Break down to what we see as the specifics that are nice about being in a group in the first place.
Is it talking about our family and friends? Or is it working together on a common task? is it because I offer something to the task that others can not and vice versa? is it because I am offering something in real time or dose it matter if my contribution is happening while others are in the same 'room'?
so many questions we seem to just take it for granted that group is good or bad but when talking about either we are not breaking it down to what specifically about a group is good or bad.
In case others havent notice I perfer to talk in concrete examples rather than abstractions
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.
Yeah mobs that give 10 xp each that people need to 'defeat' 2 of to complete a chore that gives 18.6k xp
Break down to what we see as the specifics that are nice about being in a group in the first place.
Is it talking about our family and friends? Or is it working together on a common task? is it because I offer something to the task that others can not and vice versa? is it because I am offering something in real time or dose it matter if my contribution is happening while others are in the same 'room'?
so many questions we seem to just take it for granted that group is good or bad but when talking about either we are not breaking it down to what specifically about a group is good or bad.
In case others havent notice I perfer to talk in concrete examples rather than abstractions
I'm not sure anyone assumes grouping is bad. That's why grouping exists in all MMORPGs. Listing the reasons you enjoy grouping is potentially interesting, and might reveal interesting ways grouping could be improved.
It doesn't really speak to the forced grouping argument though, because no matter how much person A enjoys grouping, it doesn't change the fact that persons B and C enjoy soloing, and that's why soloing has been a viable playstyle in MMORPGs for a long time now.
Personally I think the safest route is to just always include a strong solo component to MMORPGs. It's what a lot of players want.
I feel like a group-only RPG is possible, but right from the start would only attract a smaller audience. But as long as you avoided further shrinking the potential audience by avoiding the many failure points of early MMORPGs, you could probably make it work reasonably well.
In oldschool MMORPGs you'd have to form a group by chat -- eliminate that obviously clunky mechanism and replace it with a group finder.
In oldschool MMORPGs you'd have to walk to your group -- eliminate that failing and have everyone easily teleport to their group for free.
In all group RPGs your reward relies heavily on whether the group's overall skill can overcome the challenge at hand -- alleviate that by having part of your rewards determined by how skillfully you play.
Offer a mix of mechanics where some of them don't scale (maybe do Left4Dead style disables where your character can be completely helpless and it doesn't matter if your teammate's progression is "dirty peasant" or "shiny paladin", as long as he can right-clicks to free your character from CC.) Since you're going to be queueing into groups rapidly, progression among players can generally be kept reasonably similar, but having mechanics which transcend/ignore progression will help ensure every teammate is always valued even if their progression is a bit weaker.
Essentially it's just Vermintide with a little more progression to it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Break down to what we see as the specifics that are nice about being in a group in the first place.
Is it talking about our family and friends? Or is it working together on a common task? is it because I offer something to the task that others can not and vice versa? is it because I am offering something in real time or dose it matter if my contribution is happening while others are in the same 'room'?
so many questions we seem to just take it for granted that group is good or bad but when talking about either we are not breaking it down to what specifically about a group is good or bad.
In case others havent notice I perfer to talk in concrete examples rather than abstractions
I'm not sure anyone assumes grouping is bad. That's why grouping exists in all MMORPGs. Listing the reasons you enjoy grouping is potentially interesting, and might reveal interesting ways grouping could be improved.
It doesn't really speak to the forced grouping argument though, because no matter how much person A enjoys grouping, it doesn't change the fact that persons B and C enjoy soloing, and that's why soloing has been a viable playstyle in MMORPGs for a long time now.
Personally I think the safest route is to just always include a strong solo component to MMORPGs. It's what a lot of players want.
I feel like a group-only RPG is possible, but right from the start would only attract a smaller audience. But as long as you avoided further shrinking the potential audience by avoiding the many failure points of early MMORPGs, you could probably make it work reasonably well.
In oldschool MMORPGs you'd have to form a group by chat -- eliminate that obviously clunky mechanism and replace it with a group finder.
In oldschool MMORPGs you'd have to walk to your group -- eliminate that failing and have everyone easily teleport to their group for free.
In all group RPGs your reward relies heavily on whether the group's overall skill can overcome the challenge at hand -- alleviate that by having part of your rewards determined by how skillfully you play.
Offer a mix of mechanics where some of them don't scale (maybe do Left4Dead style disables where your character can be completely helpless and it doesn't matter if your teammate's progression is "dirty peasant" or "shiny paladin", as long as he can right-clicks to free your character from CC.) Since you're going to be queueing into groups rapidly, progression among players can generally be kept reasonably similar, but having mechanics which transcend/ignore progression will help ensure every teammate is always valued even if their progression is a bit weaker.
Essentially it's just Vermintide with a little more progression to it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Break down to what we see as the specifics that are nice about being in a group in the first place.
Is it talking about our family and friends? Or is it working together on a common task? is it because I offer something to the task that others can not and vice versa? is it because I am offering something in real time or dose it matter if my contribution is happening while others are in the same 'room'?
so many questions we seem to just take it for granted that group is good or bad but when talking about either we are not breaking it down to what specifically about a group is good or bad.
In case others havent notice I perfer to talk in concrete examples rather than abstractions
I'm not sure anyone assumes grouping is bad. That's why grouping exists in all MMORPGs. Listing the reasons you enjoy grouping is potentially interesting, and might reveal interesting ways grouping could be improved.
It doesn't really speak to the forced grouping argument though, because no matter how much person A enjoys grouping, it doesn't change the fact that persons B and C enjoy soloing, and that's why soloing has been a viable playstyle in MMORPGs for a long time now.
Personally I think the safest route is to just always include a strong solo component to MMORPGs. It's what a lot of players want.
I feel like a group-only RPG is possible, but right from the start would only attract a smaller audience. But as long as you avoided further shrinking the potential audience by avoiding the many failure points of early MMORPGs, you could probably make it work reasonably well.
In oldschool MMORPGs you'd have to form a group by chat -- eliminate that obviously clunky mechanism and replace it with a group finder.
In oldschool MMORPGs you'd have to walk to your group -- eliminate that failing and have everyone easily teleport to their group for free.
In all group RPGs your reward relies heavily on whether the group's overall skill can overcome the challenge at hand -- alleviate that by having part of your rewards determined by how skillfully you play.
Offer a mix of mechanics where some of them don't scale (maybe do Left4Dead style disables where your character can be completely helpless and it doesn't matter if your teammate's progression is "dirty peasant" or "shiny paladin", as long as he can right-clicks to free your character from CC.) Since you're going to be queueing into groups rapidly, progression among players can generally be kept reasonably similar, but having mechanics which transcend/ignore progression will help ensure every teammate is always valued even if their progression is a bit weaker.
Essentially it's just Vermintide with a little more progression to it.
but your very long and detailed response to my suggested question leaves me still not knowing specifically what in grouping people consider appealing in concrete terms.
let me help with an example as to WHY I am asking this.
I like to do thing for the group but not WHILE in am in the group. Example: guild needs 10,000 woven pelts to make a catapult. Well I am off doing my solo exploring looking for the pelts. I am doing a group activity that I enjoy but I am not physically in the group.
Where as someone else might not get satisfaction on that at all. What they might want to do is to lead a group of people into battle, another might want to heal but only during battle.
So i am asking people to get concerte here, what elements specfically are pertinently positive to grouping. Is it the texting about grandma and beer? or is it the working together in a common goal each in a different supporting way or all the same way? etc..
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
"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 it really is in the real world is this: "Players chose the best option, by far the most polished option, so lets not give them any other options."
And then they said: "Well, we can't actually sell these games and make enough money for the investors, so let give them away! And charge for extras so we can soak the whales."
And then they said: "Oh noes! Players are complaining on public forums and leaving when they figure out that they can't keep up with the whales. And players are tired of the same ol' same ol'. What are we to do? How can we change this perception? Surely we can convince them that we are the only game in town."
And when no one had an answer, someone from the dark corners of the room, bathed in shadows and reeking of foul stagnation said: "We have no other options left." "Unleash Axehilt!"
but your very long and detailed response to my suggested question leaves me still not knowing specifically what in grouping people consider appealing in concrete terms.
let me help with an example as to WHY I am asking this.
I like to do thing for the group but not WHILE in am in the group. Example: guild needs 10,000 woven pelts to make a catapult. Well I am off doing my solo exploring looking for the pelts. I am doing a group activity that I enjoy but I am not physically in the group.
Where as someone else might not get satisfaction on that at all. What they might want to do is to lead a group of people into battle, another might want to heal but only during battle.
So i am asking people to get concerte here, what elements specfically are pertinently positive to grouping. Is it the texting about grandma and beer? or is it the working together in a common goal each in a different supporting way or all the same way? etc..
Well personally the reason teamplay appeals to me is the dynamic challenges and interesting specialization gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
but your very long and detailed response to my suggested question leaves me still not knowing specifically what in grouping people consider appealing in concrete terms.
let me help with an example as to WHY I am asking this.
I like to do thing for the group but not WHILE in am in the group. Example: guild needs 10,000 woven pelts to make a catapult. Well I am off doing my solo exploring looking for the pelts. I am doing a group activity that I enjoy but I am not physically in the group.
Where as someone else might not get satisfaction on that at all. What they might want to do is to lead a group of people into battle, another might want to heal but only during battle.
So i am asking people to get concerte here, what elements specfically are pertinently positive to grouping. Is it the texting about grandma and beer? or is it the working together in a common goal each in a different supporting way or all the same way? etc..
Well personally the reason teamplay appeals to me is the dynamic challenges and interesting specialization gameplay.
if you dont mind I would like to drill that down a little more.
can you give us a specific example
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Break down to what we see as the specifics that are nice about being in a group in the first place.
Is it talking about our family and friends? Or is it working together on a common task? is it because I offer something to the task that others can not and vice versa? is it because I am offering something in real time or dose it matter if my contribution is happening while others are in the same 'room'?
so many questions we seem to just take it for granted that group is good or bad but when talking about either we are not breaking it down to what specifically about a group is good or bad.
In case others havent notice I perfer to talk in concrete examples rather than abstractions
I'm not sure anyone assumes grouping is bad. That's why grouping exists in all MMORPGs. Listing the reasons you enjoy grouping is potentially interesting, and might reveal interesting ways grouping could be improved.
It doesn't really speak to the forced grouping argument though, because no matter how much person A enjoys grouping, it doesn't change the fact that persons B and C enjoy soloing, and that's why soloing has been a viable playstyle in MMORPGs for a long time now.
Personally I think the safest route is to just always include a strong solo component to MMORPGs. It's what a lot of players want.
I feel like a group-only RPG is possible, but right from the start would only attract a smaller audience. But as long as you avoided further shrinking the potential audience by avoiding the many failure points of early MMORPGs, you could probably make it work reasonably well.
In oldschool MMORPGs you'd have to form a group by chat -- eliminate that obviously clunky mechanism and replace it with a group finder.
In oldschool MMORPGs you'd have to walk to your group -- eliminate that failing and have everyone easily teleport to their group for free.
In all group RPGs your reward relies heavily on whether the group's overall skill can overcome the challenge at hand -- alleviate that by having part of your rewards determined by how skillfully you play.
Offer a mix of mechanics where some of them don't scale (maybe do Left4Dead style disables where your character can be completely helpless and it doesn't matter if your teammate's progression is "dirty peasant" or "shiny paladin", as long as he can right-clicks to free your character from CC.) Since you're going to be queueing into groups rapidly, progression among players can generally be kept reasonably similar, but having mechanics which transcend/ignore progression will help ensure every teammate is always valued even if their progression is a bit weaker.
Essentially it's just Vermintide with a little more progression to it.
You are talking about some kind of a lobby co-op game not an mmo imo.
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
if you dont mind I would like to drill that down a little more.
can you give us a specific example
Dynamic challenges:
Tank 1 was solid but slow, taking one group at a time.
Tank 2 was skilled and pulled at a much faster pace, requiring DPS players to use their mobile rotation more, as well as their AOE rotations.
Tank 3 was a clumsy fool and stumbled into 3 packs at once forcing the healer to pop heal cooldowns and DPS to pop cooldowns to go full-on AOE damage.
Specialization is mostly just that completely different playstyles are enabled in group play that can't exist solo. You can't play the whack-a-mole healing game solo and you can't just suck up all the mobs and lpay the damage mitigation game solo. And even the DPS game tends to be slightly different when you're worried about mitigating damage more.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
if you dont mind I would like to drill that down a little more.
can you give us a specific example
Dynamic challenges:
Tank 1 was solid but slow, taking one group at a time.
Tank 2 was skilled and pulled at a much faster pace, requiring DPS players to use their mobile rotation more, as well as their AOE rotations.
Tank 3 was a clumsy fool and stumbled into 3 packs at once forcing the healer to pop heal cooldowns and DPS to pop cooldowns to go full-on AOE damage.
Specialization is mostly just that completely different playstyles are enabled in group play that can't exist solo. You can't play the whack-a-mole healing game solo and you can't just suck up all the mobs and lpay the damage mitigation game solo. And even the DPS game tends to be slightly different when you're worried about mitigating damage more.
thanks.
I wish more people would get that specific when talking about this subject.
Reason I say that is because i like grouping BUT I dont like to physically be in the group I just to solo contrubute to the group which is grouping but entirely different dynamic that requires developers to come up with entirely different solutions.
it keeps the conversation focused in my view.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I wish more people would get that specific when talking about this subject.
Reason I say that is because i like grouping BUT I dont like to physically be in the group I just to solo contrubute to the group which is grouping but entirely different dynamic that requires developers to come up with entirely different solutions.
it keeps the conversation focused in my view.
That is exactly how most approached pugs in SWG, group for better cash payouts on missions, solo the encounters in order to get all the cash/xp to yourself...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I wish more people would get that specific when talking about this subject.
Reason I say that is because i like grouping BUT I dont like to physically be in the group I just to solo contrubute to the group which is grouping but entirely different dynamic that requires developers to come up with entirely different solutions.
it keeps the conversation focused in my view.
That is exactly how most approached pugs in SWG, group for better cash payouts on missions, solo the encounters in order to get all the cash/xp to yourself...
i am afraid i have no idea what you are talking about or eluding to
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If grinding MOBs gave as much experience as quest people would be grinding MOBs. I think the preferance is over blown. They can but never do. So the stigma with grinding MOBs is that it's a slow experience to get experience. Who wouldn't do a kill 10 NPC quest if it gave you 10% your level over grinding 150 MOBs for the same amount.
I think both grinds are pointless but it's a staple these days. If they gave high experience for grinding mobs and interesting places to explore while doing I would do it over generic quest.
If grinding MOBs gave as much experience as quest people would be grinding MOBs. I think the preferance is over blown. They can but never do. So the stigma with grinding MOBs is that it's a slow experience to get experience. Who wouldn't do a kill 10 NPC quest if it gave you 10% your level over grinding 150 MOBs for the same amount.
I think both grinds are pointless but it's a staple these days. If they gave high experience for grinding mobs and interesting places to explore while doing I would do it over generic quest.
The problem with grinding mobs endlessly is it's boring. It's boring because it's repetitive.
Calling them "pointless" is strange. It's a game. The point is fun.
Quests achieve fun to a greater degree than a grind.
We know this from experience. "Do this one thing for an hour" bores us quicker than "do these 20 different things over the course of an hour."
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If grinding MOBs gave as much experience as quest people would be grinding MOBs. I think the preferance is over blown. They can but never do. So the stigma with grinding MOBs is that it's a slow experience to get experience. Who wouldn't do a kill 10 NPC quest if it gave you 10% your level over grinding 150 MOBs for the same amount.
I think both grinds are pointless but it's a staple these days. If they gave high experience for grinding mobs and interesting places to explore while doing I would do it over generic quest.
The problem with grinding mobs endlessly is it's boring. It's boring because it's repetitive.
Calling them "pointless" is strange. It's a game. The point is fun.
Quests achieve fun to a greater degree than a grind.
We know this from experience. "Do this one thing for an hour" bores us quicker than "do these 20 different things over the course of an hour."
Have we ever had a mob grind that is as fast or faster than questing. I think players are far more pragmatic than you give them credit for. If it was faster to grind MOBS majority would do it.
It shouldn't say that it's pointless in general. Just grinding out levels in a MMORPG as filler is pointless. I would say by evidence of players wanting to get to end game as fast as possible points to this. They will even pay to get to end game if possible.
Have we ever had a mob grind that is as fast or faster than questing. I think players are far more pragmatic than you give them credit for. If it was faster to grind MOBS majority would do it.
It shouldn't say that it's pointless in general. Just grinding out levels in a MMORPG as filler is pointless. I would say by evidence of players wanting to get to end game as fast as possible points to this. They will even pay to get to end game if possible.
I wasn't disputing that: players will definitely choose to grind mobs if it was equally rewarded. So now you have a bunch of players choosing to do something that's objectively more boring (because it's objectively more repetitive) and quit your game faster because they're bored.
Players are trying to advance fast because they've always tried to advance fast. It's pure fantasy to pretend that players weren't trying to level fast in every earlier RPG. Humans are motivated to better themselves, and leveling is one of the strongest methods of doing that, so players try to level fast and efficiently. They've done so since the earliest RPGs.
(Back in the day my friend tried to convince me to farm metal slimes for him like in this video (Dragon Warrior 1, 1986) and I lasted maybe 15 minutes before realizing I could be having a lot more fun doing something else, rather than constantly watch the stupid things run away after taking piddly plinks of damage each attack. Even back then it was a bad idea to provide a faster-to-level grind option that was more boring and grindy than typical more varied play.)
While the vocal minority here is very against quests, the average MMORPG player enjoys that sort of content and so it's a little weird to call it "filler" (even though it literally does fill the game with content.) If your argument was that it would be more interesting to have quests focused more on one main story arc, then I would agree with that (similar to how I prefer serialized TV shows that tell one long story arc and don't waste my time on one-off filler episodes.)
Paying to skip to endgame is mostly about the desire to avoid repetition. The first time through quests is a blast, it's only for my alts that I have any compulsion to pay to skip to endgame. (But keep in mind games are struggling to hold players' interest at all times, with the sharpest player dropoff happening long before your average player hits max level with a single character. So quests being boring on the second play-through is an acceptable price to pay for the big increase to player retention they provide on first play-through.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I wish more people would get that specific when talking about this subject.
Reason I say that is because i like grouping BUT I dont like to physically be in the group I just to solo contrubute to the group which is grouping but entirely different dynamic that requires developers to come up with entirely different solutions.
it keeps the conversation focused in my view.
That is exactly how most approached pugs in SWG, group for better cash payouts on missions, solo the encounters in order to get all the cash/xp to yourself...
i am afraid i have no idea what you are talking about or eluding to
People grouped because it benefited one in terms of mission acquisition/payout.. The more in the group the more the mission paid as well as the higher xp the mobs gave... You didn't need to complete the missions with other group members though, you could just solo them, and as long as no one was close enough, you got full payout in credits as well as xp.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
If grinding MOBs gave as much experience as quest people would be grinding MOBs. I think the preferance is over blown. They can but never do. So the stigma with grinding MOBs is that it's a slow experience to get experience. Who wouldn't do a kill 10 NPC quest if it gave you 10% your level over grinding 150 MOBs for the same amount.
I think both grinds are pointless but it's a staple these days. If they gave high experience for grinding mobs and interesting places to explore while doing I would do it over generic quest.
The problem with grinding mobs endlessly is it's boring. It's boring because it's repetitive.
Calling them "pointless" is strange. It's a game. The point is fun.
Quests achieve fun to a greater degree than a grind.
We know this from experience. "Do this one thing for an hour" bores us quicker than "do these 20 different things over the course of an hour."
Great discussion.
Has anyone ever talked about having different flavors for the same game assets? What's stopping an mmorpg developer from pleasing a variety of playstyles and making the most out of those expensive assets.
Different servers.. Different games.. Same, lore,art, etc.
If grinding MOBs gave as much experience as quest people would be grinding MOBs. I think the preferance is over blown. They can but never do. So the stigma with grinding MOBs is that it's a slow experience to get experience. Who wouldn't do a kill 10 NPC quest if it gave you 10% your level over grinding 150 MOBs for the same amount.
I think both grinds are pointless but it's a staple these days. If they gave high experience for grinding mobs and interesting places to explore while doing I would do it over generic quest.
The problem with grinding mobs endlessly is it's boring. It's boring because it's repetitive.
Calling them "pointless" is strange. It's a game. The point is fun.
Quests achieve fun to a greater degree than a grind.
We know this from experience. "Do this one thing for an hour" bores us quicker than "do these 20 different things over the course of an hour."
Great discussion.
Has anyone ever talked about having different flavors for the same game assets? What's stopping an mmorpg developer from pleasing a variety of playstyles and making the most out of those expensive assets.
Different servers.. Different games.. Same, lore,art, etc.
What's stopping this?
I've often wondered the same. I know they typically make servers with different PvP rules, the different PvE rules would be cool too. Make a hard mode server where all mobs are 'elite' but give significantly more XP for example.
Have we ever had a mob grind that is as fast or faster than questing. I think players are far more pragmatic than you give them credit for. If it was faster to grind MOBS majority would do it.
It shouldn't say that it's pointless in general. Just grinding out levels in a MMORPG as filler is pointless. I would say by evidence of players wanting to get to end game as fast as possible points to this. They will even pay to get to end game if possible.
I wasn't disputing that: players will definitely choose to grind mobs if it was equally rewarded. So now you have a bunch of players choosing to do something that's objectively more boring (because it's objectively more repetitive) and quit your game faster because they're bored.
Players are trying to advance fast because they've always tried to advance fast. It's pure fantasy to pretend that players weren't trying to level fast in every earlier RPG. Humans are motivated to better themselves, and leveling is one of the strongest methods of doing that, so players try to level fast and efficiently. They've done so since the earliest RPGs.
(Back in the day my friend tried to convince me to farm metal slimes for him like in this video (Dragon Warrior 1, 1986) and I lasted maybe 15 minutes before realizing I could be having a lot more fun doing something else, rather than constantly watch the stupid things run away after taking piddly plinks of damage each attack. Even back then it was a bad idea to provide a faster-to-level grind option that was more boring and grindy than typical more varied play.)
While the vocal minority here is very against quests, the average MMORPG player enjoys that sort of content and so it's a little weird to call it "filler" (even though it literally does fill the game with content.) If your argument was that it would be more interesting to have quests focused more on one main story arc, then I would agree with that (similar to how I prefer serialized TV shows that tell one long story arc and don't waste my time on one-off filler episodes.)
Paying to skip to endgame is mostly about the desire to avoid repetition. The first time through quests is a blast, it's only for my alts that I have any compulsion to pay to skip to endgame. (But keep in mind games are struggling to hold players' interest at all times, with the sharpest player dropoff happening long before your average player hits max level with a single character. So quests being boring on the second play-through is an acceptable price to pay for the big increase to player retention they provide on first play-through.)
The problem isn't true quest. Its that "quest" that are just mindless task. Mindless task are just as mindless as grinding MOB. The only reason there is an acceptance of quest is because they give out enough experience to level you quickly. For whatever reason every MOB grind games makes MOBs have poor experience comparatively. The stigma is with the length of the grind not the type of grind. Seems like a big back tract to say players would choose to do something that they don't want to do.
The reason why I call it filler because it generally is literally mindless filler. Its not true content. Its just generic task laid in my path to slow my leveling. Not all content is created equally. If I was given the choice to grind 50 mobs in place or kill 20 mobs, run to bob to deliver his shit, pick up 5 mushrooms and whatever dumb task these games give you... I would grind if the combat is engaging. Good combat > errand boy "hero." If given the choice of horizontal progression with anywhere anytime I choose optional quest/task, class quest and lore quest I would go that route over both.
Has anyone ever talked about having different flavors for the same game assets? What's stopping an mmorpg developer from pleasing a variety of playstyles and making the most out of those expensive assets.
Different servers.. Different games.. Same, lore,art, etc.
What's stopping this?
Well I'd guess fewer players would bore themselves by choosing a "grind server", compared with how many would bore themselves by choosing grinding in a unified server that balanced both playstyles, but it's extra effort to make players leave your game faster either way.
(Also it wouldn't quite be the same lore, since without quests you'd miss out on like 90% of the portrayal of lore in a game.)
There just isn't enough perceived worth for the effort involved. If all the people asking for grind-based gaming put their money where their mouth was and they weren't a minority, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because those games would be thriving! But there just aren't any examples where players are sticking around and playing overly repetitive games for a very long period of time. All evidence and logic points to players preferring games which are varied and dynamic.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The problem isn't true quest. Its that "quest" that are just mindless task. Mindless task are just as mindless as grinding MOB. The only reason there is an acceptance of quest is because they give out enough experience to level you quickly. For whatever reason every MOB grind games makes MOBs have poor experience comparatively. The stigma is with the length of the grind not the type of grind. Seems like a big back tract to say players would choose to do something that they don't want to do.
The reason why I call it filler because it generally is literally mindless filler. Its not true content. Its just generic task laid in my path to slow my leveling. Not all content is created equally. If I was given the choice to grind 50 mobs in place or kill 20 mobs, run to bob to deliver his shit, pick up 5 mushrooms and whatever dumb task these games give you... I would grind if the combat is engaging. Good combat > errand boy "hero." If given the choice of horizontal progression with anywhere anytime I choose optional quest/task, class quest and lore quest I would go that route over both.
Again, they aren't "just a mindless task". They represent variety. They avoid repetition.
When's the last time you heard a player use the word "repetitive" in a positive light?
Which of these activities is more mindless?
A. Grinding
Figure out to kill this mob type.
Now just keep doing that.
B. Questing
Get all the quests in the hub.
Figure out which one is closest.
Travel to that location.
Figure out what you need to do (the activity will vary.)
Figure out how to kill the mobs in your way (the mobs will vary.)
Figure out where to go next (the next quest might be near.) (Repeat the travel > activity > mobs steps for each new quest)
When done with enough quests, navigate back to town and pick your reward.
Questing doesn't require a lot of thinking in total, but if you're going to call questing "mindless" when it in fact requires many easy little bits of thinking, then what are you going to call grinding which requires substantially less thinking?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I wish more people would get that specific when talking about this subject.
Reason I say that is because i like grouping BUT I dont like to physically be in the group I just to solo contrubute to the group which is grouping but entirely different dynamic that requires developers to come up with entirely different solutions.
it keeps the conversation focused in my view.
That is exactly how most approached pugs in SWG, group for better cash payouts on missions, solo the encounters in order to get all the cash/xp to yourself...
i am afraid i have no idea what you are talking about or eluding to
People grouped because it benefited one in terms of mission acquisition/payout.. The more in the group the more the mission paid as well as the higher xp the mobs gave... You didn't need to complete the missions with other group members though, you could just solo them, and as long as no one was close enough, you got full payout in credits as well as xp.
I am really struggling with what that has to do with my comment regarding how I like to not be physically in a group but to be part of a group.
Regardless, the motovation for grouping as you have illustrated is not a good case for grouping in general. I doubt people get sentimental about the good old days where their XP growth was 2x
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The problem isn't true quest. Its that "quest" that are just mindless task. Mindless task are just as mindless as grinding MOB. The only reason there is an acceptance of quest is because they give out enough experience to level you quickly. For whatever reason every MOB grind games makes MOBs have poor experience comparatively. The stigma is with the length of the grind not the type of grind. Seems like a big back tract to say players would choose to do something that they don't want to do.
The reason why I call it filler because it generally is literally mindless filler. Its not true content. Its just generic task laid in my path to slow my leveling. Not all content is created equally. If I was given the choice to grind 50 mobs in place or kill 20 mobs, run to bob to deliver his shit, pick up 5 mushrooms and whatever dumb task these games give you... I would grind if the combat is engaging. Good combat > errand boy "hero." If given the choice of horizontal progression with anywhere anytime I choose optional quest/task, class quest and lore quest I would go that route over both.
Again, they aren't "just a mindless task". They represent variety. They avoid repetition.
When's the last time you heard a player use the word "repetitive" in a positive light?
Which of these activities is more mindless?
A. Grinding
Figure out to kill this mob type.
Now just keep doing that.
B. Questing
Get all the quests in the hub.
Figure out which one is closest.
Travel to that location.
Figure out what you need to do (the activity will vary.)
Figure out how to kill the mobs in your way (the mobs will vary.)
Figure out where to go next (the next quest might be near.) (Repeat the travel > activity > mobs steps for each new quest)
When done with enough quests, navigate back to town and pick your reward.
Questing doesn't require a lot of thinking in total, but if you're going to call questing "mindless" when it in fact requires many easy little bits of thinking, then what are you going to call grinding which requires substantially less thinking?
A. Grinding
Spawn in world
Figure out where to go first
Figure out what you can kill
Find a safe spot where you won't die a lot
Decide if you want to share spot with others who come along
Decide if you want to move on and try killing different mobs.
Decide if you want to go explore and see what's over the next hill (maybe a dungeon or desert waste land)
When full take loot and sell it to the vendor.
Possible turn in items for repeat quests (faction/exp) if you can find a quest giver
Maybe head out and try going to a different area
B. Questing
Follow indicators around the world like a cat being led by a string and follow instructions
Comments
Break down to what we see as the specifics that are nice about being in a group in the first place.
Is it talking about our family and friends?
Or is it working together on a common task?
is it because I offer something to the task that others can not and vice versa?
is it because I am offering something in real time or dose it matter if my contribution is happening while others are in the same 'room'?
so many questions we seem to just take it for granted that group is good or bad but when talking about either we are not breaking it down to what specifically about a group is good or bad.
In case others havent notice I perfer to talk in concrete examples rather than abstractions
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It doesn't really speak to the forced grouping argument though, because no matter how much person A enjoys grouping, it doesn't change the fact that persons B and C enjoy soloing, and that's why soloing has been a viable playstyle in MMORPGs for a long time now.
Personally I think the safest route is to just always include a strong solo component to MMORPGs. It's what a lot of players want.
I feel like a group-only RPG is possible, but right from the start would only attract a smaller audience. But as long as you avoided further shrinking the potential audience by avoiding the many failure points of early MMORPGs, you could probably make it work reasonably well.
- In oldschool MMORPGs you'd have to form a group by chat -- eliminate that obviously clunky mechanism and replace it with a group finder.
- In oldschool MMORPGs you'd have to walk to your group -- eliminate that failing and have everyone easily teleport to their group for free.
- In all group RPGs your reward relies heavily on whether the group's overall skill can overcome the challenge at hand -- alleviate that by having part of your rewards determined by how skillfully you play.
- Offer a mix of mechanics where some of them don't scale (maybe do Left4Dead style disables where your character can be completely helpless and it doesn't matter if your teammate's progression is "dirty peasant" or "shiny paladin", as long as he can right-clicks to free your character from CC.) Since you're going to be queueing into groups rapidly, progression among players can generally be kept reasonably similar, but having mechanics which transcend/ignore progression will help ensure every teammate is always valued even if their progression is a bit weaker.
Essentially it's just Vermintide with a little more progression to it."What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It doesn't really speak to the forced grouping argument though, because no matter how much person A enjoys grouping, it doesn't change the fact that persons B and C enjoy soloing, and that's why soloing has been a viable playstyle in MMORPGs for a long time now.
Personally I think the safest route is to just always include a strong solo component to MMORPGs. It's what a lot of players want.
I feel like a group-only RPG is possible, but right from the start would only attract a smaller audience. But as long as you avoided further shrinking the potential audience by avoiding the many failure points of early MMORPGs, you could probably make it work reasonably well.
- In oldschool MMORPGs you'd have to form a group by chat -- eliminate that obviously clunky mechanism and replace it with a group finder.
- In oldschool MMORPGs you'd have to walk to your group -- eliminate that failing and have everyone easily teleport to their group for free.
- In all group RPGs your reward relies heavily on whether the group's overall skill can overcome the challenge at hand -- alleviate that by having part of your rewards determined by how skillfully you play.
- Offer a mix of mechanics where some of them don't scale (maybe do Left4Dead style disables where your character can be completely helpless and it doesn't matter if your teammate's progression is "dirty peasant" or "shiny paladin", as long as he can right-clicks to free your character from CC.) Since you're going to be queueing into groups rapidly, progression among players can generally be kept reasonably similar, but having mechanics which transcend/ignore progression will help ensure every teammate is always valued even if their progression is a bit weaker.
Essentially it's just Vermintide with a little more progression to it."What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
let me help with an example as to WHY I am asking this.
I like to do thing for the group but not WHILE in am in the group. Example: guild needs 10,000 woven pelts to make a catapult. Well I am off doing my solo exploring looking for the pelts. I am doing a group activity that I enjoy but I am not physically in the group.
Where as someone else might not get satisfaction on that at all. What they might want to do is to lead a group of people into battle, another might want to heal but only during battle.
So i am asking people to get concerte here, what elements specfically are pertinently positive to grouping. Is it the texting about grandma and beer? or is it the working together in a common goal each in a different supporting way or all the same way? etc..
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"Players chose the best option, by far the most polished option, so lets not give them any other options."
And then they said:
"Well, we can't actually sell these games and make enough money for the investors, so let give them away! And charge for extras so we can soak the whales."
And then they said:
"Oh noes! Players are complaining on public forums and leaving when they figure out that they can't keep up with the whales. And players are tired of the same ol' same ol'. What are we to do? How can we change this perception? Surely we can convince them that we are the only game in town."
And when no one had an answer, someone from the dark corners of the room, bathed in shadows and reeking of foul stagnation said:
"We have no other options left."
"Unleash Axehilt!"
Once upon a time....
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
can you give us a specific example
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
- Tank 1 was solid but slow, taking one group at a time.
- Tank 2 was skilled and pulled at a much faster pace, requiring DPS players to use their mobile rotation more, as well as their AOE rotations.
- Tank 3 was a clumsy fool and stumbled into 3 packs at once forcing the healer to pop heal cooldowns and DPS to pop cooldowns to go full-on AOE damage.
Specialization is mostly just that completely different playstyles are enabled in group play that can't exist solo. You can't play the whack-a-mole healing game solo and you can't just suck up all the mobs and lpay the damage mitigation game solo. And even the DPS game tends to be slightly different when you're worried about mitigating damage more."What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I wish more people would get that specific when talking about this subject.
Reason I say that is because i like grouping BUT I dont like to physically be in the group I just to solo contrubute to the group which is grouping but entirely different dynamic that requires developers to come up with entirely different solutions.
it keeps the conversation focused in my view.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I think both grinds are pointless but it's a staple these days. If they gave high experience for grinding mobs and interesting places to explore while doing I would do it over generic quest.
Calling them "pointless" is strange. It's a game. The point is fun.
Quests achieve fun to a greater degree than a grind.
We know this from experience. "Do this one thing for an hour" bores us quicker than "do these 20 different things over the course of an hour."
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Have we ever had a mob grind that is as fast or faster than questing. I think players are far more pragmatic than you give them credit for. If it was faster to grind MOBS majority would do it.
It shouldn't say that it's pointless in general. Just grinding out levels in a MMORPG as filler is pointless. I would say by evidence of players wanting to get to end game as fast as possible points to this. They will even pay to get to end game if possible.
Players are trying to advance fast because they've always tried to advance fast. It's pure fantasy to pretend that players weren't trying to level fast in every earlier RPG. Humans are motivated to better themselves, and leveling is one of the strongest methods of doing that, so players try to level fast and efficiently. They've done so since the earliest RPGs.
(Back in the day my friend tried to convince me to farm metal slimes for him like in this video (Dragon Warrior 1, 1986) and I lasted maybe 15 minutes before realizing I could be having a lot more fun doing something else, rather than constantly watch the stupid things run away after taking piddly plinks of damage each attack. Even back then it was a bad idea to provide a faster-to-level grind option that was more boring and grindy than typical more varied play.)
While the vocal minority here is very against quests, the average MMORPG player enjoys that sort of content and so it's a little weird to call it "filler" (even though it literally does fill the game with content.) If your argument was that it would be more interesting to have quests focused more on one main story arc, then I would agree with that (similar to how I prefer serialized TV shows that tell one long story arc and don't waste my time on one-off filler episodes.)
Paying to skip to endgame is mostly about the desire to avoid repetition. The first time through quests is a blast, it's only for my alts that I have any compulsion to pay to skip to endgame. (But keep in mind games are struggling to hold players' interest at all times, with the sharpest player dropoff happening long before your average player hits max level with a single character. So quests being boring on the second play-through is an acceptable price to pay for the big increase to player retention they provide on first play-through.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Has anyone ever talked about having different flavors for the same game assets? What's stopping an mmorpg developer from pleasing a variety of playstyles and making the most out of those expensive assets.
Different servers.. Different games.. Same, lore,art, etc.
What's stopping this?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The reason why I call it filler because it generally is literally mindless filler. Its not true content. Its just generic task laid in my path to slow my leveling. Not all content is created equally. If I was given the choice to grind 50 mobs in place or kill 20 mobs, run to bob to deliver his shit, pick up 5 mushrooms and whatever dumb task these games give you... I would grind if the combat is engaging. Good combat > errand boy "hero." If given the choice of horizontal progression with anywhere anytime I choose optional quest/task, class quest and lore quest I would go that route over both.
(Also it wouldn't quite be the same lore, since without quests you'd miss out on like 90% of the portrayal of lore in a game.)
There just isn't enough perceived worth for the effort involved. If all the people asking for grind-based gaming put their money where their mouth was and they weren't a minority, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because those games would be thriving! But there just aren't any examples where players are sticking around and playing overly repetitive games for a very long period of time. All evidence and logic points to players preferring games which are varied and dynamic.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Again, they aren't "just a mindless task". They represent variety. They avoid repetition.
When's the last time you heard a player use the word "repetitive" in a positive light?
Which of these activities is more mindless?
A. Grinding
- Figure out to kill this mob type.
- Now just keep doing that.
B. Questing- Get all the quests in the hub.
- Figure out which one is closest.
- Travel to that location.
- Figure out what you need to do (the activity will vary.)
- Figure out how to kill the mobs in your way (the mobs will vary.)
- Figure out where to go next (the next quest might be near.) (Repeat the travel > activity > mobs steps for each new quest)
- When done with enough quests, navigate back to town and pick your reward.
Questing doesn't require a lot of thinking in total, but if you're going to call questing "mindless" when it in fact requires many easy little bits of thinking, then what are you going to call grinding which requires substantially less thinking?"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
- Spawn in world
- Figure out where to go first
- Figure out what you can kill
- Find a safe spot where you won't die a lot
- Decide if you want to share spot with others who come along
- Decide if you want to move on and try killing different mobs.
- Decide if you want to go explore and see what's over the next hill (maybe a dungeon or desert waste land)
- When full take loot and sell it to the vendor.
- Possible turn in items for repeat quests (faction/exp) if you can find a quest giver
- Maybe head out and try going to a different area
B. Questing