Hard game forced group vs casual group friendly

iixviiiix · March 2018

Hard game forced group:
Game so hard (hard mode) that if you not group up you can't keep playing , solo isn't optional .
Casual group friendly:
normal mode game , not so hard so player can solo playing most of it contents .
Group friendly mean no restriction or punishment for group up with other , more reward for group up compare to solo.

What type of group system is better ?

Albatroes · March 2018

I wont say FFXI executed group-centric play perfectly but it did in a way that made solo seem like a poor choice. You could obviously solo stuff (some playstyles were better at it than others like beastmaster) but being in a group just made things faster thus gave more incentive to do it most of the time, which I feel games should go with. People are playing a massive multiplayer online game so they really should not expect to do 80% of the game solo. Its about striking a balance between those that have and those that do not have the time.

AAAMEOW · March 2018

I honestly don't care as long as they make it easy to find a group. But if I can't find a group, that is when I get very upset.

Amathe · March 2018

The one that is better is whichever one you prefer.

There is nothing wrong with both types of games being on the market for players to choose the ones they like.

"Forced" is a silly word btw. In some games group cooperation is usually needed for success. That doesn't mean it's "forced."

Sovrath · March 2018

I have no problems with areas that are "so hard" that one needs a group to get through. As long as a player can progress in some way or at least have options at their disposal to help them.

So, if there is a certain item that a character needs but it's at the end of a long, difficult dungeon, I am all for it provided that item can be obtained and sold on the market for people who want it.

Theocritus · March 2018

In EQs early years the grouping was great, but as time went on it got harder to find them...The only times when it worked well was when you had alot of people to choose from to group with (like your guild).....In 2018 you need alot of players to make this work....Even WoW had to go to a cross server platform for grouping to work in many of the dungeons later on.

cameltosis · March 2018

Variety is the spice of life.

So, I want my game to have a mixture of solo content and group content. I want the group content to range from 2 players up to 1000+. I want the difficult range for all types of content to range from trivial to super hard. I also want my game to be accessible, so the game should progressively take you from easy to hard, solo to group, so that there is a steady "on ramp" for everybody to learn as they go.

The current method of trivial solo content, then a massive jump to challenging group content is just silly.

Shaigh · March 2018

My fun starts when there is group content that requires cooperation so that means I favor option #1.

Kyleran · March 2018

Grouping has to be kept optional and casual so I can join my guild or friends when I'm in the mood without requiring me to jump through gear score hoops or "knowing the fights" to do so.

My raiding days are long past.

Either that or provide a new raid mode called "with training wheels."

Eldurian · March 2018

Amathe said:

The one that is better is whichever one you prefer.

There is nothing wrong with both types of games being on the market for players to choose the ones they like.

"Forced" is a silly word btw. In some games group cooperation is usually needed for success. That doesn't mean it's "forced."

I think it's more just a silly poll with a clear answer right from the start. I think what he's talking about is "X quest must be completed to progress, X quest requires a group to beat at the appropriate level." In that instance you really are kind forced to group.

Of course as a sandbox enthusiast I'm very much against anything in a game that gives a single path to progression so I'm against forced grouping. I'm not against group only content if it's completely optional and one of many equally viable paths to progression though.

nerovergil · March 2018

grouping = faster leveling because mobs spawn in group, so we also fight in group

solo = slower leveling, need to stop for regen, food, run if mobs too many

Kyleran · March 2018

ikcin said:

I'm amazed every time someone says forced multiplayer. It is so stupid. Nobody calls singleplayer games forced singleplayer, so how the multiplayer is forced? Obviously if you can play a game only solo, it is not a multiplayer game. A game without competition and cooperation is not a multiplayer game. A game where the group content is optional is not a multiplayer game. To call a game multiplayer if there is a solo way to be played, it should be optional, but not the main way.

You are confusing the term multiplayer which requires no group content at all (see most any BR game out there) with the term "group centric" which is more accurate to your definition.

It of course requires multiplayer in most situations unless the game provides NPC group members as in GW1)

centkin · March 2018

I think the problem is that group and raid loot make you solo better. If that were not the case, then there wouldn't be so much of an issue of content.

Rather than giving YOU extra stats, a group weapon might add +5% group healing or +5% to the group's DPS making you better in a group while not making you a solo powerhouse.

Mendel · March 2018

Forced grouping to advance is indicative of a deeper problem, content with a single path. If you need to group to get past a specific encounter, and beating that encounter is some kind of bottleneck to your character's progress (and presumably everyone else's progress), that requires every character to pass this one 'gate'. Why is progression buried by a Kill Mob A, when it could be Kill A or B or C? That's a problem the developers created for themselves. It doesn't have to be related to the difficulty of the content, even.

Eldurian · March 2018

ikcin said:

I'm amazed every time someone says forced multiplayer. It is so stupid. Nobody calls singleplayer games forced singleplayer, so how the multiplayer is forced? Obviously if you can play a game only solo, it is not a multiplayer game. A game without competition and cooperation is not a multiplayer game. A game where the group content is optional is not a multiplayer game. To call a game multiplayer if there is a solo way to be played, it should be optional, but not the main way.

MMOs in general are more about virtual worlds than the size of the group you are running content with. The reason Skyrim is a singleplayer game as opposed to an MMO isn't because you do all the content solo. It's because the entire world is yours / you are the only one to access with it. You could have a very similar game exist enjoyably as an MMO simply by allowing a massive quantity of players access to the same world so that while you're out questing you happen upon other players.

IMO, good MMOs make the level of interaction you will have with those other players largely based upon player choice. You might see them and keep running. You might see them and decide to work together. In PvP areas you may see them and choose to kill or rob them.

Personally I've nearly entirely stopped playing single player games. I play Total War games occasionally and that's about it. And it's because at the end of a single player game, the game is done and my accomplishments mean nothing. All the content of a singleplayer game can exist within an MMO and when it's done I can go do other things within the same game world.

So I play MMOs to solo, PvP, PvE, Craft etc. The more styles of play the game covers the better since it's a game I'm likely devoting at least 90% of my gaming time to.

Eldurian · March 2018

I believe the OP is referring mostly to the fact that at least traditionally in many MMOs you had to participate in raids or at least group dungeons to get the best gear in the game. Progression caps out short of your full potential if you are running solo content. Hence the idea of "forced multiplayer".

I can agree with the OP that is crap.

MadFrenchie · March 2018

Eldurian said:

I believe the OP is referring mostly to the fact that at least traditionally in many MMOs you had to participate in raids or at least group dungeons to get the best gear in the game. Progression caps out short of your full potential if you are running solo content. Hence the idea of "forced multiplayer".

I can agree with the OP that is crap.

I don't see an issue with it in a PvE game. PvP games are different.

I'm playing Rift Prime, for example, and it's a PvE server. It doesn't bother me to have high-end content require grouping. Nothing they do at that level will realistically affect me.

iixviiiix · March 2018

^ well , what i mean is simple . Most post i see about improve multiplayer is about make the game harder so player have to depend on other . But in the age when MMO still MMO though the level grind was tough but the game wasn't that hard and people not join with other because the game is hard but because it enjoyable (not all old MMORPGs were so , i not from EQ age). While they weren't that casual , they are group friendly .

That's why i make a poll between hard+forced and casual+friendly . To see what people here prefer .

Eldurian · March 2018

My issue with that is that solo content loses emphasis late game and even the group content becomes exceptionally repetitive in games with a late game raiding focus. In games without that kind of focus you see a lot of variety content and the ability to switch between many equally viable options makes the game seem less repetitive.

danwest58 · March 2018

If you are playing an MMORPG you should expect to be grouping with people. I am not talking about FFXI type grouping but grouping like you had to in Vanilla WOW. Otherwise you should play a single player game. MSORPG which is what we have today is why the genera is crap. There are tons of single player games for players who dont ever want to play with people.

Eldurian · March 2018

danwest58 said:

If you are playing an MMORPG you should expect to be grouping with people. I am not talking about FFXI type grouping but grouping like you had to in Vanilla WOW. Otherwise you should play a single player game. MSORPG which is what we have today is why the genera is crap. There are tons of single player games for players who dont ever want to play with people.

The genre is crap because:

1. Repetitive grinding has been accepted as a suitable substitute for engaging content.
2. 99% of the genre are clones of the same model.

Giving people the choice to participate it solo content enjoyably has done nothing but good for the genre.

Sovrath · March 2018

danwest58 said:

If you are playing an MMORPG you should expect to be grouping with people. I am not talking about FFXI type grouping but grouping like you had to in Vanilla WOW. Otherwise you should play a single player game. MSORPG which is what we have today is why the genera is crap. There are tons of single player games for players who dont ever want to play with people.

I'm going to have to disagree with that. This whole attitude of "you should be doing x and if not then do what 'I' think you should do and do y" just doesn't wash.

What one should expect to do is to, at the very least, be ready to deal with/work with people.

But I suppose part of this is predicated on the idea that an mmorpg is supposed to be (at least originally) a world.

It makes sense that one isn't always going to be "grouping with" people i.e. dealing with/working with people all the time.

I DO think that it's ok for having content that is so challenging that it requires a group. But I also think that depending on how the game is set up, it should be ok to pass on that.

I say "set up" because if the game is designed to solely be a group centric game then of course one is going to have to group (or else don't play it).

But mmorpg's can have a variety of activities and unless it's a grouping only game, I think it's ok for people to find their own fun.

Sometimes just being around people is fun enough.

Lord.Bachus · March 2018

Anything “forced” is bad... freedom of choice is my miracle word...

KnightFalz · March 2018

iixviiiix said:

Hard game forced group:
Game so hard (hard mode) that if you not group up you can't keep playing , solo isn't optional .
Casual group friendly:
normal mode game , not so hard so player can solo playing most of it contents .
Group friendly mean no restriction or punishment for group up with other , more reward for group up compare to solo.

What type of group system is better ?

The better group system is whatever the player in question prefers.

MadFrenchie · March 2018

Sovrath said:

danwest58 said:

If you are playing an MMORPG you should expect to be grouping with people. I am not talking about FFXI type grouping but grouping like you had to in Vanilla WOW. Otherwise you should play a single player game. MSORPG which is what we have today is why the genera is crap. There are tons of single player games for players who dont ever want to play with people.

I'm going to have to disagree with that. This whole attitude of "you should be doing x and if not then do what 'I' think you should do and do y" just doesn't wash.

What one should expect to do is to, at the very least, be ready to deal with/work with people.

But I suppose part of this is predicated on the idea that an mmorpg is supposed to be (at least originally) a world.

It makes sense that one isn't always going to be "grouping with" people i.e. dealing with/working with people all the time.

I DO think that it's ok for having content that is so challenging that it requires a group. But I also think that depending on how the game is set up, it should be ok to pass on that.

I say "set up" because if the game is designed to solely be a group centric game then of course one is going to have to group (or else don't play it).

But mmorpg's can have a variety of activities and unless it's a grouping only game, I think it's ok for people to find their own fun.

Sometimes just being around people is fun enough.

I agree, but think it needs to be expounded upon:

I think the net got too big for the genre. The attempts to cater to all and pleasing no one type of thing. The genre could use games focused on a specific experience, whether that revolves around group content or story content or what have you.

Games that attempt to please all types are creating too much work for themselves to reasonably accomplish. Crowdfunding efforts, at least, have returned to focusing on providing an excellent specific experience, instead of trying to provide an experience for everyone's tastes. That's a good thing. In that context, if you're creating an MMORPG, it's worth it to know what kind of gamers you're going after and building the game around that taste, instead of trying to include all different tastes.

KnightFalz · March 2018

MadFrenchie said:

In that context, if you're creating an MMORPG, it's worth it to know what kind of gamers you're going after and building the game around that taste, instead of trying to include all different tastes.

It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. So long as you are satisfied with a niche product and the associated revenue limitations this is a fine plan. If you'd rather have a greater earning potential then you have to broaden your appeal.

Howdy, Stranger!

Hard game forced group vs casual group friendly

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Hard game forced group vs casual group friendly

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV