This is one of the big problems linear theme park MMOs have, they require not only to find a few players, but they must be in the same situation as you, they must have the specific quest and the specific level because you have to do that specific quest. A well planned MMO would easily avoid this making quests non static and more reflecting on what is happening in the virtual world currently, that way players would only need to find people of their skill or level, the find a job on the message boards and set of on their oh mighty virtuous quest which might later make an impact, be it small as for the cities surrounding environment, or big as in deciding the fate of a region's control. Ranging from killing the huge swamp monster that has been eating our crops to enlisting and reporting to war between factions.
Quoted from second page.
Yeah, this problem is pretty much thanks to poorly planned game and there is no way to fix it unless you completely revamp the system of how "quests" are given and how the community is located.
I've sure this has been said before, but I hate being separated from playing with friends because of level or gear. It might seem like it cheapens the process of level and gear but I've played games where I was way under level or someone else was and we just took some extra people, or just had to be more careful.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
I've sure this has been said before, but I hate being separated from playing with friends because of level or gear. It might seem like it cheapens the process of level and gear but I've played games where I was way under level or someone else was and we just took some extra people, or just had to be more careful.
I agree with this, that's one of the reasons why I love CoX any level player can play with each other except for level specific content.
I think what the OP is saying is for mmorpgs need to cater more to the instant gratification lovers that have anti-social tendancies so they can enjoy the game. There is no need to have friends and a social network in a game if you don't have one in real .... but that goes against the whole being of the internet! OMG! It's real! The matrix must be real and Varney is really Neo calling out after his virtual death o n these very forums. We must listen people it is all a lie! There is no reason we need to be force fed group activites in games designed around the same. Consoles aren't real they are a tool of the company to tease us with solo games that end!
Nvm, I must have had a moment of insanity and I didn't feel like deleting it. God forbid it took more than one person to take out an army of evil.
I am not against grouped-content, I just don't want grouped-playstyle to be more rewarding than playing an MMO solo, nor do I want to be forced into groups. Higher chances for fat loot when you group, but not excluding same gear for soloers, just lower chance to get it.
Please, chrisel, for your sake, find yourself a friend that you respect who has a solid background in statistics.
It's pure math, dude. It's pure math.
Please, for my sake, re-read what I wrote. It is pure logic. Pure logic.
I am not against grouped-content, I just don't want grouped-playstyle to be more rewarding than playing an MMO solo, nor do I want to be forced into groups. Higher chances for fat loot when you group, but not excluding same gear for soloers, just lower chance to get it.
Please, chrisel, for your sake, find yourself a friend that you respect who has a solid background in statistics. Have him explain to you the concept of how a group of individuals operating in tandem is worth more than the sum of their parts, always. It has been exposed elsewhere on these forums but apparently you either missed it or you are not perceptive to this medium. But find that friend.
Now examine how rewards are handed out. If you reward the challenge, then in all cases a group will garner bigger individual gains because of the modifier that a group entails. If you reward simply the number of people, then you in effect abolish the group dynamic.
For this reason a soloer cannot expect to be equally paid than a grouper. There is a delta that cannot be argued against. If you do remove this delta, you in effect obliterate all benefits of group play. This, could be easily seen as selfish on the behalf of the soloer if such an equalizer were considered. The grouper wants his just reward, the soloer should want his as well. But it isn't on par. Time is a separate variable, and please do not attempt to blend the two once you have been graced with the individual/cooperation mechanic's understanding.
It's pure math, dude. It's pure math.
It seems that I did too.
Kindly repost or link to the statistical proof that supports your claim that groupers deserve greater rewards due to having a greater individual challenge than a soloer.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Long ago was a mythical hero that could solo raid bosses in a universe called MMOGs(massive MULTI-PLAYER online game). He took down monsters that 25 man groups couldn't take down with his mighty inability to use the LFG channel and/or feature because he wanted to do so! His tears vanquished these monsters with a wave of self-righteous instant gratification so quickly he became known as Teh Uber Leet.
No more would his basement reek of dirty socks and rubbing lotion. His family would look at him as a might epic wielding master of the arts while serving him breakfast and getting his clothes ready for school later that day. He alone saved us all from the dreaded Darth Console with his actions. Does his action finally crown him above all other heros...only you can tell www.youtube.com/watch
I think it would be better if solo quests were separated from group and raid quests when you first take them. That way, if you prefer to solo, you don't have your solo quest chain into a group encounter that you miss out on if that is not your play style. Basically, you would go to a quest NPC, who would offer you solo, group, and raid level quests. Soloers would take just the solo ones, if that is their preference.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I am not against grouped-content, I just don't want grouped-playstyle to be more rewarding than playing an MMO solo, nor do I want to be forced into groups. Higher chances for fat loot when you group, but not excluding same gear for soloers, just lower chance to get it.
Please, chrisel, for your sake, find yourself a friend that you respect who has a solid background in statistics.
It's pure math, dude. It's pure math.
Please, for my sake, re-read what I wrote. It is pure logic. Pure logic.
I didn't need to go far to find it. I highlighted your concept for you. And the million other slander-filled posts of yours that demand groupers go to hell and that solo'ers deserve equal rights to identical outcomes than groupers do. These posts of yours are typically followed with 'gasp! how dare you tell me, a solo'er, how to play, you good-for-nothing grouper!'
Nah, wasn't a snowball's chance in hell I missed what you have been saying.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
A good comrpimse between group and solo content would be what Guild Wars did and allow you to add AI henchmen to your group, ncp party members with basic ai to help you. That way the devs can still design harder tougher content requiring groups but also alow soloers to access this content via AI fill ins.
It seems that I did too. Kindly repost or link to the statistical proof that supports your claim that groupers deserve greater rewards due to having a greater individual challenge than a soloer.
Ironic this should come from you. The last time this whole solo vs. group concept surfaced, you acknowledged the superiority of the group mechanic to the individual mechanic, having explicitly stated you had mentioned it 'several pages back' at the time of your posting. Discussed were examples of how a group mechanic is capable of doing more than the sum of their parts due to the power effect of the masses, and that 'properly designed content' would meet the *reward to the challenge*, not the number of participants. Otherwise, what could be labeled as 'collective soloing' would be taking place, not a 'group mechanic'.
Apparently, where the hangup mostly lies is the assumption that the individual challenge is lessened through either environment.
If the reward is based on the challenge, because of the dynamic of 'stregnth in numbers', a group, when properly challenged, will always yield a result that in all cases is superior to an individual collective.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
I am not against grouped-content, I just don't want grouped-playstyle to be more rewarding than playing an MMO solo, nor do I want to be forced into groups. Higher chances for fat loot when you group, but not excluding same gear for soloers, just lower chance to get it.
Please, chrisel, for your sake, find yourself a friend that you respect who has a solid background in statistics.
It's pure math, dude. It's pure math.
Please, for my sake, re-read what I wrote. It is pure logic. Pure logic.
I didn't need to go far to find it. I highlighted your concept for you. And the million other slander-filled posts of yours that demand groupers go to hell and that solo'ers deserve equal rights to identical outcomes than groupers do. These posts of yours are typically followed with 'gasp! how dare you tell me, a solo'er, how to play, you good-for-nothing grouper!'
Nah, wasn't a snowball's chance in hell I missed what you have been saying.
Good! Then we agree that players should not be better rewarded just because the biggest challenge is to bear up with all the morons and elitist jerks in a raid.
I don't want total soloing but keep things to single groups. I really loathe the raiding rat race. In my experience all raiding does is destroy guilds and communities.
It seems that I did too. Kindly repost or link to the statistical proof that supports your claim that groupers deserve greater rewards due to having a greater individual challenge than a soloer.
Ironic this should come from you. The last time this whole solo vs. group concept surfaced, you acknowledged the superiority of the group mechanic to the individual mechanic, having explicitly stated you had mentioned it 'several pages back' at the time of your posting. Discussed were examples of how a group mechanic is capable of doing more than the sum of their parts due to the power effect of the masses, and that 'properly designed content' would meet the *reward to the challenge*, not the number of participants. Otherwise, what could be labeled as 'collective soloing' would be taking place, not a 'group mechanic'.
Apparently, where the hangup mostly lies is the assumption that the individual challenge is lessened through either environment.
If the reward is based on the challenge, because of the dynamic of 'stregnth in numbers', a group, when properly challenged, will always yield a result that in all cases is superior to an individual collective.
Power multipliers are easily defined; that's not up for debate.
Hence the underline.
I maintain that the dilution of the group role leads to an increased tolerance for individual failure.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
It seems that I did too. Kindly repost or link to the statistical proof that supports your claim that groupers deserve greater rewards due to having a greater individual challenge than a soloer.
Ironic this should come from you. The last time this whole solo vs. group concept surfaced, you acknowledged the superiority of the group mechanic to the individual mechanic, having explicitly stated you had mentioned it 'several pages back' at the time of your posting. Discussed were examples of how a group mechanic is capable of doing more than the sum of their parts due to the power effect of the masses, and that 'properly designed content' would meet the *reward to the challenge*, not the number of participants. Otherwise, what could be labeled as 'collective soloing' would be taking place, not a 'group mechanic'.
Apparently, where the hangup mostly lies is the assumption that the individual challenge is lessened through either environment.
If the reward is based on the challenge, because of the dynamic of 'stregnth in numbers', a group, when properly challenged, will always yield a result that in all cases is superior to an individual collective.
I'll follow this up with an example that immediately comes to mind for anyone who might have missed it.
Metal strands. Let's say they can all support 10lb-f of pressure before the stress proves too great for their structure. Now put a bunch together, to form a cable, SCIENTIFICALLY AND MATHEMATICALLY, you will need to exert more force on the cable than simply the original force multiplied by the number of strands.
Now approach the situation from the opposite end of the spectrum. Take a solid metal strand whos diameter is equal to the summation of all the diameters combined of the strands inside your cable. Guess what? You need, again, less force applied to the single thick rod than you do the strands that form cable in order to push it over the stress cycle.
You have an inert object, uncompromising to outside manipulations, that demonstrates cleanly the concept of 'collection of individuals working in tandem' (the group dynamic) is visibly and undeniably superior than a stand-alone multiplied (collective soloing, or soloing broken down from a group). Apply this to work projects such as a house and lifting of beams and how more can be done as a group than alone.
Time, while also a component to this concept, is an independant variable, as can be witnessed from the cable example. So no, a soloer shouldn't have rights to 'equal' outcome, with 'time' as the discriminator. Time should *ALSO* be a discriminator, not simply a plug-in-for operator.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Power multipliers are easily defined; that's not up for debate. Hence the underline. I maintain that the dilution of the group role leads to an increased tolerance for individual failure.
Posted while you were posting. Cable. Simpliest conceptual argument that came to mind.
Edit: read your final sentence a second time. Will ammend below:
Operating alone you perform as a body. Operating in a group you perform as an organ. Operating in a raid you perform as a tissue... etc etc.
Because a liver fails, the heart must overextend itself to pump poisoned blood, and a slew of other organs must reach outside their happy operating tempo to keep the body functioning.
If you're the liver (an individual inside of a group), you can absolutely slack. But that means simply that everyone else must cover the slack. The summation of deltas (tolerance for failure) will still result in 0 if you wish to succeed. Just like if you're operating alone. As the size of the group increases, so too does the allowance, but yet the *NET DELTA* is identical to if you are operating alone. Because of this, you can throw this concept out, as a common denom has been identified.
What are we left with? The challenge at hand. As has been demonstrated with cable, the challenge (pressure of cable) is greater with a group. So we're back to where we started.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Originally posted by pojung Posted while you were posting. Cable. Simpliest conceptual argument that came to mind.
I'll go with a hypothetical but contextual example.
A simple and basic theoretical encounter. It's a scaling tank and spank with an enrage timer. To "win" your DDS classes each need to maintain an average of 800 DPS throughout the fight.
Three examples:
Solo: 800 DPS to win.
5 DDS: 4000 DPS to win.
10 DDS: 8000 DPS to win.
25 DDs: 20000 DPS to win.
Your DD classes are pretty experienced and can generally do 1000 DPS each, but today .. one of them has a very bad day indeed and dies 25% of the way through the fight. As such, his average DPS over the encounter falls to 250. Now let's see what effect that this has on the fight:
I'll read you post to nitpick details but already I see an error with your setup:
You assume a direct scaling of dps. As such, you're promoting a 'collective soloing' encounter. One must assume that members can mesh together and use buffs, NPC debuffs etc to help each other as well as themselves. Therein already your setup is faulty. I'll continue reading it.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
I'll read you post to nitpick details but already I see an error with your setup: You assume a direct scaling of dps. As such, you're promoting a 'collective soloing' encounter. One must assume that members can mesh together and use buffs, NPC debuffs etc to help each other as well as themselves. Therein already your setup is faulty. I'll continue reading it.
I was maintaining simplicity for the sake of argument, however this point only reinforces my conclusion that greater group sizes provide a greater tolerance for failure.
With the interactivity of buffs and such, maintained DPS would increase in larger groups.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
I'll read you post to nitpick details but already I see an error with your setup: You assume a direct scaling of dps. As such, you're promoting a 'collective soloing' encounter. One must assume that members can mesh together and use buffs, NPC debuffs etc to help each other as well as themselves. Therein already your setup is faulty. I'll continue reading it.
I was maintaining simplicity for the sake of argument, however this point only reinforces my conclusion that greater group sizes provide a greater tolerance for failure.
With the interactivity of buffs and such, maintained DPS would increase in larger groups.
It does the opposite of reinforce your angle. That individual who died removes the multiplicative factors to the group that would be necessary to meet the challenge's demands. Utility. It reinforces his/her position in the group as being more than a sum of individuals.
Edit: actually, therein illustrates precisely what I need.
That individual's utility brings the ability to the group to meet the demand. With under-representation from someone in a group, the entirety suffers. Regardless, the challenge remains and is unwaivering and static. You lose 1 person, but lose more than just 1 person's contribution. The scaling factor is precisely the simplification you ignored that flaws your example.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
I am not against grouped-content, I just don't want grouped-playstyle to be more rewarding than playing an MMO solo, nor do I want to be forced into groups. Higher chances for fat loot when you group, but not excluding same gear for soloers, just lower chance to get it.
Please, chrisel, for your sake, find yourself a friend that you respect who has a solid background in statistics.
It's pure math, dude. It's pure math.
Please, for my sake, re-read what I wrote. It is pure logic. Pure logic.
I didn't need to go far to find it. I highlighted your concept for you. And the million other slander-filled posts of yours that demand groupers go to hell and that solo'ers deserve equal rights to identical outcomes than groupers do. These posts of yours are typically followed with 'gasp! how dare you tell me, a solo'er, how to play, you good-for-nothing grouper!'
Nah, wasn't a snowball's chance in hell I missed what you have been saying.
Good! Then we agree that players should not be better rewarded just because the biggest challenge is to bear up with all the morons and elitist jerks in a raid.
Where in the highlighted red is there anything remotely pertaining to 'biggest challenge is to deal with morons and elitists' = 'grouping'? For you, based on your empirical exposure to grouping, you might assume this, but this is a social factor, not a mathematical one.
But even there, your sample size for your social statement is entirely too narrow and biased. You're trolling at this point, if you weren't already in your previous 300 posts.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Originally posted by Jordi85 Yes I agree with OP, if a quest chain is for solo, let it end with another solo quest. You can still have group-based quest chains, it doesn't have to be all solo or all group, there can be a balance.
This is the main argument I see. If I am in a group of friends, I don't want use all plowing throw solo quests to do group stuff and if I am alone I don't want to hit a wall of group content.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
Comments
Quoted from second page.
Yeah, this problem is pretty much thanks to poorly planned game and there is no way to fix it unless you completely revamp the system of how "quests" are given and how the community is located.
I've sure this has been said before, but I hate being separated from playing with friends because of level or gear. It might seem like it cheapens the process of level and gear but I've played games where I was way under level or someone else was and we just took some extra people, or just had to be more careful.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
I agree with this, that's one of the reasons why I love CoX any level player can play with each other except for level specific content.
poopee
Leveling implies separation from friends.
No leveling implies no progression.
Until we can grasp both friend unity and progression, an MMO will flourish.
I think what the OP is saying is for mmorpgs need to cater more to the instant gratification lovers that have anti-social tendancies so they can enjoy the game. There is no need to have friends and a social network in a game if you don't have one in real .... but that goes against the whole being of the internet! OMG! It's real! The matrix must be real and Varney is really Neo calling out after his virtual death o n these very forums. We must listen people it is all a lie! There is no reason we need to be force fed group activites in games designed around the same. Consoles aren't real they are a tool of the company to tease us with solo games that end!
Nvm, I must have had a moment of insanity and I didn't feel like deleting it. God forbid it took more than one person to take out an army of evil.
Please, chrisel, for your sake, find yourself a friend that you respect who has a solid background in statistics.
It's pure math, dude. It's pure math.
Please, for my sake, re-read what I wrote. It is pure logic. Pure logic.
Make us care MORE about our faction & world pvp!
Please, chrisel, for your sake, find yourself a friend that you respect who has a solid background in statistics. Have him explain to you the concept of how a group of individuals operating in tandem is worth more than the sum of their parts, always. It has been exposed elsewhere on these forums but apparently you either missed it or you are not perceptive to this medium. But find that friend.
Now examine how rewards are handed out. If you reward the challenge, then in all cases a group will garner bigger individual gains because of the modifier that a group entails. If you reward simply the number of people, then you in effect abolish the group dynamic.
For this reason a soloer cannot expect to be equally paid than a grouper. There is a delta that cannot be argued against. If you do remove this delta, you in effect obliterate all benefits of group play. This, could be easily seen as selfish on the behalf of the soloer if such an equalizer were considered. The grouper wants his just reward, the soloer should want his as well. But it isn't on par. Time is a separate variable, and please do not attempt to blend the two once you have been graced with the individual/cooperation mechanic's understanding.
It's pure math, dude. It's pure math.
It seems that I did too.
Kindly repost or link to the statistical proof that supports your claim that groupers deserve greater rewards due to having a greater individual challenge than a soloer.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Long ago was a mythical hero that could solo raid bosses in a universe called MMOGs(massive MULTI-PLAYER online game). He took down monsters that 25 man groups couldn't take down with his mighty inability to use the LFG channel and/or feature because he wanted to do so! His tears vanquished these monsters with a wave of self-righteous instant gratification so quickly he became known as Teh Uber Leet.
No more would his basement reek of dirty socks and rubbing lotion. His family would look at him as a might epic wielding master of the arts while serving him breakfast and getting his clothes ready for school later that day. He alone saved us all from the dreaded Darth Console with his actions. Does his action finally crown him above all other heros...only you can tell www.youtube.com/watch
I think it would be better if solo quests were separated from group and raid quests when you first take them. That way, if you prefer to solo, you don't have your solo quest chain into a group encounter that you miss out on if that is not your play style. Basically, you would go to a quest NPC, who would offer you solo, group, and raid level quests. Soloers would take just the solo ones, if that is their preference.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Please, chrisel, for your sake, find yourself a friend that you respect who has a solid background in statistics.
It's pure math, dude. It's pure math.
Please, for my sake, re-read what I wrote. It is pure logic. Pure logic.
I didn't need to go far to find it. I highlighted your concept for you. And the million other slander-filled posts of yours that demand groupers go to hell and that solo'ers deserve equal rights to identical outcomes than groupers do. These posts of yours are typically followed with 'gasp! how dare you tell me, a solo'er, how to play, you good-for-nothing grouper!'
Nah, wasn't a snowball's chance in hell I missed what you have been saying.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
A good comrpimse between group and solo content would be what Guild Wars did and allow you to add AI henchmen to your group, ncp party members with basic ai to help you. That way the devs can still design harder tougher content requiring groups but also alow soloers to access this content via AI fill ins.
Ironic this should come from you. The last time this whole solo vs. group concept surfaced, you acknowledged the superiority of the group mechanic to the individual mechanic, having explicitly stated you had mentioned it 'several pages back' at the time of your posting. Discussed were examples of how a group mechanic is capable of doing more than the sum of their parts due to the power effect of the masses, and that 'properly designed content' would meet the *reward to the challenge*, not the number of participants. Otherwise, what could be labeled as 'collective soloing' would be taking place, not a 'group mechanic'.
Apparently, where the hangup mostly lies is the assumption that the individual challenge is lessened through either environment.
If the reward is based on the challenge, because of the dynamic of 'stregnth in numbers', a group, when properly challenged, will always yield a result that in all cases is superior to an individual collective.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Please, chrisel, for your sake, find yourself a friend that you respect who has a solid background in statistics.
It's pure math, dude. It's pure math.
Please, for my sake, re-read what I wrote. It is pure logic. Pure logic.
I didn't need to go far to find it. I highlighted your concept for you. And the million other slander-filled posts of yours that demand groupers go to hell and that solo'ers deserve equal rights to identical outcomes than groupers do. These posts of yours are typically followed with 'gasp! how dare you tell me, a solo'er, how to play, you good-for-nothing grouper!'
Nah, wasn't a snowball's chance in hell I missed what you have been saying.
Good! Then we agree that players should not be better rewarded just because the biggest challenge is to bear up with all the morons and elitist jerks in a raid.
Make us care MORE about our faction & world pvp!
I don't want total soloing but keep things to single groups. I really loathe the raiding rat race. In my experience all raiding does is destroy guilds and communities.
Ironic this should come from you. The last time this whole solo vs. group concept surfaced, you acknowledged the superiority of the group mechanic to the individual mechanic, having explicitly stated you had mentioned it 'several pages back' at the time of your posting. Discussed were examples of how a group mechanic is capable of doing more than the sum of their parts due to the power effect of the masses, and that 'properly designed content' would meet the *reward to the challenge*, not the number of participants. Otherwise, what could be labeled as 'collective soloing' would be taking place, not a 'group mechanic'.
Apparently, where the hangup mostly lies is the assumption that the individual challenge is lessened through either environment.
If the reward is based on the challenge, because of the dynamic of 'stregnth in numbers', a group, when properly challenged, will always yield a result that in all cases is superior to an individual collective.
Power multipliers are easily defined; that's not up for debate.
Hence the underline.
I maintain that the dilution of the group role leads to an increased tolerance for individual failure.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Ironic this should come from you. The last time this whole solo vs. group concept surfaced, you acknowledged the superiority of the group mechanic to the individual mechanic, having explicitly stated you had mentioned it 'several pages back' at the time of your posting. Discussed were examples of how a group mechanic is capable of doing more than the sum of their parts due to the power effect of the masses, and that 'properly designed content' would meet the *reward to the challenge*, not the number of participants. Otherwise, what could be labeled as 'collective soloing' would be taking place, not a 'group mechanic'.
Apparently, where the hangup mostly lies is the assumption that the individual challenge is lessened through either environment.
If the reward is based on the challenge, because of the dynamic of 'stregnth in numbers', a group, when properly challenged, will always yield a result that in all cases is superior to an individual collective.
I'll follow this up with an example that immediately comes to mind for anyone who might have missed it.
Metal strands. Let's say they can all support 10lb-f of pressure before the stress proves too great for their structure. Now put a bunch together, to form a cable, SCIENTIFICALLY AND MATHEMATICALLY, you will need to exert more force on the cable than simply the original force multiplied by the number of strands.
Now approach the situation from the opposite end of the spectrum. Take a solid metal strand whos diameter is equal to the summation of all the diameters combined of the strands inside your cable. Guess what? You need, again, less force applied to the single thick rod than you do the strands that form cable in order to push it over the stress cycle.
You have an inert object, uncompromising to outside manipulations, that demonstrates cleanly the concept of 'collection of individuals working in tandem' (the group dynamic) is visibly and undeniably superior than a stand-alone multiplied (collective soloing, or soloing broken down from a group). Apply this to work projects such as a house and lifting of beams and how more can be done as a group than alone.
Time, while also a component to this concept, is an independant variable, as can be witnessed from the cable example. So no, a soloer shouldn't have rights to 'equal' outcome, with 'time' as the discriminator. Time should *ALSO* be a discriminator, not simply a plug-in-for operator.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Posted while you were posting. Cable. Simpliest conceptual argument that came to mind.
Edit: read your final sentence a second time. Will ammend below:
Operating alone you perform as a body. Operating in a group you perform as an organ. Operating in a raid you perform as a tissue... etc etc.
Because a liver fails, the heart must overextend itself to pump poisoned blood, and a slew of other organs must reach outside their happy operating tempo to keep the body functioning.
If you're the liver (an individual inside of a group), you can absolutely slack. But that means simply that everyone else must cover the slack. The summation of deltas (tolerance for failure) will still result in 0 if you wish to succeed. Just like if you're operating alone. As the size of the group increases, so too does the allowance, but yet the *NET DELTA* is identical to if you are operating alone. Because of this, you can throw this concept out, as a common denom has been identified.
What are we left with? The challenge at hand. As has been demonstrated with cable, the challenge (pressure of cable) is greater with a group. So we're back to where we started.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
I'll go with a hypothetical but contextual example.
A simple and basic theoretical encounter. It's a scaling tank and spank with an enrage timer. To "win" your DDS classes each need to maintain an average of 800 DPS throughout the fight.
Three examples:
Solo: 800 DPS to win.
5 DDS: 4000 DPS to win.
10 DDS: 8000 DPS to win.
25 DDs: 20000 DPS to win.
Your DD classes are pretty experienced and can generally do 1000 DPS each, but today .. one of them has a very bad day indeed and dies 25% of the way through the fight. As such, his average DPS over the encounter falls to 250. Now let's see what effect that this has on the fight:
Solo: 250/800 DPS done. (31.25%). Encounter lost.
5 DDS: 4250/4000 DPS done. (106.25%). Encounter won. (barely)
10 DDS: 9250/8000 DPS done. (115.625%). Encounter won. (comfortably)
25 DDS: 24250/20000 DPS done. (121.25%). Encounter won. (easily)
The more diluted the group role, the more tolerance there is for failure.
In the 5 DDS example, two people have to perform poorly to fail.
In the 10 DDS example, three people have to perform poorly to fail.
In the 25 DDS example, a whopping seven people have to perform poorly to fail.
Strength and safety in numbers.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
I'll read you post to nitpick details but already I see an error with your setup:
You assume a direct scaling of dps. As such, you're promoting a 'collective soloing' encounter. One must assume that members can mesh together and use buffs, NPC debuffs etc to help each other as well as themselves. Therein already your setup is faulty. I'll continue reading it.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
I was maintaining simplicity for the sake of argument, however this point only reinforces my conclusion that greater group sizes provide a greater tolerance for failure.
With the interactivity of buffs and such, maintained DPS would increase in larger groups.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
I was maintaining simplicity for the sake of argument, however this point only reinforces my conclusion that greater group sizes provide a greater tolerance for failure.
With the interactivity of buffs and such, maintained DPS would increase in larger groups.
It does the opposite of reinforce your angle. That individual who died removes the multiplicative factors to the group that would be necessary to meet the challenge's demands. Utility. It reinforces his/her position in the group as being more than a sum of individuals.
Edit: actually, therein illustrates precisely what I need.
That individual's utility brings the ability to the group to meet the demand. With under-representation from someone in a group, the entirety suffers. Regardless, the challenge remains and is unwaivering and static. You lose 1 person, but lose more than just 1 person's contribution. The scaling factor is precisely the simplification you ignored that flaws your example.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Yes I agree with OP, if a quest chain is for solo, let it end with another solo quest.
You can still have group-based quest chains, it doesn't have to be all solo or all group, there can be a balance.
Please, chrisel, for your sake, find yourself a friend that you respect who has a solid background in statistics.
It's pure math, dude. It's pure math.
Please, for my sake, re-read what I wrote. It is pure logic. Pure logic.
I didn't need to go far to find it. I highlighted your concept for you. And the million other slander-filled posts of yours that demand groupers go to hell and that solo'ers deserve equal rights to identical outcomes than groupers do. These posts of yours are typically followed with 'gasp! how dare you tell me, a solo'er, how to play, you good-for-nothing grouper!'
Nah, wasn't a snowball's chance in hell I missed what you have been saying.
Good! Then we agree that players should not be better rewarded just because the biggest challenge is to bear up with all the morons and elitist jerks in a raid.
Where in the highlighted red is there anything remotely pertaining to 'biggest challenge is to deal with morons and elitists' = 'grouping'? For you, based on your empirical exposure to grouping, you might assume this, but this is a social factor, not a mathematical one.
But even there, your sample size for your social statement is entirely too narrow and biased. You're trolling at this point, if you weren't already in your previous 300 posts.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
This is the main argument I see. If I am in a group of friends, I don't want use all plowing throw solo quests to do group stuff and if I am alone I don't want to hit a wall of group content.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.