The original MMORPGs were about interacting with folks in a shared world, which includes (but is not limited to) grouping. Even players that grinded solo generally interacted for dungeons, crafting, selling wares/resources, etc.
That's the difference I see. The AH setup most games use, the group finders, they all discourage interaction because it's easier to do this than to accurately target the detrimental actors in these interactive situations (asshats).
My view is that grouping is what makes MMORPGs what they are - it's what makes them stand out.
You can solo in tons of games. Many games are single player. You can chat online in a variety of ways. You can PvP in any number of games.
No other type of game gives you the opportunity to do sophisticated PvE content as a group.
The push for money - to sell as many units and have as many players as possible - and in doing so dumbing down the genre going for wide/mass appeal, and also prioritizing solo over grouping, has turned the MMORPG genre into a steaming pile of generic garbage passing for games.
If your preference is to solo...why...why do you want to log on to a server and solo around other people that you don't want anything to do with? Why not just play any of the far more numerous single player games, most of which have far better content and gameplay for "solo" if that's what you want?
If you don't have a focus on grouping in MMORPGs all you really have is really weak and watered down single player gaming where you happen to be logging in to a server to do it. And some really crappy public chat filled with immature halfwits.
That's pretty much the modern MMORPG. Solo focused easy mode with a bunch of pointless things to do. A world where nobody cares much about anything except themselves. The optional grouping is pretty weak. The focus of the game is as much money throughput as the host company can finagle, not providing a high quality gaming experience unlike anything else.
The genre was better when it was niche - when it was about grouping, challenge, danger, and corporations weren't trying to milk as much money as humanly possible out of them and they could just be special and distinct games.
Casual soloists don't want grouping, challenge, or danger - they just want ez-mode and endless gratification for doing nothing. Ie, they don't really want MMORPGs, they want tablet games in an online form. Modern MMORPGs reflect this. And they suck.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
I'll be honest, I kind of miss mostly all end game content being group oriented. I played FFXI for a long period of time before the abyssea series and it was pretty nice actually having to have a group to tackle the latest content and not have it be low-man'd and such. It added longevity and that certain criteria of skill necessary to be able to approach certain things. I get that games want to make end game more accessible to various schedule but it sacrifices quite a bit since most people want less people to accomplish goals in order to get more for themselves or have to deal with people less. And that's a fine mind set but it doesn't really motivate people to want to come together if they can easily do it solo or dual client etc and get more loot for themselves. So it kind of breeds more greed in the gaming world versus a sense of wanting to help each other.
My post starts off nice, gets ranty, then returns to nice. If you don't like ranty, skip 'camp two'. :P
Way I see it;
You have people who for whatever reason enjoy MMO's who think there needs to be a compromise of some sort, scaling instances or whatnot - everything soloable and everything groupable at the same time.
Then you have the three camps;
Camp One - The Soloers,
I find tend to be very erudite when putting forth their points and opinions on the matter and generally appear happy to discuss anything in a sensible manner. Some of the shy solo players I've encountered in MMO's are the most sociable and will not shut up once you get to know them.
I like soloers. Sure you get some bad apples in there but they tend to be very hidden, by nature of their NOT usually being around to piss people off. But generally they tend to be very sociable people, busy in the chats and doing things and tend to have a more friendlier attitude towards other players.
Camp Two - The immature morons (aka: This is an MMO, you deserve to die for even touching this without a harem to join you.)
These people are the ones who think they're being clever, if they say 'It's an MMO if you want to solo get lost' or ANY variant of it (if you've thought this, hello, yes, you fall into this douchebag camp ) = and they tend to be stuck up elitist idiots.
But I think everyone tolerates them, not because they're good players or fun to talk to - I mean who wants to listen to such simple-minded views that they tend to possess, no - rather, I think the gaming community tolerates these cretins because every time they post and open their immature little mouths, they actually present the case for soloing.
In fact, I'm positive every dev that reads a 'team GROUPING!' post saying 'lulz, you solo, go die in a fire and play solo games not MMO, you know MASSIVELY ME ONLINE GAMES!" the developers go 'oh... we have that type of player in our game, best make more solo content just in case he pisses on everyone's gaming experience and costs us a ton of money.'
Am I unnecessarily being vile about Camp 2? I don't think so. These people need to, you know, NOT breed at all. Humanity would be better off without them. 'Lol go play skyrim, let me play with my circlejerk group' = ugh.
Then you have camp 3 - The "Grouping must be preserved"
The rare breed this one, the one who believes grouping content is vital to an MMO but doesn't actually diss soloing or solo methods throughout the game. The balanced breed, like the soloer who understand that a marriage of both methods = the way forward. Yet, they postulate points that simply fall apart and hold to the view of grouping when it isn't always beneficial either to the game or the mechanics.
They're the dying breed, not so extreme as the Camp 2 groups or the 'Rawr, PVP Gankfest = the epic way forward, PvE and Carebears need to die!!" group, and they're the ones who inevitably stick to the old beliefs. Usually old Everquest fans, or any fan of ultra-perma death MMO, or they started an MMO with raids and super-duper group content despite it being a minority thing and are clinging to the memories.
Fact is, the % of players at end game who raid or group is a minority in the modern MMO. People seem to respond better to grouping where it is optional and enjoyable as opposed to mandatory or forced. Soloing is there in every MMO anyway, either in the 'epic story' quest from 1-X or in any other capacity. The 'groups = win' view is a minority of players for a minority of content.
The problem:
The problem is the 'elite' stuff, the best stuff tends to revolve *around* that minority content. Which is wrong. The Elite stuff should be available via a variety of content. Crafting, soloing and so on. They need to be on parity but of different challenges. Let the players and the market economy rank gear by 'value' - for example, Crafting X is obviously gained by Crafting (duh) and Solo X is gained by some epic instanced solo content (THAT CAN be grouped) but Group X is elite gear (on parity with Solo and Crafting X) that is exclusive to those who beat a specific group instance content.
If 'no one will group' as camp 3 seems to think, then Group X gear is going to be considered the 'true' status symbol. If parity is too much, then make it so the Group X gear gives super-duper bonuses for doing group content (i.e. makes you stronger in a group and in group content than solo gear). This way everyone gets something, everyone touches content that works for them. The time-constrained soloer gets to get his 'leet lewt', the raid monkeys get to raid, the group lovers get to group.
That solution also allows for the solo and group content to be more focused in a variety of ways.
Problem is though, camp 2 will continue with its elitist schtick, and camp 3 will irrationally deny the change for (in their view) legitimate reasons, just like all the hardcore old-school MMO nuts - who conveniently, don't have an MMO anymore as they wouldn't change with the times.
The modern day MMO needs to cater to the soloer. If it doesn't, it'll have a minority fanbase or a moronic one.
The problem is the 'elite' stuff, the best stuff tends to revolve *around* that minority content. Which is wrong. The Elite stuff should be available via a variety of content. Crafting, soloing and so on. They need to be on parity but of different challenges. Let the players and the market economy rank gear by 'value' - for example, Crafting X is obviously gained by Crafting (duh) and Solo X is gained by some epic instanced solo content (THAT CAN be grouped) but Group X is elite gear (on parity with Solo and Crafting X) that is exclusive to those who beat a specific group instance content.
If 'no one will group' as camp 3 seems to think, then Group X gear is going to be considered the 'true' status symbol. If parity is too much, then make it so the Group X gear gives super-duper bonuses for doing group content (i.e. makes you stronger in a group and in group content than solo gear). This way everyone gets something, everyone touches content that works for them. The time-constrained soloer gets to get his 'leet lewt', the raid monkeys get to raid, the group lovers get to group.
That solution also allows for the solo and group content to be more focused in a variety of ways.
Problem is though, camp 2 will continue with its elitist schtick, and camp 3 will irrationally deny the change for (in their view) legitimate reasons, just like all the hardcore old-school MMO nuts - who conveniently, don't have an MMO anymore as they wouldn't change with the times.
The modern day MMO needs to cater to the soloer. If it doesn't, it'll have a minority fanbase or a moronic one.
There is a problem with your problem, however:
Coordinating group inherently requires more effort (even if just for the logistics of gathering folks). Which is, I feel, the reason why MMORPGs have traditionally reserved the best rewards for endeavors that require a group effort. This isn't in contrast with any other facet of life or hobbies: generally, the largest endeavors are reserved for a group of folks, not just one person by him or herself.
The reason a large amount of players solo is because it's the easiest method of advancement. My suggestion has always been that MMO developers include such solo content while simultaneously working to facilitate meaningful interaction between players. The more interaction becomes organic, convenient, and rewarding, the more players are willing to cooperate.
In short, group content has always been more highly rewarded than solo content simply because it jives logically with life in general. The largest projects are always group efforts, and the end-product is almost always larger as well. This is without even getting into the visionary goal of a game that is intentionally "massively multiplayer."
Disclaimer: this mostly concerns games that want to cater to both types of players (groupers and soloers), otherwise the designers can easily make choices that tweak (if not outright break) premise #1 in favor of one or the other.
Premise #1:
A game should be properly rewarding, meaning that players should get some kind of return proportioned to the quality of the achievement/investment.
Is this something we can all agree with?
Premise #2:
Group play itself isn't enough of a reward for group play, just like solo play itself isn't enough of a reward for solo play.
Is this something we can all agree with?
Premise #3:
Group play is more of an achievement/investment than solo play. Both have drawbacks, obviously, but group play has more/worse inherent requirements and disadvantages (needing other people, having to coordinate, having to cooperate, dealing with asshats, etc.).
Is this something we can all agree with?
If yes, then we also agree that group play should get bonuses over solo play, just like beating a higher level mob should give bonuses compared to beating a lower level one (or just like any other challenge/reward fairness example you can think of).
It's a standard for raids to do this, although in such a roundabout way that I'm not sure they should be included* (and the same applies to most "raise the difficulty of normal content" content). Anyway:
Measures games have tried over the years:
a) Exp bonuses to groups.
b) (Directly or as sort-of a side benefit) limiting of the disadvantages of group play (better/faster Finding Group tools, easier communication systems, policing and moderating the community, etc.).
c) Limiting of the class roles (most holy trinity or similar systems).
d) (Very rarely) adding of group-only combat mechanics (flanking or other positioning-strategies, elemental or similar combinations, synergies, etc.)
Is there anything else?
One, all, or a combination of these measures were absent/lacking in many cases. And the games that got closer to a good application of these measures probably fall in the category of games whose designers tweaked/broke premise #1 in favor of group play.
So what is the solution?
*The truth is raids don't actually reward group play, but rather only the achievement of winning the boss fight. This becomes apparent when a smaller group or even a single player manages to defeat that same boss fight and get the same reward (this usually happens when the boss fight is an older one and there has been an increase in max-level cap or something similar).
I think solo play is a necessary element to any MMORPG. If nothing else you have to have a way to make experience while you want for a group. Even if it is just hanging around outside a dungeon killing whatever is there, you need a way to solo while waiting for a group to enter the dungeon that has room for one more. I think better rewards and faster experience should be available to groups. I'm hoping this is what Pantheon will offer, a game where grouping is the center and focus, but where you can solo if you want, it just might not be as efficient.
The problem is the 'elite' stuff, the best stuff tends to revolve *around* that minority content. Which is wrong. The Elite stuff should be available via a variety of content. Crafting, soloing and so on. They need to be on parity but of different challenges. Let the players and the market economy rank gear by 'value' - for example, Crafting X is obviously gained by Crafting (duh) and Solo X is gained by some epic instanced solo content (THAT CAN be grouped) but Group X is elite gear (on parity with Solo and Crafting X) that is exclusive to those who beat a specific group instance content.
If 'no one will group' as camp 3 seems to think, then Group X gear is going to be considered the 'true' status symbol. If parity is too much, then make it so the Group X gear gives super-duper bonuses for doing group content (i.e. makes you stronger in a group and in group content than solo gear). This way everyone gets something, everyone touches content that works for them. The time-constrained soloer gets to get his 'leet lewt', the raid monkeys get to raid, the group lovers get to group.
That solution also allows for the solo and group content to be more focused in a variety of ways.
Problem is though, camp 2 will continue with its elitist schtick, and camp 3 will irrationally deny the change for (in their view) legitimate reasons, just like all the hardcore old-school MMO nuts - who conveniently, don't have an MMO anymore as they wouldn't change with the times.
The modern day MMO needs to cater to the soloer. If it doesn't, it'll have a minority fanbase or a moronic one.
There is a problem with your problem, however:
Coordinating group inherently requires more effort (even if just for the logistics of gathering folks). Which is, I feel, the reason why MMORPGs have traditionally reserved the best rewards for endeavors that require a group effort. This isn't in contrast with any other facet of life or hobbies: generally, the largest endeavors are reserved for a group of folks, not just one person by him or herself.
The reason a large amount of players solo is because it's the easiest method of advancement. My suggestion has always been that MMO developers include such solo content while simultaneously working to facilitate meaningful interaction between players. The more interaction becomes organic, convenient, and rewarding, the more players are willing to cooperate.
In short, group content has always been more highly rewarded than solo content simply because it jives logically with life in general. The largest projects are always group efforts, and the end-product is almost always larger as well. This is without even getting into the visionary goal of a game that is intentionally "massively multiplayer."
I like RValiant's assessment of the 3 camps. Although Camp 2's description is vile, in a lot of ways they have earned it with their simplistic approach to a complex and evolving issue that doesn't illuminate possible solutions in any way.
To MadFrenchie's points about why group content is more rewarding, and in his view should be more rewarding, we've all seen this perspective before a thousand times when this issue comes up. I actually think that none of these reasons have much solid ground to stand on.
Groups = more effort; therefore, more reward. So tired of this chestnut . More time consuming, yes. But let's face it. Usually it's one person or perhaps two who organizes and does all the work. Everyone else is just along for the ride. They show up. Group finders have alleviated the need for a motivated, talented person to facilitate grouping. But running the content, particularly after the 10th or 20th time is a cakewalk and everyone who's every done any significant amount of grouping and/or raiding knows these. The only reason there is better gear in group content is that no one would do it if there wasn't. Which is why groupers/raiders feverishly defend their right alone to epic gear. If that carrot wasn't there, even fewer people would touch that content than do now.
Solo is easy mode. Piffle. It is often much more difficult and time consuming to do content solo than in a group. Get a couple of guys together and you can pretty much smash through the map content on any MMO in a few days. That's easy mode. Taking all that stuff on solo and still accomplishing all the same goals, that's an achievement. The argument that if you solo you are just not as good a player, lazy, or unsociable and therefore shouldn't be as rewarded as "real" MMO players is another really dead horse.
I agree that MMOs need to be readily sociable. But I disagree that the only way to be sociable in an MMO is to be grouped up--that the only truly sociable activity in MMOs is grouping. We all know that's not true. People can be crafting and chatting in local or world chat.. People can be traveling and answering questions posed in chat. When I solo in a game, I keep a close eye on all my chat channels and join in when I can. There is nothing sociable about being in a group where no one says anything for the entire run except, maybe and really just maybe, a thank you at the end.
I group because it is fun and I enjoy hanging out with people. It's fun to say, "Nice Shiny!" when an epic drops for a mate, but I really don't group because of the extra rewards. If that's why people are grouping, then they are just using each other to get stuff.
So should solo play be as rewarding as group play? I think the reasoning that "group play is harder and therefore should be more rewarding" logic is deeply flawed. I think both forms of content, group and solo, have their challenges and their personal rewards. However a developer chooses to dole out rewards and achievements, I think it is important that players recognize that each person playing has their own reasons for not only playing but how they play and that every one of them is legitimate. Many people will not be satisfied with this answer because human beings have a very strong social tendency to want to be with the correct, right, superior group.
Groups = more effort; therefore, more reward. So tired of this chestnut . More time consuming, yes. But let's face it. Usually it's one person or perhaps two who organizes and does all the work. Everyone else is just along for the ride. They show up. Group finders have alleviated the need for a motivated, talented person to facilitate grouping. But running the content, particularly after the 10th or 20th time is a cakewalk and everyone who's every done any significant amount of grouping and/or raiding knows these. The only reason there is better gear in group content is that no one would do it if there wasn't. Which is why groupers/raiders feverishly defend their right alone to epic gear. If that carrot wasn't there, even fewer people would touch that content than do now.
Solo is easy mode. Piffle. It is often much more difficult and time consuming to do content solo than in a group. Get a couple of guys together and you can pretty much smash through the map content on any MMO in a few days. That's easy mode. Taking all that stuff on solo and still accomplishing all the same goals, that's an achievement. The argument that if you solo you are just not as good a player, lazy, or unsociable and therefore shouldn't be as rewarded as "real" MMO players is another really dead horse.
First thing first, it's not just "effort" you need to reward. It's also disadvantages (time wasted, dealing with the occasional annoying/incompetent teammate, etc.), which you need to mitigate if you want to be "fair". Second, I feel like you are too narrow when you talk about "effort". If an MMO is properly balanced, groups are simply not going to run the same content a solo player runs. They're going to fight higher-level mobs and enter epic dungeons, which are naturally harder, or if you prefer "more punishing" than lower-level mobs and normal dungeons. More punishing = more effort (if it's good design, of course... if not, it's just more punishing = more disadvantages, but that should bring more rewards, anyway, so...).
The point about running the same content repeatedly so it becomes easy is a moot one, because that works the same for solo players, so it's not a distinctive feature, there.
Solo = bad/lazy/unsociable is obviously a stupid argument (or rather, a badly presented and shallow one), and whoever uses it falls in the "shitty elitist" category described above, I agree.
I agree that MMOs need to be readily sociable. But I disagree that the only way to be sociable in an MMO is to be grouped up--that the only truly sociable activity in MMOs is grouping. We all know that's not true. People can be crafting and chatting in local or world chat.. People can be traveling and answering questions posed in chat. When I solo in a game, I keep a close eye on all my chat channels and join in when I can. There is nothing sociable about being in a group where no one says anything for the entire run except, maybe and really just maybe, a thank you at the end.
It's not the only way, you're right, but since fighting is the largely predominant activity in most MMOs, it's definitely weird that sociality design is sorely lacking in such an important aspect of these games. Being in a group is still a social experience even if no one says anything, although it's a lesser one for sure. Group sports are a decent comparison, here. You can easily go to the gym and shoot some hoops alone (solo), but playing with others as a team (group) is a more social situation. Then, if you do more than simply going through the motions, if you get banter/strategy/whatever going (livelier group), it becomes a more complete experience.
I think both forms of content, group and solo, have their challenges and their personal rewards. However a developer chooses to dole out rewards and achievements, I think it is important that players recognize that each person playing has their own reasons for not only playing but how they play and that every one of them is legitimate.
The problem is the 'elite' stuff, the best stuff tends to revolve *around* that minority content. Which is wrong. The Elite stuff should be available via a variety of content. Crafting, soloing and so on. They need to be on parity but of different challenges. Let the players and the market economy rank gear by 'value' - for example, Crafting X is obviously gained by Crafting (duh) and Solo X is gained by some epic instanced solo content (THAT CAN be grouped) but Group X is elite gear (on parity with Solo and Crafting X) that is exclusive to those who beat a specific group instance content.
If 'no one will group' as camp 3 seems to think, then Group X gear is going to be considered the 'true' status symbol. If parity is too much, then make it so the Group X gear gives super-duper bonuses for doing group content (i.e. makes you stronger in a group and in group content than solo gear). This way everyone gets something, everyone touches content that works for them. The time-constrained soloer gets to get his 'leet lewt', the raid monkeys get to raid, the group lovers get to group.
That solution also allows for the solo and group content to be more focused in a variety of ways.
Problem is though, camp 2 will continue with its elitist schtick, and camp 3 will irrationally deny the change for (in their view) legitimate reasons, just like all the hardcore old-school MMO nuts - who conveniently, don't have an MMO anymore as they wouldn't change with the times.
The modern day MMO needs to cater to the soloer. If it doesn't, it'll have a minority fanbase or a moronic one.
There is a problem with your problem, however:
Coordinating group inherently requires more effort (even if just for the logistics of gathering folks). Which is, I feel, the reason why MMORPGs have traditionally reserved the best rewards for endeavors that require a group effort. This isn't in contrast with any other facet of life or hobbies: generally, the largest endeavors are reserved for a group of folks, not just one person by him or herself.
The reason a large amount of players solo is because it's the easiest method of advancement. My suggestion has always been that MMO developers include such solo content while simultaneously working to facilitate meaningful interaction between players. The more interaction becomes organic, convenient, and rewarding, the more players are willing to cooperate.
In short, group content has always been more highly rewarded than solo content simply because it jives logically with life in general. The largest projects are always group efforts, and the end-product is almost always larger as well. This is without even getting into the visionary goal of a game that is intentionally "massively multiplayer."
I like RValiant's assessment of the 3 camps. Although Camp 2's description is vile, in a lot of ways they have earned it with their simplistic approach to a complex and evolving issue that doesn't illuminate possible solutions in any way.
To MadFrenchie's points about why group content is more rewarding, and in his view should be more rewarding, we've all seen this perspective before a thousand times when this issue comes up. I actually think that none of these reasons have much solid ground to stand on.
Groups = more effort; therefore, more reward. So tired of this chestnut . More time consuming, yes. But let's face it. Usually it's one person or perhaps two who organizes and does all the work. Everyone else is just along for the ride. They show up. Group finders have alleviated the need for a motivated, talented person to facilitate grouping. But running the content, particularly after the 10th or 20th time is a cakewalk and everyone who's every done any significant amount of grouping and/or raiding knows these. The only reason there is better gear in group content is that no one would do it if there wasn't. Which is why groupers/raiders feverishly defend their right alone to epic gear. If that carrot wasn't there, even fewer people would touch that content than do now.
Solo is easy mode. Piffle. It is often much more difficult and time consuming to do content solo than in a group. Get a couple of guys together and you can pretty much smash through the map content on any MMO in a few days. That's easy mode. Taking all that stuff on solo and still accomplishing all the same goals, that's an achievement. The argument that if you solo you are just not as good a player, lazy, or unsociable and therefore shouldn't be as rewarded as "real" MMO players is another really dead horse.
I agree that MMOs need to be readily sociable. But I disagree that the only way to be sociable in an MMO is to be grouped up--that the only truly sociable activity in MMOs is grouping. We all know that's not true. People can be crafting and chatting in local or world chat.. People can be traveling and answering questions posed in chat. When I solo in a game, I keep a close eye on all my chat channels and join in when I can. There is nothing sociable about being in a group where no one says anything for the entire run except, maybe and really just maybe, a thank you at the end.
I group because it is fun and I enjoy hanging out with people. It's fun to say, "Nice Shiny!" when an epic drops for a mate, but I really don't group because of the extra rewards. If that's why people are grouping, then they are just using each other to get stuff.
So should solo play be as rewarding as group play? I think the reasoning that "group play is harder and therefore should be more rewarding" logic is deeply flawed. I think both forms of content, group and solo, have their challenges and their personal rewards. However a developer chooses to dole out rewards and achievements, I think it is important that players recognize that each person playing has their own reasons for not only playing but how they play and that every one of them is legitimate. Many people will not be satisfied with this answer because human beings have a very strong social tendency to want to be with the correct, right, superior group.
Can solo play be challenging? Certainly. My Nightblade in ESO has been doing content up to 7 levels higher than him because he can, and because he would faceroll content his level (thanks to whoever it was that came up with the build I'm using). If I miss a stun or finishing blow, it can cost me my life very easily doing this content. However, MMORPGs aren't just games of skill; they're also games of numbers. There definitely is a cap to how much "harder" content you can do alone due to this. Due to the very nature of the games (DPS, armor, etc. defining combat), you can only do so much by yourself no matter how talented you are at hitting the right buttons at the right time. And, for a select few exceptions, the skill cap for PvE content per player is not incredibly high. The build and gear usually make more difference than the individual player's skill.
Once you reach that cap, the developers have no other choice to increase "difficulty" than by requiring folks to work together to take down the tougher challenges. This will always be the case as long as a numbers game is included in combat. If it were strictly an FPS that relied upon twitch skills, you could certainly make the case that the solo player is actually endeavoring in harder content than a group of players zerging content. However, we haven't seen an MMORPG reach that point (even Destiny, a multiplayer FPS RPG, relies on damage numbers and armor). Until you reach that point, there is certainly an argument to be made that cooperating and coordinating a group of players is objectively "harder" than playing by one's self. If said group content becomes easy because it's been ran over and over, that's a problem with static content. It's a completely separate issue, and we shouldn't allow the failure of developers to evolve beyond such an archaic style of content design to influence our views of the inherently more difficult nature of multiple players playing their characters and interacting with one another to the best of their abilities in order to complete content that would never, ever be possible for a player who refuses to join in a group to adventure.
Well, if you are playing an MMORPG, it would be so boring to play alone. It basically should be playing with other friends together, doing quests, raids. oh missed the old time playing WoW!
IMO MMOs / MMORPGs are designed to be played with different groups of people. It would be boring to explore maps and dungeons when you're alone. Group play is also essential in Massive pvp or guild wars, just like in ROHAN where guilds are very competitive with everything, you will not survive the game if you don't belong to a guild.
I've played open world pvp games solo most of the time, some for years and survived and didn't find it boring at all. I just played the content I was interested in and left the rest alone. MMORPG means lots of people playing together, how they play is up to each player, that's when the role playing part comes in.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Wow, this thread and a few others won't die. Why? Because these are real issues relating to where MMOs came from and where they are going. People, regardless of what side they are on, are passionate about online gaming. I've certainly thought a lot of about these and other related conundrums, and for now, I'll say this:
The MMO gamespace has grown tremendously in 16 years. More than 10 million people have now played MMOs. That's a lot of people, and their tastes and what they're looking for in an online game is going to vary, often significantly.
Some gamers prefer more 'solo play' -- they want to be online, and part of a virtual world, and to see other people. But grouping and teamwork and community interaction isn't necessarily what they're looking for. And while older MMOs targeted more social players, who enjoy grouping, shared experiences, interdependence, etc., many newer games are not being made to accommodate them.
IMHO, arguing over what MMORPG really means, or asserting one preference is more legitimate than the rest, or even saying things like 'hey, then go play a single player game' are really unnecessary. I also see a lot of posts by the peacemakers of the thread, trying to figure out or design a single MMO that could appeal to both of these disagreeing groups. I respect that, but also think it's really unnecessary, a problem not worth solving and likely unsolvable. I also think the days of trying to develop a massive, super expensive MMO in an attempt to appeal to as many people as possible, the 'mass market', is over and can even be harmful to the entire online genre.
The future I believe are MMOs that have identified and targeted specific audiences. Like with any space that has grown tremendously and become much more diverse, developers need to adapt as well and make great games for these gamers but also be ok with this reality: several diverse yet successful games can co-exist, each with different mechanics and features and content. Likewise, if you make a good game, it doesn't mean that everyone has to like it.
Recently, the shift has been to appeal to the more casual, or the more single player oriented MMO gamer. That's fine and for many it makes sense, business-wise, creatively, etc. But the more social gamer, the player who enjoys playing a role in a team, who wants an MMO to become his home and to play for months, even years... the gamer who embraces the communities that form because of the interdependence seen more often in earlier MMOs.... I can understand their frustration with this shift. But there is a solution.
I won't debate here and now how many belong to this orphaned group, or to the newer group -- that debate is ongoing and can't be proven in a post on a message board. But I will say the orphaned group aren't some tiny, virtually extinct, odd-ball bunch of dinosaurs. And while I personally don't think they should necessarily be bothered by MMOs designed not for longevity but rather micro-transactions and cash shops, these newer designs do fail to meet their gaming needs. I also hope that Pantheon, the game I'm currently working on, won't be the only MMO that targets a specific demographic'; rather, I hope it will merely be one of the first. The MMO we're making, while modern and with new ideas and features, is also being built on a foundation that some would call 'old school', but that is really what makes an MMO work for players who want to group, who want more of a challenge, and who want to play a game with content that isn't devoured in weeks or months. And you know what, contrary to hyperbole that FTP revenue models are the only future model for MMOs, we firmly believe that the model should match the playstyle of the players the game is designed for. Subscriptions are not dead by any means -- just look at the millions still subscribed to WoW and other games.
I guess what I'm ultimately trying to communicate is this: it's good and healthy that MMOs are being built differently, appealing to the large number of players more newly attracted to the genre. There is no 'one' way to build or design a massively multiplayer game. And there shouldn't be. Debate as to whether these newcomers are the only true audience now, or arguing that the 'old school' games were better, or more truly an MMO, is really unnecessary and unproductive. There's nothing to win here, nothing to be proven, nothing that has to be protected, and also no need to declare one style or design somehow, magically, obsolete. Unfortunately, some behind some of the newer games that failed to retain subscribers, many of whom then intelligently switched their revenue model, have also (for whatever reason) proclaimed that their failure to retain gamers is because that gamer no longer exists, that the gamers who want to play long term, involve themselves with the community, and to work together in groups and guilds are gone now, or radically different.
I have to not only respectfully disagree, but also express some dissatisfaction, because people often listen to these assertions, both gamers and developers, and sometimes even analysts . So while I welcome healthy debate and applaud newer MMOs designs that appeal to perhaps a broader, or at least a newer audience, I do have to stand up for the 'old school' -- and not just the older players who loved the earlier MMOs, but also the younger players who are enjoying co-op and teamplay in FPS and other types of games and who would love to experience that cooperation with other players in an online, persistent, virtual world. Again, feel free to debate the actual size of this or any other group of online gamers, cite numbers or studies or anecdotal evidence, but don't pretend they don't exist or are so tiny that it will never make sense to make MMOs for them again.
Both types of online gamers (and probably other types as well) are here, are wanting to play MMOs, and it makes sense to create games targeting these groups. Another WoW is unlikely (even Blizzard agrees, having cancelled Titan). And, really, there is no imperative to make an MMO that somehow appeals to everyone -- again, the gamespace is just too big. I would encourage developers to make games not just targeting players that have distinct tastes, but also to get to know their audience as well. communicating and interacting with them during development. The result, I sincerely hope, will be more MMOs, smaller yet still profitable, with designs that make their audience happy and satisfied.
Early on, if you wanted to play an MMO, you didn't have a lot of choices. Now, while there are many more MMOs, most seem geared towards only one type of MMO gamer. A sizable group has unfortunately been orphaned, and this just doesn't make sense, creatively or financially. The future should not only be a variety of MMOs to choose from, but also a variety of styles to choose from, allowing players to play games without compromise... enabling gamers to choose an MMO that really entertains them and that has features, mechanics, and yes, revenue models they find both desirable and compatible.
Anyway, while I'm sure this post will not only fail to stop the debate, probably even re-igniting it to some degree, I also sincerely hope that it makes all MMO gamers at least stop and consider that there may be no right or wrong philosophy, no current and obsolete designs, no better playstyle or inferior playstyle. I also hope it makes publishers and developers stop and think too, and at least consider the idea that the future is about variety, about targeted, specifically designed MMOs. Because, when it comes down to it, it really hurts the entire gamespace and everyone who enjoys MMOs when massive amounts of money are spent trying to create a game that is all things to all people, and then when that objective fails, not only do some gamers feel neglected, but some even end up disinterested and disenchanted with the entire genre. And that's unfortunate, because quite the opposite is true -- while MMOs have been around some 17+ years now, they are still really in their infancy. There is still a lot to learn, especially now that there are so many more people interested in them.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
MMORPGs should be about grouping with little to no solo capacity and what capacity there is to solo should be so grossly inefficient that it's just time filler while looking for/waiting for a group.
That's how the genre started. That's what made it great. That's what built great communities of players. That's what kept players wanting to play and kept them invested in the game.
MMORPGs were fine being a niche type of game that only appealed to people who wanted real MMORPG gameplay - group-centric, challenging, dangerous..
Solo - wider appeal - casual - all of that (and then later F2P) are what has killed MMORPGs and turned the genre into a lame joke. Corporate america chasing dollars and profits instead of devs making great games.
If you want to solo that's fine - play single player games. If you just want the low quality banter of global chat while you solo then fire up the social media avenue of your choice while you play single player games and knock yourself out.
The number one thing that is special about MMORPGs and that they do better than any other type of game is group gameplay.
MMORPGs don't need PvP, they don't need instanced/fake PvP minigames, they don't need solo content, they don't need housing, they don't need all the garbage that's been piled on over the years to try to be everything to everybody. All they need is grouping and content for grouping.
There's no lack of great PvP games. There's no lack of games where you can build and/or play house like SIMs. And there's no lack of single player game for those who want to solo. What there IS a lack of is real MMORPGs with an emphasis on group gameplay.
Just imagine if all of the energy poured into MMORPGs had always been focused on making great content and mechanics for grouping....where the genre would be now? Instead, the genre is in the toilet. Crap game after crap game comes out trying to be everything for everybody, going for money vs quality of game, piling on the solo content. And what happens, over and over, is all those soloists blast thru the solo content in days/weeks (rarely longer) and they're gone - they play MMORPGs like single player games - do the solo content and bailout and wait for the next big thing. Complete waste of dev time and energy.
I read elsewhere here (at this forum) that sites like this don't help - and I tend to agree. Hyping games that advertise on your site, never being critical or investigative about anything, repeating marketing spew, disregarding the history and origins of the genre, etc - doesn't help. Time and time again hyping up the next big thing...that turns out to be another 1-3 month "we love it, we love it, ok, this is boring, we're done, when is it F2P?"
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
I liked most of your post. The only points I don't agree with are:
-It's unlikely there will be another MMO as successful as WoW. (I think it'll come and relatively soon)
-The future of MMOs is multiple games targeting specific demographics. (I'm sure there will be "niche games" - for lack of a better term - but the big companies will still try and cast a wider net).
Anyway, variety is the key word. There should be something for (virtually) everyone, out there, and people should be happy about it. I believe that the snooty attitude some have comes from their actually missing that something. But then again, some people are just pricks.
Gauntlet 4 is perfect representation of solo/group play mixture with RPG game elements. Someone could recreate everything great about Gauntlet 4 package it with a few new welcoming features. Some new class types that would add a lot of fun and appeal to it like a Priest class that works inversely of Wizard does with potions instead of dealing extra damage they'd aoe heal the group. Another class would be a Rogue high melee damage with a limited range sword attack a bit like NES Zelda extra high back stab damage attacking targets from behind Vaklyrie style attributes with a touch less armor, but speed lke Wizard.
Next they could make it retain all the arcade simple yet fun straight forward dungeon crawl combat design include hit point loss per second, but expand group size a bit further maybe increase it to 8, 12, or 16 player parties that set off on adventures which could work together or branch off into smaller 4 group parties. Same dungeon crawl experience and a combination of arcade mode and quest mode from that 4th game version some theme quest like area's and very random labyrinth maze like area's as well modestly linear progression with a bit of semi unpredictable tossed in. Grind for XP/Gold to increase stats and buy items along with finding some loot along the way and some quests/challenge tasks throw into the mix. The PVP in Gauntlet 4 was also simple yet incredibly fun and yes I said PVP it had a battle mode and it was a boat load of fun it was one not so common 4-player multitap games on SEGA Genesis. They could make it full loot upon death too friendly fire off, but could include group/raid vs group/raid PVP as well as a funny interesting twist co-op was also kind of I love you hate you relationship in that game series anyway.
Zone spawning could do a few different things the game could feature a combination of both static respawns along with complete zone respawns. The first is straight forward your typical individual respawning which probably would be on spawners and bosses themselves. The latter would be something that retroactively did whenever a particular zone was empty. Though the zone respawn wouldn't include puzzle/maze triggers those too would be static timers. That would great a lot of interesting scenario's too.
Gauntlet Unleashed Devils Playground...welcome to your immortal hell! (A Progressive Sandbox Faction Dungeon Crawl)
You just cant design challenges which to me are interesting enough in a solo enviroment. There is nothing more beautiful(in gaming) than a well coordinated group with different skill sets interacting and working together to overcome challenges. In a classic sense this is the Tank/DPS/Healer/CC scenario but I would love it if things would get even more complex and challenging. I guess it is the army setup being recreated where you have different roles, different performance levels, logistics and coordination. You just cant do that Solo. In Solo you have to make every class able to do everything ie. a bit of tank,a bit of DPS, a bit of healing and CC. Ok a healing class soling cant DPS in a classical sense with weapons but they are usually given other ways DoTs or spells or whatever but the effect is the same they can do everything everyone else can do. Ok to an extent this is fine but making a group of 5 soloers is not group content (GW2), group content is where particular synergies of each class drastically increase the effects of the whole group. In that case you really should have specialized roles.
I dont believe you can make good solo and group content at the same time. You can have specific skills only for group content or PVP (AOC) but that kills the immersion to me. So if I want to kill a boss in raid content I need raid gear but if I want kill a person in PVP I need PVP gear. Well my sword cuts both of them the same, my armor works in the same way so to me the whole thing becomes stupid.
I am glad there are niche games being developed with focus on group play, hopefully that will allow developers to increase the complexity and interdependence of group play without having to consider - will this class work in solo mode.
Comments
Therefore grouping mmorpg games were originally intended to be solo friendly. They are new back to their roots.
Anyone who says mmorpg games were intended to be grouping games only played 1 or 2 of the first games.
That's the difference I see. The AH setup most games use, the group finders, they all discourage interaction because it's easier to do this than to accurately target the detrimental actors in these interactive situations (asshats).
My view is that grouping is what makes MMORPGs what they are - it's what makes them stand out.
You can solo in tons of games. Many games are single player. You can chat online in a variety of ways. You can PvP in any number of games.
No other type of game gives you the opportunity to do sophisticated PvE content as a group.
The push for money - to sell as many units and have as many players as possible - and in doing so dumbing down the genre going for wide/mass appeal, and also prioritizing solo over grouping, has turned the MMORPG genre into a steaming pile of generic garbage passing for games.
If your preference is to solo...why...why do you want to log on to a server and solo around other people that you don't want anything to do with? Why not just play any of the far more numerous single player games, most of which have far better content and gameplay for "solo" if that's what you want?
If you don't have a focus on grouping in MMORPGs all you really have is really weak and watered down single player gaming where you happen to be logging in to a server to do it. And some really crappy public chat filled with immature halfwits.
That's pretty much the modern MMORPG. Solo focused easy mode with a bunch of pointless things to do. A world where nobody cares much about anything except themselves. The optional grouping is pretty weak. The focus of the game is as much money throughput as the host company can finagle, not providing a high quality gaming experience unlike anything else.
The genre was better when it was niche - when it was about grouping, challenge, danger, and corporations weren't trying to milk as much money as humanly possible out of them and they could just be special and distinct games.
Casual soloists don't want grouping, challenge, or danger - they just want ez-mode and endless gratification for doing nothing. Ie, they don't really want MMORPGs, they want tablet games in an online form. Modern MMORPGs reflect this. And they suck.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
My post starts off nice, gets ranty, then returns to nice. If you don't like ranty, skip 'camp two'. :P
Way I see it;
You have people who for whatever reason enjoy MMO's who think there needs to be a compromise of some sort, scaling instances or whatnot - everything soloable and everything groupable at the same time.
Then you have the three camps;
Camp One - The Soloers,
I find tend to be very erudite when putting forth their points and opinions on the matter and generally appear happy to discuss anything in a sensible manner. Some of the shy solo players I've encountered in MMO's are the most sociable and will not shut up once you get to know them.
I like soloers. Sure you get some bad apples in there but they tend to be very hidden, by nature of their NOT usually being around to piss people off. But generally they tend to be very sociable people, busy in the chats and doing things and tend to have a more friendlier attitude towards other players.
Camp Two - The immature morons (aka: This is an MMO, you deserve to die for even touching this without a harem to join you.)
These people are the ones who think they're being clever, if they say 'It's an MMO if you want to solo get lost' or ANY variant of it (if you've thought this, hello, yes, you fall into this douchebag camp
) = and they tend to be stuck up elitist idiots.
But I think everyone tolerates them, not because they're good players or fun to talk to - I mean who wants to listen to such simple-minded views that they tend to possess, no - rather, I think the gaming community tolerates these cretins because every time they post and open their immature little mouths, they actually present the case for soloing.
In fact, I'm positive every dev that reads a 'team GROUPING!' post saying 'lulz, you solo, go die in a fire and play solo games not MMO, you know MASSIVELY ME ONLINE GAMES!" the developers go 'oh... we have that type of player in our game, best make more solo content just in case he pisses on everyone's gaming experience and costs us a ton of money.'
Am I unnecessarily being vile about Camp 2? I don't think so. These people need to, you know, NOT breed at all. Humanity would be better off without them. 'Lol go play skyrim, let me play with my circlejerk group' = ugh.
Then you have camp 3 - The "Grouping must be preserved"
The rare breed this one, the one who believes grouping content is vital to an MMO but doesn't actually diss soloing or solo methods throughout the game. The balanced breed, like the soloer who understand that a marriage of both methods = the way forward. Yet, they postulate points that simply fall apart and hold to the view of grouping when it isn't always beneficial either to the game or the mechanics.
They're the dying breed, not so extreme as the Camp 2 groups or the 'Rawr, PVP Gankfest = the epic way forward, PvE and Carebears need to die!!" group, and they're the ones who inevitably stick to the old beliefs. Usually old Everquest fans, or any fan of ultra-perma death MMO, or they started an MMO with raids and super-duper group content despite it being a minority thing and are clinging to the memories.
Fact is, the % of players at end game who raid or group is a minority in the modern MMO. People seem to respond better to grouping where it is optional and enjoyable as opposed to mandatory or forced. Soloing is there in every MMO anyway, either in the 'epic story' quest from 1-X or in any other capacity. The 'groups = win' view is a minority of players for a minority of content.
The problem:
The problem is the 'elite' stuff, the best stuff tends to revolve *around* that minority content. Which is wrong. The Elite stuff should be available via a variety of content. Crafting, soloing and so on. They need to be on parity but of different challenges. Let the players and the market economy rank gear by 'value' - for example, Crafting X is obviously gained by Crafting (duh) and Solo X is gained by some epic instanced solo content (THAT CAN be grouped) but Group X is elite gear (on parity with Solo and Crafting X) that is exclusive to those who beat a specific group instance content.
If 'no one will group' as camp 3 seems to think, then Group X gear is going to be considered the 'true' status symbol. If parity is too much, then make it so the Group X gear gives super-duper bonuses for doing group content (i.e. makes you stronger in a group and in group content than solo gear). This way everyone gets something, everyone touches content that works for them. The time-constrained soloer gets to get his 'leet lewt', the raid monkeys get to raid, the group lovers get to group.
That solution also allows for the solo and group content to be more focused in a variety of ways.
Problem is though, camp 2 will continue with its elitist schtick, and camp 3 will irrationally deny the change for (in their view) legitimate reasons, just like all the hardcore old-school MMO nuts - who conveniently, don't have an MMO anymore as they wouldn't change with the times.
The modern day MMO needs to cater to the soloer. If it doesn't, it'll have a minority fanbase or a moronic one.
There is a problem with your problem, however:
Coordinating group inherently requires more effort (even if just for the logistics of gathering folks). Which is, I feel, the reason why MMORPGs have traditionally reserved the best rewards for endeavors that require a group effort. This isn't in contrast with any other facet of life or hobbies: generally, the largest endeavors are reserved for a group of folks, not just one person by him or herself.
The reason a large amount of players solo is because it's the easiest method of advancement. My suggestion has always been that MMO developers include such solo content while simultaneously working to facilitate meaningful interaction between players. The more interaction becomes organic, convenient, and rewarding, the more players are willing to cooperate.
In short, group content has always been more highly rewarded than solo content simply because it jives logically with life in general. The largest projects are always group efforts, and the end-product is almost always larger as well. This is without even getting into the visionary goal of a game that is intentionally "massively multiplayer."
Disclaimer: this mostly concerns games that want to cater to both types of players (groupers and soloers), otherwise the designers can easily make choices that tweak (if not outright break) premise #1 in favor of one or the other.
Premise #1:
A game should be properly rewarding, meaning that players should get some kind of return proportioned to the quality of the achievement/investment.
Is this something we can all agree with?
Premise #2:
Group play itself isn't enough of a reward for group play, just like solo play itself isn't enough of a reward for solo play.
Is this something we can all agree with?
Premise #3:
Group play is more of an achievement/investment than solo play. Both have drawbacks, obviously, but group play has more/worse inherent requirements and disadvantages (needing other people, having to coordinate, having to cooperate, dealing with asshats, etc.).
Is this something we can all agree with?
If yes, then we also agree that group play should get bonuses over solo play, just like beating a higher level mob should give bonuses compared to beating a lower level one (or just like any other challenge/reward fairness example you can think of).
It's a standard for raids to do this, although in such a roundabout way that I'm not sure they should be included* (and the same applies to most "raise the difficulty of normal content" content). Anyway:
Measures games have tried over the years:
a) Exp bonuses to groups.
b) (Directly or as sort-of a side benefit) limiting of the disadvantages of group play (better/faster Finding Group tools, easier communication systems, policing and moderating the community, etc.).
c) Limiting of the class roles (most holy trinity or similar systems).
d) (Very rarely) adding of group-only combat mechanics (flanking or other positioning-strategies, elemental or similar combinations, synergies, etc.)
Is there anything else?
One, all, or a combination of these measures were absent/lacking in many cases. And the games that got closer to a good application of these measures probably fall in the category of games whose designers tweaked/broke premise #1 in favor of group play.
So what is the solution?
*The truth is raids don't actually reward group play, but rather only the achievement of winning the boss fight. This becomes apparent when a smaller group or even a single player manages to defeat that same boss fight and get the same reward (this usually happens when the boss fight is an older one and there has been an increase in max-level cap or something similar).
I like RValiant's assessment of the 3 camps. Although Camp 2's description is vile, in a lot of ways they have earned it with their simplistic approach to a complex and evolving issue that doesn't illuminate possible solutions in any way.
To MadFrenchie's points about why group content is more rewarding, and in his view should be more rewarding, we've all seen this perspective before a thousand times when this issue comes up. I actually think that none of these reasons have much solid ground to stand on.
Groups = more effort; therefore, more reward. So tired of this chestnut . More time consuming, yes. But let's face it. Usually it's one person or perhaps two who organizes and does all the work. Everyone else is just along for the ride. They show up. Group finders have alleviated the need for a motivated, talented person to facilitate grouping. But running the content, particularly after the 10th or 20th time is a cakewalk and everyone who's every done any significant amount of grouping and/or raiding knows these. The only reason there is better gear in group content is that no one would do it if there wasn't. Which is why groupers/raiders feverishly defend their right alone to epic gear. If that carrot wasn't there, even fewer people would touch that content than do now.
Solo is easy mode. Piffle. It is often much more difficult and time consuming to do content solo than in a group. Get a couple of guys together and you can pretty much smash through the map content on any MMO in a few days. That's easy mode. Taking all that stuff on solo and still accomplishing all the same goals, that's an achievement. The argument that if you solo you are just not as good a player, lazy, or unsociable and therefore shouldn't be as rewarded as "real" MMO players is another really dead horse.
I agree that MMOs need to be readily sociable. But I disagree that the only way to be sociable in an MMO is to be grouped up--that the only truly sociable activity in MMOs is grouping. We all know that's not true. People can be crafting and chatting in local or world chat.. People can be traveling and answering questions posed in chat. When I solo in a game, I keep a close eye on all my chat channels and join in when I can. There is nothing sociable about being in a group where no one says anything for the entire run except, maybe and really just maybe, a thank you at the end.
I group because it is fun and I enjoy hanging out with people. It's fun to say, "Nice Shiny!" when an epic drops for a mate, but I really don't group because of the extra rewards. If that's why people are grouping, then they are just using each other to get stuff.
So should solo play be as rewarding as group play? I think the reasoning that "group play is harder and therefore should be more rewarding" logic is deeply flawed. I think both forms of content, group and solo, have their challenges and their personal rewards. However a developer chooses to dole out rewards and achievements, I think it is important that players recognize that each person playing has their own reasons for not only playing but how they play and that every one of them is legitimate. Many people will not be satisfied with this answer because human beings have a very strong social tendency to want to be with the correct, right, superior group.
First thing first, it's not just "effort" you need to reward. It's also disadvantages (time wasted, dealing with the occasional annoying/incompetent teammate, etc.), which you need to mitigate if you want to be "fair". Second, I feel like you are too narrow when you talk about "effort". If an MMO is properly balanced, groups are simply not going to run the same content a solo player runs. They're going to fight higher-level mobs and enter epic dungeons, which are naturally harder, or if you prefer "more punishing" than lower-level mobs and normal dungeons. More punishing = more effort (if it's good design, of course... if not, it's just more punishing = more disadvantages, but that should bring more rewards, anyway, so...).
The point about running the same content repeatedly so it becomes easy is a moot one, because that works the same for solo players, so it's not a distinctive feature, there.
Solo = bad/lazy/unsociable is obviously a stupid argument (or rather, a badly presented and shallow one), and whoever uses it falls in the "shitty elitist" category described above, I agree.
It's not the only way, you're right, but since fighting is the largely predominant activity in most MMOs, it's definitely weird that sociality design is sorely lacking in such an important aspect of these games. Being in a group is still a social experience even if no one says anything, although it's a lesser one for sure. Group sports are a decent comparison, here. You can easily go to the gym and shoot some hoops alone (solo), but playing with others as a team (group) is a more social situation. Then, if you do more than simply going through the motions, if you get banter/strategy/whatever going (livelier group), it becomes a more complete experience.
I absolutely agree with this.
Can solo play be challenging? Certainly. My Nightblade in ESO has been doing content up to 7 levels higher than him because he can, and because he would faceroll content his level (thanks to whoever it was that came up with the build I'm using). If I miss a stun or finishing blow, it can cost me my life very easily doing this content. However, MMORPGs aren't just games of skill; they're also games of numbers. There definitely is a cap to how much "harder" content you can do alone due to this. Due to the very nature of the games (DPS, armor, etc. defining combat), you can only do so much by yourself no matter how talented you are at hitting the right buttons at the right time. And, for a select few exceptions, the skill cap for PvE content per player is not incredibly high. The build and gear usually make more difference than the individual player's skill.
Once you reach that cap, the developers have no other choice to increase "difficulty" than by requiring folks to work together to take down the tougher challenges. This will always be the case as long as a numbers game is included in combat. If it were strictly an FPS that relied upon twitch skills, you could certainly make the case that the solo player is actually endeavoring in harder content than a group of players zerging content. However, we haven't seen an MMORPG reach that point (even Destiny, a multiplayer FPS RPG, relies on damage numbers and armor). Until you reach that point, there is certainly an argument to be made that cooperating and coordinating a group of players is objectively "harder" than playing by one's self. If said group content becomes easy because it's been ran over and over, that's a problem with static content. It's a completely separate issue, and we shouldn't allow the failure of developers to evolve beyond such an archaic style of content design to influence our views of the inherently more difficult nature of multiple players playing their characters and interacting with one another to the best of their abilities in order to complete content that would never, ever be possible for a player who refuses to join in a group to adventure.
Someone should start a new Group vs Solo thread with a poll.
Grouper
Antisocial Grouper
Balanced
Antisocial Soloist
Soloist
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Wow, this thread and a few others won't die. Why? Because these are real issues relating to where MMOs came from and where they are going. People, regardless of what side they are on, are passionate about online gaming. I've certainly thought a lot of about these and other related conundrums, and for now, I'll say this:
The MMO gamespace has grown tremendously in 16 years. More than 10 million people have now played MMOs. That's a lot of people, and their tastes and what they're looking for in an online game is going to vary, often significantly.
Some gamers prefer more 'solo play' -- they want to be online, and part of a virtual world, and to see other people. But grouping and teamwork and community interaction isn't necessarily what they're looking for. And while older MMOs targeted more social players, who enjoy grouping, shared experiences, interdependence, etc., many newer games are not being made to accommodate them.
IMHO, arguing over what MMORPG really means, or asserting one preference is more legitimate than the rest, or even saying things like 'hey, then go play a single player game' are really unnecessary. I also see a lot of posts by the peacemakers of the thread, trying to figure out or design a single MMO that could appeal to both of these disagreeing groups. I respect that, but also think it's really unnecessary, a problem not worth solving and likely unsolvable. I also think the days of trying to develop a massive, super expensive MMO in an attempt to appeal to as many people as possible, the 'mass market', is over and can even be harmful to the entire online genre.
The future I believe are MMOs that have identified and targeted specific audiences. Like with any space that has grown tremendously and become much more diverse, developers need to adapt as well and make great games for these gamers but also be ok with this reality: several diverse yet successful games can co-exist, each with different mechanics and features and content. Likewise, if you make a good game, it doesn't mean that everyone has to like it.
Recently, the shift has been to appeal to the more casual, or the more single player oriented MMO gamer. That's fine and for many it makes sense, business-wise, creatively, etc. But the more social gamer, the player who enjoys playing a role in a team, who wants an MMO to become his home and to play for months, even years... the gamer who embraces the communities that form because of the interdependence seen more often in earlier MMOs.... I can understand their frustration with this shift. But there is a solution.
I won't debate here and now how many belong to this orphaned group, or to the newer group -- that debate is ongoing and can't be proven in a post on a message board. But I will say the orphaned group aren't some tiny, virtually extinct, odd-ball bunch of dinosaurs. And while I personally don't think they should necessarily be bothered by MMOs designed not for longevity but rather micro-transactions and cash shops, these newer designs do fail to meet their gaming needs. I also hope that Pantheon, the game I'm currently working on, won't be the only MMO that targets a specific demographic'; rather, I hope it will merely be one of the first. The MMO we're making, while modern and with new ideas and features, is also being built on a foundation that some would call 'old school', but that is really what makes an MMO work for players who want to group, who want more of a challenge, and who want to play a game with content that isn't devoured in weeks or months. And you know what, contrary to hyperbole that FTP revenue models are the only future model for MMOs, we firmly believe that the model should match the playstyle of the players the game is designed for. Subscriptions are not dead by any means -- just look at the millions still subscribed to WoW and other games.
I guess what I'm ultimately trying to communicate is this: it's good and healthy that MMOs are being built differently, appealing to the large number of players more newly attracted to the genre. There is no 'one' way to build or design a massively multiplayer game. And there shouldn't be. Debate as to whether these newcomers are the only true audience now, or arguing that the 'old school' games were better, or more truly an MMO, is really unnecessary and unproductive. There's nothing to win here, nothing to be proven, nothing that has to be protected, and also no need to declare one style or design somehow, magically, obsolete. Unfortunately, some behind some of the newer games that failed to retain subscribers, many of whom then intelligently switched their revenue model, have also (for whatever reason) proclaimed that their failure to retain gamers is because that gamer no longer exists, that the gamers who want to play long term, involve themselves with the community, and to work together in groups and guilds are gone now, or radically different.
I have to not only respectfully disagree, but also express some dissatisfaction, because people often listen to these assertions, both gamers and developers, and sometimes even analysts . So while I welcome healthy debate and applaud newer MMOs designs that appeal to perhaps a broader, or at least a newer audience, I do have to stand up for the 'old school' -- and not just the older players who loved the earlier MMOs, but also the younger players who are enjoying co-op and teamplay in FPS and other types of games and who would love to experience that cooperation with other players in an online, persistent, virtual world. Again, feel free to debate the actual size of this or any other group of online gamers, cite numbers or studies or anecdotal evidence, but don't pretend they don't exist or are so tiny that it will never make sense to make MMOs for them again.
Both types of online gamers (and probably other types as well) are here, are wanting to play MMOs, and it makes sense to create games targeting these groups. Another WoW is unlikely (even Blizzard agrees, having cancelled Titan). And, really, there is no imperative to make an MMO that somehow appeals to everyone -- again, the gamespace is just too big. I would encourage developers to make games not just targeting players that have distinct tastes, but also to get to know their audience as well. communicating and interacting with them during development. The result, I sincerely hope, will be more MMOs, smaller yet still profitable, with designs that make their audience happy and satisfied.
Early on, if you wanted to play an MMO, you didn't have a lot of choices. Now, while there are many more MMOs, most seem geared towards only one type of MMO gamer. A sizable group has unfortunately been orphaned, and this just doesn't make sense, creatively or financially. The future should not only be a variety of MMOs to choose from, but also a variety of styles to choose from, allowing players to play games without compromise... enabling gamers to choose an MMO that really entertains them and that has features, mechanics, and yes, revenue models they find both desirable and compatible.
Anyway, while I'm sure this post will not only fail to stop the debate, probably even re-igniting it to some degree, I also sincerely hope that it makes all MMO gamers at least stop and consider that there may be no right or wrong philosophy, no current and obsolete designs, no better playstyle or inferior playstyle. I also hope it makes publishers and developers stop and think too, and at least consider the idea that the future is about variety, about targeted, specifically designed MMOs. Because, when it comes down to it, it really hurts the entire gamespace and everyone who enjoys MMOs when massive amounts of money are spent trying to create a game that is all things to all people, and then when that objective fails, not only do some gamers feel neglected, but some even end up disinterested and disenchanted with the entire genre. And that's unfortunate, because quite the opposite is true -- while MMOs have been around some 17+ years now, they are still really in their infancy. There is still a lot to learn, especially now that there are so many more people interested in them.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Group.
MMORPGs should be about grouping with little to no solo capacity and what capacity there is to solo should be so grossly inefficient that it's just time filler while looking for/waiting for a group.
That's how the genre started. That's what made it great. That's what built great communities of players. That's what kept players wanting to play and kept them invested in the game.
MMORPGs were fine being a niche type of game that only appealed to people who wanted real MMORPG gameplay - group-centric, challenging, dangerous..
Solo - wider appeal - casual - all of that (and then later F2P) are what has killed MMORPGs and turned the genre into a lame joke. Corporate america chasing dollars and profits instead of devs making great games.
If you want to solo that's fine - play single player games. If you just want the low quality banter of global chat while you solo then fire up the social media avenue of your choice while you play single player games and knock yourself out.
The number one thing that is special about MMORPGs and that they do better than any other type of game is group gameplay.
MMORPGs don't need PvP, they don't need instanced/fake PvP minigames, they don't need solo content, they don't need housing, they don't need all the garbage that's been piled on over the years to try to be everything to everybody. All they need is grouping and content for grouping.
There's no lack of great PvP games. There's no lack of games where you can build and/or play house like SIMs. And there's no lack of single player game for those who want to solo. What there IS a lack of is real MMORPGs with an emphasis on group gameplay.
Just imagine if all of the energy poured into MMORPGs had always been focused on making great content and mechanics for grouping....where the genre would be now? Instead, the genre is in the toilet. Crap game after crap game comes out trying to be everything for everybody, going for money vs quality of game, piling on the solo content. And what happens, over and over, is all those soloists blast thru the solo content in days/weeks (rarely longer) and they're gone - they play MMORPGs like single player games - do the solo content and bailout and wait for the next big thing. Complete waste of dev time and energy.
I read elsewhere here (at this forum) that sites like this don't help - and I tend to agree. Hyping games that advertise on your site, never being critical or investigative about anything, repeating marketing spew, disregarding the history and origins of the genre, etc - doesn't help. Time and time again hyping up the next big thing...that turns out to be another 1-3 month "we love it, we love it, ok, this is boring, we're done, when is it F2P?"
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
I liked most of your post. The only points I don't agree with are:
-It's unlikely there will be another MMO as successful as WoW. (I think it'll come and relatively soon)
-The future of MMOs is multiple games targeting specific demographics. (I'm sure there will be "niche games" - for lack of a better term - but the big companies will still try and cast a wider net).
Anyway, variety is the key word. There should be something for (virtually) everyone, out there, and people should be happy about it. I believe that the snooty attitude some have comes from their actually missing that something. But then again, some people are just pricks.
Next they could make it retain all the arcade simple yet fun straight forward dungeon crawl combat design include hit point loss per second, but expand group size a bit further maybe increase it to 8, 12, or 16 player parties that set off on adventures which could work together or branch off into smaller 4 group parties. Same dungeon crawl experience and a combination of arcade mode and quest mode from that 4th game version some theme quest like area's and very random labyrinth maze like area's as well modestly linear progression with a bit of semi unpredictable tossed in. Grind for XP/Gold to increase stats and buy items along with finding some loot along the way and some quests/challenge tasks throw into the mix. The PVP in Gauntlet 4 was also simple yet incredibly fun and yes I said PVP it had a battle mode and it was a boat load of fun it was one not so common 4-player multitap games on SEGA Genesis. They could make it full loot upon death too friendly fire off, but could include group/raid vs group/raid PVP as well as a funny interesting twist co-op was also kind of I love you hate you relationship in that game series anyway.
Zone spawning could do a few different things the game could feature a combination of both static respawns along with complete zone respawns. The first is straight forward your typical individual respawning which probably would be on spawners and bosses themselves. The latter would be something that retroactively did whenever a particular zone was empty. Though the zone respawn wouldn't include puzzle/maze triggers those too would be static timers. That would great a lot of interesting scenario's too.
Gauntlet Unleashed Devils Playground...welcome to your immortal hell! (A Progressive Sandbox Faction Dungeon Crawl)
I dont believe you can make good solo and group content at the same time. You can have specific skills only for group content or PVP (AOC) but that kills the immersion to me. So if I want to kill a boss in raid content I need raid gear but if I want kill a person in PVP I need PVP gear. Well my sword cuts both of them the same, my armor works in the same way so to me the whole thing becomes stupid.
I am glad there are niche games being developed with focus on group play, hopefully that will allow developers to increase the complexity and interdependence of group play without having to consider - will this class work in solo mode.