Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The problem with "Solo-friendly"
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
What I'm getting at is that the actual rat killing is not the time sink; it's the travel time. The time that it takes to go from the quest give to the rat area and return is significant. And in fact, even the time that it takes to travel from one rat to the next is significant, compared to the amount of time that it takes to kill a non-elite mob. As you said yourself, it's only "a couple of seconds" per kill. Having someone else along might halve the combat time, but that's only saving a couple of seconds. It's still going to be about the same amount of time spent overall unless the level designer plopped all 10 rat spawns on top of each other.
I've seen the whole argument of "grouping giving more xp than solo etc." and I just don't get it I have played a million mmo's and I don't even waste my time worrying to find out "if it is worth more to group or solo". This is another symptom of the whole rush to engame style of play, play what you find fun and with who you find more fun playing with. Games need to be more dynamic and offer more content only accessible by groups and I don't mean end game raids either.
I don't like WOW anymore and am usually loathe to bring it up in discussions as such but I have probably found myself grouping the most in that game considering the circumstance. Many of the instances were a pretty good time but not so mind numbinlgly intricate that it wasn't often a worry about spending five hours only to wipe at the last encounter etc.
At present I play LOTRO and they are about the next game in line as far as offering easily accesible group content in the form of instances but they are I think too few and don't get as in depth as the epic story lines do which is the only problem I see with them.
Ultimately though I don't think devs should be going out of there way to design for either element as much as they should be trying to serve both playstyles as equally as possible (and regardless of what people say I think they are doing a decent job of that now) people seem to forget how much in mmo's was unaccesaible to people unwilling to bow down and conform to the groups dynamics in that it became a selling point for mmo's "look we have alot more content you can access without waiting around or bowing to the whims of some four hundred pound nerd living in his moms basement."
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
What are you getting at?
Read the quotes and then catch onto what's going on here.
Leveling speed has nothing to do with what Madeux and Disdena have said it the above quote boxes.
Unlucky, try again next time I make a post though.
"We got rid of the trinity." How'd you do that? "Now everyone can heal." Sounds like you just took the mechanic and spread it thin. "Well no, there's one class that can do it better than others." I see, so they're healers. "No. They're.." -mind asplode-
Even with what you just said, the time to do the quest is still faster compared to doing it alone.
Your time of slaying the rats is cut, therefore even if you + the time to reach the rats area from the quest giver and the time to get back to claim your reward from the quest giver + the distance between rats which is always changing.
Your overall time is cut even if it is by a few seconds.
"We got rid of the trinity." How'd you do that? "Now everyone can heal." Sounds like you just took the mechanic and spread it thin. "Well no, there's one class that can do it better than others." I see, so they're healers. "No. They're.." -mind asplode-
Other than a desire to get as many subscribers as possible, is there really a reason for devs to serve both playstyles? More and more, it seems like a purely bad thing to shoehorn solo-oriented player and group-oriented players into the same game and then make sure that both paths of progression are equally fun, challenging, and rewarding. I'm thinking that the OP was probably right in saying that it's better to separate the two camps by as much as possible and create games that cater exclusively to one or the other.
"We got rid of the trinity." How'd you do that? "Now everyone can heal." Sounds like you just took the mechanic and spread it thin. "Well no, there's one class that can do it better than others." I see, so they're healers. "No. They're.." -mind asplode-
...aside from the time it takes to form the group, the conversation to decide which quests to do and in what order, waiting around for someone to reconnect after d/c, waiting for someone to go clear out their inventory or buy more potions or get new skills/spells...
Aside from those things, yes your overall time is cut by a few seconds. Factoring those things in, no it's not. And then you still get less experience and loot than you would've gotten solo.
I don't know if you're disagreeing just to disagree or what, heh. If you think that it would be faster, then you think it would be faster and I won't be able to convince you otherwise. Feel free to hop into your favorite MMO and try to recruit a group to do solo quests if you so desire. I reiterate that in most (if not all) solo-friendly games, people do not group up for solo quest content because it is faster and more rewarding to solo it.
OP is CORRECT. This entire solo friendly thing is BS the best mmos have always been group based games , thats the only way to play them , if i wanted to play a single player game then i would . MMOs are for groups like eq and daoc in their early days.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
From your post I was assuming that you and your buddy were already ready to do the quest = Already ready to pick it up and carry on.
We are starting from two different points, you starting to look for a buddy, me thinking you already had a buddy and you were about to start the quest.
You never stated that you would go through the epic process of finding a buddy. Nor did you say you were planning doing all the damn quests in the book so you and your buddy had to go through the choice of picking which quest to do in what order, we were on the subject of discussing that single rat quest.
I shouldn't even count anything you said after "the time it takes to form the group", but I'm going to put the second point down anyway.
Yes, when you factor everything in before all points in your post I consider irrelevant to the argument, I am wrong, your time Is not cut.
"We got rid of the trinity." How'd you do that? "Now everyone can heal." Sounds like you just took the mechanic and spread it thin. "Well no, there's one class that can do it better than others." I see, so they're healers. "No. They're.." -mind asplode-
I don't know about you guys, but I liked mmo's when they were actually multiplayer focused.
I didn't really clarify... my post was originally addressed to the two people (and I have no idea who, because of impossible-to-read posts with 20 nested quotes) were arguing over the semantics of the terms solo-friendly and group-friendly, and one or the other was claiming that you can always group but you can't always solo so therefore all games are group-friendly. So I was addressing the fact that solo content is not appropriate for a group. I wasn't talking about duoing so much as pulling together the same kind of full party that you'd normally use for group content.
Solo-friendly was created because of games like FFXI and EQ1. No one enjoys logging onto a game and spending 4 hours in shout looking for a group. Then logging off and realizing that 4 hours of your day was just wasted with nothing to show for it. There was really no more social interaction while sitting in shouts looking for group than what i could have gotten by talking to friends on AIM.
FFXI has currently made some changes that has a HUGE emphasis on grouping still, but allows players to "purchase" buffs that allow you to solo mobs that still give you less exp than if you were in a group, but give you an option that if you cannot find a group, there is still something for you to do then just sit there. There can be balance between the 2. And i believe the balance has to be made through advantages. Solo exp should NEVER be better than what you can earn in a group. Grouping should be a main focus in an MMO for character advancement. But there should be options for solo play that nets you something. Some people only have an hour to play after they get home from work and can't spend the time it takes to find a group. Get to the camp. And then wait for everyone else's lives. People do need to eat, drink, afk for the restroom. Have kids, spouses, girl friends, and having solo-friendly content allows for people with busy lives to not feel like they are also forced to neglect their personal life just to play a video game.
All in all, it is very possible to make a solo-friendly and group oriented game. Few have succeeded in doing so, but the mass majority have not, and because of this, developers have seemed to really give up on trying to find that balance. They pick a direction that they feel has the less resistance and produce their game for that crowd.
Good or Bad? That really is all in the players eyes. Everyone has different lifestyles that ultimately affect their view on the matter.
Lots of good points, I see what you mean by 1 hours of play Valk, but for those that have more time, I am not one of them. Why must we force something on them that they clearly dont want? I enjoy solo play a whole lot and when I do have an hour or 2 of play I want to play and not worry about finding a group. So that is totaly understandeable but again I can not push that on everyone else since they are not in the same situation. Again everyone should have the choice to do solo stuff but not everything in the game and I mean everything should be soloable simply because we wish it to be. Want to play solo stuff there is plenty of solo stuff that does not require you to actually interact with people, there is games in facebook and other social sites, there is console games and a bunch of other stuff you can do, play some solitaire or something lol. Lets just count our blessings that they have added solo stuff for those of us that want to be part of something bigger but do not have the time or inclination to actually do it with other groups of people.
Grouping is inferred by the Multiplayer part of MMORPG. You can't play games the way you want to, you play games the way developers want you to. You can't play Grand Theft Auto as a platform Mario game because it wasn't designed that way.
And why do people try and do this with MMO's? It's a Massively Multiplayer Game. Why do people suddenly think that means they can solo their way through everything? I've heard the argument that it just means there are multiple players in the game. Well, name me any other multiplayer game where you can solo and do your own thing. Can you imagine entering Team Fortress 2 and saying, "Hey, don't shoot me, I'm just populating your game world.". Yeah, right. Rocket to the face. Why are MMO's considered any different than any other multiplayer game?
The only freedom of choice is what the developers have given you, at its core the game is still a multiplayer game thus will incoporate group elements. Otherwise, why make it a multiplayer game at all? If a developer wants everything to be done solo then they'll make it a single player game, they'd be stupid not to. MMO's are still quite a niche market, if everything can be done solo they'll sell it to the single player gamers and make a lot more money and not spend so much cash on servers, technical support and everything else that comes with an MMO.
I agree, I find games that reward grouping to be much funner. They just require a population. More people need to get back on the multiplayer focused mmo train. Multiplayer games gain an almost infitiely longer life when groups are formed within them. Socializing in online multiplayer games is a huge part of what makes them fun for so long; whether it be just talking and jokes, clans/guilds( I prefer the word clans for some reason), or rp.
You remind me of my wife. I made a comment the other night at dinner saying that i was full and didn't feel like finishing my dinner. Because my wife finished all of her dinner, she took it that she was now fat because she could finish her dinner and i couldn't.
You're throwing everything out of context, or you just can't read. What he meant by meaningful is that there has to be a REASON to group over solo play, or else everyone will just go play the game solo. If soloing net the same exact rewards, then WHY group? To chat? Like he said, he can chat with you through tells or through global chat systems.
He doesn't want you to like "forced grouping" games. He wants you to enjoy whatever game you enjoy playing. If you enjoy solo play them play a solo play game. If his "forced grouping" game has solo play in it as well, but also caters to his grouping appetite then so be it. He doesn't care that people can play solo in his game. He just wants the game he enjoys playing to have a reason to group to suit his needs, or else why is he playing it? You play the game you enjoy. He'll play the game he enjoys. He's not trying to force his opinion down your throat. He's just trying to ask why you guys are trying to shove your opinion down his.
To many people can't comprehend text nowadays. Sit back, relax, and siphon out that imaginary piss in your cheerio's. Because if you keep it up, someone might actually shit in your corn flakes.
MMORPGs aren't solely about grouping or soloing mechanics either. Massively Multiplayer refers to two things. One, that the game is supposed to be populated by a large number of other users, and two, that you can interact with those users. No where in there does it infer grouping.
Think about sandbox games. Many of them you spend copious amounts of time alone. Whether you are crafting, or playing with the economy, or sitting in town peddling your wares. Those can be, and very often are, considered solo endeavors. However, in order for those endeavors to work, they require some level of "multiplay". No where is a "grouping" mechanic enforced, but rather a socialization mechanic is employed. Yes, you must have social interactions with others, but they don't have to be a "teammate".
People get far too hung up on the terms "massively" and "multiplayer". They assume that you must then have social interactions 100% of the time, when that is simply untrue.
Again, much of this stems from problems within the mmorpg genre itself. There is too much emphasis placed upon "end game", and leveling is often treated as a chore instead of a journey. Combat interactions are overly used, mostly because it's fun and flashy, whereas diplomacy, crafting and economics may not always be.
Finally, your assumption that mmorpgs are niche is grossly incorrect. If you look at subscriber numbers across the board from mmorpgs world wide, you will find that they are very mainstream. They can also be extremely lucrative, which is why so many companies are tossing their hats into the mix. If a company can make a game that is attractive to solo gamers that also requires a subscription fee to play, they will do so. Why? Well, not because they couldn't just as easily make a single player game, but because there is something of a guaranteed income with online games. You will get those folks to pay for the box, then the ones who subscribe will then pay an additional monthly fee to continue to play. The tradeoff is that the game is maintained, fixed, added to and even changed.
Think about games like Fallout 3 and Oblivion. They were huge games, but are they being profitable for Bethesda at the moment? Sure they are still selling boxes, but they don't have a steady stream of revenue that an online game can generate. Additionally, as a gamer, no matter how often you go back to either game, it will always be the same. Yes you can purchase the additional content designed for those games, but you can come to a point where there simply isn't anything new. In online games that really isn't a problem. If the game ceases to have new additions, it will cease to exist.
I happen to like to challenge of completing a dungeon on my own that other lesser beings need help to complete.
Because help was not required in whatever task someone was able to do on their own, it does not mean you have the ability to do it easily.
"We got rid of the trinity." How'd you do that? "Now everyone can heal." Sounds like you just took the mechanic and spread it thin. "Well no, there's one class that can do it better than others." I see, so they're healers. "No. They're.." -mind asplode-
I think a big portion of whether a game is "solo friendly" or "group friendly" depends on what you, as a player, are looking for.
It seems as though many of you on this thread, very nearly all of you in fact, are considering only one thing -- rate of XP gain -- to see whether a game is solo or group friendly. Several said early on, "If you gain XP faster solo, the game is solo friendly; if you gain XP faster in a group, the game is group friendly."
That's one way to measure things, but it is not the only way. For my part, leveling has never been that big of a deal. Oh, sure, I like leveling up and getting new skills, spells, whatever, just like the next guy. But when I play an MMO, a CRPG, just about anything, I care much, much more about following the story and completing the mission.
My measure of whether a game is "solo friendly" or not is, "Can I complete the missions I'm given, that are on-level to me, by myself?" If I can do it, perhaps with a bit more difficulty and maybe an extra death or three, by myself, then the game is solo friendly. If I absolutely cannot do it by myself, then the game is not solo friendly.
Several of the games listed here as solo friendly (no, I won't name them -- I don't want to get into an argument about specific games) are ones I've played and do NOT consider solo friendly. The reason was not that I couldn't level at all, but rather, that I could only solo by grinding random world mobs over and over again to level up, or doing "trash" quests that are not part of the game's story line. Trying to do story quests or dungeons on-level, and solo, is impossible in these games, which, to me and for my play style, renders the game solo-UNfriendly. I don't care how fast I can gain experience grinding trolls in the badlands without a quest, or if it lets me level faster than doing group quests. What I care about is whether I can follow the world's storyline, my character's storyline, and do the actual quests that are laid out by the designers. If the quests are any good (which sadly they're not, in most games), that's really what the game's "content" is, and if I cannot do those quests on-level, but have to wait until things are grey to me just to do my quests, then I am not happy.
I don't want to solo necessarily, but I also refuse to wait an hour and a half to group up and do a 45 minute quest. If I can't find people to do my quest with, I want to do it by myself, not wait around. And if I do it by myself, I don't care so much about the rewards (XP, loot, etc), but I do care that I can finish the thing, and then move on. There is nothing more aggravating to me than having 20 or 30 quests sitting in my queue, all on-level (+ or -) and all unable to be done without spending an hour finding a full group.
So, to me, a solo-friendly game is one in which I can complete a substantial number of quests solo, regardless of XP game. This is why I always liked COH so much -- because 90% of the missions (all but TFs and Trials) would automatically scale to your group size. Sure I preferred being in a group but if I couldn't find anyone, I could still *do* my mission and move on (with slightly lower XP gain per minute relative to grouped) -- I wasn't relegated to "street sweeping villains" all day.
My point here is, it matters a lot how you define solo friendly or group friendly. To me a solo friendly game allows me to complete a sufficient amount of content (quests, missions, dungeons, whatever) that I can level from 1 to cap, regardless of the leveling speed. That is, I am not forced to grind world mobs. I have no objection to there being group-only or raid content (such as, again, TFs and Trials in COH), and I may do them from time to time, but if I can't find someone to group with, I want to still be able to do most of my quests.
C
Solo v group is an argument that will never ever be won by any side.
People have differing tastes, plain and simple.
Me personally, i prefer the way eq1 was set up prior to its first expansion. All mobs were created equal (save for some named mobs and two dragons). People had the option to fight by themselves or with a friend and it was doable but risky.
They touted the viabilityof grouping with the reasoning of survival in numbers, experiance boost for full groups and speed of killing.
The last 5-6 years or so have seen so many games come out where mobs are tagged and classified as solo gruop raid, etc.... leaving little to the imagination. A player conned the mob in their way, if it didn't con the way they wanted it to, they would avoid it.
Shame really.
Look at a game like eq2 where most of its dungeons are all group designed. They sit empty. It's either too much of a pain to get the right 6 people together or not worth the risk.
Had these same eq2 dungeons been tuned down a little bit so that you don't have to be in that cookie cutter blessed trio group, you might actually SEE people in them.
When it comes down to it, a person pays 50+ dollars to buy the game as well as the monthly fee. They should get the most access without relying on the general public. People have changed. Attitudes have changed.
In the early days of eq1, people were pretty open and easy going. groups formed and people had fun. Somewhere along the way guild play started taking precident. People started to group only within their guild, shunning public groups.
That wouldn't be such a big deal but a lot of people didn't want to put up with the absolute BS that most guilds required of its members. Guilds started to become more of a job than a hobby.
Hence a lot of people became career soloers.
Now Developers are finally realizing that they have been catering to the demands of the vocal minority for far too long and ignoring the overall majority of their subscribers. The tide is changing and games are becoming more solo friendly.
Deal with it.
I think everyone has dealt with it. There are 11 million WoW subscribers.
WOW is a very group friendly game. Just look at the new DF. Many are now leveling up doing the classic dungeon (which also guaranteed a blue item when you finish a dungeon).
The groups in the DF might as well be playing with NPCs. Good feature but in no way does it promote community.
A group is a group. This thread is about solo-gameplay, not about community building. My point is WOW is group friendly , and not just solo-friendly. And don't tell me that 5 men do not form a group, disregarding if that promote community.
The most solo friendly game i know was CO and it sucked becuase of it. When solo friendly is too strong often people don't group.
The question should not be solo friendly or group friendly but instead solo VERSE group friendly.
Honestly look at doac when it came out , you could solo (I did for a while) but grouping was easily five times more rewarding for your characters development (exp/items/money) as solo. While it might have not been solo friendly enough id prefre that than the alernative. Honestly i feel you literally should get double the exp rates and items setc ina full group than solo (unless power leveling this is not true in most modern mmos and its kinda why i hate them, and why their communitys suck). Just as a quick refernce i hear ff14 is doing this makeing more solo content.. this is more concerning that the entire jump swim stuff that is currently being battle out between the ninjas and pirates on that games forum. But as a good mention i heard you get more exp in groups liek every kill is worth xx exp no matter the group size... this is how you make good communities and its a wonderful idea ... unless that was terra im thinkign about. WEll whatever dev.s are doing that great job for have FREAKING BRAIN , reasons to group = good (better than 2 elite quests a zone at least rofl joke incentive.)
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine