It's easy. Single-player games are over in a week. You consume the content, you're done. MMOs have a massive amount of content and are constantly being updated and expanded. Where you can consume a single-player game in a week, it would take you many, many, many months, if not years, to consume all of the available content in an MMO and even then, it probably won't be long until more content is released.
It's a cost-benefit thing. 4 single-player games per month might cost you $200, assuming you could even find 4 every single month to buy. An MMO costs you $15 a month, after an initial $50 investment and you can't possibly run out of things to do.
That's why people solo in MMOs, at least in my case.
Thank you! I didn't expect anyone to answer me withour calling me a doody face or something. = D I hope you enjoy scifi, because it sounds like Star Wars: The Old Republic is the answer to your dreams. I know I check my email every day hoping to get an invite to "test" it. hehe
Multiplayer Oblivion with chat and economy and regular update patches, and the mobs didn't level up would be quite lovely and very satisfying by the way, lets call it "MMOOblivion". But that doesn't address what I claimed is the core problem. Btw, it doesn't stop at MMOblivion, I'd love solo-centric WoW clones, solo-centric Aion clones, solo-centric Lotro clones, solo-centric EQ2 clones, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.
Solo-centric doesn't necessarily mean every mob and quest is soloable, only that the obtainment of the highest degrees of player character stats gains are obtainable solo.
Just a friendly reminder: . . .You are still equating definition with tradition, that is an error a fallacy. They are not equal. MMORPGs are by TRADITION, group-centric. They, however, are NOT By Definition, group-centric.
Let us isolate the second "M" for a bit. Multiplayer games have, by tradition, required grouping or defeating the other players. But multiplayer, strictly speaking, means simply that there are other players present. . .
Let me repeat myself, the core issue is intolerance.
The intolerance that group-centrics have for the generally far more tolerant solo-centrics is the source of the conflict. This is the issue that really needs to be discussed between group-centrics and solo-centrics. I have not seen any solo-centrics wishing for the nonexistence of existing and upcoming group-centric titles (in this thread at least). We simply want a high quality mmorpg that fits our playstyle.
If I was sitting in my home peacefully and happily playing my MMOOblivion with other like-minded solo-centric gamers, that would be none of your business. Nobody is likely to force you to play MMOOblivion, and if someone did you should file a police report. Nobody is likely to force you to develop the game or finance it as an investor, again, if anybody tries, file a police report. Yet you are rabidly scathingly viciously against the creation and marketing of a product that does not hurt you, does not rob you, does not deprive you of your rights, that you don't have to develop or invest any amount of cash into at all?
I have concluded that the answer is intolerance. The refusal to tolerate the existence of something that doesn't harm you or deprive you of your rights in any way. Lambasting people for daring to say that they would like to play such a game (even though you don't have to play that kind of game) stems from intolerance. I don't much like group-centric mmorpgs yet, I tolerate their existence because they don't really effect me. I have and will continue to choose to either not play them or play them until I reach the level cap (if it has solo-friendly leveling) and then quit. I don't want group-centric games to go away. But it would be nice if I had MMOOblivion and then perhaps every 3 to 4 years one more solo-centric mmorpg came out. Then I'd leave all those group-centric mmos alone forever.
I will not attempt to corner you into engaging me in dialog about this core intolerance issue. If you or any other group-centrics wish to discuss this core issue with me please let me know.
Multiplayer Oblivion with chat and economy and regular update patches, and the mobs didn't level up would be quite lovely and very satisfying by the way, lets call it "MMOOblivion". But that doesn't address what I claimed is the core problem. Btw, it doesn't stop at MMOblivion, I'd love solo-centric WoW clones, solo-centric Aion clones, solo-centric Lotro clones, solo-centric EQ2 clones, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.
Solo-centric doesn't necessarily mean every mob and quest is soloable, only that the obtainment of the highest degrees of player character stats gains are obtainable solo.
I have concluded that the answer is intolerance. The refusal to tolerate the existence of something that doesn't harm you or deprive you of your rights in any way. Lambasting people for daring to say that they would like to play such a game (even though you don't have to play that kind of game) stems from intolerance. I don't much like group-centric mmorpgs yet, I tolerate their existence because they don't really effect me. I have and will continue to choose to either not play them or play them until I reach the level cap (if it has solo-friendly leveling) and then quit. I don't want group-centric games to go away. But it would be nice if I had MMOOblivion and then perhaps every 3 to 4 years one more solo-centric mmorpg came out. Then I'd leave all those group-centric mmos alone forever.
It's not intolerance, it's looking at the reality of the situation and realising that it's never going to happen. In your MMOOblivion for example, the one I outlined in a previous post, much like a single player game, the game would have a definite ending. If everything is soloable and you can acquire everything you need alone, then eventually you're going to run out of things to do. The quests will all be complete, the soloable raid mobs will have been defeated, the dungeons finished, you will have all the best gear in the game and you'll be wondering what to do. I had this problem in LOTRO, I had done everything I could with my character and had no further direction, and that's not even a solo-centric game.
So if the game has a definite ending that can be reached by every single player, which in effect will cause a 'Game Over' for those players, why are developers going to release that as an MMO? They would have to spend millions on server farms, technical support, programmers, network engineers, and everything else that has to be put into an MMO, just so people can be in the same environment, even though they don't need to be.
There's a reason why Oblivion is a single player game and not an MMO. Completely soloable games are created as single player games because of that reason, though like MMO's they can be expanded on with Downloadable Content. A lot of new games coming out have Downloadable Content, I think Mass Effect 2 is on it's 6th update in that regard. How is that any different than an evolving online world?
Most groupers are not playing against anyone, they are playing PvE, against the system, which places them on the exact same level as a solo-vs-PVE player. It's just a bunch of people who are hanging around together, killing the same mobs, but not necessarily being socially involved with each other. Standing next to someone and swinging a sword is not necessarily a social activity, but that's what most groups functionally are. However, you can be a soloer, as I am, and spend a good amount of time talking to, helping and interacting with various people and get much more social interaction out of it because you're not trying to use others for your own advantage as so many groupers are. They only give a damn about you if you can get them faster XP, more gold and better gear. Otherwise, they wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That's the reality. Sorry you're not interested in seeing it.
Ah ha! And we see why you're not interested in seeing it. Because you have no idea what a multiplayer game actually is. Let me just clear up that 'Group vs PvE' thing for you. Group = Multiplayer. Player 1 is a Healer, Player 2 is a Tank, Player 3 is DPS, Player 4 is Crowd Control. Tank fights mob but can't survive without Healer, Crowd Control ensures the fight doesn't get out of control with extra mobs thus protecting Healer, DPS makes mob die faster. Players working together: Multiplayer.
If the players aren't talking or are idiots, well, find better players. In a game with a real community those types of players wouldn't be tolerated anyway.
Let me ask some serious questions: Do you honestly think people will stop voicing their want for solo-centric mmorpgs just because you said they should always be group-centric? Do you believe a significant number of (lets say, one new game every three years) solo-centric mmorpgs will ever reach the market within the next five to ten years or even ever?
But,if...if companies started releasing solo-centric mmorpgs that did service the entertainment tastes of solo-centrics, would you try to sue those companies or seek a government enforced ban on those games, perhaps call the police on the players to have the arrested?
Would you resort to using violence against the devs, publishing company personnel or players of those games? Maybe have your eyes and ears disabled to protect your mind from exposure to those games? I honestly don't think you would get that extreme, personally. I only ask for the purpose of clarity.
Or, if companies started releasing solo-centric mmorpgs that did service the entertainment tastes of solo-centrics, would you simply vote with your wallet and simply refuse to spend your cash on those kinds of games?
Maybe make a blog or anti-fansite about how much those games suck to you? Maybe, maybe, troll the official and fan forums of said games?
Or would you simply play the group-centric games that you like, perhaps happy there are no selfish solo-centrics playing your preferred games, polluting the immersion with their negative presence?
Do you honestly think people will stop voicing their want for solo-centric mmorpgs just because you said they should always be group-centric? Do you believe a significant number of (lets say, one new game every three years) solo-centric mmorpgs will ever reach the market within the next five to ten years or even ever?
But,if...if companies started releasing solo-centric mmorpgs that did service the entertainment tastes of solo-centrics, would you try to sue those companies or seek a government enforced ban on those games, perhaps call the police on the players to have the arrested?
Would you resort to using violence against the devs, publishing company personnel or players of those games? Maybe have your eyes and ears disabled to protect your mind from exposure to those games? I honestly don't think you would get that extreme, personally. I only ask for the purpose of clarity.
Or, if companies started releasing solo-centric mmorpgs that did service the entertainment tastes of solo-centrics, would you simply vote with your wallet and simply refuse to spend your cash on those kinds of games?
Maybe make a blog or anti-fansite about how much those games suck to you? Maybe, maybe, troll the official and fan forums of said games?
Or would you simply play the group-centric games that you like, perhaps happy there are no selfish solo-centrics playing your preferred games, polluting the immersion with their negative presence?
I'll try and answer in sequence here, but I might go off at a tangent. Will people stop voicing their want for solo-centric MMO's? I doubt it, just like people won't stop voicing their want for group-centric MMO's. It's the opposite ends of the spectrum, at the moment modern MMO's are a solo experience while levelling then the group content takes over. This doesn't work for the group-centric's because they get bored of levelling alone, and doesn't work for the solo-centric's because they find their gameplay comes to an end when they've hit max level. It leaves nobody in a happy place, though I dare to say the group-centric's come off worse, speaking for myself there have been a few games I haven't been able to stick out due to the solo levelling, World of Warcraft being one of them.
Will solo-centric games come in the next five to ten years? It's possible. I think it will largely depend on costs - if the costs of running an MMO drop to an acceptable level then the developers might try different things, but until then I think they're going to keep solo-play games as single player games, purely because they can sell it to a larger market.
Would I care if solo-centric MMO's appeared? Not at all. I'd probably even try it out if a trial became available, I'm not going to close my mind to something that might be fun to play. However, I find that online games need some sort of multiplayer function to justify them being online, so if I had to pay the box price of the game then a subscription fee it's highly likely I wouldn't bother. Paying every month for the honor of playing a single player game just doesn't appeal to me, and I think would create a very slippery slope where developers could start charging the equivalent of rental for their single player games.
It's easy. Single-player games are over in a week. You consume the content, you're done. MMOs have a massive amount of content and are constantly being updated and expanded. Where you can consume a single-player game in a week, it would take you many, many, many months, if not years, to consume all of the available content in an MMO and even then, it probably won't be long until more content is released.
It's a cost-benefit thing. 4 single-player games per month might cost you $200, assuming you could even find 4 every single month to buy. An MMO costs you $15 a month, after an initial $50 investment and you can't possibly run out of things to do.
That's why people solo in MMOs, at least in my case.
Thank you! I didn't expect anyone to answer me withour calling me a doody face or something. = D I hope you enjoy scifi, because it sounds like Star Wars: The Old Republic is the answer to your dreams. I know I check my email every day hoping to get an invite to "test" it. hehe
I love sci-fi, but I detest Star Wars and George Lucas with a passion, I won't put a penny into Lucas' pocket under any circumstances. So no, TOR isn't for me.
Alright, let's say I've been looking at MMORPG's in the traditional sense, that they're supposed to involve multiple players working against content together. Tell me what a solo-centric game is. What would the game have to include to be a 'satisfying gaming experience'? What would people be doing in a solo-centric game? What are the other players doing and how do they interact with your game? What are the challenges and how do you overcome them alone?
Imagine I'm a developer. Sell me your idea.
This will be easy. Most current MMOs could be used as a start but I’ll use WoW for obvious reasons.
Imagine WoW with group centric servers. All of the content, not just instances, would require multiple player co-operation for survival. The world would demand such co-op all of the time, at least until you over-level a region. The raid stuff would be the same. Raiding requires special design for the tactical planning to make sense. On these servers, everyone would be grouping out of necessity. This would suit you, US, would it not?
Also imagine the current WoW PVE servers just as they are, but all players can get comparable high level gear whether they raid or not, through questing or crafting. All craft materials would be available in the world at large, not packed away in an instance. The “loot conscripts” I alluded to in an earlier post would be hard to find on these servers but at least everyone who wants to raid for the challenge and to see the content would be there for the pleasure of doing it. On these servers, folks who do instances would do them to experience the content and not to get gear that is otherwise prohibited.
Why couldn’t this work? The most demanding group players would have servers to their liking and folks who don’t like being second class citizens regarding gear (because they won’t make the game into a job) would have access to the best loot.
This will be easy. Most current MMOs could be used as a start but I’ll use WoW for obvious reasons.
Imagine WoW with group centric servers. All of the content, not just instances, would require multiple player co-operation for survival. The world would demand such co-op all of the time, at least until you over-level a region. The raid stuff would be the same. Raiding requires special design for the tactical planning to make sense. On these servers, everyone would be grouping out of necessity. This would suit you, US, would it not?
Also imagine the current WoW PVE servers just as they are, but all players can get comparable high level gear whether they raid or not, through questing or crafting. All craft materials would be available in the world at large, not packed away in an instance. The “loot conscripts” I alluded to in an earlier post would be hard to find on these servers but at least everyone who wants to raid for the challenge and to see the content would be there for the pleasure of doing it. On these servers, folks who do instances would do them to experience the content and not to get gear that is otherwise prohibited.
Why couldn’t this work? The most demanding group players would have servers to their liking and folks who don’t like being second class citizens regarding gear (because they won’t make the game into a job) would have access to the best loot.
This will be easy. Most current MMOs could be used as a start but I’ll use WoW for obvious reasons.
Imagine WoW with group centric servers. All of the content, not just instances, would require multiple player co-operation for survival. The world would demand such co-op all of the time, at least until you over-level a region. The raid stuff would be the same. Raiding requires special design for the tactical planning to make sense. On these servers, everyone would be grouping out of necessity. This would suit you, US, would it not?
Also imagine the current WoW PVE servers just as they are, but all players can get comparable high level gear whether they raid or not, through questing or crafting. All craft materials would be available in the world at large, not packed away in an instance. The “loot conscripts” I alluded to in an earlier post would be hard to find on these servers but at least everyone who wants to raid for the challenge and to see the content would be there for the pleasure of doing it. On these servers, folks who do instances would do them to experience the content and not to get gear that is otherwise prohibited.
Why couldn’t this work? The most demanding group players would have servers to their liking and folks who don’t like being second class citizens regarding gear (because they won’t make the game into a job) would have access to the best loot.
Real good idea, having different playstyles on different servers. Sort of like the current batch where you have PvP, PvE and Roleplay servers, just expanded on. Not sure how practical it would be, as I'd imagine the game would need to be coded differently based on solo-style and group-style, but I can't imagine it being more than tweaking some numbers and opening or closing options.
Yeah, I like that. I give this post my official seal of approval. :-)
Ah ha! And we see why you're not interested in seeing it. Because you have no idea what a multiplayer game actually is. Let me just clear up that 'Group vs PvE' thing for you. Group = Multiplayer. Player 1 is a Healer, Player 2 is a Tank, Player 3 is DPS, Player 4 is Crowd Control. Tank fights mob but can't survive without Healer, Crowd Control ensures the fight doesn't get out of control with extra mobs thus protecting Healer, DPS makes mob die faster. Players working together: Multiplayer.
If the players aren't talking or are idiots, well, find better players. In a game with a real community those types of players wouldn't be tolerated anyway.
Ah yes, forcing everyone into pre-defined molds so that everyone can fit into any group on the map because they are all carbon copies of each other. You need to have a certain set of spells, a certain set of skills, a certain set of armor and weapons, because otherwise, there might actually be some strategy involved in making up a group! Imagine that! You want everyone to be cookie-cutter copies of each other, all healers look identical, all tanks have the exact same abilities, all DPS are exactly the same, because they have to be able to fit seamlessly into any group they come across.
Ah yes, forcing everyone into pre-defined molds so that everyone can fit into any group on the map because they are all carbon copies of each other. You need to have a certain set of spells, a certain set of skills, a certain set of armor and weapons, because otherwise, there might actually be some strategy involved in making up a group! Imagine that! You want everyone to be cookie-cutter copies of each other, all healers look identical, all tanks have the exact same abilities, all DPS are exactly the same, because they have to be able to fit seamlessly into any group they come across.
So much for individuality, I guess. No thanks.
Now what are you going on about? You don't like grouping, now you don't like a class based system either? Is there anything you like about MMO's besides being able to solo and wander around a big world? Is that all there is for you? I was talking about the way certain classes interact with other classes, nobody ever mentioned cookie-cutter copies. Classes can be as similar as EverQuest, where a cleric does one thing and a wizard does another, or as diverse as a pre-NGE SWG character.
Wow Ceph's, you're really starting to lose the plot.
What I dont understand is the people who almost always solo. i mean the game is a multiplayer game and should be baased on playing with other people. but I agree whith what seems to be the majority consent that there should be a good balnce because sometimes you just dont feel like waiting a long time to find parties (and im pretty sure all mmo game makers are trying their best to find the fastest and best way to do this).
the main problem i see with forming groups is the class system most games have. Damage dealers are usually the most popular, and it takes usually at least 1 healer and one tank. i think they need to start to get away from the classic setup so that any team of any class can play with eachother. thats why im looking forward to a game like FFXIV becasue of the system they got going on there with like no classes.
WoW does make it so you can do both, but i still think the group system they have is terrbile. you que for an isntace, find a group, run aninstance that takes about 15-30 mins to complete, then everyone leaves and its over, leaving u with a feeling of un-completedness. In FFXI, yeah it takes longer to get a group, but once ur in the group u can be with the same group, getting good exp the whole time for hours. If they would find a way to make soloing more fun (which would proably need to hasten the battle system as a whole) then the game would ahve a much better balance.
Ah yes, forcing everyone into pre-defined molds so that everyone can fit into any group on the map because they are all carbon copies of each other. You need to have a certain set of spells, a certain set of skills, a certain set of armor and weapons, because otherwise, there might actually be some strategy involved in making up a group! Imagine that! You want everyone to be cookie-cutter copies of each other, all healers look identical, all tanks have the exact same abilities, all DPS are exactly the same, because they have to be able to fit seamlessly into any group they come across.
So much for individuality, I guess. No thanks.
Now what are you going on about? You don't like grouping, now you don't like a class based system either? Is there anything you like about MMO's besides being able to solo and wander around a big world? Is that all there is for you? I was talking about the way certain classes interact with other classes, nobody ever mentioned cookie-cutter copies. Classes can be as similar as EverQuest, where a cleric does one thing and a wizard does another, or as diverse as a pre-NGE SWG character.
Wow Ceph's, you're really starting to lose the plot.
Hardly, maybe you're finally starting to get it through your head that there are lots of people out there who want lots of different things out of MMOs. I'm sure it's hard for you to comprehend that point, you seem to think that you have the one, true way to play and anyone who disagrees with you must automatically be wrong, but your side is losing miserably and my side now makes up a huge percentage of the financial base of the MMO marketplace.
But of course, that doesn't matter to you, you don't care if any of these games are financially viable, you don't have a firm grasp on the reality of the game market. You just want what you want and when it becomes untenable, you just kick and scream that somehow, gaming companies owe it to you.
Finding a balance for a MMO to be great at both is impossible.
Like said before, its the PC vs Mac, AMD vs Intel, nVidia vs ATI, etc debate. Not every game will be the liking of everyone. But there is a problem that companies have with that. Blizzard has been trying too hard to make everyone happy. They were doing great with the old WoW. Sure some fixes and tweaking was needed but many people I know left just before Wrath. Some came back and tried Wrath but left after they were disappointed in the arcade from MMORPG change. Forget $15 a month, just put a dollar slot on the side of the computer and play like the old arcades on WoW. EQ 2 is fun but if you are just starting, you will more than likely quit because of the boredom unless you have a friend you know leveling with you. Soloing is ok but it really turns to the big grind for leveling. Tradeskills are not something for the casual as they take a very long time to level and you will actually out level some things you make before you level the tradeskills. Its not bad but make it scale with the player level would help.
Both games have good solo game and group game options. But in the end, its still an M-M-O. Without friends to enjoy it, both suck in no time.
I like to group and I like to solo. So, I would like to have the most meaningful gear, titles, etc. require both. Requiring challenging solo play for at least some of the best items would also help to separate the players who carry from the players who get carried.
I also feel that the largest required group size for the most challenging areas should be kept small (e.g., 8 or less players). Otherwise there tends to be too much waiting around for people to take a piss, have a smoke, let out the dog, get the door, talk on the phone, log back on after DC, or just not show up in the first place. Large groups also tend to have more drama and increased chances of including a noob who is carried by the rest of the group.
See this is the boat I'm in as well. Sometimes I want to group. Sometimes I want to solo. That's why I prefer to play games where both are rewarding and fun to do. There are sadly few of them... usually one is much better in terms of the play than the other, and so I'm going to be frustrated half the time.
I'm hoping TOR will break this mold but we shall see.
Jumping in really late, but there's really no reason to argue about this. There will always be people on both extreme sides of the argument, with most people falling somewhere in between. I like to solo when I don't have a lot of time to wait for people. I love to group when I do to get more out of the game. But then again, I'm lucky enough to game with my wife, so I always at least have a partner if I want one.
for me all time group sucks, like FFXI if you wanna lvl up or obtain special item you need made a party. the problem in ffxi was the stupidity elitist setup party... how affect it you, simple if you dont have x or y class you will never receive invite and you cant lvl up
my opinion group is good like wow, when you wanna complete a dungeon and everybody could win good price and end game
What I dont understand is the people who almost always solo. i mean the game is a multiplayer game and should be baased on playing with other people.
In that case I will explain it so that going forth it will be as an unmuddied lake. As clear as an azure sky of deepest summer.
People who mostly solo do not require groupnig in order to feel the social aspects of the game.
Seeing people moving to and fro, helping people when they need it, trading with people, feeling the hustle and bustle of a crowded city and/or world, answering and asking questions... all of these things fill the social bit that these games provide.
Other than those and similar things, the grouping for killing and questing is not really a needed part of the equation as all that I have indicated above takes care of our social need.
I hope that helps.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Is a game really an mmo if the only players you can interact with are those on your server, such as WoW; a million+ purchased the game but you are stuck with whoever is on your server.
Or, in it's hey day, could a game such as Call of Duty 4 be called an MMO? Thousands of players were online at the same time, even though a single server maxed out with 50 players? [Of course, with such small maps 50 players was a lot.]
Intel Core i7 7700K, MB is Gigabyte Z270X-UD5 SSD x2, 4TB WD Black HHD, 32GB RAM, MSI GTX 980 Ti Lightning LE video card
for me all time group sucks, like FFXI if you wanna lvl up or obtain special item you need made a party. the problem in ffxi was the stupidity elitist setup party... how affect it you, simple if you dont have x or y class you will never receive invite and you cant lvl up
my opinion group is good like wow, when you wanna complete a dungeon and everybody could win good price and end game
i love Mass pvp
*******************************************
Sometimes I like to solo and sometimes I like grouping.
If you love PvP give Dark Age of Camelot a try, easy to find 100+ people bashing eachother's brains out in one spot at about 4:00 p.m. and later Eastern time. Although the interface is dated, graphics are still good and it has the best PvP of any game. And, unlike WoW you do not need the best gear to be effective, if you have good gear and know how to play your character, that is all that is needed. If you are new and willing to listen and learn you will do OK. The PvP maps are huge and no zone walls except when intering dungeons.
Free trial http://www.darkageofcamelot.com/ The game and all expansions are free but it costs $14.95 a month after the free trial.
Oh, and for grouping I like voice, no matter what MMO I play. In fact, I like voice even if I am solo; trading jokes with someone while smashing a mob's head in can be very satisfying.
Intel Core i7 7700K, MB is Gigabyte Z270X-UD5 SSD x2, 4TB WD Black HHD, 32GB RAM, MSI GTX 980 Ti Lightning LE video card
I mentioned Dark Age of Camelot in the above post.
I played WoW for about a year and a half and did not like it nearly as well as DAoC. To find a group for PvP simply join a battle group and advertise with [class] lfg. A group needing that class will send you an invitation, it is that simple.
If you log on before a BG is formed and want to find a group, just go to the PvP zone and use a wide area channel, such as /region
DAoC still has an automatic feature to let people know you are looking for a group, but almost no one uses it any longer.
Intel Core i7 7700K, MB is Gigabyte Z270X-UD5 SSD x2, 4TB WD Black HHD, 32GB RAM, MSI GTX 980 Ti Lightning LE video card
Comments
Thank you! I didn't expect anyone to answer me withour calling me a doody face or something. = D I hope you enjoy scifi, because it sounds like Star Wars: The Old Republic is the answer to your dreams. I know I check my email every day hoping to get an invite to "test" it. hehe
@ UsualSuspect.
Multiplayer Oblivion with chat and economy and regular update patches, and the mobs didn't level up would be quite lovely and very satisfying by the way, lets call it "MMOOblivion". But that doesn't address what I claimed is the core problem. Btw, it doesn't stop at MMOblivion, I'd love solo-centric WoW clones, solo-centric Aion clones, solo-centric Lotro clones, solo-centric EQ2 clones, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.
Solo-centric doesn't necessarily mean every mob and quest is soloable, only that the obtainment of the highest degrees of player character stats gains are obtainable solo.
Just a friendly reminder:
. . .You are still equating definition with tradition, that is an error a fallacy. They are not equal. MMORPGs are by TRADITION, group-centric. They, however, are NOT By Definition, group-centric.
Let us isolate the second "M" for a bit. Multiplayer games have, by tradition, required grouping or defeating the other players. But multiplayer, strictly speaking, means simply that there are other players present. . .
Let me repeat myself, the core issue is intolerance.
The intolerance that group-centrics have for the generally far more tolerant solo-centrics is the source of the conflict. This is the issue that really needs to be discussed between group-centrics and solo-centrics. I have not seen any solo-centrics wishing for the nonexistence of existing and upcoming group-centric titles (in this thread at least). We simply want a high quality mmorpg that fits our playstyle.
If I was sitting in my home peacefully and happily playing my MMOOblivion with other like-minded solo-centric gamers, that would be none of your business. Nobody is likely to force you to play MMOOblivion, and if someone did you should file a police report. Nobody is likely to force you to develop the game or finance it as an investor, again, if anybody tries, file a police report. Yet you are rabidly scathingly viciously against the creation and marketing of a product that does not hurt you, does not rob you, does not deprive you of your rights, that you don't have to develop or invest any amount of cash into at all?
I have concluded that the answer is intolerance. The refusal to tolerate the existence of something that doesn't harm you or deprive you of your rights in any way. Lambasting people for daring to say that they would like to play such a game (even though you don't have to play that kind of game) stems from intolerance. I don't much like group-centric mmorpgs yet, I tolerate their existence because they don't really effect me. I have and will continue to choose to either not play them or play them until I reach the level cap (if it has solo-friendly leveling) and then quit. I don't want group-centric games to go away. But it would be nice if I had MMOOblivion and then perhaps every 3 to 4 years one more solo-centric mmorpg came out. Then I'd leave all those group-centric mmos alone forever.
I will not attempt to corner you into engaging me in dialog about this core intolerance issue. If you or any other group-centrics wish to discuss this core issue with me please let me know.
Guild Wars 2 is my religion
It's not intolerance, it's looking at the reality of the situation and realising that it's never going to happen. In your MMOOblivion for example, the one I outlined in a previous post, much like a single player game, the game would have a definite ending. If everything is soloable and you can acquire everything you need alone, then eventually you're going to run out of things to do. The quests will all be complete, the soloable raid mobs will have been defeated, the dungeons finished, you will have all the best gear in the game and you'll be wondering what to do. I had this problem in LOTRO, I had done everything I could with my character and had no further direction, and that's not even a solo-centric game.
So if the game has a definite ending that can be reached by every single player, which in effect will cause a 'Game Over' for those players, why are developers going to release that as an MMO? They would have to spend millions on server farms, technical support, programmers, network engineers, and everything else that has to be put into an MMO, just so people can be in the same environment, even though they don't need to be.
There's a reason why Oblivion is a single player game and not an MMO. Completely soloable games are created as single player games because of that reason, though like MMO's they can be expanded on with Downloadable Content. A lot of new games coming out have Downloadable Content, I think Mass Effect 2 is on it's 6th update in that regard. How is that any different than an evolving online world?
Ah ha! And we see why you're not interested in seeing it. Because you have no idea what a multiplayer game actually is. Let me just clear up that 'Group vs PvE' thing for you. Group = Multiplayer. Player 1 is a Healer, Player 2 is a Tank, Player 3 is DPS, Player 4 is Crowd Control. Tank fights mob but can't survive without Healer, Crowd Control ensures the fight doesn't get out of control with extra mobs thus protecting Healer, DPS makes mob die faster. Players working together: Multiplayer.
If the players aren't talking or are idiots, well, find better players. In a game with a real community those types of players wouldn't be tolerated anyway.
@ UsualSuspect
Let me ask some serious questions:
Do you honestly think people will stop voicing their want for solo-centric mmorpgs just because you said they should always be group-centric? Do you believe a significant number of (lets say, one new game every three years) solo-centric mmorpgs will ever reach the market within the next five to ten years or even ever?
But,if...if companies started releasing solo-centric mmorpgs that did service the entertainment tastes of solo-centrics, would you try to sue those companies or seek a government enforced ban on those games, perhaps call the police on the players to have the arrested?
Would you resort to using violence against the devs, publishing company personnel or players of those games? Maybe have your eyes and ears disabled to protect your mind from exposure to those games? I honestly don't think you would get that extreme, personally. I only ask for the purpose of clarity.
Or, if companies started releasing solo-centric mmorpgs that did service the entertainment tastes of solo-centrics, would you simply vote with your wallet and simply refuse to spend your cash on those kinds of games?
Maybe make a blog or anti-fansite about how much those games suck to you? Maybe, maybe, troll the official and fan forums of said games?
Or would you simply play the group-centric games that you like, perhaps happy there are no selfish solo-centrics playing your preferred games, polluting the immersion with their negative presence?
Guild Wars 2 is my religion
I'll try and answer in sequence here, but I might go off at a tangent. Will people stop voicing their want for solo-centric MMO's? I doubt it, just like people won't stop voicing their want for group-centric MMO's. It's the opposite ends of the spectrum, at the moment modern MMO's are a solo experience while levelling then the group content takes over. This doesn't work for the group-centric's because they get bored of levelling alone, and doesn't work for the solo-centric's because they find their gameplay comes to an end when they've hit max level. It leaves nobody in a happy place, though I dare to say the group-centric's come off worse, speaking for myself there have been a few games I haven't been able to stick out due to the solo levelling, World of Warcraft being one of them.
Will solo-centric games come in the next five to ten years? It's possible. I think it will largely depend on costs - if the costs of running an MMO drop to an acceptable level then the developers might try different things, but until then I think they're going to keep solo-play games as single player games, purely because they can sell it to a larger market.
Would I care if solo-centric MMO's appeared? Not at all. I'd probably even try it out if a trial became available, I'm not going to close my mind to something that might be fun to play. However, I find that online games need some sort of multiplayer function to justify them being online, so if I had to pay the box price of the game then a subscription fee it's highly likely I wouldn't bother. Paying every month for the honor of playing a single player game just doesn't appeal to me, and I think would create a very slippery slope where developers could start charging the equivalent of rental for their single player games.
I love sci-fi, but I detest Star Wars and George Lucas with a passion, I won't put a penny into Lucas' pocket under any circumstances. So no, TOR isn't for me.
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 will be easy. Most current MMOs could be used as a start but I’ll use WoW for obvious reasons.
Imagine WoW with group centric servers. All of the content, not just instances, would require multiple player co-operation for survival. The world would demand such co-op all of the time, at least until you over-level a region. The raid stuff would be the same. Raiding requires special design for the tactical planning to make sense. On these servers, everyone would be grouping out of necessity. This would suit you, US, would it not?
Also imagine the current WoW PVE servers just as they are, but all players can get comparable high level gear whether they raid or not, through questing or crafting. All craft materials would be available in the world at large, not packed away in an instance. The “loot conscripts” I alluded to in an earlier post would be hard to find on these servers but at least everyone who wants to raid for the challenge and to see the content would be there for the pleasure of doing it. On these servers, folks who do instances would do them to experience the content and not to get gear that is otherwise prohibited.
Why couldn’t this work? The most demanding group players would have servers to their liking and folks who don’t like being second class citizens regarding gear (because they won’t make the game into a job) would have access to the best loot.
This will be easy. Most current MMOs could be used as a start but I’ll use WoW for obvious reasons.
Imagine WoW with group centric servers. All of the content, not just instances, would require multiple player co-operation for survival. The world would demand such co-op all of the time, at least until you over-level a region. The raid stuff would be the same. Raiding requires special design for the tactical planning to make sense. On these servers, everyone would be grouping out of necessity. This would suit you, US, would it not?
Also imagine the current WoW PVE servers just as they are, but all players can get comparable high level gear whether they raid or not, through questing or crafting. All craft materials would be available in the world at large, not packed away in an instance. The “loot conscripts” I alluded to in an earlier post would be hard to find on these servers but at least everyone who wants to raid for the challenge and to see the content would be there for the pleasure of doing it. On these servers, folks who do instances would do them to experience the content and not to get gear that is otherwise prohibited.
Why couldn’t this work? The most demanding group players would have servers to their liking and folks who don’t like being second class citizens regarding gear (because they won’t make the game into a job) would have access to the best loot.
Real good idea, having different playstyles on different servers. Sort of like the current batch where you have PvP, PvE and Roleplay servers, just expanded on. Not sure how practical it would be, as I'd imagine the game would need to be coded differently based on solo-style and group-style, but I can't imagine it being more than tweaking some numbers and opening or closing options.
Yeah, I like that. I give this post my official seal of approval. :-)
Ah yes, forcing everyone into pre-defined molds so that everyone can fit into any group on the map because they are all carbon copies of each other. You need to have a certain set of spells, a certain set of skills, a certain set of armor and weapons, because otherwise, there might actually be some strategy involved in making up a group! Imagine that! You want everyone to be cookie-cutter copies of each other, all healers look identical, all tanks have the exact same abilities, all DPS are exactly the same, because they have to be able to fit seamlessly into any group they come across.
So much for individuality, I guess. No thanks.
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
Now what are you going on about? You don't like grouping, now you don't like a class based system either? Is there anything you like about MMO's besides being able to solo and wander around a big world? Is that all there is for you? I was talking about the way certain classes interact with other classes, nobody ever mentioned cookie-cutter copies. Classes can be as similar as EverQuest, where a cleric does one thing and a wizard does another, or as diverse as a pre-NGE SWG character.
Wow Ceph's, you're really starting to lose the plot.
What I dont understand is the people who almost always solo. i mean the game is a multiplayer game and should be baased on playing with other people. but I agree whith what seems to be the majority consent that there should be a good balnce because sometimes you just dont feel like waiting a long time to find parties (and im pretty sure all mmo game makers are trying their best to find the fastest and best way to do this).
the main problem i see with forming groups is the class system most games have. Damage dealers are usually the most popular, and it takes usually at least 1 healer and one tank. i think they need to start to get away from the classic setup so that any team of any class can play with eachother. thats why im looking forward to a game like FFXIV becasue of the system they got going on there with like no classes.
WoW does make it so you can do both, but i still think the group system they have is terrbile. you que for an isntace, find a group, run aninstance that takes about 15-30 mins to complete, then everyone leaves and its over, leaving u with a feeling of un-completedness. In FFXI, yeah it takes longer to get a group, but once ur in the group u can be with the same group, getting good exp the whole time for hours. If they would find a way to make soloing more fun (which would proably need to hasten the battle system as a whole) then the game would ahve a much better balance.
Hardly, maybe you're finally starting to get it through your head that there are lots of people out there who want lots of different things out of MMOs. I'm sure it's hard for you to comprehend that point, you seem to think that you have the one, true way to play and anyone who disagrees with you must automatically be wrong, but your side is losing miserably and my side now makes up a huge percentage of the financial base of the MMO marketplace.
But of course, that doesn't matter to you, you don't care if any of these games are financially viable, you don't have a firm grasp on the reality of the game market. You just want what you want and when it becomes untenable, you just kick and scream that somehow, gaming companies owe it to you.
It just ain't so.
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
Finding a balance for a MMO to be great at both is impossible.
Like said before, its the PC vs Mac, AMD vs Intel, nVidia vs ATI, etc debate. Not every game will be the liking of everyone. But there is a problem that companies have with that. Blizzard has been trying too hard to make everyone happy. They were doing great with the old WoW. Sure some fixes and tweaking was needed but many people I know left just before Wrath. Some came back and tried Wrath but left after they were disappointed in the arcade from MMORPG change. Forget $15 a month, just put a dollar slot on the side of the computer and play like the old arcades on WoW. EQ 2 is fun but if you are just starting, you will more than likely quit because of the boredom unless you have a friend you know leveling with you. Soloing is ok but it really turns to the big grind for leveling. Tradeskills are not something for the casual as they take a very long time to level and you will actually out level some things you make before you level the tradeskills. Its not bad but make it scale with the player level would help.
Both games have good solo game and group game options. But in the end, its still an M-M-O. Without friends to enjoy it, both suck in no time.
I like to group and I like to solo. So, I would like to have the most meaningful gear, titles, etc. require both. Requiring challenging solo play for at least some of the best items would also help to separate the players who carry from the players who get carried.
I also feel that the largest required group size for the most challenging areas should be kept small (e.g., 8 or less players). Otherwise there tends to be too much waiting around for people to take a piss, have a smoke, let out the dog, get the door, talk on the phone, log back on after DC, or just not show up in the first place. Large groups also tend to have more drama and increased chances of including a noob who is carried by the rest of the group.
See this is the boat I'm in as well. Sometimes I want to group. Sometimes I want to solo. That's why I prefer to play games where both are rewarding and fun to do. There are sadly few of them... usually one is much better in terms of the play than the other, and so I'm going to be frustrated half the time.
I'm hoping TOR will break this mold but we shall see.
C
Jumping in really late, but there's really no reason to argue about this. There will always be people on both extreme sides of the argument, with most people falling somewhere in between. I like to solo when I don't have a lot of time to wait for people. I love to group when I do to get more out of the game. But then again, I'm lucky enough to game with my wife, so I always at least have a partner if I want one.
well depend the case
for me all time group sucks, like FFXI if you wanna lvl up or obtain special item you need made a party. the problem in ffxi was the stupidity elitist setup party... how affect it you, simple if you dont have x or y class you will never receive invite and you cant lvl up
my opinion group is good like wow, when you wanna complete a dungeon and everybody could win good price and end game
i love Mass pvp
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
"Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't"
I mostly prefer group play but during the common times that groups are hard to find, I like the ability to make significant progress while solo.
In that case I will explain it so that going forth it will be as an unmuddied lake. As clear as an azure sky of deepest summer.
People who mostly solo do not require groupnig in order to feel the social aspects of the game.
Seeing people moving to and fro, helping people when they need it, trading with people, feeling the hustle and bustle of a crowded city and/or world, answering and asking questions... all of these things fill the social bit that these games provide.
Other than those and similar things, the grouping for killing and questing is not really a needed part of the equation as all that I have indicated above takes care of our social need.
I hope that helps.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Is a game really an mmo if the only players you can interact with are those on your server, such as WoW; a million+ purchased the game but you are stuck with whoever is on your server.
Or, in it's hey day, could a game such as Call of Duty 4 be called an MMO? Thousands of players were online at the same time, even though a single server maxed out with 50 players? [Of course, with such small maps 50 players was a lot.]
Intel Core i7 7700K, MB is Gigabyte Z270X-UD5
SSD x2, 4TB WD Black HHD, 32GB RAM, MSI GTX 980 Ti Lightning LE video card
Intel Core i7 7700K, MB is Gigabyte Z270X-UD5
SSD x2, 4TB WD Black HHD, 32GB RAM, MSI GTX 980 Ti Lightning LE video card
Pistallion,
I mentioned Dark Age of Camelot in the above post.
I played WoW for about a year and a half and did not like it nearly as well as DAoC. To find a group for PvP simply join a battle group and advertise with [class] lfg. A group needing that class will send you an invitation, it is that simple.
If you log on before a BG is formed and want to find a group, just go to the PvP zone and use a wide area channel, such as /region
DAoC still has an automatic feature to let people know you are looking for a group, but almost no one uses it any longer.
Intel Core i7 7700K, MB is Gigabyte Z270X-UD5
SSD x2, 4TB WD Black HHD, 32GB RAM, MSI GTX 980 Ti Lightning LE video card
Well i like party/group play more than solo. But solo is a good way if u grind for items or smth.
Intel Core i7 7700K, MB is Gigabyte Z270X-UD5
SSD x2, 4TB WD Black HHD, 32GB RAM, MSI GTX 980 Ti Lightning LE video card