I will write this even though I know not many care.
The best MMO will have features created for ALL forms of game play.
You should be able to level or gain skill in any MMO solo from the start to the end game. Earning BASIC gear along the way. There should always be group focused features along the way for increased difficulty and RARE gear. NO MMO SHOULD FORCE SOLO OR GROUP PLAY. This takes away the MASSIVE part of a MMO in a multi-player game. A game that forces a single style of play will have less subs so it will be less massive. But the rewards should be based on the type of play style you chose.
If you want to solo, the gear rewards should have stats that aid you while soloing. Group rewards should be for group style play and PvP should have rewards for PvP play. All of the gear should be useable for any style, but you will have an advantage if you have the corresponding gear for your style. Solo quest grinding should give you gear that will keep you grinding. Group play should give you gear that will last much longer and allow you to skip much of the solo quests by gaining more xp and better gear in groups. PvP is PvP and you should gain gear the more you PvP. The PvP gear should allow you to solo just fine, but it would be the same as solo gear for group PvE.
I agree with the bit in blue completely - however that seems to be "the line"that is drawn between those who want everything soloable versus those who prefer or at least accept some degree of group content.
There's a contingent of people (and they usually identify themselves pretty swiftly through their responses) who would argue that everything in a MMO should be soloable and you should never have to group with anyone, ever, at any time, for anything. I have seen some characterize grouping for a raid boss as "forced grouping", and then argue that it's unacceptable. I've seen arguments that raid bosses should be soloable and that it's unfair to "force them to group" to take one on.
There are some who, I'd argue, lean far more to the anti-grouping side than any pro-grouping person I've ever seen does to the grouping side. They log on multiplayer games to play by themselves, apparently - some don't even want to talk to anyone; just to be left alone and are irritated when others attempt to be social. And then they're offended and surprised when asked why they don't just play a single player game instead.
For my own take, I think there's a balance. I think soloable content is ideal for normal progress - questing, leveling, skill-ups, what-have-you. I think there should be group-focused content along the way that yields worthy rewards (as, being group-focused, it would be more difficult than a solo encounter just by principle). There could be comparable gear on the solo side, of course.
However, when it gets to more epic encounters like raids or other content of a similar scale... grouping all the way. Raid bosses should never be soloable, or they cease to be raid bosses and are merely more challenging solo encounters. You simply can not have as complex an encounter designed for solo play as you can for a group. Logistically, it wouldn't work.
Just picking one example at random from a youtube search, there's no way a raid fight like this one could be done solo. It would have to be toned down, have far less to deal with and, thus, not be nearly the same encounter were it to be scaled to something soloable that can be completed at its targeted level.
Now, again, the hardcore soloists whose flesh burns at the very word "group" would stomp and pout and carry on at the idea that there's content that requires a group. They'll state that it makes it impossible for them to get since they hate grouping. Well... no... it's not impossible to get. Anyone who tries can get it. The truth is, they simply refuse to get it; they're getting in their own way. There are plenty of others who don't have that hang-up and so that content is there for them.
There are too many people who simply want everything on their terms - when and how they want it - will cry "foul!" and put on their best "poor victim routine" when they don't get it.
If pro-grouping people can "deal" with there being a lot of soloable content that they'd rather not do, then pro-soloers can "deal" with there being group-focused content that they'd rather not do. Neither side is being "forced" to do either.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
No game 'forces' you to group. It's just either more efficient to do so, or not.
When a game logs you in and actually *forces* you to hang out with strangers you might not even like, then I will vote, and mostly likely vote 'no'.
Dungeons & Dragons Online?
DDO doesn't force you to group at all, in fact in a recent update, they put a new category on all of their dungeons specifically for soloers. It is entirely possible to solo as much as you want to, you never even have to talk to anyone in DDO.
No game 'forces' you to group. It's just either more efficient to do so, or not.
When a game logs you in and actually *forces* you to hang out with strangers you might not even like, then I will vote, and mostly likely vote 'no'.
Dungeons & Dragons Online?
DDO doesn't force you to group at all, in fact in a recent update, they put a new category on all of their dungeons specifically for soloers. It is entirely possible to solo as much as you want to, you never even have to talk to anyone in DDO.
Off topic, I was quite disappointed D&D never released teh online version of the rule books. It was supposed to include software so you could play the game with other people on the internet, including a dungeon master, and there was a screen that rolled all the dice for you, and you could move your characters around on a grid, which chatting in Vent.
Off topic, I was quite disappointed D&D never released teh online version of the rule books. It was supposed to include software so you could play the game with other people on the internet, including a dungeon master, and there was a screen that rolled all the dice for you, and you could move your characters around on a grid, which chatting in Vent.
It looked really good, but never released.
That is a shame. I remember seeing some video about that project. I could have gotten into something like that.
I love dungeon crawling, and even WoW didn't do dungeons right. NWN did. An updated NWN would be great.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
If a game is made that requires the use of groups it is not forced, it is understood.
I never understood the psyche of MMO'ers crying over this. If you don't want a group oriented game don't play. Find a solo MMO. (Gotta love the irony of that)
The FPS fans of games like Halo, Bad Company 2, or Global Agenda don't whine and cry saying ' Oh geez these matches are 4vs4 or 8vs8. This game sucks it's forcing me to group'!
So why the hell do MMOers whine and cry if an MMO is group oriented? If you don't like it...DON'T PLAY. Some of us - as ironic as it seems - actually like these social aspects of gaming.
Our spirit was here long before you
Long before us
And long will it be after your pride brings you to your end
Off topic, I was quite disappointed D&D never released teh online version of the rule books. It was supposed to include software so you could play the game with other people on the internet, including a dungeon master, and there was a screen that rolled all the dice for you, and you could move your characters around on a grid, which chatting in Vent.
It looked really good, but never released.
That is a shame. I remember seeing some video about that project. I could have gotten into something like that.
I would have liked that too. So far, nothing beats grouping with real friends at a table and rolling lots of dice. Maybe that's one of the reasons I find grouping in MMOs so unsatisfying.
No game 'forces' you to group. It's just either more efficient to do so, or not.
When a game logs you in and actually *forces* you to hang out with strangers you might not even like, then I will vote, and mostly likely vote 'no'.
Dungeons & Dragons Online?
DDO doesn't force you to group at all, in fact in a recent update, they put a new category on all of their dungeons specifically for soloers. It is entirely possible to solo as much as you want to, you never even have to talk to anyone in DDO.
Off topic, I was quite disappointed D&D never released teh online version of the rule books. It was supposed to include software so you could play the game with other people on the internet, including a dungeon master, and there was a screen that rolled all the dice for you, and you could move your characters around on a grid, which chatting in Vent.
It looked really good, but never released.
I entirely agree with you, I'd love to see lots of old PnP RPGs do something like that and put their games online in a graphical setting that allowed GMs to build a world, populate it and run groups of players through it. I'd be more than happy to pay $15 a month to access that kind of game, assuming that there were things happening there.
But of course, it'll never happen. I really wish I could find a decent sit-down RP game but alas, they're all but extinct.
this is a pointless question... about about is forced soloing ok? does that actually get you anywhere.... how about "How do we make a better game?" or something to that effect.
this is a pointless question... about about is forced soloing ok? does that actually get you anywhere.... how about "How do we make a better game?" or something to that effect.
Sure, but what constitutes a "better game"? Ask 10 people, you'll get 10 answers. Nobody can agree on what makes a game better and everyone wants the perfect game for them.
this is a pointless question... about about is forced soloing ok? does that actually get you anywhere.... how about "How do we make a better game?" or something to that effect.
Sure, but what constitutes a "better game"? Ask 10 people, you'll get 10 answers. Nobody can agree on what makes a game better and everyone wants the perfect game for them.
For the OP, it would seem grouping, more grouping, would make a better game for him (assuming him becuase of the name). Unfortunately, I think this "forced grouping" idea would be a death sentence to any game that tried it. I actually enjoying grouping by the way, but I wouldn't give a dime to a game that was structured in the way suggested.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
For the OP, it would seem grouping, more grouping, would make a better game for him (assuming him becuase of the name). Unfortunately, I think this "forced grouping" idea would be a death sentence to any game that tried it. I actually enjoying grouping by the way, but I wouldn't give a dime to a game that was structured in the way suggested.
I don't see it as a "death sentence" for a game. There are those out there that would prefer that gameplay style.
It would certainly be a 'niche' game considering the current trend players in general are looking for in this genre, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it's a guaranteed bust.
Wouldn't break any sales records that's for sure. Although it could form an incredibly loyal small fanbase that could grow and have a healthy retention assuming the game was actually successful in the goals it set out to accomplish and the audiance it was geared towards found it entertaining.
Rather risky and not my type of game if it was to 'swear' by forced grouping but I could see it hving some minor traction. Whomever went that route though would need to have some realistic expectations from management to development to the investors in it.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
For the OP, it would seem grouping, more grouping, would make a better game for him (assuming him becuase of the name). Unfortunately, I think this "forced grouping" idea would be a death sentence to any game that tried it. I actually enjoying grouping by the way, but I wouldn't give a dime to a game that was structured in the way suggested.
I don't see it as a "death sentence" for a game. There are those out there that would prefer that gameplay style.
It would certainly be a 'niche' game considering the current trend players in general are looking for in this genre, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it's a guaranteed bust.
Wouldn't break any sales records that's for sure. Although it could form an incredibly loyal small fanbase that could grow and have a healthy retention assuming the game was actually successful in the goals it set out to accomplish and the audiance it was geared towards found it entertaining.
Rather risky and not my type of game if it was to 'swear' by forced grouping but I could see it hving some minor traction. Whomever went that route though would need to have some realistic expectations from management to development to the investors in it.
This part almost never happens. Most of the niche games we have now fell into the role, they weren't designed that way. And most investors want a WoW killer. I think it will be a death sentence because a fanbase that doesn't grow can't sustain an MMO. Just wait until the initial fanbse shifts from low level to high and then you tell all those new players, the ones that trickle only a few a month at a time, that they have to group to lvl, and good luck finding groups since most the game is now at the high end.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
I am not keen at all on hirelings; I want players in my groups not bots. DDO was originally far more of a grouping game, but then got solo disease.
Talking of FPS and grouping you do get those ‘Play as a Team’ or ‘Team Play Only’ messages on some servers. So I guess those hardened soloers are there, I cannot wait for the day that one of those guys posts on the BF forums, ‘why can’t I get to the top rank on my own, why do I have to group’? My reply would be, ‘play sniper/recon’ the FPS solution for solo players.
I'd be willing a fairly large percentage of the people that said yes have never actually played a game that required forced grouping. It sounds real great, until you spend the majority of one of your playsessions trying to find groups and then having them fall apart over and over again. Wasting 3-4 hours or more and getting absolutely nothing done is a good way to frustrate anyone.
Anyway, like I said.... I bet if you made a game that required it... a big chunk of the people voting "Yes" would quit within a few weeks.
t sounds real great, until you spend the majority of one of your playsessions trying to find groups and then having them fall apart over and over again.
But if you make a game around grouping then lfg shouldnt be a big problem then as everyone needs a group?
Before Guild Wars introduced Heroes, looking for a group took about 2 minutes if you didnt already got an invite
Global Agenda is forced grouping and it's pretty fun. Right now there is no content you could do alone, you just join a queve and wait for the group to be formed. But they will be adding solo missions in the next pacht...
I am not keen at all on hirelings; I want players in my groups not bots. DDO was originally far more of a grouping game, but then got solo disease.
Talking of FPS and grouping you do get those ‘Play as a Team’ or ‘Team Play Only’ messages on some servers. So I guess those hardened soloers are there, I cannot wait for the day that one of those guys posts on the BF forums, ‘why can’t I get to the top rank on my own, why do I have to group’? My reply would be, ‘play sniper/recon’ the FPS solution for solo players.
It (DDO) was also on its way out of business, before the make over. Absent external factors(such as government interference, or subsidy) one deals with market realities, or one goes out of business. The reality is that the player demographics have changed. Its not just FFA full loot gankfests that have limited appeal these days. Its also games that require or have heavy group focus. They have become niche markets. Given the millions and millions (of other peoples money...) that these games take to create, its hardly surprising that they are designed to appeal to as many people as possible.
Depends on the game of course, if it was intended for group play or solo/both. I don't think games where you are forced to group with others is a good idea for western peeps as we're very self oriented and flex-typed. Know what I mean?
I have never seen a game where you are forced to group up to advance except for the oldies out there and FFXI, though. Hardly believe any new games will either.
This is the best signature ever. Well, it is really up to you to decide. :x
I am not keen at all on hirelings; I want players in my groups not bots. DDO was originally far more of a grouping game, but then got solo disease.
Talking of FPS and grouping you do get those ‘Play as a Team’ or ‘Team Play Only’ messages on some servers. So I guess those hardened soloers are there, I cannot wait for the day that one of those guys posts on the BF forums, ‘why can’t I get to the top rank on my own, why do I have to group’? My reply would be, ‘play sniper/recon’ the FPS solution for solo players.
The fact is, DDO was a failed game, they were hemorraging players like crazy. They changed their business strategy, went F2P and made it easier to solo and they are doing phenomenal business now. It didn't get the solo disease, it went from a failed MMO to a wildly successful and growing one.
But I support giving groups a small bonus to exp gain to make grouping more appealing. I also support giving a slightly better item drops for group content.
Solo exp still needs to be at a decent pace, not too slow, not too fast. Best way to alleviate this issue and make people forget that they're grinding for exp is by having enough quest content available. This way people get to choose if they want to quest for exp, or if they want to grind on mobs for exp.
Best way to alleviate this issue and make people forget that they're grinding for exp is by having enough quest content available. This way people get to choose if they want to quest for exp, or if they want to grind on mobs for exp.
I think a simpler and cheaper solution is to remove your xp bar from constant view. So that way, inbetween having fun (assuming the game is fun just by playing) you can check up on it between battles and not be so concerned with it.
t sounds real great, until you spend the majority of one of your playsessions trying to find groups and then having them fall apart over and over again.
But if you make a game around grouping then lfg shouldnt be a big problem then as everyone needs a group?
Global Agenda is forced grouping and it's pretty fun. Right now there is no content you could do alone, you just join a queve and wait for the group to be formed. But they will be adding solo missions in the next pacht...
Global Agenda is forced grouping and it's pretty fun. Right now there is no content you could do alone, you just join a queve and wait for the group to be formed. But they will be adding solo missions in the next pacht...
Global Agenda isn't an MMO, its a shooter.
I think that sort of misses the point.
Modern Warfare 2 isn't an MMO either, but the only way you're gettin XP is to play in a group (well not really, there's a FFA option too.) Yet despite this trait, it's solid fun. It doesn't take a scientist to see how a similar system could work well in an MMO.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Global Agenda is forced grouping and it's pretty fun. Right now there is no content you could do alone, you just join a queve and wait for the group to be formed. But they will be adding solo missions in the next pacht...
Global Agenda isn't an MMO, its a shooter.
I think that sort of misses the point.
Modern Warfare 2 isn't an MMO either, but the only way you're gettin XP is to play in a group (well not really, there's a FFA option too.) Yet despite this trait, it's solid fun. It doesn't take a scientist to see how a similar system could work well in an MMO.
Lol, are you guys seriously comparing FPS games with RPGs? I think something inside you are missing the point.
This is the best signature ever. Well, it is really up to you to decide. :x
Comments
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
DDO doesn't force you to group at all, in fact in a recent update, they put a new category on all of their dungeons specifically for soloers. It is entirely possible to solo as much as you want to, you never even have to talk to anyone in DDO.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Off topic, I was quite disappointed D&D never released teh online version of the rule books. It was supposed to include software so you could play the game with other people on the internet, including a dungeon master, and there was a screen that rolled all the dice for you, and you could move your characters around on a grid, which chatting in Vent.
It looked really good, but never released.
That is a shame. I remember seeing some video about that project. I could have gotten into something like that.
I love dungeon crawling, and even WoW didn't do dungeons right. NWN did. An updated NWN would be great.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
If a game is made that requires the use of groups it is not forced, it is understood.
I never understood the psyche of MMO'ers crying over this. If you don't want a group oriented game don't play. Find a solo MMO. (Gotta love the irony of that)
The FPS fans of games like Halo, Bad Company 2, or Global Agenda don't whine and cry saying ' Oh geez these matches are 4vs4 or 8vs8. This game sucks it's forcing me to group'!
So why the hell do MMOers whine and cry if an MMO is group oriented? If you don't like it...DON'T PLAY. Some of us - as ironic as it seems - actually like these social aspects of gaming.
Our spirit was here long before you
Long before us
And long will it be after your pride brings you to your end
I would have liked that too. So far, nothing beats grouping with real friends at a table and rolling lots of dice. Maybe that's one of the reasons I find grouping in MMOs so unsatisfying.
I entirely agree with you, I'd love to see lots of old PnP RPGs do something like that and put their games online in a graphical setting that allowed GMs to build a world, populate it and run groups of players through it. I'd be more than happy to pay $15 a month to access that kind of game, assuming that there were things happening there.
But of course, it'll never happen. I really wish I could find a decent sit-down RP game but alas, they're all but extinct.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
this is a pointless question... about about is forced soloing ok? does that actually get you anywhere.... how about "How do we make a better game?" or something to that effect.
Sure, but what constitutes a "better game"? Ask 10 people, you'll get 10 answers. Nobody can agree on what makes a game better and everyone wants the perfect game for them.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
For the OP, it would seem grouping, more grouping, would make a better game for him (assuming him becuase of the name). Unfortunately, I think this "forced grouping" idea would be a death sentence to any game that tried it. I actually enjoying grouping by the way, but I wouldn't give a dime to a game that was structured in the way suggested.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
I don't see it as a "death sentence" for a game. There are those out there that would prefer that gameplay style.
It would certainly be a 'niche' game considering the current trend players in general are looking for in this genre, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it's a guaranteed bust.
Wouldn't break any sales records that's for sure. Although it could form an incredibly loyal small fanbase that could grow and have a healthy retention assuming the game was actually successful in the goals it set out to accomplish and the audiance it was geared towards found it entertaining.
Rather risky and not my type of game if it was to 'swear' by forced grouping but I could see it hving some minor traction. Whomever went that route though would need to have some realistic expectations from management to development to the investors in it.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
This part almost never happens. Most of the niche games we have now fell into the role, they weren't designed that way. And most investors want a WoW killer. I think it will be a death sentence because a fanbase that doesn't grow can't sustain an MMO. Just wait until the initial fanbse shifts from low level to high and then you tell all those new players, the ones that trickle only a few a month at a time, that they have to group to lvl, and good luck finding groups since most the game is now at the high end.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
I am not keen at all on hirelings; I want players in my groups not bots. DDO was originally far more of a grouping game, but then got solo disease.
Talking of FPS and grouping you do get those ‘Play as a Team’ or ‘Team Play Only’ messages on some servers. So I guess those hardened soloers are there, I cannot wait for the day that one of those guys posts on the BF forums, ‘why can’t I get to the top rank on my own, why do I have to group’? My reply would be, ‘play sniper/recon’ the FPS solution for solo players.
I'd be willing a fairly large percentage of the people that said yes have never actually played a game that required forced grouping. It sounds real great, until you spend the majority of one of your playsessions trying to find groups and then having them fall apart over and over again. Wasting 3-4 hours or more and getting absolutely nothing done is a good way to frustrate anyone.
Anyway, like I said.... I bet if you made a game that required it... a big chunk of the people voting "Yes" would quit within a few weeks.
But if you make a game around grouping then lfg shouldnt be a big problem then as everyone needs a group?
Before Guild Wars introduced Heroes, looking for a group took about 2 minutes if you didnt already got an invite
I voted Yes.
Global Agenda is forced grouping and it's pretty fun. Right now there is no content you could do alone, you just join a queve and wait for the group to be formed. But they will be adding solo missions in the next pacht...
It (DDO) was also on its way out of business, before the make over. Absent external factors(such as government interference, or subsidy) one deals with market realities, or one goes out of business. The reality is that the player demographics have changed. Its not just FFA full loot gankfests that have limited appeal these days. Its also games that require or have heavy group focus. They have become niche markets. Given the millions and millions (of other peoples money...) that these games take to create, its hardly surprising that they are designed to appeal to as many people as possible.
Depends on the game of course, if it was intended for group play or solo/both. I don't think games where you are forced to group with others is a good idea for western peeps as we're very self oriented and flex-typed. Know what I mean?
I have never seen a game where you are forced to group up to advance except for the oldies out there and FFXI, though. Hardly believe any new games will either.
This is the best signature ever. Well, it is really up to you to decide. :x
The fact is, DDO was a failed game, they were hemorraging players like crazy. They changed their business strategy, went F2P and made it easier to solo and they are doing phenomenal business now. It didn't get the solo disease, it went from a failed MMO to a wildly successful and growing one.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Forced grouping just to get exp? No.
But I support giving groups a small bonus to exp gain to make grouping more appealing. I also support giving a slightly better item drops for group content.
Solo exp still needs to be at a decent pace, not too slow, not too fast. Best way to alleviate this issue and make people forget that they're grinding for exp is by having enough quest content available. This way people get to choose if they want to quest for exp, or if they want to grind on mobs for exp.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
I think a simpler and cheaper solution is to remove your xp bar from constant view. So that way, inbetween having fun (assuming the game is fun just by playing) you can check up on it between battles and not be so concerned with it.
Tell that to FFXI
Global Agenda isn't an MMO, its a shooter.
I think that sort of misses the point.
Modern Warfare 2 isn't an MMO either, but the only way you're gettin XP is to play in a group (well not really, there's a FFA option too.) Yet despite this trait, it's solid fun. It doesn't take a scientist to see how a similar system could work well in an MMO.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Lol, are you guys seriously comparing FPS games with RPGs? I think something inside you are missing the point.
This is the best signature ever. Well, it is really up to you to decide. :x