grouping is becoming obsolete.
However, I think a game that was group oriented would still attract these players because they can still solo.
I can easily state I do not like themepark genre of MMO's because I have played MMO's other than a themepark MMO. But players who have only played WoW, AoC, Rift, SWTOR cannot say that they do not like anything except themepark MMO's. They cannot complain about group content ruining their game experience. I (we) can complain about solo content ruining the games for us. We cannot complain that the gamers ruin it for us because they have not experienced otherwise.
Some people may not like grouping and specifically want the themepark genre. And there are plenty for them to choose from. But it is time to create a game that the rest of us want. I believe many would evolve and adapt to understand our argument and in fact would begin to enjoy the same content we do as well.
So everyone should experiance Kiss, The Rolling Stones, or The Beatles before they start listening to any other band or artist? I bet you anything the feeling would be the same. Same feeling different generation.
It isn't the Soloers that are ruining modern MMOs it's the developers thinking only soloers matter that are ruining MMOs. Lets face it there have been soloers in MMOs all the way back to EQ and UO. The difference back then is they were soloing in a group oriented game which made it more challenging but far from impossible. Now games are being produced to cater specifically to the soloers and the overall community aspects of these games is suffering horribly for it. You don't talk to other people if you have no need for them, it's human nature. Game developers instead of finding a ballanced middle ground between solo and group play have swung the pendulum completely to the solo side of things and now group play is pretty much isolated to only instances and raids.
So everyone should experiance Kiss, The Rolling Stones, or The Beatles before they start listening to any other band or artist? I bet you anything the feeling would be the same. Same feeling different generation.
You are simply using a slippery slope argument. And terribly at that. What my statement would be using your argument would be, everyone should experience Kiss, The Rolling Stones, or the Beatles before they start complaining about how terrible it is.
I would saddly say that in no way is a soloer going to have gear that is the same quality as a group-player as the items, and money you gain from group content vastly out-shine the solo content items you can gain. Even in games like wow, rifts,and such which are supposedly solo heavy (that is really objective as in the end you either do group content both instance and raid or pvp which can also be a group experince as well.). Can you gain gear soloing that will allow you to enter into the grouping experince in a state that is worthwhile? Yes yet in this way the soloing merely allows the solo player to gain access to group content when they have the time, and incentive to do so without gimping the groups they join for being a soloer primearly, but yet also a group player has access to additional items as well as content that the soloer does not have access to. I will agree with you that the slight diffence in power between gear that is obtained via solo content, and group content in bothersome needing to be increased so that group content items are superior to solo gear, but than i would say you need to have gear seperated abit differently. You need both pvp as well as pve gear that is seperated, and then seperate pvp and pve gear into solo and group content gear as well. Although not making the group content gear cost more, but making it that you need a completely different way of obtaining it like two different tokens that are gained from solo or group based content or such so that you can not just grind out the difference.
As you said you chose to group to reach max level in tor, while others chose to solo to max with neither being right or wrong in their choices. This is a matter of your choice in playstyle not being the optimal method of leveling, yet really should grouping be more efficent then soloing? You have vastly more protection in a group, more viability to complete content as well as access to content, and also you are able to socailize too with a group. Yet soloing is more dangerous as you do not have the additional team-mates to protect you or help out with bad events, you have less content to do viabily, and you have less of a chance to solailize really. Most people talk about hwo they want grouping to be the focus as they remeber talking,a nd socailizing in groups , but yet you can still do that now with other players seeking such groups. Do you really think that in a forced grouping game those with you are going to socailize during the group more then they do in solo games now?
It seems your issue is the difficulty of content then with soloing as even with soloing becoming a focus you still have grooup content, and the ability to group up outside of group content, but the content in easier as soloing is the focus. Yet the opposite is true of grouping in that even with group content being the focus you havve the ablity to solo, but it is vastly harder to do. Both have the choice to slo or group yet it is a difference of difficulty not accessability to grouping or soloing that is the issue.
Also mmos are not grouping, but about interacting with other players in the living world of the mmos, and you do not need to be grouped to do this fact at all. that fact is lost on many now in this mmos era.
My biggest issue is the way the layout is done. The mobs are designated group or solo based on elite status etc.
All mobs should be the same. The only difference should be how you choose to approach it. In this case grouping would make it easier. But when mobs are designed as normal or soloable, strong or soloable but more difficult, elite maybe soloable better if grouped... etc the game is leading you to know what is considered soloable or groupable.
The players should learn for themselves.
Nobody in their right mind would get a raid together to kill a mob that is Named, but is a normal mob. However, if a mob is unmarked, you may try it solo and fail, you may try it as a duo and fail, you may try it as a group and fail, you may try as a raid and fail.... the fact is you do not know what you need until you experience it for yourself.
So everyone should experiance Kiss, The Rolling Stones, or The Beatles before they start listening to any other band or artist? I bet you anything the feeling would be the same. Same feeling different generation.
You are simply using a slippery slope argument. And terribly at that. What my statement would be using your argument would be, everyone should experience Kiss, The Rolling Stones, or the Beatles before they start complaining about how terrible it is.
"But the fact is, players who have only been through the themepark genre of games would not know what it was like prior. "
You were refering to the Classics were you not?
I played those same games and still don't feel the need to complain about them.
So everyone should experiance Kiss, The Rolling Stones, or The Beatles before they start listening to any other band or artist? I bet you anything the feeling would be the same. Same feeling different generation.
You are simply using a slippery slope argument. And terribly at that. What my statement would be using your argument would be, everyone should experience Kiss, The Rolling Stones, or the Beatles before they start complaining about how terrible it is.
"But the fact is, players who have only been through the themepark genre of games would not know what it was like prior. "
You were refering to the Classics were you not?
I played those same games and still don't feel the need to complain about them.
If you read my post I did state you experienced them, I am not doubting you did. You also said you are a soloer. You also said you enjoyed soloing on group based games. Games out now are suited to soloing. So no you would not be complaining, you had it good in all scenarios.
However, the people who do enjoy grouping are complaining because we are not receiving the content we want. As I stated you can get your solo fix from a group game because there is always the ability to solo. But when soloing is the easiest and best path, it makes grouping pointless, and we want grouping to not be pointless, we want it to be more efficient.
Edit: Fantastic write up, OP. I'm just jealous that you don't get banned for such things, because I've been banned for writing like this on mmorpg.com.
I agree with everything you said, all the same. Really frustrating having to explain all those points to some immature anti-social epeener every time they start insulting those of us who enjoy the other parts of mmorpgs and not just gear chasing, musical-raid-chairs, and dps charts.
Comments
So, because game studios and producers listen to the people spending money on games and develop games designed to attract them it is somehow the consumer's fault?
Go tell the management of the games you play that you have single-handedly forced every solo'er to leave their game and cancel their sub...then see how long you are still playing before getting a lifetime ban.
Stop assuming things about me and why I asked the question, and partake of a discussion in good faith, as a gamer, as I did.
What is an example of "solo play taken too far" in gaming? Spit out a TANGIBLE, real example that might actually FOSTER meaningful discussion, instead of slogans and emo.
That's all I was getting at, and why I asked the question, and actually provided an example that could be discussed against.
"Lets try a test:
Would you say the Henchmen and Hero NPC development dynamic in Guild Wars is an example of "solo play" mechanics gone too far?"
No assumptions or "agenda" built into the question, yes? On topic, clearly stated, no slanted viewpoint or bias attached at the outset.
Game on.
Wherever you go, there you are.
This brings up an interesting point, at least interesting to me.
The whole "modern MMOs have allowed solo play to creep in" thing.
Horse-hockey. While many people were playing "group or fail" in EQ1, many others were playing in an open-world (no zone walls) largely unstructured mostly sandbox named Asheron's Call. People like me. Yes, there was absolutely content that had to be grouped for. But leveling to max while solo, and obtaining damned good gear along the way, was not only possible but routine. The community rocked. (Ok, Darktide was one of the first MMORPG ffa PvP cesspools but hey, some great gaming happened there too) Player-run market towns like Arwic (before it became Charwic) were epic.
So, don't tell me you can't have a great community in a game that can be laregly solo'd. Tell me you don't know how to do that, because that's what it boils down to.
I play mostly solo now, and my MMOing at the moment is EvE and only EvE. But I ran a large guild in Asheron's Call, I co-GMd a guild in DAoC, I was a guild officer in many games along the way. I get community, I enjoy community, and I used to group constantly, now I group when I have to. I still enjoy the community, and I don't feel that designers need to give me anything I don't earn. I'm a solo'er now, deal with it.
To all of you "group or gtfo out of my MMOs because you are ruining them!" fanatics: realize that you are in the minority now, and that you were never the only game in town. MMOs are now, and have always been, businesses. If you want a modern, niche, Group or Fail game go convince a small studio to make and run one for you or roll on an EQ classic server.
The genre has moved on, for the most part, and it understands where the money is. And that's where it's going to go.
How so?
Pretty much any MMO encourages some degree for players to group, if anything the same tools you used before are still in todays games, it's the players who decide if they want to participate the game doesn't do it for you. There is no real right answer for this type of human behavior, yes, behavior. People can list off shit like:
"Anti-social personality disorder"
"The more time a player spends alone on video games, the more that player is becoming isolated from the rest of the world. Basic social functions are forgotten, or have not been fine-tuned with experience."
"The Internet has provided a means for people to communicate, while also providing a means for isolation and anti-social behavior. New technology has introduced both positives and negatives for our society"
DARK SIDE of the INTERNET
But even this still doesn't include players who probably do have good social skills but choose not to use it over the internet.
I do not think soloers destroy the games, however I think the fact that soloers are able to gear up to the same degree as groupers and raiders is what ruins the game. PvP gear is what ruins the games for me personally. Because, it is an easy way to get comparable (not quite as good but very close) to top end gear.
Secondly, I feel like the games should focus on grouping over soloing. Right now they focus on soloing then grouping it should be the other way around. As it was stated just because it focus on soloing does not mean there is not grouping. The same goes the other way around, just because it is focused on grouping does not mean you cannot solo.
Quests, I personally hate them and would prefer quests be a guide rather than a means of xp, but the main reason I hate them is because it is more efficient to solo quests than it is to perform group activities.
Using the recent SWTOR as an example, the fastest way to level up was primarily to solo. How? Most people would follow the class quest and do the quests in the planet their class quest was on. Additionally, each day they could do space missions (alone) and pvp dailies (alone if they choose) as a quick means to quest xp.
Now for me personally, by the time I hit level 50, I had not even finished my alderaan class quest. Instead I primarily focused on group flashpoints. It took much longer, but I did what I enjoyed. To me the purpose to pay and play an MMOrpg is because of the ability to do things with other people, if I preferred to do everything alone and play the game with content easily suited for my soloing, I would just stick to a single player RPG... maybe find one that allows 2 player mode so I can play with a friend. But, I would not pay to play each month.
With that, I accepted that it would take me longer to level up, despite the more difficulties I would face. But, how was the game ruined for me? Simple, each day a player could do a daily for a flashpoint. Many soloers would try to do a quick run and get out. They don't care about killing bonus bosses or hell, some of them did not even care if they needed stuff they could not even use, because they know they will not be required to group so they do not need to be a reputable player.
Getting past all of that, I got to 50 and began raiding and pvping. I could not get past the fact that PvP gear was usable in PvE. In fact, you could obtain the pvp gear much faster. Cent was comparable to tionese, champ was comparable to columni, and gladiator was comparable to gladiator. Each case the pve was slightly (very slightly) better.
This ruined the game for me, because despite the fact that I was now in end game raiding (I understand it was early still) but people who simply soloed were better geared than I was by raiding everytime I was able to.
I do not believe soloers ruin the game. Every game I have played had soloers. But in the good games, it was more efficient to group than it was to solo, unless you were just very good and even then you had to find an area that suited your solo playstyle... which was limited.
Edit: If a game focuses on soloing, then the content will be too easy for a grouper. (In this case the point of grouping is not there)
If a game focuses on grouping it will be more difficult to solo, and easier for a grouper. (In this case grouping makes it easier, but soloing will provide a challenge, this is what makes a game good. (Having options that make sense)
I disagree.
EQ1 was not group or gtfo. EQ1 simply made it so hardcore gamers progressed faster and easier than a casual gamer. When I first started, I was very casual... I was limited to playing once or twice a week at up to 3 hours a week. So, once I got the hang of the game, I rerolled a mage, because of the ability to solo. I soloed a lot, because if it took me 30 minutes to find a group and I have 1 hour to play, I just wasted half my xp time. So instead, I soloed in zones while LFG.
It was better xp than grouping per kill, but less efficient because I could not continuosly kill nor could I kill faster. As I was able to play more, I grouped more, even on my mage. I was content knowing I may have to go to lower level mobs to solo. I was content knowing, if I wanted to kill a named I may have to get a few levels higher than I would if I farmed it with a group...
I could have less chance of getting my item at lower level because more people are rolling for it. Or I could have a greater chance of getting it by soloing, but the downside is I have to wait until I can solo it.
What could I not do as a soloer? Raid. That is how it should be. And I should not be able to obtain raid gear quality by soloing.
You're taking the approach that the amount of solo content somehow equals developer focus, despite the fact that group / raid content is qualitatively better, more interesting and the most rewarding, while solo content tends to be dull, bland and not even remotely comeptitive in regards to rewards.
Since you are going to use SWTOR as an example.
Optional Grouping :
-Flashpoints
-World Bosses (at various lvls)
-Heroic Missions
-Operations
-Pvp (Premades)
Again the game doesn't decide for the player, the player decides if he/she wants to participate in them with other players.
Well, I think you summed it up nicely.
I agree with pretty much everything you just said, so I don't know that we really disagree...except in my saying classic EQ at launch was Group or Fail...since you re-rolled into one of the few classes that actually could solo. But that really isn't much of a difference, and I completely agree with not beating raid bosses solo and not having raid-stat gear without that level of risk, complexity, and effort.
I agree the player decides. However, a game that makes it more efficient to solo, means the players will less likely to decide to group. That is because people will almost always go the fastest route. Does it make sense to go the slower route that is more difficult? No. The only exception to that would be pre-made pvp that one is the only one that is slower (to get in) but easier.
That, in essence, is the true and recurring theme in the loud voices being raised against soloists in MMOs. The arguments (not specifically yours...but yours as well) seem to all boil down to:
"I don't care...
...that solo players do not impact group gameplay."
...that solo players have long been able to get to max level in many MMOs, but I'll throw out the misinformation that this is somehow a new and disturbing trend."
...that community and grouping are not synonyms, but saying that soloists hurt communities is a cheap and easy argument designed to rally people at a gut level."
...that it is entirely within the realm of possibility for game studios to develop and release games that provide both soloists and those who prefer to group with challenging and rewarding gameplay. I'm going to blame the soloists for the design decisions."
...that solo and entitled are not synonyms, but tarring people who want rewarding solo gameplay with the entitlement brush is a cheap and easy argument designed to rally people at a gut level."
...that at the end of the day it is game studios and producers, responding to the market, who make the decisions to include more soloist-friendly content. It's easier for me to blame the soloists than to actually work to convince those people who are in a for-profit cutthroat business that there is a strong and vibrant market for the game designs I want."
You're right, TP...you don't care.
I'm a soloer. Is that a word? Any way I always play solo or with one friend (the same one ever since Ultima Online). I have played to max level in a lot of games all by myself, Wow, Age of Conan, etc. all of these games have lots of solo content. I don't want to stand around waiting for people to show up. I want to log in and get with it. If I get to a point in a game where I can't play solo, as I did in Aion and WAR, I find another game. But if anyone now puts out an MMO without single player content then they will be cutting there player base and with the compitition the way it is now they just can't afford to do that. I would probably play more single player games but there aren't a lot of those to go around, right now I'm playing Skyrim. If there were a lot of games like this I probably would play MMOs a lot less. Right now I'm playing Age of Conan with my friend and I'm looking forward to Secrete World. One of the few games that I haven't been able to get into beta damn!!! One last thing, why in the hell can't I make paragraphs in this forum. My return key seems to do nothing here. I got one paragraph up above but have no idea how that hapened.
If you shoot a mime, do you have to use a silencer?
Though is that not what those who want mmos to be more heavily group based do, when people come into a thread refering to how solo play should still be part of the mmo playstyle. The groupers alot of the time flame, bait, and accuse the soloers of ruining the genre (which might be true for the groupers, but yet you could also say that groupers are trying to ruin or even run the soloist out of playing in mmos too.). Yet why should she or anyone watch how they speak to another when many will not do the same, it has been pretty well shown on this site as well as others that forced grouping players have a high distain for solo players. Right now when i got into a mmo there is about the same amount of content to do as a soloer or as a groouper, but the issue is that it takes a whie to get to the heavy group content, while solo content is pretty well spread out in the game universe.
I say both sides are wrong neither the grouper side or the soloer side of the arguement are right in their blame of who is ruining the mmo market, but it is the mentality of the mmos to herd the players to max/end-game content that is to be blamed for ruining the genre. With the quickness that you can attain max level in games it has pretty became nromal to avoid grouping, mostly as the more players you have to quardanate the more issues come up and the more time you have to waste not leveling. When you group you have to wait for other players either when they go afk, after wipes, and such which takes away from leveling up to max level, but yet in a game that takes months or even a year to get to the max level that is not an issue. Now in a game where people can get to max level in several weeks or less the less time you are spending grinding, gaining exp, or such is valueable time you are wasting making you get behind players that are soloing to max level, As such soloing makes you able to place your leveling rate at the rate you desire without having to worry about another player at all, and also to avoid time/enjoyment robbing drama that comes with grouping as well. For me leave the focus split evening between solo and group content, but just rework the incentives for grouping and solo playstyles to make it that doing either have worthwhile advantages that counter the disadvantages of those styles. Since you gain less experince as well as will have periods of lower or no expeirnce gain i would actually generate areas where the mobs/content as well as machanics are built to mitigate such issues fo the groupers. Such thigns would be like making elite zones where the experince you gain per mobs is higher as is the difficulty of those mobs, also maybe a exp buff that you gain from being grouped in those areas, and also higher then average rewards both item as well as exp wise from these more group centered content.
These types of players have been around for a long time. Years of growth more of the same type of players. Though you are obviously ruling out social behavior, go back to my previous post please.
Slower doesn't make it harder, this right here would push us back into a different agruement TOO GRINDY and TIME SINK games.
TIME SINK games imo lets you enjoy the gear you have just aquired or created much longer, the feeling of enjoying your reward much longer. Again this is my opinion not to influence those trying to read into this.
In the 3 years I played EQ 5 nights a week I came to know probably 30 other players and easily 150 by name; even more when I started to raid when I reached max level. My guild would field 70+ people for boss raids. As I leveled at anyone time I recognized by name easily 3/4 of the people at my level on my server.
In a solo game or an MMORPG played mostly in a solo mode, when you accomplish something, when you get that rare weapon or special achievement there is of course a sence of accomplishment, kind of like winning a Spider Solitare game with a low number of moves.
When you accomplish the same thing in an MMORPG where because grouping was required or you choose to group throughout leveling and thus made dozens of friends and aquaintneces the feeling is so much more rewarding. The social context at least for me greatly adds to the pleasure and happiness experinced by the acievement.
--------------
My total time playing WoW solo was roughly half the numer of hours of EQ. I would say the number of people I knew or names I recognized was literaly 1/10th of what it was with EQ.
My pleasure enjoyment, imersion , involvementand fun with WoW(and all the clones that followe,AoC,OTRO,War,Aion,EQ2) was also a fraction of what it was with EQ.
For me what makes MMORPGS different is the social aspect. The soical aspect that grouping brings. Unless grouping is required(for efficient leveling) the temptation is to great to solo to level.
Well, it depends on the scenerio and in this case slower is harder. Games are not really difficult, but the difficulty comes in based on the time and effort needed to obtain gear or achievements.
And I am not against players at all. I am against the games being specifically suited towards soloers. As you stated, these types of players have been around for a long time. So, they were around for grouping oriented games.
The issue here is not with old school gamers. Its new MMO gamers who do not really know what it is like.
I have played group oriented while being a soloer. You have too.
But the problem is the game devs believe that people are only interested in this themepark genre.
But the fact is, players who have only been through the themepark genre of games would not know what it was like prior. I am glad themepark mmo's introduced MMO to millions. It was great for the advertisement. Now that we have the people, we need the game for all these people. And unfortunately, for many of us who prefer grouping, the games are just not there. Grouping is becoming obsolete.
However, I think a game that was group oriented would still attract these players because they can still solo.
I can easily state I do not like themepark genre of MMO's because I have played MMO's other than a themepark MMO. But players who have only played WoW, AoC, Rift, SWTOR cannot say that they do not like anything except themepark MMO's. They cannot complain about group content ruining their game experience. I (we) can complain about solo content ruining the games for us. We cannot complain that the gamers ruin it for us because they have not experienced otherwise.
Some people may not like grouping and specifically want the themepark genre. And there are plenty for them to choose from. But it is time to create a game that the rest of us want. I believe many would evolve and adapt to understand our argument and in fact would begin to enjoy the same content we do as well.
I would saddly say that in no way is a soloer going to have gear that is the same quality as a group-player as the items, and money you gain from group content vastly out-shine the solo content items you can gain. Even in games like wow, rifts,and such which are supposedly solo heavy (that is really objective as in the end you either do group content both instance and raid or pvp which can also be a group experince as well.). Can you gain gear soloing that will allow you to enter into the grouping experince in a state that is worthwhile? Yes yet in this way the soloing merely allows the solo player to gain access to group content when they have the time, and incentive to do so without gimping the groups they join for being a soloer primearly, but yet also a group player has access to additional items as well as content that the soloer does not have access to. I will agree with you that the slight diffence in power between gear that is obtained via solo content, and group content in bothersome needing to be increased so that group content items are superior to solo gear, but than i would say you need to have gear seperated abit differently. You need both pvp as well as pve gear that is seperated, and then seperate pvp and pve gear into solo and group content gear as well. Although not making the group content gear cost more, but making it that you need a completely different way of obtaining it like two different tokens that are gained from solo or group based content or such so that you can not just grind out the difference.
As you said you chose to group to reach max level in tor, while others chose to solo to max with neither being right or wrong in their choices. This is a matter of your choice in playstyle not being the optimal method of leveling, yet really should grouping be more efficent then soloing? You have vastly more protection in a group, more viability to complete content as well as access to content, and also you are able to socailize too with a group. Yet soloing is more dangerous as you do not have the additional team-mates to protect you or help out with bad events, you have less content to do viabily, and you have less of a chance to solailize really. Most people talk about hwo they want grouping to be the focus as they remeber talking,a nd socailizing in groups , but yet you can still do that now with other players seeking such groups. Do you really think that in a forced grouping game those with you are going to socailize during the group more then they do in solo games now?
It seems your issue is the difficulty of content then with soloing as even with soloing becoming a focus you still have grooup content, and the ability to group up outside of group content, but the content in easier as soloing is the focus. Yet the opposite is true of grouping in that even with group content being the focus you havve the ablity to solo, but it is vastly harder to do. Both have the choice to slo or group yet it is a difference of difficulty not accessability to grouping or soloing that is the issue.
Also mmos are not grouping, but about interacting with other players in the living world of the mmos, and you do not need to be grouped to do this fact at all. that fact is lost on many now in this mmos era.
So everyone should experiance Kiss, The Rolling Stones, or The Beatles before they start listening to any other band or artist? I bet you anything the feeling would be the same. Same feeling different generation.
It isn't the Soloers that are ruining modern MMOs it's the developers thinking only soloers matter that are ruining MMOs. Lets face it there have been soloers in MMOs all the way back to EQ and UO. The difference back then is they were soloing in a group oriented game which made it more challenging but far from impossible. Now games are being produced to cater specifically to the soloers and the overall community aspects of these games is suffering horribly for it. You don't talk to other people if you have no need for them, it's human nature. Game developers instead of finding a ballanced middle ground between solo and group play have swung the pendulum completely to the solo side of things and now group play is pretty much isolated to only instances and raids.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
You are simply using a slippery slope argument. And terribly at that. What my statement would be using your argument would be, everyone should experience Kiss, The Rolling Stones, or the Beatles before they start complaining about how terrible it is.
My biggest issue is the way the layout is done. The mobs are designated group or solo based on elite status etc.
All mobs should be the same. The only difference should be how you choose to approach it. In this case grouping would make it easier. But when mobs are designed as normal or soloable, strong or soloable but more difficult, elite maybe soloable better if grouped... etc the game is leading you to know what is considered soloable or groupable.
The players should learn for themselves.
Nobody in their right mind would get a raid together to kill a mob that is Named, but is a normal mob. However, if a mob is unmarked, you may try it solo and fail, you may try it as a duo and fail, you may try it as a group and fail, you may try as a raid and fail.... the fact is you do not know what you need until you experience it for yourself.
"But the fact is, players who have only been through the themepark genre of games would not know what it was like prior. "
You were refering to the Classics were you not?
I played those same games and still don't feel the need to complain about them.
If you read my post I did state you experienced them, I am not doubting you did. You also said you are a soloer. You also said you enjoyed soloing on group based games. Games out now are suited to soloing. So no you would not be complaining, you had it good in all scenarios.
However, the people who do enjoy grouping are complaining because we are not receiving the content we want. As I stated you can get your solo fix from a group game because there is always the ability to solo. But when soloing is the easiest and best path, it makes grouping pointless, and we want grouping to not be pointless, we want it to be more efficient.
Edit: Fantastic write up, OP. I'm just jealous that you don't get banned for such things, because I've been banned for writing like this on mmorpg.com.
I agree with everything you said, all the same. Really frustrating having to explain all those points to some immature anti-social epeener every time they start insulting those of us who enjoy the other parts of mmorpgs and not just gear chasing, musical-raid-chairs, and dps charts.