It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Currently nearly all current generation MMOs allow you to Solo most of the game before the end cap. They do this via questing for the most part. A few games have you grind mobs, but questing is the main way you level these days. There is "group" content before the level cap, but most of it is easily done solo as well if you wait til you are higher than said content.
www.facebook.com/themarksmovierules
Currently playing:
FFXIV on Behemoth, FFXI on Eden, and Gloria Victis on NA.
Comments
I prefer group. My definition of group is 2-6 people.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Can we have both, or better, can we have both and the option to do either solo or in group? Why not?
Let the quests or dungeons scale somewhat with the size of the team.
Grouping with one or two other people for missioning and dungeoning.
Solo for open world areas. (could also mean questing, since it's really really really really lame having to spend 20 mins talking about quest logs, then another 40 to get to an agreeable spot)
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
Both. I would prefer a game that can be solo'd till end, but that would reward group play too (group quests giving bigger chunks of exp and fat loot and plenty of them, not just a few every 5 levels etc). And yes, quests are a must till someone finds another mechanic except grinding.
1 + 1 = 2... Unless it CRITS!
Solo and small teams. Really wish game companies would add complexity to group content instead of just tripling their HP and armor and calling it 'group content'. It's not group content, its the same mob with triple the HP and armor that takes fives times as long to kill.
(DISCLAIMER - The use of the word YOU in the above post is not directed at any one person in particular, but towards those who fall into the category itself - there is no personal attack here, neither intentional nor implied.)
both with small group content in a non-gear-focused with interesting group mechanics( "warrior lift the gate! push the column STR CHECK! mage find secret door, solve secret puzle! INT CHECK, rogue do some mirros´s edge moves of doom, DEX CHECK!) something like that =p
now: GW2 (11 80s).
Dark Souls 2.
future: Mount&Blade 2 BannerLord.
"Bro, do your even fractal?"
Recommends: Guild Wars 2, Dark Souls, Mount&Blade: Warband, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning.
Both. I'm a lone wolf most of the time, that enjoys some teamplay every now and then, the frequency depending on the particular MMO.
Besides, a pure group-based system can be a pain in the ass for lowbies once the game has a few years (Only reason keeping me away from FFXI: having to literally wait HOURS to find a group in my level range).
I enjoy group play when I can actually get a group. So often nowadays it seems that I just stand around for hours trying to find a group.
I lean towards group play, but sometimes I'm just in the mood to solo.
I'm not here to complete my forum PVP dailies.
solo
I prefer group play with 4-6 people, I get bored playing solo. I enjoy the interaction with other players having to rely on them to provide a set of skills that I don't have to succeed.
I enjoy any chance I get to interact with other respectable players. The problem is, most these days are not. So, grouping sometimes can become a chore and and annoyance, since the community is drastically more juvenile these days. I'd rather group than solo, just for the social interaction. I do enjoy the option to solo when grouping is not available, but I do not like soloing til the end cap, I also do not like doing "only quests" to level, or only "grinding" I like to do various activities.
www.facebook.com/themarksmovierules
Currently playing:
FFXIV on Behemoth, FFXI on Eden, and Gloria Victis on NA.
Can we have both, or better, can we have both and the option to do either solo or in group? Why not?
Let the quests or dungeons scale somewhat with the size of the team.
I prefer group content.
I dislike scaling. To me it feels like an Iwin button, rather than an accomplishment, where you have to level to beat a dungeon if it's to hard, or go get help if you can't do it solo.
I think it's much more fun when a dungeon is what it is. Either you have the group or level to beat it, or you don't.
Otherwise, it feels like here's a dragon. you can beat it with a slingshot, or the uber sword of might, or one little gnome, or a party of 6. Whatever, we'll scale it for ya so ya can win! Cool huh?
Not really.
I prefer solo because I only play when Im high and I dont really care much about other players. But I guess grouping is fine from time to time.
Group, Im tired of solo Bore fests.
And no you can not mix them in the same area. same game? sure probably can just fine. But not in the same area.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
Hey fellas, wanna play an MMORPG?
Hey fellas, wanna play an MMORPG?
Oh hey there, I'd love to play an MMORPG.
I'm not here to complete my forum PVP dailies.
Can we have both, or better, can we have both and the option to do either solo or in group? Why not?
Let the quests or dungeons scale somewhat with the size of the team.
I prefer group content.
I dislike scaling. To me it feels like an Iwin button, rather than an accomplishment, where you have to level to beat a dungeon if it's to hard, or go get help if you can't do it solo.
I think it's much more fun when a dungeon is what it is. Either you have the group or level to beat it, or you don't.
Otherwise, it feels like here's a dragon. you can beat it with a slingshot, or the uber sword of might, or one little gnome, or a party of 6. Whatever, we'll scale it for ya so ya can win! Cool huh?
Not really.
Yeah I agree, but the point is, you will not meet a dragon, if you zone into dungeon XYZ if you are a lvl 1 soloing.
You will meet a mouse. When you zone in as a team of 20s, you will find a big lion, at 60s full team it will be a drake. When you got the biggest group of max level, the dungeon will hand you the fiery dragon.
I remember oblivion. Every mob is scaled to you, unfortunately they do not change the model, so near tne end game when I am wearing the most fancy plates, I go back to the starter dungeon, and what do I found? Mouse and critters whose armor is thicker than draonplate, even though it is still ... just a mouse, scaled to my "level". That, my friend, is most disturbing.
I prefer grouping if it's done right, but I like a mix of both.
I don't like the idea of scaling either.
The fact is, the content needs to be "different". Solo players get different content all together. It would be specially tuned for players who play solo. It would have its own set of rewards that would assist a solo player.
The group content would be on a much more epic scale, and the rewards would be as such.
I'm sorry, but you can't have 1 person vs. a dragon.. and then 40 people vs. the same dragon. I don't care how you "scale" it. Its silly. If one person could kill the same dragon you normally need 40 people for... either Chuck Norris is in the game.. or you've got issues with the game design.
Only way I see to balance solo/group content.. is to make them nearly two different "games". And again, if all your wanting to do is solo the entire game.. there are much better games for that.
www.facebook.com/themarksmovierules
Currently playing:
FFXIV on Behemoth, FFXI on Eden, and Gloria Victis on NA.
Good grouping is just about {removed by poster}.
Good solo is similar but by yourself. Doesn't quite feel the same.
Brings a whole new meaning to "So, do you solo?"
Ken
edit: removed the "o" word so a mod desn't have to.
www.ActionMMORPG.com
One man, a small pile of money, and the screwball idea of a DIY Indie MMORPG? Yep, that's him. ~sigh~
It's much more fun and challenging to solo in a group based game, for me at least. When the odds are against you it feels that much more rewarding to accomplish such a feat as soloing your character to cap.
However grouping is just as fun, so I'd ultimately pick that if I had to choose. <10 players though, more than that becomes a bother, especially if you're the leader.
I solo 60% of the time, and the rest of the time I will form a duo or trio with real-life family and friends. I used to group virtually all the time when I started MMOs, but I no longer group with random strangers because over the last 7 or 8 years of playing MMOs I got burnt out with teaming up with them. The ratio of interesting, fun players to inarticulate, know-it-all, whiny incompetents is just slanted way, WAY too much towards the dickhead end of the spectrum.
Just curious, at which point in time did an RPG become 'Epic' when you had to have 40 people to take on a Dragon? I mean back in AD&D PnP days you didn't have 40 people to take on that dragon, you had maybe 5 or 6. I'm sorry, but if your saying that by having 4 tanks, 8 healers, and 28 DPS take on your dragon makes you more heroic and the fight is more 'epic' then I'm at a complete loss. What do you do when you win, jump up and down and scream 'I was one of those FOURTY people who took on that one dragon!"? Umm yeah, I'd rather hit the local pub and talk up how me and 4 of my friends went up to that dragon and kicked his ass all by ourselves. Now that's epic!
(DISCLAIMER - The use of the word YOU in the above post is not directed at any one person in particular, but towards those who fall into the category itself - there is no personal attack here, neither intentional nor implied.)
I am generally either solo or part of a dedicated 3 man group.
I do occasionally join larger grouips, but only when I know I will have several uniterupted hours. (i.e. the wife is not home).
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin