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. Quite the contrary. 25 to 24 interacting buffs/debuffs = 4% loss of synergy.
10 to 9 interacting buffs/debuffs = 10% loss of synergy.
5 to 4 interacting buffs/debuffs = 20% loss of synergy. As you can see, the larger the group, the less impact losing a single person has. A 25 DDS group would need to lose 5 DDS to equal the synergy loss from a single guy in a 5 DDS setup. This again supports my conclusion.
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. Edit: I think that the flaw in your logic may have stemmed from the assumption that all buffs/debuffs stacked multiplicatively, which is not the case. They don't stack at all.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
WoW was at its best when the most epic dungeons like MC required 40 man teams who had to practice strategically to take down elite bosses. Now, because of ppl like the OP, games are getting worse in that regard. No one should be entitled to every piece of content in a game just because they hate to work for it or in groups. Rare items should be just that, rare. If only a few people have them, and they achieved it through large teams and teamwork, then great! that is a good thing.
That's your opinion. I was there too, and I remember differently.
I remember the priest who was afk and on autofollow in MC for 2 hours before someone noticed. I remember the mage who bound the macro "/cast frost bolt" to his mousewheel and sat watching TV while "playing". I remember both of these players (and many more besides) being horrible to non-raiders because, ofc .. they were "noobs" and had crap gear.
40 man raiding was about having a few people in key raid positions that knew what they were doing. Everyone else was just along for the ride. And the epix, of course.
Highlight for emphasis; this thread is not about the loot.
If you read the OP again (assuming you read it to begin with) then you might notice that he's complaining about being denied access to contentbecause the game has a loot-centric design.
His complaint isn't about not getting loot. It's about not getting to see the content.
I dont believe i said otherwise... if you havent noticed...everything here is "opinion". It doesnt make my point any more or less valid than your own.
Im not sure how you think someone having a priest on autofollow is a rational response... why not go with a guild or a group you trust? What does that have to do with group based content? Nothing.
I still touched on his point though, that all content should be available to all without certain requirements, such as groups and the like. Whether its lootcentric or not, it is still a prerequisite. Simple if and then design, conditions have to be met. Its one of the basics of game design.
Im not sure how you think someone having a priest on autofollow is a rational response... why not go with a guild or a group you trust? What does that have to do with group based content? Nothing.
I still touched on his point though, that all content should be available to all without certain requirements, such as groups and the like. Whether its lootcentric or not, it is still a prerequisite. Simple if and then design, conditions have to be met. Its one of the basics of game design.
Very simple; having that priest AFK didn't affect the success of the raid.
It may have slowed it down (very slightly) .. but the point remains that the player was simply unnecessary. That's not something that I've ever experienced in 5-10 man content. When someone is AFK (or simply slacking) it is very noticeable.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
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. Quite the contrary. 25 to 24 interacting buffs/debuffs = 4% loss of synergy.
10 to 9 interacting buffs/debuffs = 10% loss of synergy.
5 to 4 interacting buffs/debuffs = 20% loss of synergy. As you can see, the larger the group, the less impact losing a single person has. A 25 DDS group would need to lose 5 DDS to equal the synergy loss from a single guy in a 5 DDS setup. This again supports my conclusion.
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.
So as I increase my total numbers, my personal dependability decreases? Not explicitly so. This depends on how the game mechanics are drawn up.
I am Class_X with 5 abilities that will increase everyone's dps by 1% or some other arbitrary number. None of these 5 abilities can stack, but I can run with any 1 of the 5 active at one point in time.
We fill the raid with 3 of Class_X. Our utilities are not cheapened. We add another... our worth has still not decreased, because our value has increased as the raid size has increased. We add still another, and still we are not cheapened. Once we add our 6th, now we start to see a change in our curve.
Again, your examples fall back to an assumption that utilities are static and don't match the value of a group's dynamic as you deal with group number increases/decreases.
But, to entertain you, assuming your examples were 100% sound (of which they aren't), there exists another flaw to your logic exposed below:
Your example assumes a challenge that is inferior to the net worth of the group's contribution. Where losing 1 person can be recovered via others' efforts. If your challenge properly meets a group's potential of contribution, losing one person means game over. Their individual contribution is invaluable at this point. We shift from something being 'worthless' to being 'priceless' when operating with these sorts of limits.
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
So as I increase my total numbers, my personal dependability decreases? Not explicitly so. This depends on how the game mechanics are drawn up. I am Class_X with 5 abilities that will increase everyone's dps by 1% or some other arbitrary number. None of these 5 abilities can stack, but I can run with any 1 of the 5 active at one point in time. We fill the raid with 3 of Class_X. Our utilities are not cheapened. We add another... our worth has still not decreased, because our value has increased as the raid size has increased. We add still another, and still we are not cheapened. Once we add our 6th, now we start to see a change in our curve. 5 unique debuffs per class? .. that's about 3-4 more than most have. Regardless, you're also ignoring the fairly basic point that you are arguing the potential lessening of group synergy that the smaller DDS groups wouldn't even have to start with. Again, your examples fall back to an assumption that utilities are static and don't match the value of a group's dynamic as you deal with group number increases/decreases. But, to entertain you, assuming your examples were 100% sound (of which they aren't), there exists another flaw to your logic exposed below: Your example assumes a challenge that is inferior to the net worth of the group's contribution. Where losing 1 person can be recovered via others' efforts. If your challenge properly meets a group's potential of contribution, losing one person means game over. Their individual contribution is invaluable at this point. We shift from something being 'worthless' to being 'priceless' when operating with these sorts of limits. If group encounters were designed with this sort of difficulty, I'd reconsider my opinion. The simple real-world truth is that they just aren't.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
What I still can't understand with all this fuss is soloers or let's say people that are talking about what the op mentioned is that tell me how many quests you have and tell me the number of them makes you need to get a group.
Unless it's a game flaw you don't have only 1 quest per level if you don't want to group skip it and go complete the other quests you have.
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
Formatted for clarity. I feel we've fully examined solo/group at this time. Correct me if I'm being too presumptuous.
5 unique debuffs per class? .. that's about 3-4 more than most have.
Regardless, you're also ignoring the fairly basic point that you are arguing the potential lessening of group synergy that the smaller DDS groups wouldn't even have to start with.
The point remains. I think we can agree on this finally. The mechanics drawn up define where your curve starts to deviate. Since you play WoW and we have similar backgrounds in the area, a common example of understanding would be a warlock's curses. Back in classic there were 4-5 curses that could be applied, all with very, very similar net dps increases for a raid. In today's WoW, I acknowledge there is now the 'Curse of Elements' and that's that. The fault here is a game who's designers have homogenized play to a point that even solo versus group mechanics have their line blurred in the sand.
Endstate: an individuals worth more often than not will increase a little via their 1 or 2 potential buffs, then rapidly drop off as soon as their overflow number has been met. There is strength in numbers always, safety only under certain conditions. This worth is defined on the collective of numbers meeting a challenge.
If group encounters were designed with this sort of difficulty, I'd reconsider my opinion. The simple real-world truth is that they just aren't.
Because the designers don't properly tailor their content for groups, just like they don't properly tailor their content for soloists. When was the last time you made a mistake during a solo encounter and couldn't recover easily? When was the last time a group made a mistake during a group encounter etc etc?
Endstate: Challenge is the key word. A margin for error that decreases, increases the worth of an individual, due to the mathematical concept of limits. This worth is defined externally to the collective of numbers, but on the base of the challenge at hand.
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
Im not sure how you think someone having a priest on autofollow is a rational response... why not go with a guild or a group you trust? What does that have to do with group based content? Nothing.
I still touched on his point though, that all content should be available to all without certain requirements, such as groups and the like. Whether its lootcentric or not, it is still a prerequisite. Simple if and then design, conditions have to be met. Its one of the basics of game design.
Very simple; having that priest AFK didn't affect the success of the raid.
It may have slowed it down (very slightly) .. but the point remains that the player was simply unnecessary. That's not something that I've ever experienced in 5-10 man content. When someone is AFK (or simply slacking) it is very noticeable.
Ah, but now you contradict the whole argument. If the player was unnecessary, then it wasnt a prerequisite or requirement was it? meaning, the player wasnt needed and therefore didnt need to be there for the content. I do not recall WoW ever needed a specific amount of players for the raid to be played. In MC, before it was nerfed to be easier, you needed all 40 players to be playing their roles if you actually intended to beat it. The accomplishment itself was part of the reward. If later, players are not needed to beat the dungeon, then you just go with the bare minimum needed, which is not based on number but capability.
After rereading some older responses and reading the newer ones I think I know what some of you are saying. That you want to be able to interact with the community via role playing, economy, etc. (But seriously my suggestion/question still stands that if you have no intention of interacting with the community other than chatting why don't you just play a single player game with a chat mod?)
Now if THAT is the case I see your plight, and agree that you should have options to play and enjoy the game without being forced to join a group, and options to be just as successful in the economy without having to group (to an extent - you can still gain influence in the market and buy things that raiders obtain and sell, don't complain that you can obtain equivalent items on your own). UNLESS more games have an option like someone mentioned earlier like Guild Wars by having a group AI to help you out.
But why should people who love grouping be punished because of players who want to do things on their own? I don't have a problem with having it so people can do things on their own, but I do have a problem with it being punished to make a group to do things. Why do a quest or kill some monsters with a friend or group of friends when you get exponentially more experience and reward doing it on your own? If people don't like to group with other people but still want to interact with the community in other ways and have their own gaming experience that's great have at it, but people who do enjoy grouping together should be rewarded for their efforts or at least be on a more level playing field (speaking of scaling maybe make it so if you join a group to go kill mobs the monsters increase in difficulty and you get more reward).
And yes I do support that grouping should be rewarded more than soloing. Imagine you are on your own and you fight an extremely difficult boss on your own. It is possible to win on your own, but one of the hardest encounters you have experienced. You are in complete control of this situation, and if you fail a couple of times you will learn exactly how to do it, and beat it. Now when you make an encounter very difficult and it has to be done by more than one person the challenge increases. Why? Because you not only have to perfect your role (the only thing you would have to do if you were on your own), you have to make sure everyone else perfects their role in accordance to the group, and perfect working together as a team. Doing content designed for groups as a group is inherently more challenging than any encounter designed for one person. As such group content SHOULD have greater rewards than solo content. Now yes you could counter what I am saying to say you could have safety in numbers and make the encounter easier, but obviously in that circumstance if the game is designed properly rewards will be stretched very thin (or be taken away if you defeat a boss with more than an allowed number) or you won't be allowed to do that in the first place.
-------------------------- Playing: FFXIV, TERA, LoL, and HoTS My Rig: GPU: GeForce GTX 770, CPU: i7-4790K, Memory: 16 GB RAM
1- There isn't a need to exclude either solo content or group content. There can be content for everyone to enjoy if the developers of the game have the balls to balance it, and from what I have read here there are some games that seem to have accomplished that. And you'll have to agree that a MMO without content designed for group of people working together is just as retarded as it can get, it's a MULTIPLAYER game for god's sake. For an all-solo game you have single-player games.
2- The amount of reward earned from a challenge should be based upon how DIFFICULT is the challenge.
3- I would like these games to stop being based on gear, and be based upon how well you play your character of choice and use it effectively. It would just throw away all gear-based rants i see on this forum.
That's like trying to play CounterStrike without any opponents.
Solo play is there for when there's no other people on, so you can still do something. Sad fact is that with developers focusing so much on solo play, more people are actually solo'ing, which means that for the inevitable group quests and dungeons there's no one available since everyone's solo'ing. Vicious circle.
Honestly, MMORPG's are multiplayer games, not singleplayer. If the devs want to 'force' you to do multiplayer quests... They aren't forcing you. They made a multiplayer game, so they have every right to actually, you know, make multiplayer content. Solo content is a small concession, it is never, ever the focus. If it becomes the focus the game is ruined - No one would even be playing WoW if it weren't for dungeons, raids, battlegrounds and arenas.
Anyone can raid, even mousclickers. It requires no skills, whatsoever math you come up with. The day you are unable to raid unless you are a keybinder, come back, then we can discuss if its a "challenge". With right "gear" (err "skills" if you ask groupfanatics) same skill-less persons are able to faceroll those "challenging" instances.
The biggest challenge of raiding is to bear up with all the different personalities; leet kids, brats, elitist-jerks etc. You name it.
What we certainly can agree on, is that if you would reward solo-playstyle exact as group-playstyle, noone would actually be grouping. Which is an interesting thought by itself.
So, then my question is; why force people to do something they arent actually not interested in doing? It is quite clear to me that an MMO where you are able to solo all content would be successful while an MMO that does force you to group, will be a failure.
MMO genre has evolved. Old School group-fanatics seem unable to cope up with this. In frustration they pick on soloers for a genre they ruined themselves. Soloers belive they can coexist with group-fanatics, while group-fanatics don't.
After rereading some older responses and reading the newer ones I think I know what some of you are saying. That you want to be able to interact with the community via role playing, economy, etc. (But seriously my suggestion/question still stands that if you have no intention of interacting with the community other than chatting why don't you just play a single player game with a chat mod?)
Now if THAT is the case I see your plight, and agree that you should have options to play and enjoy the game without being forced to join a group, and options to be just as successful in the economy without having to group (to an extent - you can still gain influence in the market and buy things that raiders obtain and sell, don't complain that you can obtain equivalent items on your own). UNLESS more games have an option like someone mentioned earlier like Guild Wars by having a group AI to help you out.
But why should people who love grouping be punished because of players who want to do things on their own? I don't have a problem with having it so people can do things on their own, but I do have a problem with it being punished to make a group to do things. Why do a quest or kill some monsters with a friend or group of friends when you get exponentially more experience and reward doing it on your own? If people don't like to group with other people but still want to interact with the community in other ways and have their own gaming experience that's great have at it, but people who do enjoy grouping together should be rewarded for their efforts or at least be on a more level playing field (speaking of scaling maybe make it so if you join a group to go kill mobs the monsters increase in difficulty and you get more reward).
And yes I do support that grouping should be rewarded more than soloing. Imagine you are on your own and you fight an extremely difficult boss on your own. It is possible to win on your own, but one of the hardest encounters you have experienced. You are in complete control of this situation, and if you fail a couple of times you will learn exactly how to do it, and beat it. Now when you make an encounter very difficult and it has to be done by more than one person the challenge increases. Why? Because you not only have to perfect your role (the only thing you would have to do if you were on your own), you have to make sure everyone else perfects their role in accordance to the group, and perfect working together as a team. Doing content designed for groups as a group is inherently more challenging than any encounter designed for one person. As such group content SHOULD have greater rewards than solo content. Now yes you could counter what I am saying to say you could have safety in numbers and make the encounter easier, but obviously in that circumstance if the game is designed properly rewards will be stretched very thin (or be taken away if you defeat a boss with more than an allowed number) or you won't be allowed to do that in the first place.
Anyone can raid, even mousclickers. It requires no skills, whatsoever math you come up with. The day you are unable to raid unless you are a keybinder, come back, then we can discuss if its a "challenge". With right "gear" (err "skills" if you ask groupfanatics) same skill-less persons are able to faceroll those "challenging" instances. The biggest challenge of raiding is to bear up with all the different personalities; leet kids, brats, elitist-jerks etc. You name it. What we certainly can agree on, is that if you would reward solo-playstyle exact as group-playstyle, noone would actually be grouping. Which is an interesting thought by itself. So, then my question is; why force people to do something they arent actually not interested in doing? It is quite clear to me that an MMO where you are able to solo all content would be successful while an MMO that does force you to group, will be a failure. MMO genre has evolved. Old School group-fanatics seem unable to cope up with this. In frustration they pick on soloers for a genre they ruined themselves. Soloers belive they can coexist with group-fanatics, while group-fanatics don't.
{mod edit}
Raiding takes no skill? Ok so please explain to me why only a handful of guilds can complete certain hard modes in WoW (check out wowprogress if you don't believe me), out of the hundreds of thousands of other guilds? People are drowning in gear in WoW, so what else makes these top few are better than the rest if it ISN'T skill? And no the biggest challenge of raiding is certainly not dealing with those types of people you mentioned (maybe stop raiding with random pugs??). If you could actually get into a decent raiding guild and attempt hard modes the hardest thing is performing your job to the best of your ability and working together as a team successfully.
The rest of your post is unfounded rhetoric, like your claims that "mouseclickers" are subpar players, but I'll attempt to respond to this mess. People will still group even if it's not rewarded in an MMO, but a lot of people that want to will probably be left out because it is much harder to group when everything in the game is easier and more efficient if done by themselves. This can also be especially hurtful to weaker classes (although sometimes this isn't an issue depending on the game).
Honestly when most people think of playing a MULTIPLAYER game do they really think they won't be working together with other people as a team? From the beginning of gaming if a game was multiplayer the majority of the time it's either you competing against someone else, or you and your team competing against another team. Now PLEASE NOTE like I said in the other post I support that people should be able to enjoy solo play if they want, but honestly what did you think you were getting yourself into when you started playing MMORPGs?
Obviously both solo content and group content is important in an MMORPG to appeal to more people. I don't think an MMORPG would be successful with strict focus on solo or strict focus on grouping. Well actually the latter is probably a lot more plausible based on the subscription numbers of group oriented games, but if you look at like WoW it is extremely successful and it tries to appeal to both groups.
-------------------------- Playing: FFXIV, TERA, LoL, and HoTS My Rig: GPU: GeForce GTX 770, CPU: i7-4790K, Memory: 16 GB RAM
@ Ilvaldyr Formatted for clarity. I feel we've fully examined solo/group at this time. Correct me if I'm being too presumptuous. 5 unique debuffs per class? .. that's about 3-4 more than most have. Regardless, you're also ignoring the fairly basic point that you are arguing the potential lessening of group synergy that the smaller DDS groups wouldn't even have to start with. The point remains. I think we can agree on this finally. The mechanics drawn up define where your curve starts to deviate. Since you play WoW and we have similar backgrounds in the area, a common example of understanding would be a warlock's curses. Back in classic there were 4-5 curses that could be applied, all with very, very similar net dps increases for a raid. In today's WoW, I acknowledge there is now the 'Curse of Elements' and that's that. The fault here is a game who's designers have homogenized play to a point that even solo versus group mechanics have their line blurred in the sand. Endstate: an individuals worth more often than not will increase a little via their 1 or 2 potential buffs, then rapidly drop off as soon as their overflow number has been met. There is strength in numbers always, safety only under certain conditions. This worth is defined on the collective of numbers meeting a challenge. If group encounters were designed with this sort of difficulty, I'd reconsider my opinion. The simple real-world truth is that they just aren't. Because the designers don't properly tailor their content for groups, just like they don't properly tailor their content for soloists. When was the last time you made a mistake during a solo encounter and couldn't recover easily? When was the last time a group made a mistake during a group encounter etc etc? Endstate: Challenge is the key word. A margin for error that decreases, increases the worth of an individual, due to the mathematical concept of limits. This worth is defined externally to the collective of numbers, but on the base of the challenge at hand.
I've thought about this further.
I'm not even sure that 'safety in numbers' is even eligible for consideration. I might be mistaken, but it's a variable that might very well have already been accounted for via the group dynamic. Furthermore, if it isn't, it's not a variable that plays to a solo'ers benefit. Because a reward is based on the challenge, and rightfully so. Not the amount of safety subtracted. If this was the case, people who are afk in the safety of their cities deserve consideration. Everyone has a relative 'safety' in one ability being able to cover for another ability or mistake that was played out. It's not a proper discriminator- even in relative means, where it loses its weight.
The other thing to consider is how a game is set up. If in effect each class only has 1 ability or buff or debuff or the like, to bring to the table, and you have 10 classes in your game, then in effect, your challenge graph and your effectiveness graph will by synonymous until the 10th person is placed into the collective. After the 10th, or after you start seeing duplicates, at this point your effectiveness starts to level out but your collective still is climbing.
And then, lastly, if one would assume that no one brings absolutely anything to the table in terms of collective gains, then one can come to 2 conclusions: 1. the game is not set up to endorse group dynamics, point blank. groups still deserve higher rewards based on all the topics we've covered, but the game's mechanics are in effect a limiter and would cause 'collective soloing'- nothing else. 2. *EVEN IF* no one brought anything to the table in terms of collective gain, more numbers would STILL result in a higher individual output due to distance. NPCs need to cover distance, and ping-pong kiting can only take place when there is more than 1 person in a geographic location. Even this concept can be expanded to generate a triangle, square, ... circle with ping-pongers that would allow for aggro swaps leading to potentially the absolution of a tank. Where this breaks down, obviously is for melee or if the NPC is a ranged themselves, at which point you consider 'ok, everyone is a generic melee dude who brings nothing to the table' (in essence, exact replicas of one another)- at this point you still entertain the validity of a group provided 1 hit from the NPC doesn't auto-kill a group member. The ping-pong can still take place but with tanking included. And no, this has nothing to do with safety- it has to do with using numbers creatively and to one's advantage. Safety as had been touched on was with regards to allowance for mistakes or recovery based on 1 person's lack of contribution. That isn't the issue at stake here. Hence why I'm even questioning 'safety in numbers' with regards to contribution as even being eligible for consideration.
I'm not sure where else a soloer could possibly claim so much as equal rights as a grouper to identical rewards. We've run the gamut just now.
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 ChromeBallz Why play an MMORPG for solo content?That's like trying to play CounterStrike without any opponents. Solo play is there for when there's no other people on, so you can still do something. Sad fact is that with developers focusing so much on solo play, more people are actually solo'ing, which means that for the inevitable group quests and dungeons there's no one available since everyone's solo'ing. Vicious circle.Honestly, MMORPG's are multiplayer games, not singleplayer. If the devs want to 'force' you to do multiplayer quests... They aren't forcing you. They made a multiplayer game, so they have every right to actually, you know, make multiplayer content. Solo content is a small concession, it is never, ever the focus. If it becomes the focus the game is ruined - No one would even be playing WoW if it weren't for dungeons, raids, battlegrounds and arenas.
Since when did solo mean single player? You can be soloing in a multiplayer environment. You can be soloing with friends who are soloing. You can be competing in solo competition vs other solo player. Like a in a race, or a boxer or a Hero who saves the world by himself, not a team. Not every thing needs to be team based and shouldnt be. Infact judging by the evidence most people prefer to solo multiplay. Play with others, but solo. Understand?
Why play an MMORPG for solo content? That's like trying to play CounterStrike without any opponents. Yes, or playing deathmatch in a fps only with bots. What's the point, exactly?
Solo play is there for when there's no other people on, so you can still do something. Sad fact is that with developers focusing so much on solo play, more people are actually solo'ing, which means that for the inevitable group quests and dungeons there's no one available since everyone's solo'ing. Vicious circle. Honestly, MMORPG's are multiplayer games, not singleplayer. If the devs want to 'force' you to do multiplayer quests... They aren't forcing you. They made a multiplayer game, so they have every right to actually, you know, make multiplayer content. Solo content is a small concession, it is never, ever the focus. If it becomes the focus the game is ruined - No one would even be playing WoW if it weren't for dungeons, raids, battlegrounds and arenas. Exactly my thoughts.
I'll add another thing: the sooner people realize that MMO's don't gravitate around a single person, the better. You aren't going to be the center of attention in a MMO, so get over it. The community is what matters.
It may be an mmo, but it doesn't mean it can't cater to different types of players. Why not have a mix of solo and multiplayer content? Or set up things in a dynamic way so for example, going into an instance, it'll scale for the number of people in your party. Though I like grouping as the next person, sometimes I don't have friends or guildies interested in going to the particular dungeon I'm headed, and I hate puging. So it would be nice to have the option of soloing.
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed: And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!" ~Lord George Gordon Byron
MMOs are more then accommodating with solo content. If you can't be bothered to group then you miss out on group content.
Scaling enemies is probably the worst idea ever. It basically trivializes group content.
I understand people play MMOs for different reasons, and I understand sometimes you just want to play alone or with a friend or two, but if you turn everything into solo content then it's not an MMO anymore.
18 pages of arguing solo vs group play when the OP said he/she groups with around 2 people. Can you people read? Or just "read into" whatever is posted?
People should stop worrying what others do in game. It's getting old. Game makers in MMOs had better realize that people are different and stop catering to one aspect of MMO gaming. If I'm tired and don't want to group, give me something to do. If I want to group in a large group every night, give US something to do. Same for small groups.
Problem is, the developers are to narrow minded these days. Gotta be all PvP, half assed PvP, or no PvP. No good mix for the masses. Same with grouping/solo play.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Anyone can raid, even mousclickers. It requires no skills, whatsoever math you come up with. The day you are unable to raid unless you are a keybinder, come back, then we can discuss if its a "challenge". With right "gear" (err "skills" if you ask groupfanatics) same skill-less persons are able to faceroll those "challenging" instances. The biggest challenge of raiding is to bear up with all the different personalities; leet kids, brats, elitist-jerks etc. You name it.
Raiding takes no skill? Ok so please explain to me why only a handful of guilds can complete certain hard modes in WoW (check out wowprogress if you don't believe me), out of the hundreds of thousands of other guilds? People are drowning in gear in WoW, so what else makes these top few are better than the rest if it ISN'T skill? And no the biggest challenge of raiding is certainly not dealing with those types of people you mentioned (maybe stop raiding with random pugs??). If you could actually get into a decent raiding guild and attempt hard modes the hardest thing is performing your job to the best of your ability and working together as a team successfully.
Read above. Again. I already pointed out my view on this. As long as mouseclickers can raid "any" content, I see this as something handed out for the skill-less part of MMO community. Go to YouTube, look at PvP videos there made by "mouseclickers"; they are laughed at. Anyone can make "good" PvP videos, but none can be good in PvP as a mouseclicker. That is a well know fact. To be more direct on this, I am now talking about WoW. I guess 99% of all I know who raid only, truly suck in PvP. Same amount of them are, by no surprise, mouseclickers. I am not talking about hybrid raiders/PvP'ers here, only pure raiders.
The rest of your post is unfounded rhetoric, like your claims that "mouseclickers" are subpar players, but I'll attempt to respond to this mess. People will still group even if it's not rewarded in an MMO, but a lot of people that want to will probably be left out because it is much harder to group when everything in the game is easier and more efficient if done by themselves. This can also be especially hurtful to weaker classes (although sometimes this isn't an issue depending on the game).
I understand that MMO's need to hand out content for people with less skill. Personally I find raiding the most boring part of all sides in MMO's, plain & simple cause its no challenge. A mouseclicker can never utilize his/hers potential like a keybinder can. Never. Mouseclicking teqnique is subpar keybinding.
Honestly when most people think of playing a MULTIPLAYER game do they really think they won't be working together with other people as a team? From the beginning of gaming if a game was multiplayer the majority of the time it's either you competing against someone else, or you and your team competing against another team. Now PLEASE NOTE like I said in the other post I support that people should be able to enjoy solo play if they want, but honestly what did you think you were getting yourself into when you started playing MMORPGs?
I find lots of enjoyment in MMO's as a soloer. You need to think outside your box, as you show a narrowminded approach to MMO's Trust me, there are lots of different sides to MMO's than levels, numbers, hit ratings, kills and/or how fast you are able to run an instance. Actually, I am quite fed up being attacked by this way every time I state that I am a soloer & enjoys it that way. In fact, so much, that I am working/considering on a post where I am going to tell what have been fun for me last 2 weeks in LOTRO. As a "soloer".
Obviously both solo content and group content is important in an MMORPG to appeal to more people. I don't think an MMORPG would be successful with strict focus on solo or strict focus on grouping. Well actually the latter is probably a lot more plausible based on the subscription numbers of group oriented games, but if you look at like WoW it is extremely successful and it tries to appeal to both groups.
Well, by no surprise I think quite the oppisite. While we don't know yet if an MMO with pure solo content would be a success, since there have not yet been released any. We already know for sure that an MMO that focus strictly on group-content would be failure. DDO a great example here. Again.
My only issue with group content isn't that it requires a minimum of people to accomplish, it's that it usually entails a hard cap on how many can participate, which is usually the designed required amount of participants to complete said group content,
This is an issue because for 25 man raiding in WoW, you need to have more than just 25 people in your roster available because it's inevitable that not every one will be able to make it every single raid in a row. But, there aren't always absences, so you basically get into the situation where you have to bench the excess players, which is not enjoyable when they've been looking forward to participate in a raid after having rearranged your schedule for it.
I really don't see why they design content for X amount of players, but offer some lenience in allowing groups/raids to bring in a few extra people. Sure it's "easier" to do content tuned for a specific amount of people with more people, but who cares? Even if that one or two people makes the difference between downing the boss or not, then it's just more people to share the loot with. Besides, raids should be about having fun with friends. It shouldn't be about worrying over who you have to upset by leaving them out.
My only issue with group content isn't that it requires a minimum of people to accomplish, it's that it usually entails a hard cap on how many can participate, which is usually the designed required amount of participants to complete said group content, This is an issue because for 25 man raiding in WoW, you need to have more than just 25 people in your roster available because it's inevitable that not every one will be able to make it every single raid in a row. But, there aren't always absences, so you basically get into the situation where you have to bench the excess players, which is not enjoyable when they've been looking forward to participate in a raid after having rearranged your schedule for it. I really don't see why they design content for X amount of players, but offer some lenience in allowing groups/raids to bring in a few extra people. Sure it's "easier" to do content tuned for a specific amount of people with more people, but who cares? Even if that one or two people makes the difference between downing the boss or not, then it's just more people to share the loot with. Besides, raids should be about having fun with friends. It shouldn't be about worrying over who you have to upset by leaving them out.
You hit on a few points that contributed to me deciding to leave WoW for the second time. I was in a raid guild and maybe it was the guild but getting kicked out of raids that I had planed on being in was just getting upsetting. Even got kicked out of a raid that just had the final boss left after I was involved in getting up to that point the previous day. Should be possible to have a few extra people involved in the raids, and just an increase in difficulty to balance out the extra people. That way more people get a chance to play.
Comments
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
That's your opinion. I was there too, and I remember differently.
I remember the priest who was afk and on autofollow in MC for 2 hours before someone noticed. I remember the mage who bound the macro "/cast frost bolt" to his mousewheel and sat watching TV while "playing". I remember both of these players (and many more besides) being horrible to non-raiders because, ofc .. they were "noobs" and had crap gear.
40 man raiding was about having a few people in key raid positions that knew what they were doing. Everyone else was just along for the ride. And the epix, of course.
Highlight for emphasis; this thread is not about the loot.
If you read the OP again (assuming you read it to begin with) then you might notice that he's complaining about being denied access to content because the game has a loot-centric design.
His complaint isn't about not getting loot. It's about not getting to see the content.
I dont believe i said otherwise... if you havent noticed...everything here is "opinion". It doesnt make my point any more or less valid than your own.
Im not sure how you think someone having a priest on autofollow is a rational response... why not go with a guild or a group you trust? What does that have to do with group based content? Nothing.
I still touched on his point though, that all content should be available to all without certain requirements, such as groups and the like. Whether its lootcentric or not, it is still a prerequisite. Simple if and then design, conditions have to be met. Its one of the basics of game design.
Very simple; having that priest AFK didn't affect the success of the raid.
It may have slowed it down (very slightly) .. but the point remains that the player was simply unnecessary. That's not something that I've ever experienced in 5-10 man content. When someone is AFK (or simply slacking) it is very noticeable.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
So as I increase my total numbers, my personal dependability decreases? Not explicitly so. This depends on how the game mechanics are drawn up.
I am Class_X with 5 abilities that will increase everyone's dps by 1% or some other arbitrary number. None of these 5 abilities can stack, but I can run with any 1 of the 5 active at one point in time.
We fill the raid with 3 of Class_X. Our utilities are not cheapened. We add another... our worth has still not decreased, because our value has increased as the raid size has increased. We add still another, and still we are not cheapened. Once we add our 6th, now we start to see a change in our curve.
Again, your examples fall back to an assumption that utilities are static and don't match the value of a group's dynamic as you deal with group number increases/decreases.
But, to entertain you, assuming your examples were 100% sound (of which they aren't), there exists another flaw to your logic exposed below:
Your example assumes a challenge that is inferior to the net worth of the group's contribution. Where losing 1 person can be recovered via others' efforts. If your challenge properly meets a group's potential of contribution, losing one person means game over. Their individual contribution is invaluable at this point. We shift from something being 'worthless' to being 'priceless' when operating with these sorts of limits.
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
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
What I still can't understand with all this fuss is soloers or let's say people that are talking about what the op mentioned is that tell me how many quests you have and tell me the number of them makes you need to get a group.
Unless it's a game flaw you don't have only 1 quest per level if you don't want to group skip it and go complete the other quests you have.
I say crown him!
@ Ilvaldyr
Formatted for clarity. I feel we've fully examined solo/group at this time. Correct me if I'm being too presumptuous.
5 unique debuffs per class? .. that's about 3-4 more than most have.
Regardless, you're also ignoring the fairly basic point that you are arguing the potential lessening of group synergy that the smaller DDS groups wouldn't even have to start with.
The point remains. I think we can agree on this finally. The mechanics drawn up define where your curve starts to deviate. Since you play WoW and we have similar backgrounds in the area, a common example of understanding would be a warlock's curses. Back in classic there were 4-5 curses that could be applied, all with very, very similar net dps increases for a raid. In today's WoW, I acknowledge there is now the 'Curse of Elements' and that's that. The fault here is a game who's designers have homogenized play to a point that even solo versus group mechanics have their line blurred in the sand.
Endstate: an individuals worth more often than not will increase a little via their 1 or 2 potential buffs, then rapidly drop off as soon as their overflow number has been met. There is strength in numbers always, safety only under certain conditions. This worth is defined on the collective of numbers meeting a challenge.
If group encounters were designed with this sort of difficulty, I'd reconsider my opinion. The simple real-world truth is that they just aren't.
Because the designers don't properly tailor their content for groups, just like they don't properly tailor their content for soloists. When was the last time you made a mistake during a solo encounter and couldn't recover easily? When was the last time a group made a mistake during a group encounter etc etc?
Endstate: Challenge is the key word. A margin for error that decreases, increases the worth of an individual, due to the mathematical concept of limits. This worth is defined externally to the collective of numbers, but on the base of the challenge at hand.
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
Very simple; having that priest AFK didn't affect the success of the raid.
It may have slowed it down (very slightly) .. but the point remains that the player was simply unnecessary. That's not something that I've ever experienced in 5-10 man content. When someone is AFK (or simply slacking) it is very noticeable.
Ah, but now you contradict the whole argument. If the player was unnecessary, then it wasnt a prerequisite or requirement was it? meaning, the player wasnt needed and therefore didnt need to be there for the content. I do not recall WoW ever needed a specific amount of players for the raid to be played. In MC, before it was nerfed to be easier, you needed all 40 players to be playing their roles if you actually intended to beat it. The accomplishment itself was part of the reward. If later, players are not needed to beat the dungeon, then you just go with the bare minimum needed, which is not based on number but capability.
Therefore you just helped make my point.
After rereading some older responses and reading the newer ones I think I know what some of you are saying. That you want to be able to interact with the community via role playing, economy, etc. (But seriously my suggestion/question still stands that if you have no intention of interacting with the community other than chatting why don't you just play a single player game with a chat mod?)
Now if THAT is the case I see your plight, and agree that you should have options to play and enjoy the game without being forced to join a group, and options to be just as successful in the economy without having to group (to an extent - you can still gain influence in the market and buy things that raiders obtain and sell, don't complain that you can obtain equivalent items on your own). UNLESS more games have an option like someone mentioned earlier like Guild Wars by having a group AI to help you out.
But why should people who love grouping be punished because of players who want to do things on their own? I don't have a problem with having it so people can do things on their own, but I do have a problem with it being punished to make a group to do things. Why do a quest or kill some monsters with a friend or group of friends when you get exponentially more experience and reward doing it on your own? If people don't like to group with other people but still want to interact with the community in other ways and have their own gaming experience that's great have at it, but people who do enjoy grouping together should be rewarded for their efforts or at least be on a more level playing field (speaking of scaling maybe make it so if you join a group to go kill mobs the monsters increase in difficulty and you get more reward).
And yes I do support that grouping should be rewarded more than soloing. Imagine you are on your own and you fight an extremely difficult boss on your own. It is possible to win on your own, but one of the hardest encounters you have experienced. You are in complete control of this situation, and if you fail a couple of times you will learn exactly how to do it, and beat it. Now when you make an encounter very difficult and it has to be done by more than one person the challenge increases. Why? Because you not only have to perfect your role (the only thing you would have to do if you were on your own), you have to make sure everyone else perfects their role in accordance to the group, and perfect working together as a team. Doing content designed for groups as a group is inherently more challenging than any encounter designed for one person. As such group content SHOULD have greater rewards than solo content. Now yes you could counter what I am saying to say you could have safety in numbers and make the encounter easier, but obviously in that circumstance if the game is designed properly rewards will be stretched very thin (or be taken away if you defeat a boss with more than an allowed number) or you won't be allowed to do that in the first place.
--------------------------
Playing:
FFXIV, TERA, LoL, and HoTS
My Rig:
GPU: GeForce GTX 770, CPU: i7-4790K, Memory: 16 GB RAM
Well, let's see:
1- There isn't a need to exclude either solo content or group content. There can be content for everyone to enjoy if the developers of the game have the balls to balance it, and from what I have read here there are some games that seem to have accomplished that. And you'll have to agree that a MMO without content designed for group of people working together is just as retarded as it can get, it's a MULTIPLAYER game for god's sake. For an all-solo game you have single-player games.
2- The amount of reward earned from a challenge should be based upon how DIFFICULT is the challenge.
3- I would like these games to stop being based on gear, and be based upon how well you play your character of choice and use it effectively. It would just throw away all gear-based rants i see on this forum.
you mean to any PAYING CUSTOMER who has PAID for the right to log in?
If you want to be rewarded just for handing over money, there are games that do that too.
Just go to their item shop and they will sell you whatever you want.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Why play an MMORPG for solo content?
That's like trying to play CounterStrike without any opponents.
Solo play is there for when there's no other people on, so you can still do something. Sad fact is that with developers focusing so much on solo play, more people are actually solo'ing, which means that for the inevitable group quests and dungeons there's no one available since everyone's solo'ing. Vicious circle.
Honestly, MMORPG's are multiplayer games, not singleplayer. If the devs want to 'force' you to do multiplayer quests... They aren't forcing you. They made a multiplayer game, so they have every right to actually, you know, make multiplayer content. Solo content is a small concession, it is never, ever the focus. If it becomes the focus the game is ruined - No one would even be playing WoW if it weren't for dungeons, raids, battlegrounds and arenas.
Playing: WF
Played: WoW, GW2, L2, WAR, AoC, DnL (2005), GW, LotRO, EQ2, TOR, CoH (RIP), STO, TSW, TERA, EVE, ESO, BDO
Tried: EQ, UO, AO, EnB, TCoS, Fury, Ryzom, EU, DDO, TR, RF, CO, Aion, VG, DN, Vindictus, AA
Anyone can raid, even mousclickers. It requires no skills, whatsoever math you come up with. The day you are unable to raid unless you are a keybinder, come back, then we can discuss if its a "challenge". With right "gear" (err "skills" if you ask groupfanatics) same skill-less persons are able to faceroll those "challenging" instances.
The biggest challenge of raiding is to bear up with all the different personalities; leet kids, brats, elitist-jerks etc. You name it.
What we certainly can agree on, is that if you would reward solo-playstyle exact as group-playstyle, noone would actually be grouping. Which is an interesting thought by itself.
So, then my question is; why force people to do something they arent actually not interested in doing? It is quite clear to me that an MMO where you are able to solo all content would be successful while an MMO that does force you to group, will be a failure.
MMO genre has evolved. Old School group-fanatics seem unable to cope up with this. In frustration they pick on soloers for a genre they ruined themselves. Soloers belive they can coexist with group-fanatics, while group-fanatics don't.
Make us care MORE about our faction & world pvp!
No.
Make us care MORE about our faction & world pvp!
{mod edit}
Raiding takes no skill? Ok so please explain to me why only a handful of guilds can complete certain hard modes in WoW (check out wowprogress if you don't believe me), out of the hundreds of thousands of other guilds? People are drowning in gear in WoW, so what else makes these top few are better than the rest if it ISN'T skill? And no the biggest challenge of raiding is certainly not dealing with those types of people you mentioned (maybe stop raiding with random pugs??). If you could actually get into a decent raiding guild and attempt hard modes the hardest thing is performing your job to the best of your ability and working together as a team successfully.
The rest of your post is unfounded rhetoric, like your claims that "mouseclickers" are subpar players, but I'll attempt to respond to this mess. People will still group even if it's not rewarded in an MMO, but a lot of people that want to will probably be left out because it is much harder to group when everything in the game is easier and more efficient if done by themselves. This can also be especially hurtful to weaker classes (although sometimes this isn't an issue depending on the game).
Honestly when most people think of playing a MULTIPLAYER game do they really think they won't be working together with other people as a team? From the beginning of gaming if a game was multiplayer the majority of the time it's either you competing against someone else, or you and your team competing against another team. Now PLEASE NOTE like I said in the other post I support that people should be able to enjoy solo play if they want, but honestly what did you think you were getting yourself into when you started playing MMORPGs?
Obviously both solo content and group content is important in an MMORPG to appeal to more people. I don't think an MMORPG would be successful with strict focus on solo or strict focus on grouping. Well actually the latter is probably a lot more plausible based on the subscription numbers of group oriented games, but if you look at like WoW it is extremely successful and it tries to appeal to both groups.
--------------------------
Playing:
FFXIV, TERA, LoL, and HoTS
My Rig:
GPU: GeForce GTX 770, CPU: i7-4790K, Memory: 16 GB RAM
I've thought about this further.
I'm not even sure that 'safety in numbers' is even eligible for consideration. I might be mistaken, but it's a variable that might very well have already been accounted for via the group dynamic. Furthermore, if it isn't, it's not a variable that plays to a solo'ers benefit. Because a reward is based on the challenge, and rightfully so. Not the amount of safety subtracted. If this was the case, people who are afk in the safety of their cities deserve consideration. Everyone has a relative 'safety' in one ability being able to cover for another ability or mistake that was played out. It's not a proper discriminator- even in relative means, where it loses its weight.
The other thing to consider is how a game is set up. If in effect each class only has 1 ability or buff or debuff or the like, to bring to the table, and you have 10 classes in your game, then in effect, your challenge graph and your effectiveness graph will by synonymous until the 10th person is placed into the collective. After the 10th, or after you start seeing duplicates, at this point your effectiveness starts to level out but your collective still is climbing.
And then, lastly, if one would assume that no one brings absolutely anything to the table in terms of collective gains, then one can come to 2 conclusions: 1. the game is not set up to endorse group dynamics, point blank. groups still deserve higher rewards based on all the topics we've covered, but the game's mechanics are in effect a limiter and would cause 'collective soloing'- nothing else. 2. *EVEN IF* no one brought anything to the table in terms of collective gain, more numbers would STILL result in a higher individual output due to distance. NPCs need to cover distance, and ping-pong kiting can only take place when there is more than 1 person in a geographic location. Even this concept can be expanded to generate a triangle, square, ... circle with ping-pongers that would allow for aggro swaps leading to potentially the absolution of a tank. Where this breaks down, obviously is for melee or if the NPC is a ranged themselves, at which point you consider 'ok, everyone is a generic melee dude who brings nothing to the table' (in essence, exact replicas of one another)- at this point you still entertain the validity of a group provided 1 hit from the NPC doesn't auto-kill a group member. The ping-pong can still take place but with tanking included. And no, this has nothing to do with safety- it has to do with using numbers creatively and to one's advantage. Safety as had been touched on was with regards to allowance for mistakes or recovery based on 1 person's lack of contribution. That isn't the issue at stake here. Hence why I'm even questioning 'safety in numbers' with regards to contribution as even being eligible for consideration.
I'm not sure where else a soloer could possibly claim so much as equal rights as a grouper to identical rewards. We've run the gamut just now.
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
Since when did solo mean single player? You can be soloing in a multiplayer environment. You can be soloing with friends who are soloing. You can be competing in solo competition vs other solo player. Like a in a race, or a boxer or a Hero who saves the world by himself, not a team. Not every thing needs to be team based and shouldnt be. Infact judging by the evidence most people prefer to solo multiplay. Play with others, but solo. Understand?
I'll add another thing: the sooner people realize that MMO's don't gravitate around a single person, the better. You aren't going to be the center of attention in a MMO, so get over it. The community is what matters.
It may be an mmo, but it doesn't mean it can't cater to different types of players. Why not have a mix of solo and multiplayer content? Or set up things in a dynamic way so for example, going into an instance, it'll scale for the number of people in your party. Though I like grouping as the next person, sometimes I don't have friends or guildies interested in going to the particular dungeon I'm headed, and I hate puging. So it would be nice to have the option of soloing.
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:
And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,
And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"
~Lord George Gordon Byron
I couldn't disagree with you more.
MMOs are more then accommodating with solo content. If you can't be bothered to group then you miss out on group content.
Scaling enemies is probably the worst idea ever. It basically trivializes group content.
I understand people play MMOs for different reasons, and I understand sometimes you just want to play alone or with a friend or two, but if you turn everything into solo content then it's not an MMO anymore.
18 pages of arguing solo vs group play when the OP said he/she groups with around 2 people. Can you people read? Or just "read into" whatever is posted?
People should stop worrying what others do in game. It's getting old. Game makers in MMOs had better realize that people are different and stop catering to one aspect of MMO gaming. If I'm tired and don't want to group, give me something to do. If I want to group in a large group every night, give US something to do. Same for small groups.
Problem is, the developers are to narrow minded these days. Gotta be all PvP, half assed PvP, or no PvP. No good mix for the masses. Same with grouping/solo play.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Raiding takes no skill? Ok so please explain to me why only a handful of guilds can complete certain hard modes in WoW (check out wowprogress if you don't believe me), out of the hundreds of thousands of other guilds? People are drowning in gear in WoW, so what else makes these top few are better than the rest if it ISN'T skill? And no the biggest challenge of raiding is certainly not dealing with those types of people you mentioned (maybe stop raiding with random pugs??). If you could actually get into a decent raiding guild and attempt hard modes the hardest thing is performing your job to the best of your ability and working together as a team successfully.
Read above. Again. I already pointed out my view on this. As long as mouseclickers can raid "any" content, I see this as something handed out for the skill-less part of MMO community. Go to YouTube, look at PvP videos there made by "mouseclickers"; they are laughed at. Anyone can make "good" PvP videos, but none can be good in PvP as a mouseclicker. That is a well know fact. To be more direct on this, I am now talking about WoW. I guess 99% of all I know who raid only, truly suck in PvP. Same amount of them are, by no surprise, mouseclickers. I am not talking about hybrid raiders/PvP'ers here, only pure raiders.
The rest of your post is unfounded rhetoric, like your claims that "mouseclickers" are subpar players, but I'll attempt to respond to this mess. People will still group even if it's not rewarded in an MMO, but a lot of people that want to will probably be left out because it is much harder to group when everything in the game is easier and more efficient if done by themselves. This can also be especially hurtful to weaker classes (although sometimes this isn't an issue depending on the game).
I understand that MMO's need to hand out content for people with less skill. Personally I find raiding the most boring part of all sides in MMO's, plain & simple cause its no challenge. A mouseclicker can never utilize his/hers potential like a keybinder can. Never. Mouseclicking teqnique is subpar keybinding.
Honestly when most people think of playing a MULTIPLAYER game do they really think they won't be working together with other people as a team? From the beginning of gaming if a game was multiplayer the majority of the time it's either you competing against someone else, or you and your team competing against another team. Now PLEASE NOTE like I said in the other post I support that people should be able to enjoy solo play if they want, but honestly what did you think you were getting yourself into when you started playing MMORPGs?
I find lots of enjoyment in MMO's as a soloer. You need to think outside your box, as you show a narrowminded approach to MMO's Trust me, there are lots of different sides to MMO's than levels, numbers, hit ratings, kills and/or how fast you are able to run an instance. Actually, I am quite fed up being attacked by this way every time I state that I am a soloer & enjoys it that way. In fact, so much, that I am working/considering on a post where I am going to tell what have been fun for me last 2 weeks in LOTRO. As a "soloer".
Obviously both solo content and group content is important in an MMORPG to appeal to more people. I don't think an MMORPG would be successful with strict focus on solo or strict focus on grouping. Well actually the latter is probably a lot more plausible based on the subscription numbers of group oriented games, but if you look at like WoW it is extremely successful and it tries to appeal to both groups.
Well, by no surprise I think quite the oppisite. While we don't know yet if an MMO with pure solo content would be a success, since there have not yet been released any. We already know for sure that an MMO that focus strictly on group-content would be failure. DDO a great example here. Again.
Make us care MORE about our faction & world pvp!
My only issue with group content isn't that it requires a minimum of people to accomplish, it's that it usually entails a hard cap on how many can participate, which is usually the designed required amount of participants to complete said group content,
This is an issue because for 25 man raiding in WoW, you need to have more than just 25 people in your roster available because it's inevitable that not every one will be able to make it every single raid in a row. But, there aren't always absences, so you basically get into the situation where you have to bench the excess players, which is not enjoyable when they've been looking forward to participate in a raid after having rearranged your schedule for it.
I really don't see why they design content for X amount of players, but offer some lenience in allowing groups/raids to bring in a few extra people. Sure it's "easier" to do content tuned for a specific amount of people with more people, but who cares? Even if that one or two people makes the difference between downing the boss or not, then it's just more people to share the loot with. Besides, raids should be about having fun with friends. It shouldn't be about worrying over who you have to upset by leaving them out.
You hit on a few points that contributed to me deciding to leave WoW for the second time. I was in a raid guild and maybe it was the guild but getting kicked out of raids that I had planed on being in was just getting upsetting. Even got kicked out of a raid that just had the final boss left after I was involved in getting up to that point the previous day. Should be possible to have a few extra people involved in the raids, and just an increase in difficulty to balance out the extra people. That way more people get a chance to play.