"Forced" grouping IS the way some players like. Those that dont are free to choose a game that better suits them.
The problem is that those who do dont have such freedom, because these games just aren't out there.
Because those games have failed miserably in the market. There just aren't enough people who want "forced grouping" in a game to warrant those games to exist. Games are expensive to create. They need to make a profit. Nobody is stupid enough to make a game to cater to a tiny niche audience who won't even pay the development costs.
Maybe someone may try developing an mmo that has servers with different dificulty setting, Casual solo or hard grouping servers, could be viable option. I dont mind forced grouping because thats the way I prefer to play MMO's, and probably why I liked FFXI so much.
These "solo" mmorpgs today are failing hard, and are nothing more but online action games than any thing else, a company needs to try something different by focusing more on grouping and less on soloing, not getting rid of soloing all together, but maybe go the EQ route were there are more benefits to grouping than soloing.
mmorpgs today if you solo, you get more exp per mobs, no fighting over loot, a faster way to level, if you group up, there is a exp shared pentaty, fighting over loot, etc etc.
I dont like how mmorpgs are going these days, in SWTOR I can take on 6-7 mobs and kill almost everything in one to two hits, and really its not even SWTOR fault, its how most mmorpgs are today, how is that fun? This is how these "mmorpgs" of today are becoming boring. Trying to balance soloing and grouping in one game is proving too difficult for these companys today. One side will cry nerf, one side will cry buff. Generally the solo crowd wins and the mobs become easier.
What we need is a mmorpg whos focus is on grouping seeing as its an "RPG" and "Online". Did companys seem to forget that RPGS were almost always about partying even in single player rpgs. So what we need is a mmorpg that focuses on grouping but gives soloing options, like a couple classes that excel at soloing, like EQ did with the beastlord and necromancer.
I would say there was FFXI, buuuttt...since its only lasted 8 years and has never had a sub above 500k its a failure.. so yeah...don't waist your time with that game.
Calling the game design "forced grouping" sounds terible on its own. It conveys a negative image of playing with people or in a way you do not like. However there has been too much rewarding for solo players as of late.
Forming groups take time, reward those who do it. Don't make the game just as easy or in many cases easier to solo than to group. A good community makes a good MMO. Successful players in an MMO rewarding grouping likely will have teamwork as a core value. Successful players in an MMO that rewards solo players likely will have self interest as a core value. Think what happens to the community then?
I will not lie, grouping, taking the time to learn to work together as a team, takes far more time than going on your own. But the difference would be between playing a game among people, which could be an fulfilling experience lasting years. From a game that would be played in a few weeks/months with little lasting memories of the experience.
Wasn't that vanguards claim to fame. Remind me again how did that do? Tank and spank grouping is dead.
Vanguard crashed for completely unrelated reasons to this. If thats your argument, there are plenty of games that were perfectly soloable that have failed as well.
The game crashes and bugs was a major reason I think, but to be fair I remember plenty of players with complaints about the grouping, the running, the lack of flying mounts, even the XP rate. I think even without the crashes and bugs, Vanguard wouldn't have done very well, forced grouping, death penalties and extended travel times seem to have become a niche market.
Maybe someone may try developing an mmo that has servers with different dificulty setting, Casual solo or hard grouping servers, could be viable option. I dont mind forced grouping because thats the way I prefer to play MMO's, and probably why I liked FFXI so much.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Guild Wars 2 you can solo up to 80 and still group alot but your never forced always get reward and loot even when you kill on mob with many other players. No holding hands with dynamic events that your not forced into but its so much fun and total strangers help you or revive you and you still get full reward and loot. Seem perfect for you OP.
Maybe someone may try developing an mmo that has servers with different dificulty setting, Casual solo or hard grouping servers, could be viable option. I dont mind forced grouping because thats the way I prefer to play MMO's, and probably why I liked FFXI so much.
Path of Least Resistance will win.
THis....
Thing is the average MMO players gets that grouping is apart of the game, but no matter how much XP bonus dev's stack on grouping or whatever. Soloing beats out the ignorance other player might bring to a group or raid..
Life as it is, is aggrevating enough already why make your game experience be..
Also the different server choice maybe a good and bad choice.. Eg, person who are not so skill don't want to be or play with the not so skill crowd, so more than likely they go to the hard servers and try as they might to become skilled...
As it is now in Tera, grouping gives more XP, but hardly anyone want to stay with you until you finish your step of a quest.. Most have the menality "I'm done now lets move on..."
I'll never play a game where my personal freedom is arbitrarily subsumed into the will of a group automatically. Playing by committee is just about the last way I'd ever want to experience a game. In short bursts, with defined objectives and a finite timespan, yes. Otherwise, no thank you, comrade.
Apart from maybe ToR, which makes grouping unnecesasrily inconvenient and clunky, most MMORPGs out there tend to reward grouping better than soloing. It was certainly true in WOW.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Seems to me they've tried that. When players found out what jackasses people could be, they either soloed or quit playing. If you have to have someone MAKE people play with you, guess where the problem is?
"Soloists and those who prefer small groups should never have to feel like they''re the ones getting the proverbial table scraps, as it were." - Scott Hartsman, Senior Producer, Everquest II "People love groups. Its a fallacy that people want to play solo all the time." - Scott Hartsman, Executive Producer, Rift
Because those games have failed miserably in the market. There just aren't enough people who want "forced grouping" in a game to warrant those games to exist. Games are expensive to create. They need to make a profit. Nobody is stupid enough to make a game to cater to a tiny niche audience who won't even pay the development costs.
Where's the evidence of that? Since the original EverQuest the only forced grouping game I've actually seen has been FFXI and both are still up and running with a large subscriber base. The majority of solo based MMO's start off high then drop to very low figures. Why? Because people are playing them like single player games - play them for a month then move on.
The problem I think we're seeing with all these solo based MMO's is that companies are trying to copy WoW. Now that's a given, but what I mean by that is they look at what WoW has and try to make a replica in a different world with different graphics. The fact is, they don't know what they're trying to make, what the basis of an MMORPG actually is. Original EverQuest was created by people who wanted to see their favourite MUD's in graphical 3D. They made worlds they wanted to see, monsters they wanted to fight, heroes they wanted to play..
Apart from maybe ToR, which makes grouping unnecesasrily inconvenient and clunky, most MMORPGs out there tend to reward grouping better than soloing. It was certainly true in WOW.
In ToR you actually get more loot and XP + social points when grouping (while difficulty gets trivial).
Anyway, personally I like options in games, if there's core stuff forced on you that I dont like, I skip the game by default.
Wasn't that vanguards claim to fame. Remind me again how did that do? Tank and spank grouping is dead.
Vanguard crashed for completely unrelated reasons to this. If thats your argument, there are plenty of games that were perfectly soloable that have failed as well.
The game crashes and bugs was a major reason I think, but to be fair I remember plenty of players with complaints about the grouping, the running, the lack of flying mounts, even the XP rate. I think even without the crashes and bugs, Vanguard wouldn't have done very well, forced grouping, death penalties and extended travel times seem to have become a niche market.
I agree with all you said. I don't think force grouping is what killed vanguard. It was just another nail in the coffin.
Apart from maybe ToR, which makes grouping unnecesasrily inconvenient and clunky, most MMORPGs out there tend to reward grouping better than soloing. It was certainly true in WOW.
In ToR you actually get more loot and XP + social points when grouping (while difficulty gets trivial).
Anyway, personally I like options in games, if there's core stuff forced on you that I dont like, I skip the game by default.
This is a big part of my issues with SWTOR.
Better rewards for being a cog in the machine? Doesn't seem quite right to me.
"Soloists and those who prefer small groups should never have to feel like they''re the ones getting the proverbial table scraps, as it were." - Scott Hartsman, Senior Producer, Everquest II "People love groups. Its a fallacy that people want to play solo all the time." - Scott Hartsman, Executive Producer, Rift
I'll never play a game where my personal freedom is arbitrarily subsumed into the will of a group automatically. Playing by committee is just about the last way I'd ever want to experience a game. In short bursts, with defined objectives and a finite timespan, yes. Otherwise, no thank you, comrade.
Every time I read the forums of a in development game, there is always a post asking if the game is solo friendly or does it require groups. The proper and only answer should ever be, “Yes, you can kill level 1 bunnies for a month to level to 10. Then come back to the starting area and start doing the level 1 quests that require a group to do otherwise.” Why is there such a steep learning curve at endgame? Because so many people spent their learning period soloing, and not learning how to work in a group. Look, is you ever see anyone bragging about they can solo everything, you put them on your ignore list. They love the isolation, then they deserve it.
The solution to ease of LFG is obvious. Select a Quest, select the LFG Tab. Chose a min & Max group size and role you will fill. Your ignore list is used to make sure you don’t end up in a group with players you don’t like. Over time you can build a prefered players list for group forming. This is even done cross server. If you have nothing holding you back, you can even move to the server with your prefer friends. the more this happens, the sooner operators know which servers to shut down. They won’t keep one server up for 10 players, maybe not even 100.
LFG TAB
Quest name : Any Quest Zone : Anywhere, but There
Quest Level Min : 10 Max : 15
Group Size Min : 4 Max : 6
Role Tank X Healer Melee DPS Ranged DPS CC Buff/DeBuff Other
Slot 1 PlayerName01 Slot 2 PlayerName07
Slot 3 PlayerName34 Slot 4 PlayerName11
Slot 5 PlayerName28 Slot 6
Ready More Go
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Apart from maybe ToR, which makes grouping unnecesasrily inconvenient and clunky, most MMORPGs out there tend to reward grouping better than soloing. It was certainly true in WOW.
Must have been a different WoW than what I played.
Apart from maybe ToR, which makes grouping unnecesasrily inconvenient and clunky, most MMORPGs out there tend to reward grouping better than soloing. It was certainly true in WOW.
Must have been a different WoW than what I played.
WoW is a gear-centric game. The best gear in WoW comes from group content.
Or at least that was the WoW I played.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
Wait a minute. You mean to tell me that just because I'm playing a game with thousands of other people I'm supposed to interact with them? All this time I thought they were just scenary for my private gaming experience. That chat box in the corner is just so I can tell the masses what "nubs" they are and how "133t" I am. Right?
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
Comments
Because those games have failed miserably in the market. There just aren't enough people who want "forced grouping" in a game to warrant those games to exist. Games are expensive to create. They need to make a profit. Nobody is stupid enough to make a game to cater to a tiny niche audience who won't even pay the development costs.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Maybe someone may try developing an mmo that has servers with different dificulty setting, Casual solo or hard grouping servers, could be viable option. I dont mind forced grouping because thats the way I prefer to play MMO's, and probably why I liked FFXI so much.
I would say there was FFXI, buuuttt...since its only lasted 8 years and has never had a sub above 500k its a failure.. so yeah...don't waist your time with that game.
/sarcasm off.
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
Calling the game design "forced grouping" sounds terible on its own. It conveys a negative image of playing with people or in a way you do not like. However there has been too much rewarding for solo players as of late.
Forming groups take time, reward those who do it. Don't make the game just as easy or in many cases easier to solo than to group. A good community makes a good MMO. Successful players in an MMO rewarding grouping likely will have teamwork as a core value. Successful players in an MMO that rewards solo players likely will have self interest as a core value. Think what happens to the community then?
I will not lie, grouping, taking the time to learn to work together as a team, takes far more time than going on your own. But the difference would be between playing a game among people, which could be an fulfilling experience lasting years. From a game that would be played in a few weeks/months with little lasting memories of the experience.
The game crashes and bugs was a major reason I think, but to be fair I remember plenty of players with complaints about the grouping, the running, the lack of flying mounts, even the XP rate. I think even without the crashes and bugs, Vanguard wouldn't have done very well, forced grouping, death penalties and extended travel times seem to have become a niche market.
Path of Least Resistance will win.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
your topic title already says it.
the part in the titel that says forced is what many mmo players hate
Guild Wars 2 you can solo up to 80 and still group alot but your never forced always get reward and loot even when you kill on mob with many other players. No holding hands with dynamic events that your not forced into but its so much fun and total strangers help you or revive you and you still get full reward and loot. Seem perfect for you OP.
THis....
Thing is the average MMO players gets that grouping is apart of the game, but no matter how much XP bonus dev's stack on grouping or whatever. Soloing beats out the ignorance other player might bring to a group or raid..
Life as it is, is aggrevating enough already why make your game experience be..
Also the different server choice maybe a good and bad choice.. Eg, person who are not so skill don't want to be or play with the not so skill crowd, so more than likely they go to the hard servers and try as they might to become skilled...
As it is now in Tera, grouping gives more XP, but hardly anyone want to stay with you until you finish your step of a quest.. Most have the menality "I'm done now lets move on..."
Exactly my sentiments.
Apart from maybe ToR, which makes grouping unnecesasrily inconvenient and clunky, most MMORPGs out there tend to reward grouping better than soloing. It was certainly true in WOW.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Seems to me they've tried that. When players found out what jackasses people could be, they either soloed or quit playing. If you have to have someone MAKE people play with you, guess where the problem is?
"Soloists and those who prefer small groups should never have to feel like they''re the ones getting the proverbial table scraps, as it were." - Scott Hartsman, Senior Producer, Everquest II
"People love groups. Its a fallacy that people want to play solo all the time." - Scott Hartsman, Executive Producer, Rift
Where's the evidence of that? Since the original EverQuest the only forced grouping game I've actually seen has been FFXI and both are still up and running with a large subscriber base. The majority of solo based MMO's start off high then drop to very low figures. Why? Because people are playing them like single player games - play them for a month then move on.
The problem I think we're seeing with all these solo based MMO's is that companies are trying to copy WoW. Now that's a given, but what I mean by that is they look at what WoW has and try to make a replica in a different world with different graphics. The fact is, they don't know what they're trying to make, what the basis of an MMORPG actually is. Original EverQuest was created by people who wanted to see their favourite MUD's in graphical 3D. They made worlds they wanted to see, monsters they wanted to fight, heroes they wanted to play..
to the OP --> GW2 seems to be the answer to your post.
I'm a recent convert to the GW world, post WoW, Rift, SWTOR
all mmo have basically forcing group and that why somtimes we take around hours of making grp and wasting time ,im glad gw 2 will change that
In ToR you actually get more loot and XP + social points when grouping (while difficulty gets trivial).
Anyway, personally I like options in games, if there's core stuff forced on you that I dont like, I skip the game by default.
I agree with all you said. I don't think force grouping is what killed vanguard. It was just another nail in the coffin.
This is a big part of my issues with SWTOR.
Better rewards for being a cog in the machine? Doesn't seem quite right to me.
"Soloists and those who prefer small groups should never have to feel like they''re the ones getting the proverbial table scraps, as it were." - Scott Hartsman, Senior Producer, Everquest II
"People love groups. Its a fallacy that people want to play solo all the time." - Scott Hartsman, Executive Producer, Rift
Forced grouping/non forced grouping is not the reason MMO are doing bad.
Agreed.
Every time I read the forums of a in development game, there is always a post asking if the game is solo friendly or does it require groups. The proper and only answer should ever be, “Yes, you can kill level 1 bunnies for a month to level to 10. Then come back to the starting area and start doing the level 1 quests that require a group to do otherwise.” Why is there such a steep learning curve at endgame? Because so many people spent their learning period soloing, and not learning how to work in a group. Look, is you ever see anyone bragging about they can solo everything, you put them on your ignore list. They love the isolation, then they deserve it.
The solution to ease of LFG is obvious. Select a Quest, select the LFG Tab. Chose a min & Max group size and role you will fill. Your ignore list is used to make sure you don’t end up in a group with players you don’t like. Over time you can build a prefered players list for group forming. This is even done cross server. If you have nothing holding you back, you can even move to the server with your prefer friends. the more this happens, the sooner operators know which servers to shut down. They won’t keep one server up for 10 players, maybe not even 100.
LFG TAB
Quest name : Any Quest Zone : Anywhere, but There
Quest Level Min : 10 Max : 15
Group Size Min : 4 Max : 6
Role Tank X Healer Melee DPS Ranged DPS CC Buff/DeBuff Other
Slot 1 PlayerName01 Slot 2 PlayerName07
Slot 3 PlayerName34 Slot 4 PlayerName11
Slot 5 PlayerName28 Slot 6
Ready More Go
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Must have been a different WoW than what I played.
WoW is a gear-centric game. The best gear in WoW comes from group content.
Or at least that was the WoW I played.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
Umm, GW2 is essentially the very defintion of "forced grouping," isn't it?
Wait a minute. You mean to tell me that just because I'm playing a game with thousands of other people I'm supposed to interact with them? All this time I thought they were just scenary for my private gaming experience. That chat box in the corner is just so I can tell the masses what "nubs" they are and how "133t" I am. Right?
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville