I don't care as long as they open up class combinations to be more flexible. I always felt it was ridiculous that Sum/Blkm or vice versa was rejected by groups. It's the second biggest reason i didn't play long (UI #1)
One of the BEST reasons if not the only reason for keeping a game GROUP oriented,is to lose the asshats in gaming. If you are a total jerk,everyone will soon know you and you will not get groups and will be forced out of the game,and for most people they would say "good riddance" and have a happier community for it.If everything is solable/casual then you can be a total jerk,spam the chat with retarded spam and you won't care because you don't need anyones help in the game. I see it actually everyday,players ask for help and some jerk butts in and says things like "only a loser needs help for that quest" or "I can solo it easily,what can't you solo it",basically all sorts of jerk off comments hit the chat.Now imagine that player cannot solo and needs help,lmao good luck on asking for help.
Yep, since SE is already a king in their respective area, there is no need for them to prioritize profits over customer satisfaction. If memory serves me, they had previously stated that "Final Fantasy 11 will continue as long as it has the playerbase to support it." or something along that line, meaning that as long as the game stays in the black by even a single net dollar, it will continue on. If one needs an example of what solo-oriented play does to a MMO, they need look no farther than World of Warcraft. So yeah...I think I'd prefer SE stay true to their roots with XIV. Group-oriented play not only keeps the game unique and creates a sense of accomplishment for every level, it keeps the community above a certain level of skill, in both the combat and social parts of the game.
One of the BEST reasons if not the only reason for keeping a game GROUP oriented,is to lose the asshats in gaming. If you are a total jerk,everyone will soon know you and you will not get groups and will be forced out of the game,and for most people they would say "good riddance" and have a happier community for it.If everything is solable/casual then you can be a total jerk,spam the chat with retarded spam and you won't care because you don't need anyones help in the game. I see it actually everyday,players ask for help and some jerk butts in and says things like "only a loser needs help for that quest" or "I can solo it easily,what can't you solo it",basically all sorts of jerk off comments hit the chat.Now imagine that player cannot solo and needs help,lmao good luck on asking for help.
Yep, since SE is already a king in their respective area, there is no need for them to prioritize profits over customer satisfaction. If memory serves me, they had previously stated that "Final Fantasy 11 will continue as long as it has the playerbase to support it." or something along that line, meaning that as long as the game stays in the black by even a single net dollar, it will continue on. If one needs an example of what solo-oriented play does to a MMO, they need look no farther than World of Warcraft. So yeah...I think I'd prefer SE stay true to their roots with XIV. Group-oriented play not only keeps the game unique and creates a sense of accomplishment for every level, it keeps the community above a certain level of skill, in both the combat and social parts of the game.
Lol come to think of it ,now thats such a true statement. FF11 was my first MMO I rarely meet an AssHat, compared to other mmos i started to play after FF11. Hmm good thing to point out.
Well, they seem to be going the WoW way with XIV when it comes to soloing...
However, knowing how big part grouping had in FFXI, it'd silly to think that the devs would drop it completely in XIV, so in the best case it means that soloing will work in a way similar to XI (campaign/fields of valor while lfp) and not the way similar to WoW (solo up to 80 without lfping once because it's just so easy)
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
I don't care as long as they open up class combinations to be more flexible. I always felt it was ridiculous that Sum/Blkm or vice versa was rejected by groups. It's the second biggest reason i didn't play long (UI #1)
Well SMN needs fixed IMO because its only use in an xp pt is a ghetto whm so ill give you a pass on this, but BLM/SMN come on now. The only thing a blm would benifit from is the auto refresh, and with that you only get 1 tick. whm or rdm sub gave you alot more options.
I find it impossible to understand these people. If you didnt like your jobs role you obviously didnt like your job. I am just glad FFXI weeded these people out. I jhope and pray FFXIV weeds these people out too.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore) Now Playing: N/A Worst MMO: FFXIV Favorite MMO: FFXI
I don't care as long as they open up class combinations to be more flexible. I always felt it was ridiculous that Sum/Blkm or vice versa was rejected by groups. It's the second biggest reason i didn't play long (UI #1)
Well SMN needs fixed IMO because its only use in an xp pt is a ghetto whm so ill give you a pass on this, but BLM/SMN come on now. The only thing a blm would benifit from is the auto refresh, and with that you only get 1 tick. whm or rdm sub gave you alot more options.
I find it impossible to understand these people. If you didnt like your jobs role you obviously didnt like your job. I am just glad FFXI weeded these people out. I jhope and pray FFXIV weeds these people out too.
I had a buddy Play a SMN/WHM and he did a bang up job with it in our Xp parties. If you know your jobs and other at least know what your job can do (I never played or unlocked the SMN) I think just about any thing can work.
I don't care as long as they open up class combinations to be more flexible. I always felt it was ridiculous that Sum/Blkm or vice versa was rejected by groups. It's the second biggest reason i didn't play long (UI #1)
Well SMN needs fixed IMO because its only use in an xp pt is a ghetto whm so ill give you a pass on this, but BLM/SMN come on now. The only thing a blm would benifit from is the auto refresh, and with that you only get 1 tick. whm or rdm sub gave you alot more options.
I find it impossible to understand these people. If you didnt like your jobs role you obviously didnt like your job. I am just glad FFXI weeded these people out. I jhope and pray FFXIV weeds these people out too.
I had a buddy Play a SMN/WHM and he did a bang up job with it in our Xp parties. If you know your jobs and other at least know what your job can do (I never played or unlocked the SMN) I think just about any thing can work.
Yes SMN/WHM was the acceptable combo for a SMN. Its the combo that most benefited the group.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore) Now Playing: N/A Worst MMO: FFXIV Favorite MMO: FFXI
One of the BEST reasons if not the only reason for keeping a game GROUP oriented,is to lose the asshats in gaming. If you are a total jerk,everyone will soon know you and you will not get groups and will be forced out of the game,and for most people they would say "good riddance" and have a happier community for it.If everything is solable/casual then you can be a total jerk,spam the chat with retarded spam and you won't care because you don't need anyones help in the game. I see it actually everyday,players ask for help and some jerk butts in and says things like "only a loser needs help for that quest" or "I can solo it easily,what can't you solo it",basically all sorts of jerk off comments hit the chat.Now imagine that player cannot solo and needs help,lmao good luck on asking for help.
Ah, this has brought up an excellent point. Inside non-casual group-oriented games, you really don't want to be a jerk online, because word would get around quickly (especially on the game's forum) and you might as well delete your old character and start over again (which means in some subscription base types that you end up forking over more money). This is one reason why I really do not like casual games. Now, I'm not trying to be generic and stereotyping, but many casual games nowadays really do seem to have bad, asshat-infested communities. And if Erik Estavillo (the guy that is trying to sue Sony but has little grounds to stand on) is any example, it's that no one likes asshats in their games.
Forced grouping, in my opinion, is a complete deterent for those kinds of people. Which is one of my major reasons why I hope SE makes FF XIV very group-oriented (with a slightly improved solo to boot I suppose, but nothing too major), that way the community will stay friendly and helpful.
Forced grouping, in my opinion, is a complete deterent for those kinds of people. Which is one of my major reasons why I hope SE makes FF XIV very group-oriented (with a slightly improved solo to boot I suppose, but nothing too major), that way the community will stay friendly and helpful.
I am seriously starting to doubt that there keeping the grouping aspect. I fear it will turn into a game where you group with others when you need something.
Then don't play it, just keep playing ffxi if your gonna Q_Q about having some solo play in ff14. You know some solo play is good ever have one of those days were you just wanted to farm crap or do a random quest? Well if you don't then FFXI is the game for you
Then don't play it, just keep playing ffxi if your gonna Q_Q about having some solo play in ff14. You know some solo play is good ever have one of those days were you just wanted to farm crap or do a random quest? Well if you don't then FFXI is the game for you
Amazing! that is an awinspiring argument! Why didnt I think of that!
Yes I did have one of those days where I wanted to farm "crap" and solo some random quests. Guess what I did? I did that stuff, and yes it was in FFXI.
Why dont the all"Q_Q" for solo play go play WoW and all the "Q_Q" for group play go play FFXI? I'll tell you since you seem to have an IQ of a Turnip. There are many reason, but I am willing to bet the biggest reason is: each group has beat their respective game to death, and looking for a new game similar to the one they like. For example I have played FFXI for around 4 years. As much as I loved it I am looking for a new challenege. I am looking to upgrade not downgrade to a solo fest p.o.s of a game like WoW, aoc, war, (possibly SW:TOR). Where all it is, is a rush to max lvl all the while being lead along with a "Carrot on a stick" type of game . I am sorry but I am not that weak minded to get cought in that trap.
There is a difference in some solo play and too much of it. I dont expect a turnip to understand that if soloing is to much of an option then people only group when something is in it for them. That then changes the entire dynamic of a game.
There is a large number of people wanting a new UO, EQ, and FFXI type game. All we are getting now is buggy garbage because MMO's now are not designed for the long term play anymore. They are poorly made, with poor concepts because the type of players they attrack are ADD. It seems thats the majority, thus we get these solo fest games where people play it for a few months then hop to the next MMO playing it for a few months. Its extremly dissheartning to the true MMO fans to see a game reach its prime within 3 months then it starts its decline. IMO an MMO shouldnt even be close to its prime until its first expansion.
Edit: Another thing: I would venture a guess that most peoples veiw on grouping is based off of grouping is a solo fest game. That is a grave injustice to a group centric game. Its agony grouping in a none group centric game, and I am all for grouping. Of course if you have played a grouping game and dont like it well, nothing I can say about that then.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore) Now Playing: N/A Worst MMO: FFXIV Favorite MMO: FFXI
Forced grouping, in my opinion, is a complete deterent for those kinds of people. Which is one of my major reasons why I hope SE makes FF XIV very group-oriented (with a slightly improved solo to boot I suppose, but nothing too major), that way the community will stay friendly and helpful.
I am seriously starting to doubt that there keeping the grouping aspect. I fear it will turn into a game where you group with others when you need something.
This article almost killed it for me. If you can solo there wont be groups unless people need something from it.
The problem is this: SE hasn't created too many failures in the past, so although they do keep coming out with good games, they've never really learned the lesson of humility. SE seems to believe that a game where you could solo as successfully as group playing would be successful, yet can anyone name one game that was a major profit with this kind of ideals? Some may have been successful, but there hasn't been one powerhouse game that you could solo as good as group. And considering how much money SE seems to be putting into this game, this wouldn't be a good time for SE to learn the lesson of humility, if you get what I'm coming at.
The problem is this. When a game has semi-strong solo elements, the majority of the crowd ends up being people that like solo (or completely solo and does no grouping whatsoever). And it doesn't seem like a good group game if you're grouping soloers together, does it? SE doesn't seem to think that way, they believe that they'll attract enough gamers from both sides, when in reality the stronger solo aspects will weaken the group aspects, thus it'll be more casual soloers than hardcore group players that the FF XI fanbase is almost completely composed of. So, if everything goes like how I'm thinking the recent interviews and articles are saying, it looks like SE really isn't trying to get the FF XI fanbase to go over to FF XIV. In that case, SE better start crossing their fingers that enough casuals come to play the game.
But, then again, SE really hasn't revealed everything. Who knows? Maybe they're hyping up the idea of being able to greatly solo the game to attract soloers, when in fact the game ends up being more about group and way less about the solo. I could see this shrewd, sneaky yet effective idea being brought up back in SE headquarters.
Forced grouping, in my opinion, is a complete deterent for those kinds of people. Which is one of my major reasons why I hope SE makes FF XIV very group-oriented (with a slightly improved solo to boot I suppose, but nothing too major), that way the community will stay friendly and helpful.
I am seriously starting to doubt that there keeping the grouping aspect. I fear it will turn into a game where you group with others when you need something.
This article almost killed it for me. If you can solo there wont be groups unless people need something from it.
The problem is this: SE hasn't created too many failures in the past, so although they do keep coming out with good games, they've never really learned the lesson of humility. SE seems to believe that a game where you could solo as successfully as group playing would be successful, yet can anyone name one game that was a major profit with this kind of ideals? Some may have been successful, but there hasn't been one powerhouse game that you could solo as good as group. And considering how much money SE seems to be putting into this game, this wouldn't be a good time for SE to learn the lesson of humility, if you get what I'm coming at.
The problem is this. When a game has semi-strong solo elements, the majority of the crowd ends up being people that like solo (or completely solo and does no grouping whatsoever). And it doesn't seem like a good group game if you're grouping soloers together, does it? SE doesn't seem to think that way, they believe that they'll attract enough gamers from both sides, when in reality the stronger solo aspects will weaken the group aspects, thus it'll be more casual soloers than hardcore group players that the FF XI fanbase is almost completely composed of. So, if everything goes like how I'm thinking the recent interviews and articles are saying, it looks like SE really isn't trying to get the FF XI fanbase to go over to FF XIV. In that case, SE better start crossing their fingers that enough casuals come to play the game.
But, then again, SE really hasn't revealed everything. Who knows? Maybe they're hyping up the idea of being able to greatly solo the game to attract soloers, when in fact the game ends up being more about group and way less about the solo. I could see this shrewd, sneaky yet effective idea being brought up back in SE headquarters.
World of Warcraft
Guild Wars
Perfect World Online
Wizard101
Atlantica Online
Warhammer: Age of Reckoning
Lord of the Rings Online
Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures
Free Realms
Fusion Fall
Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
I sure do hope it doesn't end up like any of those games, although that is the sort of gameplay that solo-based games end up having. My point with the list is that most of the highest-profit games are casual, solo-based, and nearly clones of eachother; some of them have unique designs and gameplay, but they invariably bring along a playerbase of jerks, children, and/or socially inept adults. Being required to group for the highest leveling rate, as well as all the best equipment (before you have the best equipment, at which point you should be able to solo what 3 weak chars can), helps to buiold the skills required to interact with people, and also assists in weeding out those who cannot interact with other people in a civilized manner.
In short, this simple equation seems to apply to non-RPcentric MMOs.
Solo-based Gameplay= Bad community, high profit margin, large sub numbers, extremely high customer churn rate.
Group-Based gameplay= Above-Average community, decent profit margin, average subscription numbers, customers staying for years easily.
Forced grouping, in my opinion, is a complete deterent for those kinds of people. Which is one of my major reasons why I hope SE makes FF XIV very group-oriented (with a slightly improved solo to boot I suppose, but nothing too major), that way the community will stay friendly and helpful.
I am seriously starting to doubt that there keeping the grouping aspect. I fear it will turn into a game where you group with others when you need something.
This article almost killed it for me. If you can solo there wont be groups unless people need something from it.
The problem is this: SE hasn't created too many failures in the past, so although they do keep coming out with good games, they've never really learned the lesson of humility. SE seems to believe that a game where you could solo as successfully as group playing would be successful, yet can anyone name one game that was a major profit with this kind of ideals? Some may have been successful, but there hasn't been one powerhouse game that you could solo as good as group. And considering how much money SE seems to be putting into this game, this wouldn't be a good time for SE to learn the lesson of humility, if you get what I'm coming at.
The problem is this. When a game has semi-strong solo elements, the majority of the crowd ends up being people that like solo (or completely solo and does no grouping whatsoever). And it doesn't seem like a good group game if you're grouping soloers together, does it? SE doesn't seem to think that way, they believe that they'll attract enough gamers from both sides, when in reality the stronger solo aspects will weaken the group aspects, thus it'll be more casual soloers than hardcore group players that the FF XI fanbase is almost completely composed of. So, if everything goes like how I'm thinking the recent interviews and articles are saying, it looks like SE really isn't trying to get the FF XI fanbase to go over to FF XIV. In that case, SE better start crossing their fingers that enough casuals come to play the game.
But, then again, SE really hasn't revealed everything. Who knows? Maybe they're hyping up the idea of being able to greatly solo the game to attract soloers, when in fact the game ends up being more about group and way less about the solo. I could see this shrewd, sneaky yet effective idea being brought up back in SE headquarters.
World of Warcraft
Guild Wars
Perfect World Online
Wizard101
Atlantica Online
Warhammer: Age of Reckoning
Lord of the Rings Online
Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures
Free Realms
Fusion Fall
Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
I sure do hope it doesn't end up like any of those games, although that is the sort of gameplay that solo-based games end up having. My point with the list is that most of the highest-profit games are casual, solo-based, and nearly clones of eachother; some of them have unique designs and gameplay, but they invariably bring along a playerbase of jerks, children, and/or socially inept adults. Being required to group for the highest leveling rate, as well as all the best equipment (before you have the best equipment, at which point you should be able to solo what 3 weak chars can), helps to buiold the skills required to interact with people, and also assists in weeding out those who cannot interact with other people in a civilized manner.
In short, this simple equation seems to apply to non-RPcentric MMOs.
Solo-based Gameplay= Bad community, high profit margin, large sub numbers, extremely high customer churn rate.
Group-Based gameplay= Above-Average community, decent profit margin, average subscription numbers, customers staying for years easily.
Ah, now reading that highlighted part, I realized I failed to explain what I was trying to get at.
Yes, there are games with solo and group aspects that are successful in overall design. However, can anyone say they've found a true way to make a game with solo and group aspects going hand to hand that are good?
Take WOW for example. You can solo the whole thing through, but the endgame is mostly group-based (raiding for example). That is not an example of a successful infusion of solo and group aspects.
Guild Wars, well, depends on whether you like instancing or not. I tried it, and just couldn't get into the whole idea. But then again, instancing really is a whole different beast of its own. Instanced soloing and instanced grouping are both far different from their non-instanced cousins.
The rest of the games I do not know very well, so I have no comment on them.
I thank you for catching that highlighted part Cavall. What I really was trying to get there is this: has any game successfully infused solo and group aspects together to make them fluid without one destroying the other? So far, whenever I see a game with both aspects, it's either one of them is being catered to more than the other (so the one not being catered to sucks in the gameplay mechanics compared to the one being catered to, and overall not worth doing), or they are both watered down to a point where both sucks (I think there was a Star Wars mmo that tried doing this, but overall failed). I have not seen an idea implemented into a mmorpg where both solo and group play infuse successfully, one isn't better than the other, both aren't watered down, and one doesn't destroy the other. In my opinion, it's impossible to do. You can't just do them both successfully and insynch with each other, one ultimately will dominate the other.
Well, if by "without destroying the other" you mean "while still having both be a viable thing to do at endgame, with equal rewards." All the games I know of put the highest rewards into group play, or don't consider group play in their marketing plan at all. in FFXI one could solo the highest level enemies in the game in roughly 30 minutes to 1 hour, with some gods being on the 3 hour+ timetable, assuming they had the time to level a certain job combination AND were skilled. Those same mobs could be zerged down by a group in a matter of minutes. Farming at level 75 for gil-based endeavors was also relatively on par with that of groups; groups could go for much stronger enemies, but the drop rates, as well as the risk and chance of claiming the enemy was much lower..many times one could have farmed a million solo in the time it took to miss a claim on an HNM. If you want an example of FFXI's solo play, on my 75 thf/nin I used to solo manticores roughly 20x my size for synth materials, however when the NM version (basically boss version) of said manticores spawned, roughly every 1-3 hours, I would need someone to help me kill it, as my class mechanics wouldn't allow me to outheal and out-evade all the damage from the enemy, but would allow me to run around with it for as long as it took for help to arrive.
In short, the strongest enemies should require groups to kill, with the number of people in said group directly reflecting the monetary value of the items the enemy has. Solo play should reward one in a fashion reflecting the lack of rick and preparation involved, unless one is attempting to solo group-oriented content, in which case they get the same items the group would have gotten, but for their own use, as the risk should be enormous.
Also, thanks for clarifying what you meant, I assumed by "profit" you meant the amount of money a company made from the game, not the rewards one attained from each style of play.
In the end run, it's impossible to have a game that meshes group and solo aspects together successfully and with them both working insynch with each other. They either both end up sucking and being watered down, or one dominates the other in "being better."
SE thinks that meshing casual soloers and hardcore group people together is a good idea. It's not.
1. Not to be biased against casuals, but in general most games with casual aspects end up spawning asshat communities. There will be some nice hardcores (most of them being the FF XI crowd) and perhaps some nice soloers, but I will miss a community that was helpful and ruined the reputations of asshats so that they would be screwed ingame.
2. What happens when you try forcing soloers to try to group? You get a variety of things. The soloer could end up being nice and helpful and contributing to a group. On the other hand, they may be used to helping themselves and will not have a "group mentality." FF XI had a major group mentality, you had to mesh together to be successful in a group. Soloers will not always have that mentality. I could already see a situation on FF XIV in which a group ends up dying because their main "healer" was a soloer, so the soloer became too focused on keeping himself alive and killing enemies rather than watching over the group's well-being.
3. It seems to me that SE is trying to put in occasions where you end up having to group or you can't advance (not completely sure on this, I'm going to further read the interviews). So, that'll strengthen the bad instances of #2 above. I am not looking forward to grouping with soloers that played by themselves for the majority of their gaming times. Not all of them will be bad, but I like it when people know how to effectively function in a group and are skilled at doing just that.
4. Inevitably, one playstyle will end up dominating the other in being more rewarding/less time consuming/more overall better. No one has created a game in which solo and group aspects mesh together perfectly and insynch, and it's likely no one will. In this case, group aspects will more likely win over the solo aspects (because SE will try to entice the FF XI crowd over to FF XIV), so the soloers will be up in arms against that. This creates extreme tension ingame against the group people and the solo people, because why should one side get all the better "stuff" (more rewarding/less time consuming/overall better)?
why should one side get all the better "stuff" (more rewarding/less time consuming/overall better)?
Group play usually ends up being more rewarding, MORE time consuming, and overall a trade-off between time invested and item quality in traditional, non casual group MMOs.
World of Warcraft ruined the idea that one should only attain the best items in a game with time, skill, and a good group by introducing the notion of giving bad players the same rewards as good players, and just making them work longer, but not harder, for them. Failure should not be rewarded, otherwise you end up with a game full of people who feel they "deserve" the best in the game, but don't feel like working as hard for them as the group of 30 people who just killed a 10 story tall dragon. Even worse, they eventually begin to complain they don't get the chance to kill the dragon, and then you have a situation in which content gets dumbed down to the level of the bad players, with optional ways to increase the difficulty for the better players. While a game that can be mastered by a 5 year old is very profitable in the chinese and North American markets, it is not the type of game that SE has a treadition, and reputation, of making.
In short, to keep the quality of a game high, one must sacrifice profits by making the game reward group play much more than solo play. If SE were to make this game require as little skill as many MMOs that reward solo and terrible playstyles, not only would the game be a huge letdown to the longtime fans of their company, they would risk alienating them from all their future games. For a company the size of SE, that is not a good financial decision.
Forced grouping, in my opinion, is a complete deterent for those kinds of people. Which is one of my major reasons why I hope SE makes FF XIV very group-oriented (with a slightly improved solo to boot I suppose, but nothing too major), that way the community will stay friendly and helpful.
I am seriously starting to doubt that there keeping the grouping aspect. I fear it will turn into a game where you group with others when you need something.
As the MMORPG's world stands right now, nothing is perfect nor will it ever be. The bottom line is that these are not games meant for just anyone & everyone to play. It's almost an entirely different market of consumers who only play games for almost entirely different reasons. Why are you a solo / party player? Wouldn't being introduced to another type of gameplay change your mind if you had a good time? It works both ways, so Square-Enix appeals to everyone, but if they catered to ever whim of every whiner of every forum the game would never be released. Do you really think that most, if not ALL these ideas and questions and concerns haven't already been presented and considered by the actual developers? The bad ideas get rejected, and most of the "solo-casual" gripes are bad ideas. You can't please everyone. So while it's not perfect, Final Fantasy XI is as close as it gets. There's casual, and then there's solo, but most of the whining is asking for "solo-casual" and that's just too damn far. That's the formula for MMORPG failure...
Who's on the Atomos server? Probably nobody here. For those of you who didn't already know, it's a test server. To assume that all their testing applies only to Final Fantasy XI is naive. There have been a multitude of changes to XI over the last year alone, most of which have been for the better, adding more casual options for newbies and elitists alike. From the guard that greets you at the gate & tells you how to complete pre-game objectives to the Fields of Valor individual & elite trianing regimes, casual gamers have found that not only is it possible to get things done, but in some cases they've actually become more productive and resourceful. Being Square-Enix's first and successful attempt at an MMORPG they can only take what they've learned and tweak it to employ within its successor to make something better.Not the same, but better. Who it's better for is Square-Enix, first and foremost. They want a larger consumer base. But it's been mentioned before that perhaps the improvements made in XI are exactly the kind of 'casual friendly' aspect that they'll be adding to XIV, only with more relevance to story. They will just take new form, a series of side-quests called "The Second Story" or something to that effect. More content for casual players to give them that sense of accomplishment so they're not bored, so they don't feel like they've wasted time - but only for those who choose to complete them. Because while you can do plenty on your own in XI, if you'd rather sit around LFP and begging 75's to help you do soloable tasks, that's your perogative.
Don't worry about the 'casual-friendly' aspects of XIV. It does not translate into 'soloability'. Players will cheat, use mods, hacks, and exploits as they always have. If you wanna play solo, find an exploit. Plenty of people use NIN and DNC and PUP and other jobs to play 100% solo. But you have to master the game mechanics, not jump in blind and expect to be at lv.75 in a week. If you really want that then there's nothing more to say 'cause you'll be gone soon enough after realizing it's neither practical nor possible for a successful MMORPG. It's just not that kind of game. And you're just not their kind of customer.
As the MMORPG's world stands right now, nothing is perfect nor will it ever be. The bottom line is that these are not games meant for just anyone & everyone to play. It's almost an entirely different market of consumers who only play games for almost entirely different reasons. Why are you a solo / party player? Wouldn't being introduced to another type of gameplay change your mind if you had a good time? It works both ways, so Square-Enix appeals to everyone, but if they catered to ever whim of every whiner of every forum the game would never be released. Do you really think that most, if not ALL these ideas and questions and concerns haven't already been presented and considered by the actual developers? The bad ideas get rejected, and most of the "solo-casual" gripes are bad ideas. You can't please everyone. So while it's not perfect, Final Fantasy XI is as close as it gets. There's casual, and then there's solo, but most of the whining is asking for "solo-casual" and that's just too damn far. That's the formula for MMORPG failure...
Agreed. Your post brought up something I haven't thought of before. What exactly are the types of gamers that may play FF XIV in the future?
1. Casual Soloers: The group that SE seems to be trying to draw in. Not only do they float from game to game, but they are soloers. They aren't group friendly, although from time to time I have come across some casual soloers who actually did function well inside a group. Still, casual soloers aren't the type of crowd that would "help" FF XIV, it's the group that I believe will clash with the hardcore group people that are the majority of FF XI players.
2. Hardcore Soloers: Now, these aren't the soloers that are 100% solo zealots that refuse to group unless the game calls for them to do just that to advance on. These are the soloers that have found their game, and stick to it (rather than casuals that float around). These soloers may be slightly better, because FF XIV looks like they're introducing solo aspects, and they would stick with FF XIV if they like the game. Still, I could bring up the whole "more solo aspects kills group aspects" argument on this.
3. Casual Group Players: They are group players, but ultimately I'm not looking forward to this group either. Have you been in games where you're in a group, but one guy acts like a total jackass and the leader won't boot him because he's friends with said jackass? That, my friends, is where casual group players sometimes come from. Now, I'm not saying all casual group players are asshats, I would say it's about 60helpful/40asshat. They don't neccessarily float from game to game, but they definitely aren't finely tuned to group play as, say, a hardcore. Whereas these types of group players didn't have rigid group mentality, hardcore group players learned a long time ago to either function as a team or die miserably.
4. Hardcore Group Players: This represents the extreme majority of FF XI's fanbase (I'll say this because although you all mention FF XI becoming a little more casual and solo, it's really hard to believe that hardcore soloers stood in the game for long). This is ultimately the crowd SE will try to draw over to FF XIV. Hardcore group players have the rigid group mentality that can lead to excellently coordinated groups. Another nice thing about this group is that a game based on this crowd can lead to a nice, helpful community. The reason? Word can get around quickly. In FF XI, if you acted like an asshat, word would get around quickly and your reputation would be smashed up to the point where people would avoid partying with you. The one weakness of this group is that you really have to learn your role inside a group. FF XI had a brutal death penalty, and if you did not steadily learn your role well, you were doomed (you could switch your role, but, you know, learn your role).
Can some one fill me with info. about what FFXI added last year or two? (info about solo/casual stuff... so i can at least try to see where they taking FFXIV)
Because I left the game when they just released PUP/COR/BLU...
You all make great points. I persoanlly think SE is adding a Dash more solo-ability to attract fresh/new players maybe. As yall have stated a couple of times having the ability to solo SOME stuff is not bad,but to be able to solo the all the way to max level could be bad for the group play that FF11 is great for. I hope to hell they defenitly dont make the jobs you have to unlock with quests solo-able( or what ever they plan on doing with extra jobs). That was the whole fun of doing it/getting the Job running around with some buddies having a good time. LOL SE really needs to feed the beast they unleashed. MORE INFO ON FF14 PLEASE! :P considering there quoting a 2010 release, I have seen more mmos with more info out than FF14....but as some companies are learning is to not hype the game and blow it up like a ballon and blow it up so much it just pops and falls to the ground.
Comments
I don't care as long as they open up class combinations to be more flexible. I always felt it was ridiculous that Sum/Blkm or vice versa was rejected by groups. It's the second biggest reason i didn't play long (UI #1)
Yep, since SE is already a king in their respective area, there is no need for them to prioritize profits over customer satisfaction. If memory serves me, they had previously stated that "Final Fantasy 11 will continue as long as it has the playerbase to support it." or something along that line, meaning that as long as the game stays in the black by even a single net dollar, it will continue on. If one needs an example of what solo-oriented play does to a MMO, they need look no farther than World of Warcraft. So yeah...I think I'd prefer SE stay true to their roots with XIV. Group-oriented play not only keeps the game unique and creates a sense of accomplishment for every level, it keeps the community above a certain level of skill, in both the combat and social parts of the game.
Yep, since SE is already a king in their respective area, there is no need for them to prioritize profits over customer satisfaction. If memory serves me, they had previously stated that "Final Fantasy 11 will continue as long as it has the playerbase to support it." or something along that line, meaning that as long as the game stays in the black by even a single net dollar, it will continue on. If one needs an example of what solo-oriented play does to a MMO, they need look no farther than World of Warcraft. So yeah...I think I'd prefer SE stay true to their roots with XIV. Group-oriented play not only keeps the game unique and creates a sense of accomplishment for every level, it keeps the community above a certain level of skill, in both the combat and social parts of the game.
Lol come to think of it ,now thats such a true statement. FF11 was my first MMO I rarely meet an AssHat, compared to other mmos i started to play after FF11. Hmm good thing to point out.
Well, they seem to be going the WoW way with XIV when it comes to soloing...
However, knowing how big part grouping had in FFXI, it'd silly to think that the devs would drop it completely in XIV, so in the best case it means that soloing will work in a way similar to XI (campaign/fields of valor while lfp) and not the way similar to WoW (solo up to 80 without lfping once because it's just so easy)
Well SMN needs fixed IMO because its only use in an xp pt is a ghetto whm so ill give you a pass on this, but BLM/SMN come on now. The only thing a blm would benifit from is the auto refresh, and with that you only get 1 tick. whm or rdm sub gave you alot more options.
I find it impossible to understand these people. If you didnt like your jobs role you obviously didnt like your job. I am just glad FFXI weeded these people out. I jhope and pray FFXIV weeds these people out too.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore)
Now Playing: N/A
Worst MMO: FFXIV
Favorite MMO: FFXI
Well SMN needs fixed IMO because its only use in an xp pt is a ghetto whm so ill give you a pass on this, but BLM/SMN come on now. The only thing a blm would benifit from is the auto refresh, and with that you only get 1 tick. whm or rdm sub gave you alot more options.
I find it impossible to understand these people. If you didnt like your jobs role you obviously didnt like your job. I am just glad FFXI weeded these people out. I jhope and pray FFXIV weeds these people out too.
I had a buddy Play a SMN/WHM and he did a bang up job with it in our Xp parties. If you know your jobs and other at least know what your job can do (I never played or unlocked the SMN) I think just about any thing can work.
Well SMN needs fixed IMO because its only use in an xp pt is a ghetto whm so ill give you a pass on this, but BLM/SMN come on now. The only thing a blm would benifit from is the auto refresh, and with that you only get 1 tick. whm or rdm sub gave you alot more options.
I find it impossible to understand these people. If you didnt like your jobs role you obviously didnt like your job. I am just glad FFXI weeded these people out. I jhope and pray FFXIV weeds these people out too.
I had a buddy Play a SMN/WHM and he did a bang up job with it in our Xp parties. If you know your jobs and other at least know what your job can do (I never played or unlocked the SMN) I think just about any thing can work.
Yes SMN/WHM was the acceptable combo for a SMN. Its the combo that most benefited the group.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore)
Now Playing: N/A
Worst MMO: FFXIV
Favorite MMO: FFXI
Ah, this has brought up an excellent point. Inside non-casual group-oriented games, you really don't want to be a jerk online, because word would get around quickly (especially on the game's forum) and you might as well delete your old character and start over again (which means in some subscription base types that you end up forking over more money). This is one reason why I really do not like casual games. Now, I'm not trying to be generic and stereotyping, but many casual games nowadays really do seem to have bad, asshat-infested communities. And if Erik Estavillo (the guy that is trying to sue Sony but has little grounds to stand on) is any example, it's that no one likes asshats in their games.
Forced grouping, in my opinion, is a complete deterent for those kinds of people. Which is one of my major reasons why I hope SE makes FF XIV very group-oriented (with a slightly improved solo to boot I suppose, but nothing too major), that way the community will stay friendly and helpful.
I am seriously starting to doubt that there keeping the grouping aspect. I fear it will turn into a game where you group with others when you need something.
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=18309
This article almost killed it for me. If you can solo there wont be groups unless people need something from it.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore)
Now Playing: N/A
Worst MMO: FFXIV
Favorite MMO: FFXI
Then don't play it, just keep playing ffxi if your gonna Q_Q about having some solo play in ff14. You know some solo play is good ever have one of those days were you just wanted to farm crap or do a random quest? Well if you don't then FFXI is the game for you
Cast In The Name Of God, Ye Not Guilty
Amazing! that is an awinspiring argument! Why didnt I think of that!
Yes I did have one of those days where I wanted to farm "crap" and solo some random quests. Guess what I did? I did that stuff, and yes it was in FFXI.
Why dont the all"Q_Q" for solo play go play WoW and all the "Q_Q" for group play go play FFXI? I'll tell you since you seem to have an IQ of a Turnip. There are many reason, but I am willing to bet the biggest reason is: each group has beat their respective game to death, and looking for a new game similar to the one they like. For example I have played FFXI for around 4 years. As much as I loved it I am looking for a new challenege. I am looking to upgrade not downgrade to a solo fest p.o.s of a game like WoW, aoc, war, (possibly SW:TOR). Where all it is, is a rush to max lvl all the while being lead along with a "Carrot on a stick" type of game . I am sorry but I am not that weak minded to get cought in that trap.
There is a difference in some solo play and too much of it. I dont expect a turnip to understand that if soloing is to much of an option then people only group when something is in it for them. That then changes the entire dynamic of a game.
There is a large number of people wanting a new UO, EQ, and FFXI type game. All we are getting now is buggy garbage because MMO's now are not designed for the long term play anymore. They are poorly made, with poor concepts because the type of players they attrack are ADD. It seems thats the majority, thus we get these solo fest games where people play it for a few months then hop to the next MMO playing it for a few months. Its extremly dissheartning to the true MMO fans to see a game reach its prime within 3 months then it starts its decline. IMO an MMO shouldnt even be close to its prime until its first expansion.
Edit: Another thing: I would venture a guess that most peoples veiw on grouping is based off of grouping is a solo fest game. That is a grave injustice to a group centric game. Its agony grouping in a none group centric game, and I am all for grouping. Of course if you have played a grouping game and dont like it well, nothing I can say about that then.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore)
Now Playing: N/A
Worst MMO: FFXIV
Favorite MMO: FFXI
I am seriously starting to doubt that there keeping the grouping aspect. I fear it will turn into a game where you group with others when you need something.
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=18309
This article almost killed it for me. If you can solo there wont be groups unless people need something from it.
The problem is this: SE hasn't created too many failures in the past, so although they do keep coming out with good games, they've never really learned the lesson of humility. SE seems to believe that a game where you could solo as successfully as group playing would be successful, yet can anyone name one game that was a major profit with this kind of ideals? Some may have been successful, but there hasn't been one powerhouse game that you could solo as good as group. And considering how much money SE seems to be putting into this game, this wouldn't be a good time for SE to learn the lesson of humility, if you get what I'm coming at.
The problem is this. When a game has semi-strong solo elements, the majority of the crowd ends up being people that like solo (or completely solo and does no grouping whatsoever). And it doesn't seem like a good group game if you're grouping soloers together, does it? SE doesn't seem to think that way, they believe that they'll attract enough gamers from both sides, when in reality the stronger solo aspects will weaken the group aspects, thus it'll be more casual soloers than hardcore group players that the FF XI fanbase is almost completely composed of. So, if everything goes like how I'm thinking the recent interviews and articles are saying, it looks like SE really isn't trying to get the FF XI fanbase to go over to FF XIV. In that case, SE better start crossing their fingers that enough casuals come to play the game.
But, then again, SE really hasn't revealed everything. Who knows? Maybe they're hyping up the idea of being able to greatly solo the game to attract soloers, when in fact the game ends up being more about group and way less about the solo. I could see this shrewd, sneaky yet effective idea being brought up back in SE headquarters.
I am seriously starting to doubt that there keeping the grouping aspect. I fear it will turn into a game where you group with others when you need something.
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=18309
This article almost killed it for me. If you can solo there wont be groups unless people need something from it.
The problem is this: SE hasn't created too many failures in the past, so although they do keep coming out with good games, they've never really learned the lesson of humility. SE seems to believe that a game where you could solo as successfully as group playing would be successful, yet can anyone name one game that was a major profit with this kind of ideals? Some may have been successful, but there hasn't been one powerhouse game that you could solo as good as group. And considering how much money SE seems to be putting into this game, this wouldn't be a good time for SE to learn the lesson of humility, if you get what I'm coming at.
The problem is this. When a game has semi-strong solo elements, the majority of the crowd ends up being people that like solo (or completely solo and does no grouping whatsoever). And it doesn't seem like a good group game if you're grouping soloers together, does it? SE doesn't seem to think that way, they believe that they'll attract enough gamers from both sides, when in reality the stronger solo aspects will weaken the group aspects, thus it'll be more casual soloers than hardcore group players that the FF XI fanbase is almost completely composed of. So, if everything goes like how I'm thinking the recent interviews and articles are saying, it looks like SE really isn't trying to get the FF XI fanbase to go over to FF XIV. In that case, SE better start crossing their fingers that enough casuals come to play the game.
But, then again, SE really hasn't revealed everything. Who knows? Maybe they're hyping up the idea of being able to greatly solo the game to attract soloers, when in fact the game ends up being more about group and way less about the solo. I could see this shrewd, sneaky yet effective idea being brought up back in SE headquarters.
I sure do hope it doesn't end up like any of those games, although that is the sort of gameplay that solo-based games end up having. My point with the list is that most of the highest-profit games are casual, solo-based, and nearly clones of eachother; some of them have unique designs and gameplay, but they invariably bring along a playerbase of jerks, children, and/or socially inept adults. Being required to group for the highest leveling rate, as well as all the best equipment (before you have the best equipment, at which point you should be able to solo what 3 weak chars can), helps to buiold the skills required to interact with people, and also assists in weeding out those who cannot interact with other people in a civilized manner.
In short, this simple equation seems to apply to non-RPcentric MMOs.
Solo-based Gameplay= Bad community, high profit margin, large sub numbers, extremely high customer churn rate.
Group-Based gameplay= Above-Average community, decent profit margin, average subscription numbers, customers staying for years easily.
I am seriously starting to doubt that there keeping the grouping aspect. I fear it will turn into a game where you group with others when you need something.
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=18309
This article almost killed it for me. If you can solo there wont be groups unless people need something from it.
The problem is this: SE hasn't created too many failures in the past, so although they do keep coming out with good games, they've never really learned the lesson of humility. SE seems to believe that a game where you could solo as successfully as group playing would be successful, yet can anyone name one game that was a major profit with this kind of ideals? Some may have been successful, but there hasn't been one powerhouse game that you could solo as good as group. And considering how much money SE seems to be putting into this game, this wouldn't be a good time for SE to learn the lesson of humility, if you get what I'm coming at.
The problem is this. When a game has semi-strong solo elements, the majority of the crowd ends up being people that like solo (or completely solo and does no grouping whatsoever). And it doesn't seem like a good group game if you're grouping soloers together, does it? SE doesn't seem to think that way, they believe that they'll attract enough gamers from both sides, when in reality the stronger solo aspects will weaken the group aspects, thus it'll be more casual soloers than hardcore group players that the FF XI fanbase is almost completely composed of. So, if everything goes like how I'm thinking the recent interviews and articles are saying, it looks like SE really isn't trying to get the FF XI fanbase to go over to FF XIV. In that case, SE better start crossing their fingers that enough casuals come to play the game.
But, then again, SE really hasn't revealed everything. Who knows? Maybe they're hyping up the idea of being able to greatly solo the game to attract soloers, when in fact the game ends up being more about group and way less about the solo. I could see this shrewd, sneaky yet effective idea being brought up back in SE headquarters.
I sure do hope it doesn't end up like any of those games, although that is the sort of gameplay that solo-based games end up having. My point with the list is that most of the highest-profit games are casual, solo-based, and nearly clones of eachother; some of them have unique designs and gameplay, but they invariably bring along a playerbase of jerks, children, and/or socially inept adults. Being required to group for the highest leveling rate, as well as all the best equipment (before you have the best equipment, at which point you should be able to solo what 3 weak chars can), helps to buiold the skills required to interact with people, and also assists in weeding out those who cannot interact with other people in a civilized manner.
In short, this simple equation seems to apply to non-RPcentric MMOs.
Solo-based Gameplay= Bad community, high profit margin, large sub numbers, extremely high customer churn rate.
Group-Based gameplay= Above-Average community, decent profit margin, average subscription numbers, customers staying for years easily.
Ah, now reading that highlighted part, I realized I failed to explain what I was trying to get at.
Yes, there are games with solo and group aspects that are successful in overall design. However, can anyone say they've found a true way to make a game with solo and group aspects going hand to hand that are good?
Take WOW for example. You can solo the whole thing through, but the endgame is mostly group-based (raiding for example). That is not an example of a successful infusion of solo and group aspects.
Guild Wars, well, depends on whether you like instancing or not. I tried it, and just couldn't get into the whole idea. But then again, instancing really is a whole different beast of its own. Instanced soloing and instanced grouping are both far different from their non-instanced cousins.
The rest of the games I do not know very well, so I have no comment on them.
I thank you for catching that highlighted part Cavall. What I really was trying to get there is this: has any game successfully infused solo and group aspects together to make them fluid without one destroying the other? So far, whenever I see a game with both aspects, it's either one of them is being catered to more than the other (so the one not being catered to sucks in the gameplay mechanics compared to the one being catered to, and overall not worth doing), or they are both watered down to a point where both sucks (I think there was a Star Wars mmo that tried doing this, but overall failed). I have not seen an idea implemented into a mmorpg where both solo and group play infuse successfully, one isn't better than the other, both aren't watered down, and one doesn't destroy the other. In my opinion, it's impossible to do. You can't just do them both successfully and insynch with each other, one ultimately will dominate the other.
Well, if by "without destroying the other" you mean "while still having both be a viable thing to do at endgame, with equal rewards." All the games I know of put the highest rewards into group play, or don't consider group play in their marketing plan at all. in FFXI one could solo the highest level enemies in the game in roughly 30 minutes to 1 hour, with some gods being on the 3 hour+ timetable, assuming they had the time to level a certain job combination AND were skilled. Those same mobs could be zerged down by a group in a matter of minutes. Farming at level 75 for gil-based endeavors was also relatively on par with that of groups; groups could go for much stronger enemies, but the drop rates, as well as the risk and chance of claiming the enemy was much lower..many times one could have farmed a million solo in the time it took to miss a claim on an HNM. If you want an example of FFXI's solo play, on my 75 thf/nin I used to solo manticores roughly 20x my size for synth materials, however when the NM version (basically boss version) of said manticores spawned, roughly every 1-3 hours, I would need someone to help me kill it, as my class mechanics wouldn't allow me to outheal and out-evade all the damage from the enemy, but would allow me to run around with it for as long as it took for help to arrive.
In short, the strongest enemies should require groups to kill, with the number of people in said group directly reflecting the monetary value of the items the enemy has. Solo play should reward one in a fashion reflecting the lack of rick and preparation involved, unless one is attempting to solo group-oriented content, in which case they get the same items the group would have gotten, but for their own use, as the risk should be enormous.
Also, thanks for clarifying what you meant, I assumed by "profit" you meant the amount of money a company made from the game, not the rewards one attained from each style of play.
In the end run, it's impossible to have a game that meshes group and solo aspects together successfully and with them both working insynch with each other. They either both end up sucking and being watered down, or one dominates the other in "being better."
SE thinks that meshing casual soloers and hardcore group people together is a good idea. It's not.
1. Not to be biased against casuals, but in general most games with casual aspects end up spawning asshat communities. There will be some nice hardcores (most of them being the FF XI crowd) and perhaps some nice soloers, but I will miss a community that was helpful and ruined the reputations of asshats so that they would be screwed ingame.
2. What happens when you try forcing soloers to try to group? You get a variety of things. The soloer could end up being nice and helpful and contributing to a group. On the other hand, they may be used to helping themselves and will not have a "group mentality." FF XI had a major group mentality, you had to mesh together to be successful in a group. Soloers will not always have that mentality. I could already see a situation on FF XIV in which a group ends up dying because their main "healer" was a soloer, so the soloer became too focused on keeping himself alive and killing enemies rather than watching over the group's well-being.
3. It seems to me that SE is trying to put in occasions where you end up having to group or you can't advance (not completely sure on this, I'm going to further read the interviews). So, that'll strengthen the bad instances of #2 above. I am not looking forward to grouping with soloers that played by themselves for the majority of their gaming times. Not all of them will be bad, but I like it when people know how to effectively function in a group and are skilled at doing just that.
4. Inevitably, one playstyle will end up dominating the other in being more rewarding/less time consuming/more overall better. No one has created a game in which solo and group aspects mesh together perfectly and insynch, and it's likely no one will. In this case, group aspects will more likely win over the solo aspects (because SE will try to entice the FF XI crowd over to FF XIV), so the soloers will be up in arms against that. This creates extreme tension ingame against the group people and the solo people, because why should one side get all the better "stuff" (more rewarding/less time consuming/overall better)?
Group play usually ends up being more rewarding, MORE time consuming, and overall a trade-off between time invested and item quality in traditional, non casual group MMOs.
World of Warcraft ruined the idea that one should only attain the best items in a game with time, skill, and a good group by introducing the notion of giving bad players the same rewards as good players, and just making them work longer, but not harder, for them. Failure should not be rewarded, otherwise you end up with a game full of people who feel they "deserve" the best in the game, but don't feel like working as hard for them as the group of 30 people who just killed a 10 story tall dragon. Even worse, they eventually begin to complain they don't get the chance to kill the dragon, and then you have a situation in which content gets dumbed down to the level of the bad players, with optional ways to increase the difficulty for the better players. While a game that can be mastered by a 5 year old is very profitable in the chinese and North American markets, it is not the type of game that SE has a treadition, and reputation, of making.
In short, to keep the quality of a game high, one must sacrifice profits by making the game reward group play much more than solo play. If SE were to make this game require as little skill as many MMOs that reward solo and terrible playstyles, not only would the game be a huge letdown to the longtime fans of their company, they would risk alienating them from all their future games. For a company the size of SE, that is not a good financial decision.
I am seriously starting to doubt that there keeping the grouping aspect. I fear it will turn into a game where you group with others when you need something.
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=18309
This article almost killed it for me. If you can solo there wont be groups unless people need something from it.
That's my fear as well :-/
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
As the MMORPG's world stands right now, nothing is perfect nor will it ever be. The bottom line is that these are not games meant for just anyone & everyone to play. It's almost an entirely different market of consumers who only play games for almost entirely different reasons. Why are you a solo / party player? Wouldn't being introduced to another type of gameplay change your mind if you had a good time? It works both ways, so Square-Enix appeals to everyone, but if they catered to ever whim of every whiner of every forum the game would never be released. Do you really think that most, if not ALL these ideas and questions and concerns haven't already been presented and considered by the actual developers? The bad ideas get rejected, and most of the "solo-casual" gripes are bad ideas. You can't please everyone. So while it's not perfect, Final Fantasy XI is as close as it gets. There's casual, and then there's solo, but most of the whining is asking for "solo-casual" and that's just too damn far. That's the formula for MMORPG failure...
Who's on the Atomos server? Probably nobody here. For those of you who didn't already know, it's a test server. To assume that all their testing applies only to Final Fantasy XI is naive. There have been a multitude of changes to XI over the last year alone, most of which have been for the better, adding more casual options for newbies and elitists alike. From the guard that greets you at the gate & tells you how to complete pre-game objectives to the Fields of Valor individual & elite trianing regimes, casual gamers have found that not only is it possible to get things done, but in some cases they've actually become more productive and resourceful. Being Square-Enix's first and successful attempt at an MMORPG they can only take what they've learned and tweak it to employ within its successor to make something better.Not the same, but better. Who it's better for is Square-Enix, first and foremost. They want a larger consumer base. But it's been mentioned before that perhaps the improvements made in XI are exactly the kind of 'casual friendly' aspect that they'll be adding to XIV, only with more relevance to story. They will just take new form, a series of side-quests called "The Second Story" or something to that effect. More content for casual players to give them that sense of accomplishment so they're not bored, so they don't feel like they've wasted time - but only for those who choose to complete them. Because while you can do plenty on your own in XI, if you'd rather sit around LFP and begging 75's to help you do soloable tasks, that's your perogative.
Don't worry about the 'casual-friendly' aspects of XIV. It does not translate into 'soloability'. Players will cheat, use mods, hacks, and exploits as they always have. If you wanna play solo, find an exploit. Plenty of people use NIN and DNC and PUP and other jobs to play 100% solo. But you have to master the game mechanics, not jump in blind and expect to be at lv.75 in a week. If you really want that then there's nothing more to say 'cause you'll be gone soon enough after realizing it's neither practical nor possible for a successful MMORPG. It's just not that kind of game. And you're just not their kind of customer.
Abraxas [365]
Agreed. Your post brought up something I haven't thought of before. What exactly are the types of gamers that may play FF XIV in the future?
1. Casual Soloers: The group that SE seems to be trying to draw in. Not only do they float from game to game, but they are soloers. They aren't group friendly, although from time to time I have come across some casual soloers who actually did function well inside a group. Still, casual soloers aren't the type of crowd that would "help" FF XIV, it's the group that I believe will clash with the hardcore group people that are the majority of FF XI players.
2. Hardcore Soloers: Now, these aren't the soloers that are 100% solo zealots that refuse to group unless the game calls for them to do just that to advance on. These are the soloers that have found their game, and stick to it (rather than casuals that float around). These soloers may be slightly better, because FF XIV looks like they're introducing solo aspects, and they would stick with FF XIV if they like the game. Still, I could bring up the whole "more solo aspects kills group aspects" argument on this.
3. Casual Group Players: They are group players, but ultimately I'm not looking forward to this group either. Have you been in games where you're in a group, but one guy acts like a total jackass and the leader won't boot him because he's friends with said jackass? That, my friends, is where casual group players sometimes come from. Now, I'm not saying all casual group players are asshats, I would say it's about 60helpful/40asshat. They don't neccessarily float from game to game, but they definitely aren't finely tuned to group play as, say, a hardcore. Whereas these types of group players didn't have rigid group mentality, hardcore group players learned a long time ago to either function as a team or die miserably.
4. Hardcore Group Players: This represents the extreme majority of FF XI's fanbase (I'll say this because although you all mention FF XI becoming a little more casual and solo, it's really hard to believe that hardcore soloers stood in the game for long). This is ultimately the crowd SE will try to draw over to FF XIV. Hardcore group players have the rigid group mentality that can lead to excellently coordinated groups. Another nice thing about this group is that a game based on this crowd can lead to a nice, helpful community. The reason? Word can get around quickly. In FF XI, if you acted like an asshat, word would get around quickly and your reputation would be smashed up to the point where people would avoid partying with you. The one weakness of this group is that you really have to learn your role inside a group. FF XI had a brutal death penalty, and if you did not steadily learn your role well, you were doomed (you could switch your role, but, you know, learn your role).
Just curious...
Can some one fill me with info. about what FFXI added last year or two? (info about solo/casual stuff... so i can at least try to see where they taking FFXIV)
Because I left the game when they just released PUP/COR/BLU...
thanks in advance.
You all make great points. I persoanlly think SE is adding a Dash more solo-ability to attract fresh/new players maybe. As yall have stated a couple of times having the ability to solo SOME stuff is not bad,but to be able to solo the all the way to max level could be bad for the group play that FF11 is great for. I hope to hell they defenitly dont make the jobs you have to unlock with quests solo-able( or what ever they plan on doing with extra jobs). That was the whole fun of doing it/getting the Job running around with some buddies having a good time. LOL SE really needs to feed the beast they unleashed. MORE INFO ON FF14 PLEASE! :P considering there quoting a 2010 release, I have seen more mmos with more info out than FF14....but as some companies are learning is to not hype the game and blow it up like a ballon and blow it up so much it just pops and falls to the ground.