I just want to get off the theme park rails and play in a free world like the old games had.
Fair enough, but my big problem with that is that people use EQ as example for "free world games"... The only true "free world" games among the three first major MMORPGs were UO and AC1. EQ was heavily level dependent, therefore you were always restricted to stick to stuff around your level, therefore it wasn't a "free world".
UO you needed skill points and equipment to safely venture into harder areas. You could go anywhere though.
AC1 you needed skill points and equipment to safely venture into harder areas. You could go anywhere though
EQ you needed levels and equipment to safely venture into harder areas. You could go anywhere though
Fact is that both UO and AC1 were very little "level/skill" dependent, you didn't need everything maxed out to take on the hardest mobs of those games either. In AC1, a skilled level 80ish could kill everything in the game including mobs of level 900+. And mobs didn't suddenly stop to give you anything if they were too far lower or higher than your level. A level 80+ would routinely kill hordes of level 200+ for loot and xp.
In EQ, only mobs around your level counted, everything else was useless to you. And EQ was very level dependent, no way a level 10 could dream to kill a level 20 mob. EQ paved the way to all the theme park with that heavy level dependency, like WoW and co.
This is true, but there was no specific path set out for you. There were a lot of zones for each level range, but you had to find those zones. There was also a wide range of mob levels in each zone. If you had a good group you could take on mobs that were red con.
I see your point though and I'm would say you are correct that it's EQ was the first MMO that was themepark like.
I don't think current MMOs are much like EQ though. It was a much more punishing game and items were far more rare. Exploration and travel was encouraged as there was no direct path to follow.
Sometimes games are a bit boring if you can kill everything with a bit of skill. That gives you little to look forward to. I think the concept of zones sucks a bit though. Perhaps having a world with strong and weak mobs mixed together throughout would be good. A good example would be the Elder Scrolls Oblivion. The game is a bit boring because the mobs just change according to your level. It's nice when a strong mob comes along and whips your butt. It gives you something to look forward to when your character gets more powerful.
EQ cloned D&D 2nd edition in many facets with regards to classes, lore, and rules.
Fair enough, but my big problem with that is that people use EQ as example for "free world games"... The only true "free world" games among the three first major MMORPGs were UO and AC1. EQ was heavily level dependent, therefore you were always restricted to stick to stuff around your level, therefore it wasn't a "free world".
UO you needed skill points and equipment to safely venture into harder areas. You could go anywhere though.
AC1 you needed skill points and equipment to safely venture into harder areas. You could go anywhere though
EQ you needed levels and equipment to safely venture into harder areas. You could go anywhere though
Fact is that both UO and AC1 were very little "level/skill" dependent, you didn't need everything maxed out to take on the hardest mobs of those games either. In AC1, a skilled level 80ish could kill everything in the game including mobs of level 900+. And mobs didn't suddenly stop to give you anything if they were too far lower or higher than your level. A level 80+ would routinely kill hordes of level 200+ for loot and xp.
In EQ, only mobs around your level counted, everything else was useless to you. And EQ was very level dependent, no way a level 10 could dream to kill a level 20 mob. EQ paved the way to all the theme park with that heavy level dependency, like WoW and co.
To be fair was Meridian 59 3 years before EQ and pretty leveldependant as well. Maybe not as much as EQ was but far more than UO and AC. It paved the way for EQ and deserves to be mentioned.
Sometimes games are a bit boring if you can kill everything with a bit of skill.
Dunno if you played AC1, but it was far from easy to kill a level 300+ valley of death mob or pack of mobs. For some (like those big level 666 tuskers I was soloing with my CLaW (Creature, Life and War) mage at level 75), it was a 30 to 45 minutes fight where your slightest mistake was sanctioned by death. It was more efficient to kill those with a few friends, but a skilled player could also do it alone for the challenge of it.
That doesn't sound much different than EQ in many ways then. If you were a solo player you had to be precise in your kiting or you were dead. Especially at higher levels where a mob would hit you about 20 times in a few seconds. On the flip side it took you a long period of time to whittle down a monsters health in most cases. Then again it was that way through most of the game.
I never played AC1. I played AC2 for a bit, but it was a short bit.
Sometimes games are a bit boring if you can kill everything with a bit of skill.
Dunno if you played AC1, but it was far from easy to kill a level 300+ valley of death mob or pack of mobs. For some (like those big level 666 tuskers I was soloing with my CLaW (Creature, Life and War) mage at level 75), it was a 30 to 45 minutes fight where your slightest mistake was sanctioned by death. It was more efficient to kill those with a few friends, but a skilled player could also do it alone for the challenge of it.
That doesn't sound much different than EQ in many ways then. If you were a solo player you had to be precise in your kiting or you were dead. Especially at higher levels where a mob would hit you about 20 times in a few seconds. On the flip side it took you a long period of time to whittle down a monsters health in most cases. Then again it was that way through most of the game.
I never played AC1. I played AC2 for a bit, but it was a short bit.
AC2 has nothing to do with AC1.
And it's very different from EQ because of the fact that player skill was required all the time. In EQ, it was either pass or die, most of the job was done by the random number generator even if you had to press the right buttons. In AC1, it wasn't about kiting and not getting hit at all. It was all about dodging projectiles and timing your healing/drain spells so you don't run out of health and mana. You had to juggle with different levels of the same spell if you wanted to live to tell your story, or you'd run out of mana and die.
I think people who never played AC1 just can't understand how involving combat was. Nothing to do with the EQ/WoW model combat with timed spells and having to sit between fights to regen. And before someone asks, nothing to do with GW2 either.
I think you may not have had much experience with kiting in EQ. It was quite involved in terms of moving around and avoiding the mob. It also required extensive mana management. Soloing generally was never just stand there and press buttons. Even grouping had a lot of things that required you to be very precise in timing. It was fairly involved. It was much more complex than in WoW IMO.
I wouldn't want to develop either one of those. I wouldn't play either, either.
Well the market is producing games for players who actually enjoy RPGs, so that's fine.
The correct way to say that would be....
"The market is producing games by producers who actually enjoyonlySingle Player RPGs."
"I think we've stumbled upon the problem here."
i really dont think that is what is happening.
I can think of three MMOs at the moment that I can tell had explicit elements in them designed to encourage grouping. I also know those games dont have a lot of grouping.
Why the disconnect? because people dont want to group with strangers. Its not like having a beer at the bar. A group adventure works exactly like a work project does. And hearding people together for a common project goal isnt always easy and its not always fun.
This is why people dont group
Beer and the bar != work related project.
its that simple
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I wouldn't want to develop either one of those. I wouldn't play either, either.
Well the market is producing games for players who actually enjoy RPGs, so that's fine.
The correct way to say that would be....
"The market is producing games by producers who actually enjoyonlySingle Player RPGs."
"I think we've stumbled upon the problem here."
i really dont think that is what is happening.
I can think of three MMOs at the moment that I can tell had explicit elements in them designed to encourage grouping. I also know those games dont have a lot of grouping.
Why the disconnect? because people dont want to group with strangers. Its not like having a beer at the bar. A group adventure works exactly like a work project does. And hearding people together for a common project goal isnt always easy and its not always fun.
This is why people dont group
Beer and the bar != work related project.
its that simple
I am a big fan of the encouraged grouping method.
In a quest based model you end up having to queue for instances.
In a non quest based model you are likely to happen upon someone who is killing mobs and ask them to share the camp area or join them in the dungeon. The same works in reverse. In a way camping in old games very much encouraged grouping via 2 people up to a full group depending on who happened along at the time and wanted to partake.
I wouldn't want to develop either one of those. I wouldn't play either, either.
Well the market is producing games for players who actually enjoy RPGs, so that's fine.
The correct way to say that would be....
"The market is producing games by producers who actually enjoyonlySingle Player RPGs."
"I think we've stumbled upon the problem here."
i really dont think that is what is happening.
I can think of three MMOs at the moment that I can tell had explicit elements in them designed to encourage grouping. I also know those games dont have a lot of grouping.
Why the disconnect? because people dont want to group with strangers. Its not like having a beer at the bar. A group adventure works exactly like a work project does. And hearding people together for a common project goal isnt always easy and its not always fun.
This is why people dont group
Beer and the bar != work related project.
its that simple
I am a big fan of the encouraged grouping method.
In a quest based model you end up having to queue for instances.
In a non quest based model you are likely to happen upon someone who is killing mobs and ask them to share the camp area or join them in the dungeon. The same works in reverse. In a way camping in old games very much encouraged grouping via 2 people up to a full group depending on who happened along at the time and wanted to partake.
not completely sure that is what I would call 'encouraged grouping'.
I see 'encourage grouping' more like I need X skill but I dont have X skill because I focus on Y skill. You have A skill however and together we have X and Y skill which makes the specific adventure in question about 90% easier.
not just because somoene is hanging out at the door. That is more like 'guy at the bar'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I wouldn't want to develop either one of those. I wouldn't play either, either.
Well the market is producing games for players who actually enjoy RPGs, so that's fine.
The correct way to say that would be....
"The market is producing games by producers who actually enjoyonlySingle Player RPGs."
"I think we've stumbled upon the problem here."
i really dont think that is what is happening.
I can think of three MMOs at the moment that I can tell had explicit elements in them designed to encourage grouping. I also know those games dont have a lot of grouping.
Why the disconnect? because people dont want to group with strangers. Its not like having a beer at the bar. A group adventure works exactly like a work project does. And hearding people together for a common project goal isnt always easy and its not always fun.
This is why people dont group
Beer and the bar != work related project.
its that simple
I am a big fan of the encouraged grouping method.
In a quest based model you end up having to queue for instances.
In a non quest based model you are likely to happen upon someone who is killing mobs and ask them to share the camp area or join them in the dungeon. The same works in reverse. In a way camping in old games very much encouraged grouping via 2 people up to a full group depending on who happened along at the time and wanted to partake.
not completely sure that is what I would call 'encouraged grouping'.
I see 'encourage grouping' more like I need X skill but I dont have X skill because I focus on Y skill. You have A skill however and together we have X and Y skill which makes the specific adventure in question about 90% easier.
not just because somoene is hanging out at the door. That is more like 'guy at the bar'
I see your point, but camping was something that did often get people to group up in an open world. It was just random happenstance. You are more likely to group if there is something you want and sharing gets you what you want. If you don't have to share to get what you want you probably won't because it's the path of least resistance. I always preferred grouping up by meeting random people in the open world vs queuing up. I don't think the old way was perfect, but it was less anti social out of necessity.
not completely sure that is what I would call 'encouraged grouping'.
I see 'encourage grouping' more like I need X skill but I dont have X skill because I focus on Y skill. You have A skill however and together we have X and Y skill which makes the specific adventure in question about 90% easier.
not just because somoene is hanging out at the door. That is more like 'guy at the bar'
I see your point, but camping was something that did often get people to group up in an open world. It was just random happenstance. You are more likely to group if there is something you want and sharing gets you what you want. If you don't have to share to get what you want you probably won't because it's the path of least resistance. I always preferred grouping up by meeting random people in the open world vs queuing up. I don't think the old way was perfect, but it was less anti social out of necessity.
the problem there is as a game designer what are you specifically putting into place that 'encourages grouping' and at the same time 'encouraging happenstance' if you try to get concrete about it rather than abstract you will find the answer is not an easy one.
case in point
what is the difference between 'I have been waiting for someone' and 'want to join me in chat while I do something that i could do with or without you?'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
not completely sure that is what I would call 'encouraged grouping'.
I see 'encourage grouping' more like I need X skill but I dont have X skill because I focus on Y skill. You have A skill however and together we have X and Y skill which makes the specific adventure in question about 90% easier.
not just because somoene is hanging out at the door. That is more like 'guy at the bar'
I see your point, but camping was something that did often get people to group up in an open world. It was just random happenstance. You are more likely to group if there is something you want and sharing gets you what you want. If you don't have to share to get what you want you probably won't because it's the path of least resistance. I always preferred grouping up by meeting random people in the open world vs queuing up. I don't think the old way was perfect, but it was less anti social out of necessity.
the problem there is as a game designer what are you specifically putting into place that 'encourages grouping' and at the same time 'encouraging happenstance' if you try to get concrete about it rather than abstract you will find the answer is not an easy one.
case in point
what is the difference between 'I have been waiting for someone' and 'want to join me in chat while I do something that i could do with or without you?'
Good point and it's why you should be able to solo in game.
In EQ many classes could not solo. This lead to a lot of people sitting around waiting for a group. The classes that could solo had a better chance of finding that happenstance group because they were likely to be out exploring the world and leveling up on their own. The grouping would usually come if they just happened to desire to kill the same thing and they ended up sharing to save time and make things easier.
I believe this is a good way to set things up. Let everyone have the ability to solo, but makes thing finite to an extent. This also reduces the amount of items that flood into the world.
Good point and it's why you should be able to solo in game.
In EQ many classes could not solo. This lead to a lot of people sitting around waiting for a group. The classes that could solo had a better chance of finding that happenstance group because they were likely to be out exploring the world and leveling up on their own. The grouping would usually come if they just happened to desire to kill the same thing and they ended up sharing to save time and make things easier.
I believe this is a good way to set things up. Let everyone have the ability to solo, but makes thing finite to an extent. This also reduces the amount of items that flood into the world.
however what the developer is doing to create such an enviroment as you speak is pretty much literally nothing whatsoever.
i am not advocating grouping I am just suggesting a developer doesnt...cant...actively create a system that encourages happenstance grouping. They can actively do something to discourage it but really all one needs in that case is teamspeak...peroid...nothing more.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I wouldn't want to develop either one of those. I wouldn't play either, either.
Well the market is producing games for players who actually enjoy RPGs, so that's fine.
The correct way to say that would be....
"The market is producing games by producers who actually enjoyonlySingle Player RPGs."
"I think we've stumbled upon the problem here."
i really dont think that is what is happening.
I can think of three MMOs at the moment that I can tell had explicit elements in them designed to encourage grouping. I also know those games dont have a lot of grouping.
Why the disconnect? because people dont want to group with strangers. Its not like having a beer at the bar. A group adventure works exactly like a work project does. And hearding people together for a common project goal isnt always easy and its not always fun.
This is why people dont group
Beer and the bar != work related project.
its that simple
You missed my point. That being that a world filled with masses of gamers is, or should be, a different animal that Single Player Games. Because you have all these masses playing in the same world together. But MMO's are being made ignoring that aspect. They are made just like SPG's with Multi-Player functionality, plus some stuff like Auction Houses for trade or Point Tiers for badges that could just as easily be done outside the game.
I wouldn't want to develop either one of those. I wouldn't play either, either.
Well the market is producing games for players who actually enjoy RPGs, so that's fine.
The correct way to say that would be....
"The market is producing games by producers who actually enjoyonlySingle Player RPGs."
"I think we've stumbled upon the problem here."
i really dont think that is what is happening.
I can think of three MMOs at the moment that I can tell had explicit elements in them designed to encourage grouping. I also know those games dont have a lot of grouping.
Why the disconnect? because people dont want to group with strangers. Its not like having a beer at the bar. A group adventure works exactly like a work project does. And hearding people together for a common project goal isnt always easy and its not always fun.
This is why people dont group
Beer and the bar != work related project.
its that simple
You missed my point. That being that a world filled with masses of gamers is, or should be, a different animal that Single Player Games. Because you have all these masses playing in the same world together. But MMO's are being made ignoring that aspect. They are made just like SPG's with Multi-Player functionality, plus some stuff like Auction Houses for trade or Point Tiers for badges that could just as easily be done outside the game.
yeah i dont agree at all when it comes to what we are calling 'happenstance grouping'.
What SPECIFICALLY can a developer put into the game (feature or otherwise) that would 'encourage happenstance grouping' in a way that by not putting in said feature it would NOT be encouraging happenstance grouping.
Lets get extreemly concrete here please.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Good point and it's why you should be able to solo in game.
In EQ many classes could not solo. This lead to a lot of people sitting around waiting for a group. The classes that could solo had a better chance of finding that happenstance group because they were likely to be out exploring the world and leveling up on their own. The grouping would usually come if they just happened to desire to kill the same thing and they ended up sharing to save time and make things easier.
I believe this is a good way to set things up. Let everyone have the ability to solo, but makes thing finite to an extent. This also reduces the amount of items that flood into the world.
however what the developer is doing to create such an enviroment as you speak is pretty much literally nothing whatsoever.
i am not advocating grouping I am just suggesting a developer doesnt...cant...actively create a system that encourages happenstance grouping. They can actively do something to discourage it but really all one needs in that case is teamspeak...peroid...nothing more.
It seems to me that having a persistent world with a finite amount of mobs is encouraging people to group up randomly because of the necessity to share to save time.
In an instanced world you are encouraging not to group because you can get everything right away without having to wait. You can still group via the queue, but that kills happenstance encounters with other people.
You can also encourage happenstance grouping IMO by mixing a lot of different difficult mobs together. One person might go to an area and starts killing the easier mobs. Another might happen along to do the same. They they decide to team up to kill the more difficult ones because it is better experience and loot.
Good point and it's why you should be able to solo in game.
In EQ many classes could not solo. This lead to a lot of people sitting around waiting for a group. The classes that could solo had a better chance of finding that happenstance group because they were likely to be out exploring the world and leveling up on their own. The grouping would usually come if they just happened to desire to kill the same thing and they ended up sharing to save time and make things easier.
I believe this is a good way to set things up. Let everyone have the ability to solo, but makes thing finite to an extent. This also reduces the amount of items that flood into the world.
however what the developer is doing to create such an enviroment as you speak is pretty much literally nothing whatsoever.
i am not advocating grouping I am just suggesting a developer doesnt...cant...actively create a system that encourages happenstance grouping. They can actively do something to discourage it but really all one needs in that case is teamspeak...peroid...nothing more.
It seems to me that having a persistent world with a finite amount of mobs is encouraging people to group up randomly because of the necessity to share to save time.
no...not at all..I would say that is not even close to an example
1. save time? in what? having a good time you want to 'save time'? what is it work? 2. its still not concrete enough
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Good point and it's why you should be able to solo in game.
In EQ many classes could not solo. This lead to a lot of people sitting around waiting for a group. The classes that could solo had a better chance of finding that happenstance group because they were likely to be out exploring the world and leveling up on their own. The grouping would usually come if they just happened to desire to kill the same thing and they ended up sharing to save time and make things easier.
I believe this is a good way to set things up. Let everyone have the ability to solo, but makes thing finite to an extent. This also reduces the amount of items that flood into the world.
however what the developer is doing to create such an enviroment as you speak is pretty much literally nothing whatsoever.
i am not advocating grouping I am just suggesting a developer doesnt...cant...actively create a system that encourages happenstance grouping. They can actively do something to discourage it but really all one needs in that case is teamspeak...peroid...nothing more.
It seems to me that having a persistent world with a finite amount of mobs is encouraging people to group up randomly because of the necessity to share to save time.
no...not at all..I would say that is not even close to an example
1. save time? in what? having a good time you want to 'save time'? what is it work? 2. its still not concrete enough
Yes.
If you think of things in terms of a world where they are a finite amount of things in it then only a certain amount of people can have access to all those mobs. Grouping up would be easier in that case because you wouldn't have to wait your turn for the mob or fight over it.
In the other case getting better experience, loot, and having more challenge would be incentive to group up for more difficult mobs.
I know this works to an extent because in older games I often joined or formed groups because of these two situations.
Good point and it's why you should be able to solo in game.
In EQ many classes could not solo. This lead to a lot of people sitting around waiting for a group. The classes that could solo had a better chance of finding that happenstance group because they were likely to be out exploring the world and leveling up on their own. The grouping would usually come if they just happened to desire to kill the same thing and they ended up sharing to save time and make things easier.
I believe this is a good way to set things up. Let everyone have the ability to solo, but makes thing finite to an extent. This also reduces the amount of items that flood into the world.
however what the developer is doing to create such an enviroment as you speak is pretty much literally nothing whatsoever.
i am not advocating grouping I am just suggesting a developer doesnt...cant...actively create a system that encourages happenstance grouping. They can actively do something to discourage it but really all one needs in that case is teamspeak...peroid...nothing more.
It seems to me that having a persistent world with a finite amount of mobs is encouraging people to group up randomly because of the necessity to share to save time.
no...not at all..I would say that is not even close to an example
1. save time? in what? having a good time you want to 'save time'? what is it work? 2. its still not concrete enough
Yes.
If you think of things in terms of a world where they are a finite amount of things in it then only a certain amount of people can have access to all those mobs. Grouping up would be easier in that case because you wouldn't have to wait your turn for the mob or fight over it.
In the other case getting better experience, loot, and having more challenge would be incentive to group up for more difficult mobs.
I know this works to an extent because in older games I often joined or formed groups because of these two situations.
yeah i am not seeing it.
in fact if the developer is explicting putting in resource limits (mobs) for the explict reason to have people stand in line to wait their turn that sounds like a design created to create pain, not fun.
never the less, I will take that as your answer
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Good point and it's why you should be able to solo in game.
In EQ many classes could not solo. This lead to a lot of people sitting around waiting for a group. The classes that could solo had a better chance of finding that happenstance group because they were likely to be out exploring the world and leveling up on their own. The grouping would usually come if they just happened to desire to kill the same thing and they ended up sharing to save time and make things easier.
I believe this is a good way to set things up. Let everyone have the ability to solo, but makes thing finite to an extent. This also reduces the amount of items that flood into the world.
however what the developer is doing to create such an enviroment as you speak is pretty much literally nothing whatsoever.
i am not advocating grouping I am just suggesting a developer doesnt...cant...actively create a system that encourages happenstance grouping. They can actively do something to discourage it but really all one needs in that case is teamspeak...peroid...nothing more.
It seems to me that having a persistent world with a finite amount of mobs is encouraging people to group up randomly because of the necessity to share to save time.
no...not at all..I would say that is not even close to an example
1. save time? in what? having a good time you want to 'save time'? what is it work? 2. its still not concrete enough
Yes.
If you think of things in terms of a world where they are a finite amount of things in it then only a certain amount of people can have access to all those mobs. Grouping up would be easier in that case because you wouldn't have to wait your turn for the mob or fight over it.
In the other case getting better experience, loot, and having more challenge would be incentive to group up for more difficult mobs.
I know this works to an extent because in older games I often joined or formed groups because of these two situations.
yeah i am not seeing it.
in fact if the developer is explicting putting in resource limits (mobs) for the explict reason to have people stand in line to wait their turn that sounds like a design created to create pain, not fun.
never the less, I will take that as your answer
The point is to not stand in line. You are joining up so you don't have to do that.
Obviously not all mobs in the world will be taken up. There will always be something to kill in the world.
It was always a good time in the newbie zones though. Often times they were flooded and killing mobs faster than they could respawn. It was an interesting thing to watch.
Good point and it's why you should be able to solo in game.
In EQ many classes could not solo. This lead to a lot of people sitting around waiting for a group. The classes that could solo had a better chance of finding that happenstance group because they were likely to be out exploring the world and leveling up on their own. The grouping would usually come if they just happened to desire to kill the same thing and they ended up sharing to save time and make things easier.
I believe this is a good way to set things up. Let everyone have the ability to solo, but makes thing finite to an extent. This also reduces the amount of items that flood into the world.
however what the developer is doing to create such an enviroment as you speak is pretty much literally nothing whatsoever.
i am not advocating grouping I am just suggesting a developer doesnt...cant...actively create a system that encourages happenstance grouping. They can actively do something to discourage it but really all one needs in that case is teamspeak...peroid...nothing more.
It seems to me that having a persistent world with a finite amount of mobs is encouraging people to group up randomly because of the necessity to share to save time.
In an instanced world you are encouraging not to group because you can get everything right away without having to wait. You can still group via the queue, but that kills happenstance encounters with other people.
You can also encourage happenstance grouping IMO by mixing a lot of different difficult mobs together. One person might go to an area and starts killing the easier mobs. Another might happen along to do the same. They they decide to team up to kill the more difficult ones because it is better experience and loot.
Yeah, in UO (ignoring the rampant PvP part of it) players helped each other out in dungeons more than the reputation of the game would indicate. If a solo player died, other players showing up might resurrect them. Then help them get to their corpse to recover their loot. Players would help out just as you said too, banding together to take out spawn. Spawn would respawn, and grow in numbers, making it harder and harder to stay there. Up to a limit. That's where "happenstance grouping" came into play. And the players (and without an official grouping mechanism) could overcome the "worst the game can throw at you". There were also times when a solo player died, no one was around, so they got on a message board and asked for help. Often someone would show up to help them. Also, MOBs would loot your corpse. Sometimes a player lost a particular item they really wanted to get back. So other players would help them kill that particular MOB so he could recover the item. And these weren't always items of power. Some players had items made by a friend with that friends name on it, and that might be the only reason they wanted it back. And some items were "rare collectibles", but otherwise powerless (but had value in trade). What a social experience that game was. Players made friends, and skilled players were known by their deeds rather than a point system.
The point is to not stand in line. You are joining up so you don't have to do that.
Obviously not all mobs in the world will be taken up. There will always be something to kill in the world.
It was always a good time in the newbie zones though. Often times they were flooded and killing mobs faster than they could respawn. It was an interesting thing to watch.
ok well several things.
1. that would be more in line with 'forced grouping' not 'happenstance grouping' which impiles its more of a choice rather than something you basically need to do. 2. its a horrible design based only on negativity. Find friends or stand in line you chump! is basically what the developer is creating? 3. Although for the fun of conversation we can pretend that is why developers do that I think the reality is it has nothing whatsoever to do with helping on grouping.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The point is to not stand in line. You are joining up so you don't have to do that.
Obviously not all mobs in the world will be taken up. There will always be something to kill in the world.
It was always a good time in the newbie zones though. Often times they were flooded and killing mobs faster than they could respawn. It was an interesting thing to watch.
ok well several things.
1. that would be more in line with 'forced grouping' not 'happenstance grouping' which impiles its more of a choice rather than something you basically need to do. 2. its a horrible design based only on negativity. Find friends or stand in line you chump! is basically what the developer is creating? 3. Although for the fun of conversation we can pretend that is why developers do that I think the reality is it has nothing whatsoever to do with helping on grouping.
I tend to agree with Seanmcad on this one. You should not ever create and environment where if you don't group you cannot do something that shouldn't require a group to start with.
An example would be what happened in Archeage with the beginning tier weapons. There were only so many mobs in the area and there were somewhere between 50 to 100 people all trying to get the same mobs. Your only hope was to be able to get into one of the groups farming or you were pretty much killed on sight by just about everyone. So lets say you are unable to find that friendly group because no one wants to share the drops, you would not be able to progress in the game until everyone else had already moved on. But then again you had the griefer groups that had the weapons but just didn't want to let others get them. So here you have a problem that someone who doesn't come with a group has to sit and wait spamming chat hoping to get into a group or they can't play something that they wanted to.
How is sitting waiting for no reason other than you can't get a group considered fun? Its not it is a chore and I do not want those kind of things in my games anymore. Forced grouping is never a good idea. That is why they have put group finders in so many games today. It got tedious trying to find people that wanted to do instances or waiting an hour to fill that last raid spot so you lost 5 people trying to get 1.
I play MMO's to have fun and relax, not to sit around and wait for joe blow to arrive so I can do something.
"The market is producing games by producers who actually enjoyonlySingle Player RPGs."
Claiming a statement is correct doesn't make it so.
In the real world, producers are developers who perform a lot of odd-jobs and production planning, but aren't actually the ones making the decisions on what types of games to make.
In the real world, WOW offered a much better solo component than most MMORPGs had, and players chose WOW.
In the real world, the people who do decide what types of games to make said, "Players like this. Let's make more of this."
Not all of the games that followed were well made, but even games dismissed as failures by players (RIFT, TOR, and other mid-tier MMORPGs) were considerably more successful than the grind-based games of the past.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
I see your point though and I'm would say you are correct that it's EQ was the first MMO that was themepark like.
I don't think current MMOs are much like EQ though. It was a much more punishing game and items were far more rare. Exploration and travel was encouraged as there was no direct path to follow.
Sometimes games are a bit boring if you can kill everything with a bit of skill. That gives you little to look forward to. I think the concept of zones sucks a bit though. Perhaps having a world with strong and weak mobs mixed together throughout would be good. A good example would be the Elder Scrolls Oblivion. The game is a bit boring because the mobs just change according to your level. It's nice when a strong mob comes along and whips your butt. It gives you something to look forward to when your character gets more powerful.
EQ cloned D&D 2nd edition in many facets with regards to classes, lore, and rules.
I never played AC1. I played AC2 for a bit, but it was a short bit.
"The market is producing games by producers who actually enjoy only Single Player RPGs."
Once upon a time....
I can think of three MMOs at the moment that I can tell had explicit elements in them designed to encourage grouping. I also know those games dont have a lot of grouping.
Why the disconnect? because people dont want to group with strangers. Its not like having a beer at the bar. A group adventure works exactly like a work project does. And hearding people together for a common project goal isnt always easy and its not always fun.
This is why people dont group
Beer and the bar != work related project.
its that simple
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
In a quest based model you end up having to queue for instances.
In a non quest based model you are likely to happen upon someone who is killing mobs and ask them to share the camp area or join them in the dungeon. The same works in reverse. In a way camping in old games very much encouraged grouping via 2 people up to a full group depending on who happened along at the time and wanted to partake.
I see 'encourage grouping' more like I need X skill but I dont have X skill because I focus on Y skill. You have A skill however and together we have X and Y skill which makes the specific adventure in question about 90% easier.
not just because somoene is hanging out at the door. That is more like 'guy at the bar'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
case in point
what is the difference between 'I have been waiting for someone' and 'want to join me in chat while I do something that i could do with or without you?'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
In EQ many classes could not solo. This lead to a lot of people sitting around waiting for a group. The classes that could solo had a better chance of finding that happenstance group because they were likely to be out exploring the world and leveling up on their own. The grouping would usually come if they just happened to desire to kill the same thing and they ended up sharing to save time and make things easier.
I believe this is a good way to set things up. Let everyone have the ability to solo, but makes thing finite to an extent. This also reduces the amount of items that flood into the world.
i am not advocating grouping I am just suggesting a developer doesnt...cant...actively create a system that encourages happenstance grouping. They can actively do something to discourage it but really all one needs in that case is teamspeak...peroid...nothing more.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
But MMO's are being made ignoring that aspect. They are made just like SPG's with Multi-Player functionality, plus some stuff like Auction Houses for trade or Point Tiers for badges that could just as easily be done outside the game.
Once upon a time....
What SPECIFICALLY can a developer put into the game (feature or otherwise) that would 'encourage happenstance grouping' in a way that by not putting in said feature it would NOT be encouraging happenstance grouping.
Lets get extreemly concrete here please.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
In an instanced world you are encouraging not to group because you can get everything right away without having to wait. You can still group via the queue, but that kills happenstance encounters with other people.
You can also encourage happenstance grouping IMO by mixing a lot of different difficult mobs together. One person might go to an area and starts killing the easier mobs. Another might happen along to do the same. They they decide to team up to kill the more difficult ones because it is better experience and loot.
1. save time? in what? having a good time you want to 'save time'? what is it work?
2. its still not concrete enough
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If you think of things in terms of a world where they are a finite amount of things in it then only a certain amount of people can have access to all those mobs. Grouping up would be easier in that case because you wouldn't have to wait your turn for the mob or fight over it.
In the other case getting better experience, loot, and having more challenge would be incentive to group up for more difficult mobs.
I know this works to an extent because in older games I often joined or formed groups because of these two situations.
in fact if the developer is explicting putting in resource limits (mobs) for the explict reason to have people stand in line to wait their turn that sounds like a design created to create pain, not fun.
never the less, I will take that as your answer
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Obviously not all mobs in the world will be taken up. There will always be something to kill in the world.
It was always a good time in the newbie zones though. Often times they were flooded and killing mobs faster than they could respawn. It was an interesting thing to watch.
If a solo player died, other players showing up might resurrect them. Then help them get to their corpse to recover their loot.
Players would help out just as you said too, banding together to take out spawn. Spawn would respawn, and grow in numbers, making it harder and harder to stay there. Up to a limit. That's where "happenstance grouping" came into play. And the players (and without an official grouping mechanism) could overcome the "worst the game can throw at you".
There were also times when a solo player died, no one was around, so they got on a message board and asked for help. Often someone would show up to help them.
Also, MOBs would loot your corpse. Sometimes a player lost a particular item they really wanted to get back. So other players would help them kill that particular MOB so he could recover the item. And these weren't always items of power. Some players had items made by a friend with that friends name on it, and that might be the only reason they wanted it back. And some items were "rare collectibles", but otherwise powerless (but had value in trade).
What a social experience that game was. Players made friends, and skilled players were known by their deeds rather than a point system.
Once upon a time....
1. that would be more in line with 'forced grouping' not 'happenstance grouping' which impiles its more of a choice rather than something you basically need to do.
2. its a horrible design based only on negativity. Find friends or stand in line you chump! is basically what the developer is creating?
3. Although for the fun of conversation we can pretend that is why developers do that I think the reality is it has nothing whatsoever to do with helping on grouping.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
An example would be what happened in Archeage with the beginning tier weapons. There were only so many mobs in the area and there were somewhere between 50 to 100 people all trying to get the same mobs. Your only hope was to be able to get into one of the groups farming or you were pretty much killed on sight by just about everyone. So lets say you are unable to find that friendly group because no one wants to share the drops, you would not be able to progress in the game until everyone else had already moved on. But then again you had the griefer groups that had the weapons but just didn't want to let others get them. So here you have a problem that someone who doesn't come with a group has to sit and wait spamming chat hoping to get into a group or they can't play something that they wanted to.
How is sitting waiting for no reason other than you can't get a group considered fun? Its not it is a chore and I do not want those kind of things in my games anymore. Forced grouping is never a good idea. That is why they have put group finders in so many games today. It got tedious trying to find people that wanted to do instances or waiting an hour to fill that last raid spot so you lost 5 people trying to get 1.
I play MMO's to have fun and relax, not to sit around and wait for joe blow to arrive so I can do something.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
In the real world, producers are developers who perform a lot of odd-jobs and production planning, but aren't actually the ones making the decisions on what types of games to make.
In the real world, WOW offered a much better solo component than most MMORPGs had, and players chose WOW.
In the real world, the people who do decide what types of games to make said, "Players like this. Let's make more of this."
Not all of the games that followed were well made, but even games dismissed as failures by players (RIFT, TOR, and other mid-tier MMORPGs) were considerably more successful than the grind-based games of the past.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver