Designers should be able to program the A.I. to respond appropriately to the size of the group.
This could also be used to help "scale" the dungeon for various party sizes. A solo expedition would be like a Die Hard movie; no self-respecting MOB would call his whole army to help him against a single intruder - so they would just come a few at a time. But if a raid swarms the place, pretty much every MOB in the dungeon will rally to its defense. Ergo, a soloer should be able to get the exact same loot as a six-man group, but it takes him six times as long to do it.
(sorry for the cross-posting. I originally put this in a thread about instancing, but i think it would apply the same here.)
Designers should be able to program the A.I. to respond appropriately to the size of the group. This could also be used to help "scale" the dungeon for various party sizes. A solo expedition would be like a Die Hard movie; no self-respecting MOB would call his whole army to help him against a single intruder - so they would just come a few at a time. But if a raid swarms the place, pretty much every MOB in the dungeon will rally to its defense. Ergo, a soloer should be able to get the exact same loot as a six-man group, but it takes him six times as long to do it. (sorry for the cross-posting. I originally put this in a thread about instancing, but i think it would apply the same here.)
Designers should be able to program the A.I. to respond appropriately to the size of the group. This could also be used to help "scale" the dungeon for various party sizes. A solo expedition would be like a Die Hard movie; no self-respecting MOB would call his whole army to help him against a single intruder - so they would just come a few at a time. But if a raid swarms the place, pretty much every MOB in the dungeon will rally to its defense. Ergo, a soloer should be able to get the exact same loot as a six-man group, but it takes him six times as long to do it. (sorry for the cross-posting. I originally put this in a thread about instancing, but i think it would apply the same here.)
yeah, very good...also..size the mobs to the gamers..the more gamers the more mobs..so if you go in with 3 people..a certain amount of mobs are there..but when you go in with 8 people...you will be pleasantly surprised to see almost 3 times the mobs
WOW is the most popular MMO. 1-79 is casual and solo, 80 is mostly group/raid based and takes a bit of time. A very common complaint, leveling to 80 sucks. Blizzard continues to nerf it's xp curve to accomodate those complainers. So why are casual/solo players so eager to reach endgame if it just leads to a game they dont have the commitment for?
first - I do not play Wow, secondly i am never in a rush to the endgame. Solo play takes patience. They didm't nerf the game for solo players they nerfed it for impatient groupers.
Designers should be able to program the A.I. to respond appropriately to the size of the group. This could also be used to help "scale" the dungeon for various party sizes. A solo expedition would be like a Die Hard movie; no self-respecting MOB would call his whole army to help him against a single intruder - so they would just come a few at a time. But if a raid swarms the place, pretty much every MOB in the dungeon will rally to its defense. Ergo, a soloer should be able to get the exact same loot as a six-man group, but it takes him six times as long to do it. (sorry for the cross-posting. I originally put this in a thread about instancing, but i think it would apply the same here.)
yeah, very good...also..size the mobs to the gamers..the more gamers the more mobs..so if you go in with 3 people..a certain amount of mobs are there..but when you go in with 8 people...you will be pleasantly surprised to see almost 3 times the mobs
City of Heroes already does this. It defeats the point of grouping, IMO, which is to overcome a set obstacle.
Why group? Just go oin solo so it doesn't scale. What have you done if you go in as a group and beat a bunch of mobs? Nothing, anyoen could have done it solo.
It's like, how far can you run? We'll just call that a marathon, even if it's just from your bedroom to the refrigerator. You know. It scales.
City of Heroes already does this. It defeats the point of grouping, IMO, which is to overcome a set obstacle. Why group? Just go oin solo so it doesn't scale. What have you done if you go in as a group and beat a bunch of mobs? Nothing, anyoen could have done it solo. It's like, how far can you run? We'll just call that a marathon, even if it's just from your bedroom to the refrigerator. You know. It scales.
Neverwinter nights did the same thing (as I wrote earleir) but there you got a lot cooler loot if there was more players.
Still, this works for some of the content but some really needs to be groups only.If you can solo 100% of the game I don't see any need for the game to be online at all, you can as well play a single player game instead.
City of Heroes already does this. It defeats the point of grouping, IMO, which is to overcome a set obstacle. Why group? Just go oin solo so it doesn't scale. What have you done if you go in as a group and beat a bunch of mobs? Nothing, anyoen could have done it solo. It's like, how far can you run? We'll just call that a marathon, even if it's just from your bedroom to the refrigerator. You know. It scales.
Neverwinter nights did the same thing (as I wrote earleir) but there you got a lot cooler loot if there was more players.
Still, this works for some of the content but some really needs to be groups only.If you can solo 100% of the game I don't see any need for the game to be online at all, you can as well play a single player game instead.
IMO, it's not even about group vs solo play. I simply like set, fixed obstacles that you can overcome with character progression, and a scaling system takes all the fun out of that.
Think about it. I fight a chicken. Well it scales, and if I'm skill level 100, it's a really tough chicken. I fight a Dragon. Well, it scales and if I'm skill level 1, it's a really weak Dragon.
That sucks.
I want the chicken to be a chicken, and the Dragon to be a Dragon. Of if you like Sci Fi, I want a Storm Trooper to be a Storm Trooper, and Darth Vader to be Darth Vader.
When I'm powerful enough to defeat Darth Vader, I'm powerful enough, or when I ahve a good enough group. Otherwise, who cares?
Let's just fight chickens all day, they are the same as Darth Vader or a Dragon. You know. They scale.
So what you are saying is that grouping isn't fun unless the rewards are better than solo?
If you are a min/maxer you will take the path of least resistance but true group player joins up because playing as a team is more fun. In some games group play is not fun so yes i would only group to obtain better rewards but if you make good group dynamics then people will choose that option for the fun.
Its funny how natural it comes to people. We have been so well trained. Group play = better rewards. Its stupid but its stuck in the genre. We really need to bring everyone up to speed:
1 - solo does not = easy mode
2 - solo play does not = anti-social
The real problem with building content for solo play is the class/spec balance issue. If you have healng classes how do you balance for them solo? If you gear encounters for high dps are tanks and healers screwed? If its geared for tanks does dps just walk through? This is the real reason group play dominates end games. Its because you can only design challenging content by assuming min/maxers with full buffs and good class/spec distribution. If you don't then the content ends up trivial for anyone able to read a walk through.
The alternative seems to be to make all classes the same shade of gray. This way everyone can dps and heal and tank and content can easily be scaled because you can predict solo/group abilities.
There is no easy answer. If there was someone would have made a game with it already
I got out of everquest when it became impossible to find groups and it was impossible to continue without grouping. The early levels, over course, you could solo easily. The higher levels you only needed one or two people. Then it became impossible without a full group. It seems like forced social interaction. Why can't they make it so that the bad guys recognize a group level and adjusts accordingly so that a solo player would have to work hard to be successful, but so would a group against that same boss? Surely it can't be that hard.
" It seems like forced social interaction." Why do people play Massively Multiplayer Online games to play solo? I don't get it? Why don't you play a Single Player game if you don't want to interact with other people ever?
So what you are saying is that grouping isn't fun unless the rewards are better than solo? If you are a min/maxer you will take the path of least resistance but true group player joins up because playing as a team is more fun. In some games group play is not fun so yes i would only group to obtain better rewards but if you make good group dynamics then people will choose that option for the fun. Its funny how natural it comes to people. We have been so well trained. Group play = better rewards. Its stupid but its stuck in the genre. We really need to bring everyone up to speed: 1 - solo does not = easy mode 2 - solo play does not = anti-social The real problem with building content for solo play is the class/spec balance issue. If you have healng classes how do you balance for them solo? If you gear encounters for high dps are tanks and healers screwed? If its geared for tanks does dps just walk through? This is the real reason group play dominates end games. Its because you can only design challenging content by assuming min/maxers with full buffs and good class/spec distribution. If you don't then the content ends up trivial for anyone able to read a walk through. The alternative seems to be to make all classes the same shade of gray. This way everyone can dps and heal and tank and content can easily be scaled because you can predict solo/group abilities. There is no easy answer. If there was someone would have made a game with it already
Ok, imagine this scenario.
You play Football.
It's the Super Bowl. The winner gets rewarded with money, a Super Bowl ring, etc.
Now, you can score points by playing in a team.
OR< we've now changed the rules so you can just get on the field all by yoru self, and run down the field and score touch downs.
You're still going to get in a team, because it's more fun right?
And fans will still come to watch you run down the field all by yourself, because it's the exact same game right?
If that's so much "fun" why don't we change the super bowl to a single player game?
It's because team games really suck and they only play in teams because they get rewarded right?
Taking away the rewards makes grouping pointless.
Just like giving the rewards to someone running down the field all by themselves to score touch downs, would make playing football in a team pointless.
How could you ever score as many touch downs as a team, as the guy that has the field all by himself to play solo? You could not.
This means the RULES of the game ahve changed, and it is no longer a TEAM based game.
That's what makes it fun, that it is a TEAM based game.
Take away the rewards, and you take away the RULES that make it a TEAM based game.
Ihmotepp, maybe my reading comprehension is off, but it does seem as if you appear to be saying that because you enjoy something, that is the way it should be and that no one: not gamers, not developers, not anyone at all, should care about any other thoughts or opinions. So, I will ask, for clarification: is that what you are saying? That because you enjoy a playstyle or because you believe that a game (or games) should be a certain way, then your opinion is the only one that is valid?
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
So what you are saying is that grouping isn't fun unless the rewards are better than solo? If you are a min/maxer you will take the path of least resistance but true group player joins up because playing as a team is more fun. In some games group play is not fun so yes i would only group to obtain better rewards but if you make good group dynamics then people will choose that option for the fun. Its funny how natural it comes to people. We have been so well trained. Group play = better rewards. Its stupid but its stuck in the genre. We really need to bring everyone up to speed: 1 - solo does not = easy mode 2 - solo play does not = anti-social The real problem with building content for solo play is the class/spec balance issue. If you have healng classes how do you balance for them solo? If you gear encounters for high dps are tanks and healers screwed? If its geared for tanks does dps just walk through? This is the real reason group play dominates end games. Its because you can only design challenging content by assuming min/maxers with full buffs and good class/spec distribution. If you don't then the content ends up trivial for anyone able to read a walk through. The alternative seems to be to make all classes the same shade of gray. This way everyone can dps and heal and tank and content can easily be scaled because you can predict solo/group abilities. There is no easy answer. If there was someone would have made a game with it already
Ok, imagine this scenario.
You play Football.
It's the Super Bowl. The winner gets rewarded with money, a Super Bowl ring, etc.
Now, you can score points by playing in a team.
OR< we've now changed the rules so you can just get on the field all by yoru self, and run down the field and score touch downs.
You're still going to get in a team, because it's more fun right?
And fans will still come to watch you run down the field all by yourself, because it's the exact same game right?
If that's so much "fun" why don't we change the super bowl to a single player game?
It's because team games really suck and they only play in teams because they get rewarded right?
Taking away the rewards makes grouping pointless.
Just like giving the rewards to someone running down the field all by themselves to score touch downs, would make playing football in a team pointless.
How could you ever score as many touch downs as a team, as the guy that has the field all by himself to play solo? You could not.
This means the RULES of the game ahve changed, and it is no longer a TEAM based game.
That's what makes it fun, that it is a TEAM based game.
Take away the rewards, and you take away the RULES that make it a TEAM based game.
Lets use a better sports analogy.
How about the Olympics
I train my ass off and become the best damn Javelin thrower in the world. What do I get ,a gold medal.
I train my ass off with a relay team and we win what, a gold medal.
Why didn't I just throw javelins?
You see you make the mistake of looking at the game and not the reward. The Super Bowl can only be won by playing the team game of footbal but gold medals and world titles can be earned indivdually as well. The question is are you ready to put in the effort to reach the reward? The question isn't are you ready to team up cause that is the only way to get the reward. I don't need to change the rules to anyones game. I only need to make sure everyone can work for the equivalent (not the same) rewards.
Lets look at ths MMO style:
Player 1 - Solo's his ass off and achieves Uber hat of solo mastery
Player 2 - Gets his buddies together and get Uber hat of grouping greatness
Player 3 - Slaughters player 1 & 2 to obtain Uber hat of PVP pwner
Player 4 - Pays $50 and gets Uber hat of more money than brains
If the Uber hat has the same game play impact , took similar effort (except the purchased one) , but look different then all is fair.
Each player can proudly present his success for all to see sitting upon his head. Even better would be a player who could obtain all the uber hats! No player has had there game experience diminshed by being undergeared due to their playstyle.
The ONLY thing that would prevent group players from geting groups in this scenario would be if the game system made it far harder to get and keep a group going. So don't blame the rewards. If people don't group its because it is more effort than its worth not because soloing is easier.
Now NONE of this applies if the only game in town is grouping or solo but no new MMO is going to reduce its target market by excluding one of those subsets. (read this a football being the only option)
So what you are saying is that grouping isn't fun unless the rewards are better than solo? If you are a min/maxer you will take the path of least resistance but true group player joins up because playing as a team is more fun. In some games group play is not fun so yes i would only group to obtain better rewards but if you make good group dynamics then people will choose that option for the fun. Its funny how natural it comes to people. We have been so well trained. Group play = better rewards. Its stupid but its stuck in the genre. We really need to bring everyone up to speed: 1 - solo does not = easy mode 2 - solo play does not = anti-social The real problem with building content for solo play is the class/spec balance issue. If you have healng classes how do you balance for them solo? If you gear encounters for high dps are tanks and healers screwed? If its geared for tanks does dps just walk through? This is the real reason group play dominates end games. Its because you can only design challenging content by assuming min/maxers with full buffs and good class/spec distribution. If you don't then the content ends up trivial for anyone able to read a walk through. The alternative seems to be to make all classes the same shade of gray. This way everyone can dps and heal and tank and content can easily be scaled because you can predict solo/group abilities. There is no easy answer. If there was someone would have made a game with it already
Ok, imagine this scenario.
You play Football.
It's the Super Bowl. The winner gets rewarded with money, a Super Bowl ring, etc.
Now, you can score points by playing in a team.
OR< we've now changed the rules so you can just get on the field all by yoru self, and run down the field and score touch downs.
You're still going to get in a team, because it's more fun right?
And fans will still come to watch you run down the field all by yourself, because it's the exact same game right?
If that's so much "fun" why don't we change the super bowl to a single player game?
It's because team games really suck and they only play in teams because they get rewarded right?
Taking away the rewards makes grouping pointless.
Just like giving the rewards to someone running down the field all by themselves to score touch downs, would make playing football in a team pointless.
How could you ever score as many touch downs as a team, as the guy that has the field all by himself to play solo? You could not.
This means the RULES of the game ahve changed, and it is no longer a TEAM based game.
That's what makes it fun, that it is a TEAM based game.
Take away the rewards, and you take away the RULES that make it a TEAM based game.
Lets use a better sports analogy.
How about the Olympics
I train my ass off and become the best damn Javelin thrower in the world. What do I get ,a gold medal.
I train my ass off with a relay team and we win what, a gold medal.
Why didn't I just throw javelins?
You see you make the mistake of looking at the game and not the reward. The Super Bowl can only be won by playing the team game of footbal but gold medals and world titles can be earned indivdually as well. The question is are you ready to put in the effort to reach the reward? The question isn't are you ready to team up cause that is the only way to get the reward. I don't need to change the rules to anyones game. I only need to make sure everyone can work for the equivalent (not the same) rewards.
Lets look at ths MMO style:
Player 1 - Solo's his ass off and achieves Uber hat of solo mastery
Player 2 - Gets his buddies together and get Uber hat of grouping greatness
Player 3 - Slaughters player 1 & 2 to obtain Uber hat of PVP pwner
Player 4 - Pays $50 and gets Uber hat of more money than brains
If the Uber hat has the same game play impact , took similar effort (except the purchased one) , but look different then all is fair.
Each player can proudly present his success for all to see sitting upon his head. Even better would be a player who could obtain all the uber hats! No player has had there game experience diminshed by being undergeared due to their playstyle.
The ONLY thing that would prevent group players from geting groups in this scenario would be if the game system made it far harder to get and keep a group going. So don't blame the rewards. If people don't group its because it is more effort than its worth not because soloing is easier.
Now NONE of this applies if the only game in town is grouping or solo but no new MMO is going to reduce its target market by excluding one of those subsets. (read this a football being the only option)
But if we're on the same server, the "gold medal" is the same.
The javelin thrower and the football player get DIFFERNT gold medals in the olympics. YHou cannot get the gold medal for Footbal by throwing the javelin in the Olympics.
But if we're on the same server, we get the SAME gold pieces, the SAME Xp, the SAME loot.
For your analogy to be correct, the Javelin Thrower would get the medal for Football.
If I could pay 50 bucks for it, why would I grind for it? that would be pointless.
If I could solo for it, why would I group for it? That would be pointless?
'If i can throw the Javelin and get the Football medal, why would I practice in a football team? That would be pointless.
So if the effort is the same to get the same reward you would choose solo play over anything else? I guess that makes you a solo player!! Actually I think it makes you a min/maxer since you would prefer to take the percieved easier path than the fun one to improve your toon.
Right now you are assuming that the extra effort of forming a group will not be rewarded somehow. The important point is equal effort for equal rewards. If it was harder to do as a group then the reward is greater.The point is at the end of it all the effort for the top items is the same and their in game effect is also the same. Each reward whether for solo, pvp, group, crafting are the same based upon the effort put in.
I thought I was pretty clear on that. The rewards are of equal value but are different.
If they are different they are not of equal value.
How do you come to this exactly equal value?
The in game impact of the items are the same. Example:
1 - Uber hat of solo mastery = +4AC = Plain old fishng hat graphic
2 - Uber hat of grouping greatness = +4AC = Wizard hat with stars flowing around it
3 - Uber hat of PVP pwner = +4AC = Crown with lightning pulsing between tips
4 - Uber hat of more money than brains = +4AC = Big pink chefs hat
The game effects are all the same (+4AC) but graphically they are different items. Its obvious who is good at solo, pvp, grouping and who has money to burn. Now when you need to group or do some new content game wise it won't matter how you got your loot so no one gets excluded.
I'm sure someone has mentioned this, what about the mercenary systems.
Now, imagine if you have a game with nothing but group-based content. Everyone can either group up, or you can hire mercenaries to work for you. If you and a friend are playing a game and need a healer but can't find one, you can hire a healer mercenary. Or if you need a tank, you can hire a tank mercenary.
If done right, I think that could be a promising feature. Even have the ability to customize your mercenaries. It will be a group-based game that encourages grouping, but if you can't find other players to join you, you have the option to hire npcs to fill the spots.
To encourage group-based play, make a system where each additional Player in the group adds an increase to XP gain, or loot gain. Like +5% XP per Player. With a full group of real-life Players, there will be an additional bonus to rewards, like an increased chance of receiving rare loot.
"Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get very little wisdom from success, you know." William Saroyan
I thought I was pretty clear on that. The rewards are of equal value but are different.
If they are different they are not of equal value.
How do you come to this exactly equal value?
The in game impact of the items are the same. Example:
1 - Uber hat of solo mastery = +4AC = Plain old fishng hat graphic
2 - Uber hat of grouping greatness = +4AC = Wizard hat with stars flowing around it
3 - Uber hat of PVP pwner = +4AC = Crown with lightning pulsing between tips
4 - Uber hat of more money than brains = +4AC = Big pink chefs hat
The game effects are all the same (+4AC) but graphically they are different items. Its obvious who is good at solo, pvp, grouping and who has money to burn. Now when you need to group or do some new content game wise it won't matter how you got your loot so no one gets excluded.
Solo doesn't eqaul grouping, Grouping doesn't equal paying real life money, real life money doesn't equal PvP.
This isn't equal at all, by any measure, not even close.
I'm sure someone has mentioned this, what about the mercenary systems.
Now, imagine if you have a game with nothing but group-based content. Everyone can either group up, or you can hire mercenaries to work for you. If you and a friend are playing a game and need a healer but can't find one, you can hire a healer mercenary. Or if you need a tank, you can hire a tank mercenary.
If done right, I think that could be a promising feature. Even have the ability to customize your mercenaries. It will be a group-based game that encourages grouping, but if you can't find other players to join you, you have the option to hire npcs to fill the spots. To encourage group-based play, make a system where each additional Player in the group adds an increase to XP gain, or loot gain. Like +5% XP per Player. With a full group of real-life Players, there will be an additional bonus to rewards, like an increased chance of receiving rare loot.
That's just a solo game, with an NPC graphic.
What if you can heal yourself AND tank?
How is it any different whether the player has both abilities, or the player has an NPC standing next to him so he has both abilities?
The only difference is the picture of the NPC, which seems pointless. It just takes up bandwidth for no real reason.
You can have 5 players, and all 5 players can tank, nuke, and heal.
Or you can have 5 players with 10 NPC's and all 5 players can tank, nuke, heal, but you get lag because there's more models in the game. That's all you're doing, adding models to the game.
I'm sure someone has mentioned this, what about the mercenary systems.
Now, imagine if you have a game with nothing but group-based content. Everyone can either group up, or you can hire mercenaries to work for you. If you and a friend are playing a game and need a healer but can't find one, you can hire a healer mercenary. Or if you need a tank, you can hire a tank mercenary.
If done right, I think that could be a promising feature. Even have the ability to customize your mercenaries. It will be a group-based game that encourages grouping, but if you can't find other players to join you, you have the option to hire npcs to fill the spots. To encourage group-based play, make a system where each additional Player in the group adds an increase to XP gain, or loot gain. Like +5% XP per Player. With a full group of real-life Players, there will be an additional bonus to rewards, like an increased chance of receiving rare loot.
That's just a solo game, with an NPC graphic.
What if you can heal yourself AND tank?
How is it any different whether the player has both abilities, or the player has an NPC standing next to him so he has both abilities?
The only difference is the picture of the NPC, which seems pointless. It just takes up bandwidth for no real reason.
You can have 5 players, and all 5 players can tank, nuke, and heal.
Or you can have 5 players with 10 NPC's and all 5 players can tank, nuke, heal, but you get lag because there's more models in the game. That's all you're doing, adding models to the game.
Wait wait wait... I guess I should have made this more clear.
The NPCs aren't pets. They are NPC allies you have access to if your group is lacking players. There would be a group limit, like six players per group. If you only have one player in the group, then you can hire 5 NPC allies. If you have 6 players in the group, then you can't hire any mercenaries. So on and so forth
"Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get very little wisdom from success, you know." William Saroyan
Ihmotepp, maybe my reading comprehension is off, but it does seem as if you appear to be saying that because you enjoy something, that is the way it should be and that no one: not gamers, not developers, not anyone at all, should care about any other thoughts or opinions. So, I will ask, for clarification: is that what you are saying? That because you enjoy a playstyle or because you believe that a game (or games) should be a certain way, then your opinion is the only one that is valid?
Or maybe, just maybe, there is a REASON that some people feel the desperate need for a world that forces others to associate with them.
Ihmotepp, maybe my reading comprehension is off, but it does seem as if you appear to be saying that because you enjoy something, that is the way it should be and that no one: not gamers, not developers, not anyone at all, should care about any other thoughts or opinions. So, I will ask, for clarification: is that what you are saying? That because you enjoy a playstyle or because you believe that a game (or games) should be a certain way, then your opinion is the only one that is valid?
Yet almost every soloer in this thread thinks the exact same way and feels that there should not be any group specific activities whatsoever. Only their playstyle is acceptable and they crusade against any game that caters to a different crowd to impose their will on the game.
That is elitist BS. What rewards you get should be based on the effort you put into the game. The problem is that the current crop of MMOs puts a ridiculously high weight ont he effort of raiders/groupers. A casual/soloer can put a lot of effort into the game but it is discounted so much in favour of what the groupers do that they are made to look like lazy bums. It completely skews the metric. Once you recognize that what the groupers do is nothing special, the metric shifts to a more realistic position.
I think I'll start calling them "group entitlement whores" .. people that think that just because they play in groups, they are entitled to exclusively superior rewards. I'll throw them in with "powergamer entitlement whores" .. players that think that just because they have more free time and a willingness to sacrifice their real life for a video game, they should get exclusively superior rewards.
Grouping is not as effiicient as playing solo. Playing solo, you don't have too coordinate with anyone, or wait on anyone to take a biobreak, or wait on anyone to arrive if they are on the other side of the zone, or wait on them to regain health, respawn if they die, etc., etc.
If you don't compensate for that time, grouping is pointless because all you're doing is gimping yourself by grouping. I don't know any game where "fun" compensates for gimping yourself.
Yes, it's fun to group, but not if you're going to gimp yourself.
You groupers act as if we soloers have never partied. From my experience, the amount of time or inconvenience associated with grouping doesn't even remotely justify the superior rewards or exclusive content. This is purely an arbitrary decision made by the developers, not because you have actually earned it more than soloers or even duos.
These are competing play styles and they can never be reconciled. You give equal rewards and groupers get bitchy. You give groups better rewards and soloers get bitchy. You see, the middle ground is giving all play style equal access and rewards, but you still make groupers and raider angry by doing this. Until they come out with a solo oriented game with grouping as an option, we will always be third rate.
Agreed 100%! Well said.
Make solo games for solo players. Sure, you CAN group if you want to in those games, it may even be fun sometimes, but really it's quite pointless because it's unnecessary.
Make group games for group players. Sure, you CAN solo in those games, but it's going to be a long painful road to the top for the soloer.
100% of all solutions I have seen proposed for making a game that is great for solo AND group players, is just a solo player saying groupers shouldn't be upset if solo players get the exact same content and rewards as groupers.
Hmm..... I posted the same conclusion about 100 posts back. Guess you missed it.
I've read all the posts in this thread and this still remains the most viable conclusion. You cannot make a single game that caters to both play styles and keeps both sides happy.
Trouble is, Developers want the broadest base possible so they are really reluctant to code so one sided, especially in favor of the group lovers because they are a much smaller niche in the market. (Though FFXI's 500K+ is certainly nothing to sneeze at)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
Designers should be able to program the A.I. to respond appropriately to the size of the group.
This could also be used to help "scale" the dungeon for various party sizes. A solo expedition would be like a Die Hard movie; no self-respecting MOB would call his whole army to help him against a single intruder - so they would just come a few at a time. But if a raid swarms the place, pretty much every MOB in the dungeon will rally to its defense. Ergo, a soloer should be able to get the exact same loot as a six-man group, but it takes him six times as long to do it.
(sorry for the cross-posting. I originally put this in a thread about instancing, but i think it would apply the same here.)
good post, crossed or not.
yeah, very good...also..size the mobs to the gamers..the more gamers the more mobs..so if you go in with 3 people..a certain amount of mobs are there..but when you go in with 8 people...you will be pleasantly surprised to see almost 3 times the mobs
WOW is the most popular MMO.
1-79 is casual and solo, 80 is mostly group/raid based and takes a bit of time.
A very common complaint, leveling to 80 sucks. Blizzard continues to nerf it's xp curve to accomodate those complainers.
So why are casual/solo players so eager to reach endgame if it just leads to a game they dont have the commitment for?
Of course it doesn't work that way. The only people worried about "winning" an MMORPG are, by definition, the power-levelers.
first - I do not play Wow, secondly i am never in a rush to the endgame. Solo play takes patience. They didm't nerf the game for solo players they nerfed it for impatient groupers.
yeah, very good...also..size the mobs to the gamers..the more gamers the more mobs..so if you go in with 3 people..a certain amount of mobs are there..but when you go in with 8 people...you will be pleasantly surprised to see almost 3 times the mobs
City of Heroes already does this. It defeats the point of grouping, IMO, which is to overcome a set obstacle.
Why group? Just go oin solo so it doesn't scale. What have you done if you go in as a group and beat a bunch of mobs? Nothing, anyoen could have done it solo.
It's like, how far can you run? We'll just call that a marathon, even if it's just from your bedroom to the refrigerator. You know. It scales.
Neverwinter nights did the same thing (as I wrote earleir) but there you got a lot cooler loot if there was more players.
Still, this works for some of the content but some really needs to be groups only.If you can solo 100% of the game I don't see any need for the game to be online at all, you can as well play a single player game instead.
Neverwinter nights did the same thing (as I wrote earleir) but there you got a lot cooler loot if there was more players.
Still, this works for some of the content but some really needs to be groups only.If you can solo 100% of the game I don't see any need for the game to be online at all, you can as well play a single player game instead.
IMO, it's not even about group vs solo play. I simply like set, fixed obstacles that you can overcome with character progression, and a scaling system takes all the fun out of that.
Think about it. I fight a chicken. Well it scales, and if I'm skill level 100, it's a really tough chicken. I fight a Dragon. Well, it scales and if I'm skill level 1, it's a really weak Dragon.
That sucks.
I want the chicken to be a chicken, and the Dragon to be a Dragon. Of if you like Sci Fi, I want a Storm Trooper to be a Storm Trooper, and Darth Vader to be Darth Vader.
When I'm powerful enough to defeat Darth Vader, I'm powerful enough, or when I ahve a good enough group. Otherwise, who cares?
Let's just fight chickens all day, they are the same as Darth Vader or a Dragon. You know. They scale.
So what you are saying is that grouping isn't fun unless the rewards are better than solo?
If you are a min/maxer you will take the path of least resistance but true group player joins up because playing as a team is more fun. In some games group play is not fun so yes i would only group to obtain better rewards but if you make good group dynamics then people will choose that option for the fun.
Its funny how natural it comes to people. We have been so well trained. Group play = better rewards. Its stupid but its stuck in the genre. We really need to bring everyone up to speed:
1 - solo does not = easy mode
2 - solo play does not = anti-social
The real problem with building content for solo play is the class/spec balance issue. If you have healng classes how do you balance for them solo? If you gear encounters for high dps are tanks and healers screwed? If its geared for tanks does dps just walk through? This is the real reason group play dominates end games. Its because you can only design challenging content by assuming min/maxers with full buffs and good class/spec distribution. If you don't then the content ends up trivial for anyone able to read a walk through.
The alternative seems to be to make all classes the same shade of gray. This way everyone can dps and heal and tank and content can easily be scaled because you can predict solo/group abilities.
There is no easy answer. If there was someone would have made a game with it already
" It seems like forced social interaction." Why do people play Massively Multiplayer Online games to play solo? I don't get it? Why don't you play a Single Player game if you don't want to interact with other people ever?
Ok, imagine this scenario.
You play Football.
It's the Super Bowl. The winner gets rewarded with money, a Super Bowl ring, etc.
Now, you can score points by playing in a team.
OR< we've now changed the rules so you can just get on the field all by yoru self, and run down the field and score touch downs.
You're still going to get in a team, because it's more fun right?
And fans will still come to watch you run down the field all by yourself, because it's the exact same game right?
If that's so much "fun" why don't we change the super bowl to a single player game?
It's because team games really suck and they only play in teams because they get rewarded right?
Taking away the rewards makes grouping pointless.
Just like giving the rewards to someone running down the field all by themselves to score touch downs, would make playing football in a team pointless.
How could you ever score as many touch downs as a team, as the guy that has the field all by himself to play solo? You could not.
This means the RULES of the game ahve changed, and it is no longer a TEAM based game.
That's what makes it fun, that it is a TEAM based game.
Take away the rewards, and you take away the RULES that make it a TEAM based game.
Ihmotepp, maybe my reading comprehension is off, but it does seem as if you appear to be saying that because you enjoy something, that is the way it should be and that no one: not gamers, not developers, not anyone at all, should care about any other thoughts or opinions. So, I will ask, for clarification: is that what you are saying? That because you enjoy a playstyle or because you believe that a game (or games) should be a certain way, then your opinion is the only one that is valid?
Firebrand Art
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
Ok, imagine this scenario.
You play Football.
It's the Super Bowl. The winner gets rewarded with money, a Super Bowl ring, etc.
Now, you can score points by playing in a team.
OR< we've now changed the rules so you can just get on the field all by yoru self, and run down the field and score touch downs.
You're still going to get in a team, because it's more fun right?
And fans will still come to watch you run down the field all by yourself, because it's the exact same game right?
If that's so much "fun" why don't we change the super bowl to a single player game?
It's because team games really suck and they only play in teams because they get rewarded right?
Taking away the rewards makes grouping pointless.
Just like giving the rewards to someone running down the field all by themselves to score touch downs, would make playing football in a team pointless.
How could you ever score as many touch downs as a team, as the guy that has the field all by himself to play solo? You could not.
This means the RULES of the game ahve changed, and it is no longer a TEAM based game.
That's what makes it fun, that it is a TEAM based game.
Take away the rewards, and you take away the RULES that make it a TEAM based game.
Lets use a better sports analogy.
How about the Olympics
I train my ass off and become the best damn Javelin thrower in the world. What do I get ,a gold medal.
I train my ass off with a relay team and we win what, a gold medal.
Why didn't I just throw javelins?
You see you make the mistake of looking at the game and not the reward. The Super Bowl can only be won by playing the team game of footbal but gold medals and world titles can be earned indivdually as well. The question is are you ready to put in the effort to reach the reward? The question isn't are you ready to team up cause that is the only way to get the reward. I don't need to change the rules to anyones game. I only need to make sure everyone can work for the equivalent (not the same) rewards.
Lets look at ths MMO style:
Player 1 - Solo's his ass off and achieves Uber hat of solo mastery
Player 2 - Gets his buddies together and get Uber hat of grouping greatness
Player 3 - Slaughters player 1 & 2 to obtain Uber hat of PVP pwner
Player 4 - Pays $50 and gets Uber hat of more money than brains
If the Uber hat has the same game play impact , took similar effort (except the purchased one) , but look different then all is fair.
Each player can proudly present his success for all to see sitting upon his head. Even better would be a player who could obtain all the uber hats! No player has had there game experience diminshed by being undergeared due to their playstyle.
The ONLY thing that would prevent group players from geting groups in this scenario would be if the game system made it far harder to get and keep a group going. So don't blame the rewards. If people don't group its because it is more effort than its worth not because soloing is easier.
Now NONE of this applies if the only game in town is grouping or solo but no new MMO is going to reduce its target market by excluding one of those subsets. (read this a football being the only option)
Ok, imagine this scenario.
You play Football.
It's the Super Bowl. The winner gets rewarded with money, a Super Bowl ring, etc.
Now, you can score points by playing in a team.
OR< we've now changed the rules so you can just get on the field all by yoru self, and run down the field and score touch downs.
You're still going to get in a team, because it's more fun right?
And fans will still come to watch you run down the field all by yourself, because it's the exact same game right?
If that's so much "fun" why don't we change the super bowl to a single player game?
It's because team games really suck and they only play in teams because they get rewarded right?
Taking away the rewards makes grouping pointless.
Just like giving the rewards to someone running down the field all by themselves to score touch downs, would make playing football in a team pointless.
How could you ever score as many touch downs as a team, as the guy that has the field all by himself to play solo? You could not.
This means the RULES of the game ahve changed, and it is no longer a TEAM based game.
That's what makes it fun, that it is a TEAM based game.
Take away the rewards, and you take away the RULES that make it a TEAM based game.
Lets use a better sports analogy.
How about the Olympics
I train my ass off and become the best damn Javelin thrower in the world. What do I get ,a gold medal.
I train my ass off with a relay team and we win what, a gold medal.
Why didn't I just throw javelins?
You see you make the mistake of looking at the game and not the reward. The Super Bowl can only be won by playing the team game of footbal but gold medals and world titles can be earned indivdually as well. The question is are you ready to put in the effort to reach the reward? The question isn't are you ready to team up cause that is the only way to get the reward. I don't need to change the rules to anyones game. I only need to make sure everyone can work for the equivalent (not the same) rewards.
Lets look at ths MMO style:
Player 1 - Solo's his ass off and achieves Uber hat of solo mastery
Player 2 - Gets his buddies together and get Uber hat of grouping greatness
Player 3 - Slaughters player 1 & 2 to obtain Uber hat of PVP pwner
Player 4 - Pays $50 and gets Uber hat of more money than brains
If the Uber hat has the same game play impact , took similar effort (except the purchased one) , but look different then all is fair.
Each player can proudly present his success for all to see sitting upon his head. Even better would be a player who could obtain all the uber hats! No player has had there game experience diminshed by being undergeared due to their playstyle.
The ONLY thing that would prevent group players from geting groups in this scenario would be if the game system made it far harder to get and keep a group going. So don't blame the rewards. If people don't group its because it is more effort than its worth not because soloing is easier.
Now NONE of this applies if the only game in town is grouping or solo but no new MMO is going to reduce its target market by excluding one of those subsets. (read this a football being the only option)
But if we're on the same server, the "gold medal" is the same.
The javelin thrower and the football player get DIFFERNT gold medals in the olympics. YHou cannot get the gold medal for Footbal by throwing the javelin in the Olympics.
But if we're on the same server, we get the SAME gold pieces, the SAME Xp, the SAME loot.
For your analogy to be correct, the Javelin Thrower would get the medal for Football.
If I could pay 50 bucks for it, why would I grind for it? that would be pointless.
If I could solo for it, why would I group for it? That would be pointless?
'If i can throw the Javelin and get the Football medal, why would I practice in a football team? That would be pointless.
I thought I was pretty clear on that.
The rewards are of equal value but are different.
So if the effort is the same to get the same reward you would choose solo play over anything else? I guess that makes you a solo player!! Actually I think it makes you a min/maxer since you would prefer to take the percieved easier path than the fun one to improve your toon.
Right now you are assuming that the extra effort of forming a group will not be rewarded somehow. The important point is equal effort for equal rewards. If it was harder to do as a group then the reward is greater.The point is at the end of it all the effort for the top items is the same and their in game effect is also the same. Each reward whether for solo, pvp, group, crafting are the same based upon the effort put in.
If they are different they are not of equal value.
How do you come to this exactly equal value?
If they are different they are not of equal value.
How do you come to this exactly equal value?
The in game impact of the items are the same. Example:
1 - Uber hat of solo mastery = +4AC = Plain old fishng hat graphic
2 - Uber hat of grouping greatness = +4AC = Wizard hat with stars flowing around it
3 - Uber hat of PVP pwner = +4AC = Crown with lightning pulsing between tips
4 - Uber hat of more money than brains = +4AC = Big pink chefs hat
The game effects are all the same (+4AC) but graphically they are different items. Its obvious who is good at solo, pvp, grouping and who has money to burn. Now when you need to group or do some new content game wise it won't matter how you got your loot so no one gets excluded.
This is a good topic, well done.
I'm sure someone has mentioned this, what about the mercenary systems.
Now, imagine if you have a game with nothing but group-based content. Everyone can either group up, or you can hire mercenaries to work for you. If you and a friend are playing a game and need a healer but can't find one, you can hire a healer mercenary. Or if you need a tank, you can hire a tank mercenary.
If done right, I think that could be a promising feature. Even have the ability to customize your mercenaries. It will be a group-based game that encourages grouping, but if you can't find other players to join you, you have the option to hire npcs to fill the spots.
To encourage group-based play, make a system where each additional Player in the group adds an increase to XP gain, or loot gain. Like +5% XP per Player. With a full group of real-life Players, there will be an additional bonus to rewards, like an increased chance of receiving rare loot.
"Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get very little wisdom from success, you know." William Saroyan
If they are different they are not of equal value.
How do you come to this exactly equal value?
The in game impact of the items are the same. Example:
1 - Uber hat of solo mastery = +4AC = Plain old fishng hat graphic
2 - Uber hat of grouping greatness = +4AC = Wizard hat with stars flowing around it
3 - Uber hat of PVP pwner = +4AC = Crown with lightning pulsing between tips
4 - Uber hat of more money than brains = +4AC = Big pink chefs hat
The game effects are all the same (+4AC) but graphically they are different items. Its obvious who is good at solo, pvp, grouping and who has money to burn. Now when you need to group or do some new content game wise it won't matter how you got your loot so no one gets excluded.
Solo doesn't eqaul grouping, Grouping doesn't equal paying real life money, real life money doesn't equal PvP.
This isn't equal at all, by any measure, not even close.
That's just a solo game, with an NPC graphic.
What if you can heal yourself AND tank?
How is it any different whether the player has both abilities, or the player has an NPC standing next to him so he has both abilities?
The only difference is the picture of the NPC, which seems pointless. It just takes up bandwidth for no real reason.
You can have 5 players, and all 5 players can tank, nuke, and heal.
Or you can have 5 players with 10 NPC's and all 5 players can tank, nuke, heal, but you get lag because there's more models in the game. That's all you're doing, adding models to the game.
That's just a solo game, with an NPC graphic.
What if you can heal yourself AND tank?
How is it any different whether the player has both abilities, or the player has an NPC standing next to him so he has both abilities?
The only difference is the picture of the NPC, which seems pointless. It just takes up bandwidth for no real reason.
You can have 5 players, and all 5 players can tank, nuke, and heal.
Or you can have 5 players with 10 NPC's and all 5 players can tank, nuke, heal, but you get lag because there's more models in the game. That's all you're doing, adding models to the game.
Wait wait wait... I guess I should have made this more clear.
The NPCs aren't pets. They are NPC allies you have access to if your group is lacking players. There would be a group limit, like six players per group. If you only have one player in the group, then you can hire 5 NPC allies. If you have 6 players in the group, then you can't hire any mercenaries. So on and so forth
"Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get very little wisdom from success, you know." William Saroyan
Or maybe, just maybe, there is a REASON that some people feel the desperate need for a world that forces others to associate with them.
Yet almost every soloer in this thread thinks the exact same way and feels that there should not be any group specific activities whatsoever. Only their playstyle is acceptable and they crusade against any game that caters to a different crowd to impose their will on the game.
I think I'll start calling them "group entitlement whores" .. people that think that just because they play in groups, they are entitled to exclusively superior rewards. I'll throw them in with "powergamer entitlement whores" .. players that think that just because they have more free time and a willingness to sacrifice their real life for a video game, they should get exclusively superior rewards.
Grouping is not as effiicient as playing solo. Playing solo, you don't have too coordinate with anyone, or wait on anyone to take a biobreak, or wait on anyone to arrive if they are on the other side of the zone, or wait on them to regain health, respawn if they die, etc., etc.
If you don't compensate for that time, grouping is pointless because all you're doing is gimping yourself by grouping. I don't know any game where "fun" compensates for gimping yourself.
Yes, it's fun to group, but not if you're going to gimp yourself.
You groupers act as if we soloers have never partied. From my experience, the amount of time or inconvenience associated with grouping doesn't even remotely justify the superior rewards or exclusive content. This is purely an arbitrary decision made by the developers, not because you have actually earned it more than soloers or even duos.
These are competing play styles and they can never be reconciled. You give equal rewards and groupers get bitchy. You give groups better rewards and soloers get bitchy. You see, the middle ground is giving all play style equal access and rewards, but you still make groupers and raider angry by doing this. Until they come out with a solo oriented game with grouping as an option, we will always be third rate.
Agreed 100%! Well said.
Make solo games for solo players. Sure, you CAN group if you want to in those games, it may even be fun sometimes, but really it's quite pointless because it's unnecessary.
Make group games for group players. Sure, you CAN solo in those games, but it's going to be a long painful road to the top for the soloer.
100% of all solutions I have seen proposed for making a game that is great for solo AND group players, is just a solo player saying groupers shouldn't be upset if solo players get the exact same content and rewards as groupers.
Hmm..... I posted the same conclusion about 100 posts back. Guess you missed it.
I've read all the posts in this thread and this still remains the most viable conclusion. You cannot make a single game that caters to both play styles and keeps both sides happy.
Trouble is, Developers want the broadest base possible so they are really reluctant to code so one sided, especially in favor of the group lovers because they are a much smaller niche in the market. (Though FFXI's 500K+ is certainly nothing to sneeze at)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon