Modern MMORPGs have this linear structure, where all the content is designed to get you through the game to end level ASAP. It's not fun, people hate questing because they're boring and all same old, so they just want to get to end level because they feel like that is where the true game starts. However they find they have nothing left to do, become bored and moan the game has no content and quit.
Skyrim is a game where you do quests because they're fun, you exist and play in that world for the experience. This is what MMORPGs should do today, then people would want to play with each other, rather than wanting to get through it ASAP with grouped content being this annoying blockade stopping them from doing so.
Sadly though the Elder Scrolls MMO took out those good points of Skyrim and replaced them with boring MMO quests.
Its not really just combat. It's world design designed for solo. Its player isolated/uneffected by the next. There is a lack of interdependency. Its the questing system. And there is a certainly a sense of not wanting to fustrate gamers.
UO didn't have forced grouping for PvE. But PvP often called for it. Community play often called for it in older games because you weren't driven down a path at 1000 miles per hour in solo play like a horse with blinders on. Like one of the other post said you had player story.
If you have levels then dividing zones into level ranges say 1-10 or 11-20 and then creating a linear chain of quests that provide enough xp to get a character through that level range is a nice simple framework that everyone can understand.
Once you have that framework the quests have to be solo or people would be constantly LFG which also means the quests have to be set at a difficulty level 99% of the players can pass on their own because you don't have a group where the smarter ones can figure stuff out and teach the dumber ones.
I'm not knocking the framework as it has produced a lot of good single player games that were fun the first time through but as can be seen by the success of games like Skyrim the more open ended a game world is the more players can replay the game a hundred times by making up a different path each time.
It seems to me the logical compromise is to create an open world where there are lots of disconnected mini quest chains across the game world which a player can combine in whatever way suits them and at the same time have one collection of these mini quest chains linked together and sign posted into one long chain for newbies (but make the linking quests optional so they can be switched off).
edit:
"If you have levels..."
not so much levels specifically as progression generally i.e. characters start weak and get stronger
I love the amount of defenders who say well thats marketing, except your forgetting one thing, marketing is what people make of it, that includes the companies and customers, there are plenty of success from games that developed out of passion.
Why does everyone think they know everything about game development in this forum? All I see is theories while you claim your 100 percent right, I really think people need to start backing up there points better this is getting out of hand.
OP, please feel free to make a game when you get a chance and cater to the group oriented only players.Your game will shutdown within 3 months.Simple answer.
Not if the devs intended to make the game a niche mmo catering to that type of mmo player. Not all devs are looking for big numbers, many mmo's can get along just fine with a niche player based.
You may not like it and why would you care when you have plenty of mmo's that suit your play style.
uh and just for the record, WoW was playable COMPLETELY alone too while leveling.
so wtf is your point?
i could level daoc alone too, neocron the same, so actually, it's like this since 2k.
so, what's your point here?
that you have friends who you wanna wait for, so your leveling takes twice as long?
*chuckles*
Came here to say just that...what's your point?
Also to say that it doesn't make the MMOs "single player" because most are soloing. The most stupid argument I have ever seen is that if you solo in an MMO it makes it a single player game. Having all those people online makes for a community. Whether you like it or not. There's plenty to interact with besides grouping. Get over it....
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
uh and just for the record, WoW was playable COMPLETELY alone too while leveling.
so wtf is your point?
i could level daoc alone too, neocron the same, so actually, it's like this since 2k.
so, what's your point here?
that you have friends who you wanna wait for, so your leveling takes twice as long?
*chuckles*
Came here to say just that...what's your point?
Also to say that it doesn't make the MMOs "single player" because most are soloing. The most stupid argument I have ever seen is that if you solo in an MMO it makes it a single player game. Having all those people online makes for a community. Whether you like it or not. There's plenty to interact with besides grouping. Get over it....
Except most mmorpgs do not give anyone a reason to group nor do they have good group mechanics lately, just simplified crap where every class is the same, there is nothing more unique from class to class in a group settings.
Originally posted by Kyleran Because they appeal to a mass audiance and make good money.
^This.
PLUS: many players do not want to devote their valuable playing time to some raging self entitled jobless guild/raid leader demanding them to play how it suits the 'leader'.
I've been lucky enough to have very cool guild leaders who I respect a lot for their patience and the effort it takes to make a guild a fun place to be with activities both social and content based. These are competent people who have jobs and lives but also take their hobby seriously. It's a great opportunity to get to be in a guild with a leader (and officers) like that and I appreciate their unselfishness in doing things for casuals like me who drop in when things are scheduled and just have a good time.
That doesn't mean there aren't jerk guild leaders. But I don't think leaders like that will be able to keep a guild together for long.
The reality is all the players are doing group contents. Just in the form of dungeon, raids, battleground, or RvR.
And for the people that can't spend 50 hours reaching max level, mmorpg developers dont' really care about them. They wont' contribute to the long term of the game anyway.
The real question is why can't developer make better group content besides dungeon, raids, battleground, or RvR.
Do people really think this has nothing to do with development resources and average levels of their players?
Doing group content requires other people. Other people are only available for the content you want to do if they are online, the same level and have the same quests.
This means that unless you play at peak times and level up "with the pack", finding groups is a real pain in the arse, resulting in long waiting times, boredom and a generally negative experience. This leads to lower retention rates and thus lower income. Players that join the game late are less likely to stay because the group content becomes a barrier to advancement.
So, developers have three choices:
1) Make the leveling process soloable from launch. This is the easiest option, but due to class / player skill differences it often means the content is trivial and results in a steep learning curve at endgame when lots of group content gets introduced.
2) Revamp leveling areas post-launch. If leveling used to contain lots of group content, some developers then go back and "revamp" leveling areas to remove the group content and make it easier. This helps retain new players but costs a decent chuck of money.
3) Make all content scalable to group size / total rethink of leveling process. Modern themeparks are very set in the way leveling works (holy trinity, quest grinding, levels) and this core design does not lend itself to scaling. It will take a seriously talented designer to come up with an MMO that radically changes the leveling process to support both solo and group play without the need for future revamps but that is also engaging and accessible to the masses. The designer then needs to convince a publisher that it is going to be successful so they can get funding.
SWG did scalable quests relatively well and I certainly remember it being very easy to find leveling groups in Anchorhead (15-20ppl) and then we'd head out with our scaled quests and grind mobs for hours. I certainly enjoyed it as I love combat in MMOs and I love being social, but the quests were in no way engaging or diverse and the game in general wasn't accessible.
Until we get a new developer that comes up with a better way of implementing scalable content, we're stuck with either solo leveling processes from launch or continual revamps of leveling zones post launch (at the expense of endgame content).
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Group content is great. I'm a grouper, I love questing, exploring dungeons, raiding, pvping with other people. Not only is it more social, its more fun, generally more challenging and makes you a better player.
However, I play from launch. I play during standard peak hours. My leveling rate is the same as the main "pack". This means its always easy for me to find groups.
The same cannot be said for everyone. Slow gamers, casual gamer, late joiners, solo-orientated gamers all have a hard time finding groups because the vast majority of people have moved on. Groups also require leaders and these are also harder to find amoungst casual gamers.
All this means is that if you put lots of group content into the leveling process, you are placing massive barriers in the way of non-core gamers in the future, reducing the likelihood of casuals / soloers / later joiners staying with the game. This kills income and basically says that the size of your population after 6 months is the biggest it will ever get. Making content solo right from the start removes this obstacle and ensures content is playable well into the future. Of course, it introduces a host of other problems, such as turning leveling into a boring grind, dumbing down content so no1 knows how to play when they hit max level, and putting off some core gamers.
The solution, of course, is scaling content, but this is hard to do, hence why virtually no1 has done it.
Actually several years ago SE's ffxi added a feature called level synch. When you formed a party you could choose a person to synch down to and everyone would end um matched that level, well unless a person was lower level the the synch then they would stay the same.
That helped a ton in ffxi after it was out for over a year.
No one else has ever tried to recreate the level synch feature from ffxi?
City of Heroes also had the same feature with its sidekick feature
Any mmo worth its salt should be like a good prostitute when it comes to its game world- One hell of a faker, and a damn good shaker!
Group content is great. I'm a grouper, I love questing, exploring dungeons, raiding, pvping with other people. Not only is it more social, its more fun, generally more challenging and makes you a better player.
However, I play from launch. I play during standard peak hours. My leveling rate is the same as the main "pack". This means its always easy for me to find groups.
The same cannot be said for everyone. Slow gamers, casual gamer, late joiners, solo-orientated gamers all have a hard time finding groups because the vast majority of people have moved on. Groups also require leaders and these are also harder to find amoungst casual gamers.
All this means is that if you put lots of group content into the leveling process, you are placing massive barriers in the way of non-core gamers in the future, reducing the likelihood of casuals / soloers / later joiners staying with the game. This kills income and basically says that the size of your population after 6 months is the biggest it will ever get. Making content solo right from the start removes this obstacle and ensures content is playable well into the future. Of course, it introduces a host of other problems, such as turning leveling into a boring grind, dumbing down content so no1 knows how to play when they hit max level, and putting off some core gamers.
The solution, of course, is scaling content, but this is hard to do, hence why virtually no1 has done it.
Actually several years ago SE's ffxi added a feature called level synch. When you formed a party you could choose a person to synch down to and everyone would end um matched that level, well unless a person was lower level the the synch then they would stay the same.
That helped a ton in ffxi after it was out for over a year.
No one else has ever tried to recreate the level synch feature from ffxi?
City of Heroes also had the same feature with its sidekick feature
What you've just described in FFXI and CoH isn't content scaling, its player scaling.
Whilst that is a useful tool to allow you to help out friends whilst keeping content interesting, its not really whats needed in the long term.
I'm talking about quests where, if you pick it up solo, you might have to fight two normal mobs. If you pick the same quest up in a duo, you have 4 normals and a signature mob. If you picked it up as a 20man raid, you'd have 50 normals, 10 signatures, 5 elites plus a couple of bosses.
Same quest, but content scaling to the group size (and average group level and average gear levels if possible).
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
The guys who ever played vanilla or bc(maybe lk too) know that it was rewarding to play with groups(lots of quest that needed like 5 players,instances[no rdf crap],battlegrounds etc).
Right, unlike modern WOW where you can get the very best gear without grouping...oh wait, that's not true.
Another thread based on false perceptions and a lack of understanding that solo-enabled RPGs are popular. (Doesn't mean they can't also offer group gameplay -- and most do -- but it means they're definitely going to have the most popular form of gameplay.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What you've just described in FFXI and CoH isn't content scaling, its player scaling.
Whilst that is a useful tool to allow you to help out friends whilst keeping content interesting, its not really whats needed in the long term.
I'm talking about quests where, if you pick it up solo, you might have to fight two normal mobs. If you pick the same quest up in a duo, you have 4 normals and a signature mob. If you picked it up as a 20man raid, you'd have 50 normals, 10 signatures, 5 elites plus a couple of bosses.
Same quest, but content scaling to the group size (and average group level and average gear levels if possible).
Guildwars 2 does it, dynamic events and often living story content scales so it is possible to do it. And it scales depending how many players are around, not on how many players you are grouped with.
Originally posted by Kyleran Because they appeal to a mass audiance and make good money.
That's no excuse for labeling your game a MMO if it doesn't play like a mmo.The appeal is obvious but quit labeling games as such,just sell it as a game nothing more.Developers simply go for every gimmick they can think of to attract sales,doesn't mean we should go around pat them on the back for lame marketing tactics.
There are likely 10,000+ offline single player games to choose from,so WHY choose an online game to play by yourself,there is no logic in that appeal.MOST of these online games offer NOTHING different or better and fact is i have read MANY posts of gamer's stating single player games are in most cases BETTER.
It is like advertising an 8 cylinder car for sale but only 4 cylinders actually work.
You've been on these forums far too much to not know the answers to these questions, but here we go.
1) MMO is a meaningless term. It just means there's many people playing online in the same game. Doesn't say they all play together at the same time, doesn't mean a persistent virtual world, doesn't mean mean it can't have instances, and far too many games qualify if you keep the definition limited.
2) Why chose a MMO if you are going to focus on solo content? Simple, because most people are 100% zero sum, either/or, in fact, they lie somewhere between the two extremes. Player A may group 80% of the time, solo 20%, Player B may be grouping 25% of the time and soloing 75% and so forth. They want to play in a world full of players to interact with under certain conditions, but not necessarily game with them all of the time.
If someone thinks single player games are better, then I'd say they are tourists to the MMORPG genre, purists like myself pretty much play MMO's and only MMO's 24 x 7, 365 days a year and I haven't seen a single player game in the past 10 years that gave me more enjoyment than MMO's have.
McDonalds advertises 100% Beef.....but the question is....Beef what?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Originally posted by Kyleran Because they appeal to a mass audiance and make good money.
That's no excuse for labeling your game a MMO if it doesn't play like a mmo.The appeal is obvious but quit labeling games as such,just sell it as a game nothing more.Developers simply go for every gimmick they can think of to attract sales,doesn't mean we should go around pat them on the back for lame marketing tactics.
There are likely 10,000+ offline single player games to choose from,so WHY choose an online game to play by yourself,there is no logic in that appeal.MOST of these online games offer NOTHING different or better and fact is i have read MANY posts of gamer's stating single player games are in most cases BETTER.
It is like advertising an 8 cylinder car for sale but only 4 cylinders actually work.
You've been on these forums far too much to not know the answers to these questions, but here we go.
1) MMO is a meaningless term. It just means there's many people playing online in the same game. Doesn't say they all play together at the same time, doesn't mean a persistent virtual world, doesn't mean mean it can't have instances, and far too many games qualify if you keep the definition limited.
2) Why chose a MMO if you are going to focus on solo content? Simple, because most people are 100% zero sum, either/or, in fact, they lie somewhere between the two extremes. Player A may group 80% of the time, solo 20%, Player B may be grouping 25% of the time and soloing 75% and so forth. They want to play in a world full of players to interact with under certain conditions, but not necessarily game with them all of the time.
If someone thinks single player games are better, then I'd say they are tourists to the MMORPG genre, purists like myself pretty much play MMO's and only MMO's 24 x 7, 365 days a year and I haven't seen a single player game in the past 10 years that gave me more enjoyment than MMO's have.
McDonalds advertises 100% Beef.....but the question is....Beef what?
Exactly, a solo quest chain and a solo game are two different aminals..
I like to meet, chat, group with, fight with, duel other living breathing ppl, but I like to be a singularity once in a while too.
"Investment firms do not have that outlook on life. They need to know there is not only a return on their investment but also a solid profit at the end of it." tawess-
The reality is all the players are doing group contents. Just in the form of dungeon, raids, battleground, or RvR.
And for the people that can't spend 50 hours reaching max level, mmorpg developers dont' really care about them. They wont' contribute to the long term of the game anyway.
The real question is why can't developer make better group content besides dungeon, raids, battleground, or RvR.
This is completely backwards. Only in todays mmorpg's can I hit max level in under a week without having to join 1 single group. It's been like this with all since the release of WoW.
I don't understand why mmorpg have to be about levels or gear grinds. I like GW2 that way.
Basing a game on a single linear quest chain has logical consequences.
If you make the quests require grouping then there will be a lot of LFG problems so it makes sense for them to be soloable but if there is a single linear quest chain and the quests are soloable they need to be soloable for the least able player playing the least soloable class so they have to be easy and if they're easy enough for the least capable solo player on the least soloable class then they'll almost certainly be easy enough that grouping actually slows you down.
Alternatively if a player liked grouping and grouping for quests was no fun then they could group and grind mobs instead - except the xp for killing mobs outside of quests is generally too low - so even if it is unintentional linear quest games actively discourage grouping (along the main quest line).
Also linear quest games often kill the RPG feel by making everyone do the same quests: Paladins assassinate people for money and Assassins help the poor villagers for no money etc.
Plus there's no freedom.
Now some people say there's no problem with this but as this argument has been going on for years it should be obvious by now that the people who said MMORPGs had taken a wrong turn were right.
The solution is quite simple - adding questing to MMORPG mob grinding was a good idea but just break up the single linear quest chain. Go back to a non-linear EQ type world design but with lots of added mini WoW type quest chains scattered all over and also beef up mob exp so if people just want to grind some mobs and chat then they can. People can still play the solo quest game if they want while others can group up to do higher level quests or grind higher level mobs.
People arguing for years is no way indicative that they were right it merely indicates that the genre is still heating in a direction they don't like and they still want to argue.
Also the quests do not need to be soloable for the least soloable class. People just need to be aware that some classes will do some things better than others
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
OP, please feel free to make a game when you get a chance and cater to the group oriented only players.
Your game will shutdown within 3 months.
Simple answer.
yes .. yes and call it ...mmmmmmmmmmm FF14 ..and yes it will shut down in 3 months .. ohh wait nvm
I don't get it. Are you implying FF14 is for group oriented only?
Because FF14 is precisely what the OPwould call it single player game.
Which is odd, since out of the thousands of hours I spend in those games, only the beginning 50 hours of leveling is single player. But people like the OP like to call it single player game.
Every MMO is a multiplayer game? Why do you need to be so anti-social to be forced to be social with people?
Asheron's call was old and a heavy solo oriented experience, but everyone was smart enough and social enough to group up. We got exp bonuses for it, but was about as fast as a solo experience.
In WoW, I grouped grinded and leveled faster that way...just grouped for quests and what not that most people did solo. We did them faster, but it came out to be as fast as a solo experience like in asheron's call.
Just because you aren't forced to group, doesn't mean you can't group lol...what the lamest excuse that isfor forcing their gameplay upon others.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
Why is not having a dungeon finder important to socialization?
sure it adds more work as in LFG, and a channel just for that, but why is seeing lfg tells something that you want to see spammed?
People find their group and can socialize.
I agree games should be more social and more group oriented (which would mean its either niche and challenging content or esay face roll group content, but requiring a group nonetheless, unless its a raid), but why is removing the functioning of spamming lfg considered bad?
So another possible issue of catering to the masses - easy group content which forces people to form groups before they play - and maybe still making it easy when only in a group
Or addings challenging content even for groups and really making it a niche game ontop of the reuiqrement of forming groups.
still a group finder in an mmo that requires grouping to pve does not affect socialization. Im still trying to understand why spamming lfg is important.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Comments
It's really simple.
Modern MMORPGs have this linear structure, where all the content is designed to get you through the game to end level ASAP. It's not fun, people hate questing because they're boring and all same old, so they just want to get to end level because they feel like that is where the true game starts. However they find they have nothing left to do, become bored and moan the game has no content and quit.
Skyrim is a game where you do quests because they're fun, you exist and play in that world for the experience. This is what MMORPGs should do today, then people would want to play with each other, rather than wanting to get through it ASAP with grouped content being this annoying blockade stopping them from doing so.
Sadly though the Elder Scrolls MMO took out those good points of Skyrim and replaced them with boring MMO quests.
Its not really just combat. It's world design designed for solo. Its player isolated/uneffected by the next. There is a lack of interdependency. Its the questing system. And there is a certainly a sense of not wanting to fustrate gamers.
UO didn't have forced grouping for PvE. But PvP often called for it. Community play often called for it in older games because you weren't driven down a path at 1000 miles per hour in solo play like a horse with blinders on. Like one of the other post said you had player story.
If you have levels then dividing zones into level ranges say 1-10 or 11-20 and then creating a linear chain of quests that provide enough xp to get a character through that level range is a nice simple framework that everyone can understand.
Once you have that framework the quests have to be solo or people would be constantly LFG which also means the quests have to be set at a difficulty level 99% of the players can pass on their own because you don't have a group where the smarter ones can figure stuff out and teach the dumber ones.
I'm not knocking the framework as it has produced a lot of good single player games that were fun the first time through but as can be seen by the success of games like Skyrim the more open ended a game world is the more players can replay the game a hundred times by making up a different path each time.
It seems to me the logical compromise is to create an open world where there are lots of disconnected mini quest chains across the game world which a player can combine in whatever way suits them and at the same time have one collection of these mini quest chains linked together and sign posted into one long chain for newbies (but make the linking quests optional so they can be switched off).
edit:
"If you have levels..."
not so much levels specifically as progression generally i.e. characters start weak and get stronger
OP, please feel free to make a game when you get a chance and cater to the group oriented only players.
Your game will shutdown within 3 months.
Simple answer.
I love the amount of defenders who say well thats marketing, except your forgetting one thing, marketing is what people make of it, that includes the companies and customers, there are plenty of success from games that developed out of passion.
Why does everyone think they know everything about game development in this forum? All I see is theories while you claim your 100 percent right, I really think people need to start backing up there points better this is getting out of hand.
Not if the devs intended to make the game a niche mmo catering to that type of mmo player. Not all devs are looking for big numbers, many mmo's can get along just fine with a niche player based.You may not like it and why would you care when you have plenty of mmo's that suit your play style.
Came here to say just that...what's your point?
Also to say that it doesn't make the MMOs "single player" because most are soloing. The most stupid argument I have ever seen is that if you solo in an MMO it makes it a single player game. Having all those people online makes for a community. Whether you like it or not. There's plenty to interact with besides grouping. Get over it....
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
yes .. yes and call it ...mmmmmmmmmmm FF14 ..and yes it will shut down in 3 months .. ohh wait nvm
Except most mmorpgs do not give anyone a reason to group nor do they have good group mechanics lately, just simplified crap where every class is the same, there is nothing more unique from class to class in a group settings.
I've been lucky enough to have very cool guild leaders who I respect a lot for their patience and the effort it takes to make a guild a fun place to be with activities both social and content based. These are competent people who have jobs and lives but also take their hobby seriously. It's a great opportunity to get to be in a guild with a leader (and officers) like that and I appreciate their unselfishness in doing things for casuals like me who drop in when things are scheduled and just have a good time.
That doesn't mean there aren't jerk guild leaders. But I don't think leaders like that will be able to keep a guild together for long.
The reality is all the players are doing group contents. Just in the form of dungeon, raids, battleground, or RvR.
And for the people that can't spend 50 hours reaching max level, mmorpg developers dont' really care about them. They wont' contribute to the long term of the game anyway.
The real question is why can't developer make better group content besides dungeon, raids, battleground, or RvR.
Do people really think this has nothing to do with development resources and average levels of their players?
Doing group content requires other people. Other people are only available for the content you want to do if they are online, the same level and have the same quests.
This means that unless you play at peak times and level up "with the pack", finding groups is a real pain in the arse, resulting in long waiting times, boredom and a generally negative experience. This leads to lower retention rates and thus lower income. Players that join the game late are less likely to stay because the group content becomes a barrier to advancement.
So, developers have three choices:
1) Make the leveling process soloable from launch. This is the easiest option, but due to class / player skill differences it often means the content is trivial and results in a steep learning curve at endgame when lots of group content gets introduced.
2) Revamp leveling areas post-launch. If leveling used to contain lots of group content, some developers then go back and "revamp" leveling areas to remove the group content and make it easier. This helps retain new players but costs a decent chuck of money.
3) Make all content scalable to group size / total rethink of leveling process. Modern themeparks are very set in the way leveling works (holy trinity, quest grinding, levels) and this core design does not lend itself to scaling. It will take a seriously talented designer to come up with an MMO that radically changes the leveling process to support both solo and group play without the need for future revamps but that is also engaging and accessible to the masses. The designer then needs to convince a publisher that it is going to be successful so they can get funding.
SWG did scalable quests relatively well and I certainly remember it being very easy to find leveling groups in Anchorhead (15-20ppl) and then we'd head out with our scaled quests and grind mobs for hours. I certainly enjoyed it as I love combat in MMOs and I love being social, but the quests were in no way engaging or diverse and the game in general wasn't accessible.
Until we get a new developer that comes up with a better way of implementing scalable content, we're stuck with either solo leveling processes from launch or continual revamps of leveling zones post launch (at the expense of endgame content).
City of Heroes also had the same feature with its sidekick feature
Any mmo worth its salt should be like a good prostitute when it comes to its game world- One hell of a faker, and a damn good shaker!
What you've just described in FFXI and CoH isn't content scaling, its player scaling.
Whilst that is a useful tool to allow you to help out friends whilst keeping content interesting, its not really whats needed in the long term.
I'm talking about quests where, if you pick it up solo, you might have to fight two normal mobs. If you pick the same quest up in a duo, you have 4 normals and a signature mob. If you picked it up as a 20man raid, you'd have 50 normals, 10 signatures, 5 elites plus a couple of bosses.
Same quest, but content scaling to the group size (and average group level and average gear levels if possible).
Right, unlike modern WOW where you can get the very best gear without grouping...oh wait, that's not true.
Another thread based on false perceptions and a lack of understanding that solo-enabled RPGs are popular. (Doesn't mean they can't also offer group gameplay -- and most do -- but it means they're definitely going to have the most popular form of gameplay.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Guildwars 2 does it, dynamic events and often living story content scales so it is possible to do it. And it scales depending how many players are around, not on how many players you are grouped with.
You've been on these forums far too much to not know the answers to these questions, but here we go.
1) MMO is a meaningless term. It just means there's many people playing online in the same game. Doesn't say they all play together at the same time, doesn't mean a persistent virtual world, doesn't mean mean it can't have instances, and far too many games qualify if you keep the definition limited.
2) Why chose a MMO if you are going to focus on solo content? Simple, because most people are 100% zero sum, either/or, in fact, they lie somewhere between the two extremes. Player A may group 80% of the time, solo 20%, Player B may be grouping 25% of the time and soloing 75% and so forth. They want to play in a world full of players to interact with under certain conditions, but not necessarily game with them all of the time.
If someone thinks single player games are better, then I'd say they are tourists to the MMORPG genre, purists like myself pretty much play MMO's and only MMO's 24 x 7, 365 days a year and I haven't seen a single player game in the past 10 years that gave me more enjoyment than MMO's have.
McDonalds advertises 100% Beef.....but the question is....Beef what?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Exactly, a solo quest chain and a solo game are two different aminals..
I like to meet, chat, group with, fight with, duel other living breathing ppl, but I like to be a singularity once in a while too.
"Investment firms do not have that outlook on life. They need to know there is not only a return on their investment but also a solid profit at the end of it." tawess-
I don't understand why mmorpg have to be about levels or gear grinds. I like GW2 that way.
Basing a game on a single linear quest chain has logical consequences.
If you make the quests require grouping then there will be a lot of LFG problems so it makes sense for them to be soloable but if there is a single linear quest chain and the quests are soloable they need to be soloable for the least able player playing the least soloable class so they have to be easy and if they're easy enough for the least capable solo player on the least soloable class then they'll almost certainly be easy enough that grouping actually slows you down.
Alternatively if a player liked grouping and grouping for quests was no fun then they could group and grind mobs instead - except the xp for killing mobs outside of quests is generally too low - so even if it is unintentional linear quest games actively discourage grouping (along the main quest line).
Also linear quest games often kill the RPG feel by making everyone do the same quests: Paladins assassinate people for money and Assassins help the poor villagers for no money etc.
Plus there's no freedom.
Now some people say there's no problem with this but as this argument has been going on for years it should be obvious by now that the people who said MMORPGs had taken a wrong turn were right.
The solution is quite simple - adding questing to MMORPG mob grinding was a good idea but just break up the single linear quest chain. Go back to a non-linear EQ type world design but with lots of added mini WoW type quest chains scattered all over and also beef up mob exp so if people just want to grind some mobs and chat then they can. People can still play the solo quest game if they want while others can group up to do higher level quests or grind higher level mobs.
Also the quests do not need to be soloable for the least soloable class. People just need to be aware that some classes will do some things better than others
I don't get it. Are you implying FF14 is for group oriented only?
Because FF14 is precisely what the OPwould call it single player game.
Which is odd, since out of the thousands of hours I spend in those games, only the beginning 50 hours of leveling is single player. But people like the OP like to call it single player game.
Every MMO is a multiplayer game? Why do you need to be so anti-social to be forced to be social with people?
Asheron's call was old and a heavy solo oriented experience, but everyone was smart enough and social enough to group up. We got exp bonuses for it, but was about as fast as a solo experience.
In WoW, I grouped grinded and leveled faster that way...just grouped for quests and what not that most people did solo. We did them faster, but it came out to be as fast as a solo experience like in asheron's call.
Just because you aren't forced to group, doesn't mean you can't group lol...what the lamest excuse that isfor forcing their gameplay upon others.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
Why is not having a dungeon finder important to socialization?
sure it adds more work as in LFG, and a channel just for that, but why is seeing lfg tells something that you want to see spammed?
People find their group and can socialize.
I agree games should be more social and more group oriented (which would mean its either niche and challenging content or esay face roll group content, but requiring a group nonetheless, unless its a raid), but why is removing the functioning of spamming lfg considered bad?
So another possible issue of catering to the masses - easy group content which forces people to form groups before they play - and maybe still making it easy when only in a group
Or addings challenging content even for groups and really making it a niche game ontop of the reuiqrement of forming groups.
still a group finder in an mmo that requires grouping to pve does not affect socialization. Im still trying to understand why spamming lfg is important.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble