You're penalizing yourself just by referring to yourself as anti-social. Don't let extraverts classify you in a negative light just because they neither share, nor wish to understand your personality trait. Instead of trying to understand introverts they attempt to "fix" us by coercing us into group activities...for our own good of course.
Why would an introvert even join an MMO to begin with? It's a multiplayer game, it's there on the description, surely they know that they're going to have to interact with other people to play the game. It's like going out to a night club then complaining that people are everywhere and you just wanted to sit on your own and listen to the music. Um. Wrong place, buddy!
This is another myth about MMO's - Massively Multiplayer Online = Many players cooperating together is just not true. MMO = many players online together (no cooperating necessary). A Free for all last man standing shooter is an MMO and the aim of that game would be to kill everything and be the only person alive.
As I mentioned in a post a few pages back, in EvE Online I was a solo player, who roamed the universe killing other players. I did found a large corporation which later became a large alliance, but only so soloers could join and solo against the group players. While we soloed and didn't cooperatively play, we had a profound effect on the game itself which eventually forced the developers to nerf us. Obviously we were interacting with others and affecting the game world substantially. We were just not doing it cooperatively. Cooperative is an option not a requirement of any good mmo imo.
Your definition of MMO didnt even exist until WoW.
Even tho we have pirates and such in EVE, they work closely with other pirates, or at least have a deal with other players in an area so they wont be attacked. So to say you were completly solo, is not true at all. In fact, I can safefly say after many years playing EVE, you can never be "completly" solo, you would die fast and often. Unless you only run missions or mining in high-sec, but even that could get you podded.
When WoW came along, the first 6 months was grouping and open world pvp. Then quickly dissolved into a solo game, with raiding being the only group content.
And the MMO genra hasnt been the same since. Always catering to the solo crowd, and look at the quality of MMOs for the last 5 years, complete garbage.
My definition of MMO goes all the way back to at least 1999 when I began playing Everquest which is arguably what WoW is based on.
EvE is an old game, when I first began playing in 2003 it was a lot different then it is today. Up to 2005-6 solo battleship pvp was still a viable method of piracy. I played from 2003 - 2011, even in the latter stages of 2010 it was still possible to solo and probably still is with a lot of effort.
If you take a look at my killboard (infinity ziona) you can clearly see what I mean. Not amazing kill stats in terms of numbers, would sometimes take me a whole day to get a single kill on a specific player but at 7:1 K/D I certainly wasn't dying fast and often.
I find it funny how you guys keep trying to turn MMO into a solo online game, its pathetic and transparent.
You already admitted the devs nerfed you, so obviously you were NOT playing the game as intended. Actually, you were giving other players a bad experience, and enjoying it. How is that playing solo?
What your going on about, is the ability to grief players, because you have already admitted you are not playing the game SOLO, you were a pirate, and as a pirate your whole game experience depends apon griefing other players. Which is NOT SOLO.....HAHA!!!!
You're penalizing yourself just by referring to yourself as anti-social. Don't let extraverts classify you in a negative light just because they neither share, nor wish to understand your personality trait. Instead of trying to understand introverts they attempt to "fix" us by coercing us into group activities...for our own good of course.
Why would an introvert even join an MMO to begin with? It's a multiplayer game, it's there on the description, surely they know that they're going to have to interact with other people to play the game. It's like going out to a night club then complaining that people are everywhere and you just wanted to sit on your own and listen to the music. Um. Wrong place, buddy!
This is another myth about MMO's - Massively Multiplayer Online = Many players cooperating together is just not true. MMO = many players online together (no cooperating necessary). A Free for all last man standing shooter is an MMO and the aim of that game would be to kill everything and be the only person alive.
As I mentioned in a post a few pages back, in EvE Online I was a solo player, who roamed the universe killing other players. I did found a large corporation which later became a large alliance, but only so soloers could join and solo against the group players. While we soloed and didn't cooperatively play, we had a profound effect on the game itself which eventually forced the developers to nerf us. Obviously we were interacting with others and affecting the game world substantially. We were just not doing it cooperatively. Cooperative is an option not a requirement of any good mmo imo.
Your definition of MMO didnt even exist until WoW.
Even tho we have pirates and such in EVE, they work closely with other pirates, or at least have a deal with other players in an area so they wont be attacked. So to say you were completly solo, is not true at all. In fact, I can safefly say after many years playing EVE, you can never be "completly" solo, you would die fast and often. Unless you only run missions or mining in high-sec, but even that could get you podded.
When WoW came along, the first 6 months was grouping and open world pvp. Then quickly dissolved into a solo game, with raiding being the only group content.
And the MMO genra hasnt been the same since. Always catering to the solo crowd, and look at the quality of MMOs for the last 5 years, complete garbage.
My definition of MMO goes all the way back to at least 1999 when I began playing Everquest which is arguably what WoW is based on.
EvE is an old game, when I first began playing in 2003 it was a lot different then it is today. Up to 2005-6 solo battleship pvp was still a viable method of piracy. I played from 2003 - 2011, even in the latter stages of 2010 it was still possible to solo and probably still is with a lot of effort.
If you take a look at my killboard (infinity ziona) you can clearly see what I mean. Not amazing kill stats in terms of numbers, would sometimes take me a whole day to get a single kill on a specific player but at 7:1 K/D I certainly wasn't dying fast and often.
I find it funny how you guys keep trying to turn MMO into a solo online game, its pathetic and transparent.
You already admitted the devs nerfed you, so obviously you were NOT playing the game as intended. Actually, you were giving other players a bad experience, and enjoying it. How is that playing solo?
What your going on about, is the ability to grief players, because you have already admitted you are not playing the game SOLO, you were a pirate, and as a pirate your whole game experience depends apon griefing other players. Which is NOT SOLO.....HAHA!!!!
I don't think the meaning of MMO needs a redefinition. It refers to a game, that is played online, by many people. As stated earlier whether cooperative play is included is an option not a requirement.
In most MMO's, there are fundamental advantages to those who cooperate over those who do not. There is no requirement to pressure people to cooperate when those fundamental advantages exist. These advantages are additional to any enforced or scripted advantages which are deliberately added in by development.
As for EvE and the developers nerfing alliance war declarations it remains arguable that the changes were in response to complaints by alliances in the game who preferred the developers to step in rather then for them to defend themselves. It remains arguable that in a sandbox game, the alliances should have dealt with Privateers both militarily, logistically and diplomatically in the spirit of the game but instead chose a easy option, a cheat if you like on the Adapt or Die.
The title of this thread is "The Group Play vs Solo Play" so in the context of this thread, pirating outside of a group would fit the definition of solo play.
I don't think the meaning of MMO needs a redefinition. It refers to a game, that is played online, by many people. As stated earlier whether cooperative play is included is an option not a requirement.
In your opinion. Which is the opinion taken by all soloers to justify their gameplay style. The thing is, once you stick that second M in there it becomes a game that involves fighting with or against a fellow player. That's what a multiplayer game is. Name one that isn't - excluding the recent batch of MMO's of course. Hell, just do a search on Google for multiplayer games. What do you get? Online games for two players, play games online with your friends, etc.
Why does the definition of Multiplayer change when applied to an MMO? Simple answer: It shouldn't. But recent development has taken it that way. We need to shift back to a group focus if we want to see an MMO last more than a few months before hitting FTP, just like almost every release since WoW.
I don't think the meaning of MMO needs a redefinition. It refers to a game, that is played online, by many people. As stated earlier whether cooperative play is included is an option not a requirement.
In your opinion. Which is the opinion taken by all soloers to justify their gameplay style. The thing is, once you stick that second M in there it becomes a game that involves fighting with or against a fellow player. That's what a multiplayer game is. Name one that isn't - excluding the recent batch of MMO's of course. Hell, just do a search on Google for multiplayer games. What do you get? Online games for two players, play games online with your friends, etc.
Why does the definition of Multiplayer change when applied to an MMO? Simple answer: It shouldn't. But recent development has taken it that way. We need to shift back to a group focus if we want to see an MMO last more than a few months before hitting FTP, just like almost every release since WoW.
I don't get what you are trying to say. In the first paragraph you are arguing my point for me. I have been saying fighting against other players satisfies the definition of multiplayer so we're in agreement.
The definition of multiplayer
"a mode of play involving more than one player at one time in a computer or video game "
If we accept that the above is a correct definition of the term multiplayer then the following activities are a legitimate part of an mmo as they satisfy the the criteria (playing, more then one player, simultaneously, computer game)
- killing an npc solo or grouped
- killing another player solo or grouped
- farming a resource solo or grouped
- trading
- hunting or being hunted by another player solo or grouped
- potential possible interaction by being logged in and causing another player to modify his / her behaviour because of that.
You are probably going to argue that more then one person refers to that person being in the same location or the players fighting each other but thats a simplistic view. All players who are actively playing in the average mmo are interacting with each other by competing for mobs, equipment, currency, groups.
If we accept that the above is a correct definition of the term multiplayer then the following activities are a legitimate part of an mmo as they satisfy the the criteria (playing, more then one player, simultaneously, computer game)
- killing an npc solo or grouped
- killing another player solo or grouped
- farming a resource solo or grouped
- trading
- hunting or being hunted by another player solo or grouped
- potential possible interaction by being logged in and causing another player to modify his / her behaviour because of that.
You are probably going to argue that more then one person refers to that person being in the same location or the players fighting each other but thats a simplistic view. All players who are actively playing in the average mmo are interacting with each other by competing for mobs, equipment, currency, groups.
And that is the correct definition of a multiplayer game. Multiple players at one time. Now tell me a multiplayer game, excluding the current solo-infested MMO's, that allow you to solo your way through. Even wiki has this to say about it:
"In a variety of different multiplayer game types, players may individually compete against two or more human contestants, work cooperatively with a human partner(s) in order to achieve a common goal, supervise activities of other players, or engage in a game type that incorporates any possible combination of the above."
From online Monopoly to Battlefield 3, they all involve playing with or against another player. Just because an MMO allows you to solo doesn't mean that's the point of an MMO, soloing was added as something to do during downtime, it used to be very hard to solo. Now the pendulum has swung the other way and it's very easy to solo and very hard to get anything involving multiplayer. Top example: SW:TOR has one flashpoint every 10 levels, two or three group instances every planet.
If we accept that the above is a correct definition of the term multiplayer then the following activities are a legitimate part of an mmo as they satisfy the the criteria (playing, more then one player, simultaneously, computer game)
- killing an npc solo or grouped
- killing another player solo or grouped
- farming a resource solo or grouped
- trading
- hunting or being hunted by another player solo or grouped
- potential possible interaction by being logged in and causing another player to modify his / her behaviour because of that.
You are probably going to argue that more then one person refers to that person being in the same location or the players fighting each other but thats a simplistic view. All players who are actively playing in the average mmo are interacting with each other by competing for mobs, equipment, currency, groups.
And that is the correct definition of a multiplayer game. Multiple players at one time. Now tell me a multiplayer game, excluding the current solo-infested MMO's, that allow you to solo your way through. Even wiki has this to say about it:
"In a variety of different multiplayer game types, players may individually compete against two or more human contestants, work cooperatively with a human partner(s) in order to achieve a common goal, supervise activities of other players, or engage in a game type that incorporates any possible combination of the above."
From online Monopoly to Battlefield 3, they all involve playing with or against another player. Just because an MMO allows you to solo doesn't mean that's the point of an MMO, soloing was added as something to do during downtime, it used to be very hard to solo. Now the pendulum has swung the other way and it's very easy to solo and very hard to get anything involving multiplayer. Top example: SW:TOR has one flashpoint every 10 levels, two or three group instances every planet.
Excluding the current MMO's? All the old MMO's. UO you didn't need to group, it was advised but not needed. EQ you didn't need to group. Almost half the classes could solo to endgame, it took a little bit longer but not much.
The point of an MMO is entertainment. Thats it. Neither grouping, nor soloing, nor trading, nor gathering, nor dungeons... none of that is the point of an MMO, they are just things you CAN, not MUST do in an MMO.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Excluding the current MMO's? All the old MMO's. UO you didn't need to group, it was advised but not needed. EQ you didn't need to group. Almost half the classes could solo to endgame, it took a little bit longer but not much.
The point of an MMO is entertainment. Thats it. Neither grouping, nor soloing, nor trading, nor gathering, nor dungeons... none of that is the point of an MMO, they are just things you CAN, not MUST do in an MMO.
Two classes could solo to endgame in EQ; Druid and Necromancer. A Bard also had a good chance, but that wasn't at all easy. That's hardly half the classes, plus it took a hell of a lot longer not 'a little bit' due to the amount of downtime between fights. The only real success in that case for soloing was the Necromancer, as he could harvest mana and also lifetap to keep health up, whereas the Druid had to stop to regen mana.
It wasn't until later expansions that other classes could start to solo and even then it was a nightmare. I managed to solo for a while with an Enchanter using charm but it was an absolute nightmare and really not worth the effort. One resist or a mob taking a bad path and you could say goodbye to all the XP you'd made up to that point. The Bard got easier in later expansions with the inclusion of /melody and areas allowing swarm kiting, but that was dangerous too. For all classes you were really better off in a group.
That said, my point was about the current crop of MMO's being a solo path to endgame, not the ability to perhaps solo in other MMO's if you don't mind taking a few extra months to level up and restrict yourself to certain locations. There is no challenge in modern MMO's, you fight multiple mobs at once, you regen your health and mana in seconds once the fight is over, if you even lose any health during the fight. Why, with that level of difficulty, would you want to create a group? You can do it alone.
And that's not how MMO's are meant to be developed, they're supposed to be multiplayer games, it's there in the title. As I've been trying to say, every other multiplayer game requires you to play with or against other players, MMO's are moving so far away from that they're becoming little more than single player games with chat rooms. Is that what you really want from an MMO?
Two classes could solo to endgame in EQ; Druid and Necromancer.
Druid, Necro, Bard, Beastlord, SK, Monk, ranger could and frequently did solo to end game. And it was longer, I stated that, but no it wasn't a hell of a lot longer. Bards, before they were nerfed were better than druids and almost as good as necro's - charm, fear, swarm kiting ftw.
Again it wasn't hard, just longer. You had to watch the wandering mobs, and learn to kite for most of those classes but definately do-able and once you got the hang of it, pretty easy. Melody wasn't added till years later, strap on drums, fire up selo's and dot everyone, have a charm and fear for the just in case moments.
But yes for all classes grouping was better.
For modern MMO's there is just as much challenge as you make. In EQ and even con was a good fight. In WoW 5 levels higher is a good fight. The numbers are just arbitrary, you find the mob that gives the challenge. You run the dungeon that gives the challenge with or without a group. So if you ignore the color or level indicator and just go by which mobs/area is harder - there is no difference.
They are multiplayer games. But multiplayer in MMO's has never, ever ever meant MUST BE GROUPED. It has only EVER meant can interact. Thats it.
Your comment about MMO's being chat rooms is funny. My very first day in EQ, right when I ksed someone (thought I was helping him, yes I was a noob) thats exactly what I remember people saying about it then. Welcome to EQ, a glorified chat room.
What I want is entertainment and the chance to interact, the more ways to interact the better. I absolutely do not want anything forced in any way shape or form.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
What I want is entertainment and the chance to interact, the more ways to interact the better. I absolutely do not want anything forced in any way shape or form.
What is being forced? That description irritates me for some reason. Let's say, for example, a company creates a game with content that really needs groups to get through it at a fair pace, while solo is possible but incredibly hard. Are they forcing you to group? Are they forcing you to play the game in a certain way? Are they forcing you to play the game at all?
That's the thing that tweaks me. Let's say I play Mass Effect, am I being forced to play solo? If so, who do I cry out to? Do I tell the developers to change it so I can co-op play through with a friend? Am I even being forced to play solo? No. I can decide not to play it, I can seek entertainment elsewhere.
Putting the word 'forced' in front of something, i.e. forced grouping, makes it seem like you have no choice. But you do, you have the choice not to play it. If an MMO with a focus on grouping doesn't interest you, go elsewhere, find one of the many solo MMO's or.. better yet.. try a single player game. But beware, in those single player games they have forced soloing.
Druid, Necro, Bard, Beastlord, SK, Monk, ranger could and frequently did solo to end game.
Just wanted to comment on this. I played a Bard before Kunark was even released and the only place they could solo was in the Karana's, though soloing Cyclops was quite fun. The Monk soloing? Hah! No.. I played a Monk for years, I went from Kunark era after quitting the Bard to Plane of Time in PoP and I can tell you now, their solo ability was laughable. And I had good equipment, too.
I soloed monk to 50 just after kunark launched easily. Hunting blue mobs, splitting, fd if trouble, mend whrn low. Pretty easy to solo. Bard could charm everywhere karanas, swarm in loio, easy in rathe, chatm in highkeep. those clases could solo everywhere
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
If we accept that the above is a correct definition of the term multiplayer then the following activities are a legitimate part of an mmo as they satisfy the the criteria (playing, more then one player, simultaneously, computer game)
- killing an npc solo or grouped
- killing another player solo or grouped
- farming a resource solo or grouped
- trading
- hunting or being hunted by another player solo or grouped
- potential possible interaction by being logged in and causing another player to modify his / her behaviour because of that.
You are probably going to argue that more then one person refers to that person being in the same location or the players fighting each other but thats a simplistic view. All players who are actively playing in the average mmo are interacting with each other by competing for mobs, equipment, currency, groups.
And that is the correct definition of a multiplayer game. Multiple players at one time. Now tell me a multiplayer game, excluding the current solo-infested MMO's, that allow you to solo your way through. Even wiki has this to say about it:
"In a variety of different multiplayer game types, players may individually compete against two or more human contestants, work cooperatively with a human partner(s) in order to achieve a common goal, supervise activities of other players, or engage in a game type that incorporates any possible combination of the above."
From online Monopoly to Battlefield 3, they all involve playing with or against another player. Just because an MMO allows you to solo doesn't mean that's the point of an MMO, soloing was added as something to do during downtime, it used to be very hard to solo. Now the pendulum has swung the other way and it's very easy to solo and very hard to get anything involving multiplayer. Top example: SW:TOR has one flashpoint every 10 levels, two or three group instances every planet.
It says "a mode of play involving more than one player at one time" .
It does not say "a mode of cooperative play involving more than one player at one time".
The only requirement based on the definition is for both players to be logged on to play at the same time. Your link and quote support what I am saying.
The point of an MMO in a general sense is to have a common area for players to play in. The specific point of an MMO is at the discretion of the developer and specific to the game play set up.
In your opinion MMO's which don't require players to group are bad.
In my opinion MMO's which don't provide both solo and group based game play are bad. In my opinion Everquest was a pretty terrific game, it allowed both solo play with a trade off on group desirabilty and still required grouping for things like epics, raiding with a good balance of tradeoff on solo classes vs group desirabilty (Clerics couldn't solo well but were loved in groups, Necros could solo like gods but were not as desirable).
The WoW method of pick any class and solo is not my cup of tea but WoW vs EQ content difficulty is way out there.
In my version of a perfect game the most amazing items in the game are attainable by all players, either solo or in huge uber guilds. Either through trade, time or effort (questing) but it would need to be in terms of if a guild of 10 people takes 3 days played to obtain Staff of Uberness then it should require 1 person to spend 30 days played to obtain the same item through questing solo. There should not be case for most items where they become unobtainable simply because of preferred style of play.
If we accept that the above is a correct definition of the term multiplayer then the following activities are a legitimate part of an mmo as they satisfy the the criteria (playing, more then one player, simultaneously, computer game)
- killing an npc solo or grouped
- killing another player solo or grouped
- farming a resource solo or grouped
- trading
- hunting or being hunted by another player solo or grouped
- potential possible interaction by being logged in and causing another player to modify his / her behaviour because of that.
You are probably going to argue that more then one person refers to that person being in the same location or the players fighting each other but thats a simplistic view. All players who are actively playing in the average mmo are interacting with each other by competing for mobs, equipment, currency, groups.
And that is the correct definition of a multiplayer game. Multiple players at one time. Now tell me a multiplayer game, excluding the current solo-infested MMO's, that allow you to solo your way through. Even wiki has this to say about it:
"In a variety of different multiplayer game types, players may individually compete against two or more human contestants, work cooperatively with a human partner(s) in order to achieve a common goal, supervise activities of other players, or engage in a game type that incorporates any possible combination of the above."
From online Monopoly to Battlefield 3, they all involve playing with or against another player. Just because an MMO allows you to solo doesn't mean that's the point of an MMO, soloing was added as something to do during downtime, it used to be very hard to solo. Now the pendulum has swung the other way and it's very easy to solo and very hard to get anything involving multiplayer. Top example: SW:TOR has one flashpoint every 10 levels, two or three group instances every planet.
It says "a mode of play involving more than one player at one time" .
It does not say "a mode of cooperative play involving more than one player at one time".
The only requirement based on the definition is for both players to be logged on to play at the same time. Your link and quote support what I am saying.
The point of an MMO in a general sense is to have a common area for players to play in. The specific point of an MMO is at the discretion of the developer and specific to the game play set up.
In your opinion MMO's which don't require players to group are bad.
In my opinion MMO's which don't provide both solo and group based game play are bad. In my opinion Everquest was a pretty terrific game, it allowed both solo play with a trade off on group desirabilty and still required grouping for things like epics, raiding with a good balance of tradeoff on solo classes vs group desirabilty (Clerics couldn't solo well but were loved in groups, Necros could solo like gods but were not as desirable).
The WoW method of pick any class and solo is not my cup of tea but WoW vs EQ content difficulty is way out there.
In my version of a perfect game the most amazing items in the game are attainable by all players, either solo or in huge uber guilds. Either through trade, time or effort (questing) but it would need to be in terms of if a guild of 10 people takes 3 days played to obtain Staff of Uberness then it should require 1 person to spend 30 days played to obtain the same item through questing solo. There should not be case for most items where they become unobtainable simply because of preferred style of play.
If "with" was synonymous with just "along side" then I could see that. MMOs have never been about parallel play.
Simply, solo play should be harder than coop or group play, some of the things in game should only be able to be completed by groups and a few things should only be able to be accomplished by raids. Content just like a pyramid, solo at the bottom, group middle, raid top.
My problem with today's MMO's is most everything besides the level grind is trivialized. When I began to game, there were viable alternatives to the level grind and the best gear was raid gear, followed closely by crafted gear. Crafting was not trivialized, it took time, resources and cooperation with other types of crafters to make the top level items.
Maps were hand drawn affairs or crude online affairs, exploration was also part of the game, not like today where the companion guide is released the same day as the game...
Housing and guilds we also part of the mix and even reputation played its part in filling out the game.
To me there is a place for both types of play, but give me a world to explore and own a piece of, just not a game where all there is to do is grind to max level in 3-4 weeks.
MMOs are almost entirely based around parallel play, often player actions that affect your own experience are a result of parallel actions, not them directly interacting with you. A great example is an MMOs economy which are central to most MMOs.
Saying MMOs are not about the invisible actions of other players in the game is like saying the invisible actions of chinese industry is not important to American economics and industry.
It says "a mode of play involving more than one player at one time" .
It does not say "a mode of cooperative play involving more than one player at one time".
The only requirement based on the definition is for both players to be logged on to play at the same time. Your link and quote support what I am saying.
You're taking the most obvious point of a multiplayer game and twisting it so it supports your claim. Of course the requirement of a multiplayer game is for multiple players to be in the same game world, how are they going to be able to play together otherwise? At it's most basic a multiplayer game requires people to be in the same game world, sure. But does that mean they then should ignore each other and play it as a single player game? Why even create a multiplayer game in that case?
Why? Because a multiplayer game isn't a single player game and isn't meant to be played as a single player game. It's a multiplayer game, multiple players working with or against each other. Read the description.
It says "a mode of play involving more than one player at one time" .
It does not say "a mode of cooperative play involving more than one player at one time".
The only requirement based on the definition is for both players to be logged on to play at the same time. Your link and quote support what I am saying.
You're taking the most obvious point of a multiplayer game and twisting it so it supports your claim. Of course the requirement of a multiplayer game is for multiple players to be in the same game world, how are they going to be able to play together otherwise? At it's most basic a multiplayer game requires people to be in the same game world, sure. But does that mean they then should ignore each other and play it as a single player game? Why even create a multiplayer game in that case?
Why? Because a multiplayer game isn't a single player game and isn't meant to be played as a single player game. It's a multiplayer game, multiple players working with or against each other. Read the description.
Exactly, and the part where you say "But does that mean they then should ignore each other and play it as a single player game? Why even create a multiplayer game in that case?"
Thats what I dont get either, and I have never seen a soloer give any good answer. This is why I call soloers selfish.
Because really, all they want, is a solo game with a big chat room, so they dont get bored. They dont give a damn if it ruins the fun for people looking to actually play the game with other people.
What makes them really bad, is they go into every game being developed, and complain so much about any percieved "forced grouping", that changes are almost always made in thier favor, they are a very vocal group, and yet so small.
It says "a mode of play involving more than one player at one time" .
It does not say "a mode of cooperative play involving more than one player at one time".
The only requirement based on the definition is for both players to be logged on to play at the same time. Your link and quote support what I am saying.
You're taking the most obvious point of a multiplayer game and twisting it so it supports your claim. Of course the requirement of a multiplayer game is for multiple players to be in the same game world, how are they going to be able to play together otherwise? At it's most basic a multiplayer game requires people to be in the same game world, sure. But does that mean they then should ignore each other and play it as a single player game? Why even create a multiplayer game in that case?
Why? Because a multiplayer game isn't a single player game and isn't meant to be played as a single player game. It's a multiplayer game, multiple players working with or against each other. Read the description.
Exactly, and the part where you say "But does that mean they then should ignore each other and play it as a single player game? Why even create a multiplayer game in that case?"
Thats what I dont get either, and I have never seen a soloer give any good answer. This is why I call soloers selfish.
Because really, all they want, is a solo game with a big chat room, so they dont get bored. They dont give a damn if it ruins the fun for people looking to actually play the game with other people.
What makes them really bad, is they go into every game being developed, and complain so much about any percieved "forced grouping", that changes are almost always made in thier favor, they are a very vocal group, and yet so small.
It says "a mode of play involving more than one player at one time" .
It does not say "a mode of cooperative play involving more than one player at one time".
The only requirement based on the definition is for both players to be logged on to play at the same time. Your link and quote support what I am saying.
You're taking the most obvious point of a multiplayer game and twisting it so it supports your claim. Of course the requirement of a multiplayer game is for multiple players to be in the same game world, how are they going to be able to play together otherwise? At it's most basic a multiplayer game requires people to be in the same game world, sure. But does that mean they then should ignore each other and play it as a single player game? Why even create a multiplayer game in that case?
Why? Because a multiplayer game isn't a single player game and isn't meant to be played as a single player game. It's a multiplayer game, multiple players working with or against each other. Read the description.
We were discussing the meaning of the definition of what an MMO is, no twisting required.
As for whether they should ignore each other, or group or whatever its entirely dependent on the gameplay, gameplay and mechanics being the factors that influence whether players interact, not whether or not its an mmo.
Every time a player loots an item, generates a unit of currency, kills a rare spawning mob, buys or sells that person is changing the game for every other person in it. The change can be negative or positive and so it fits into your requirement of "multiple players working with or against each other".
@ the above post claiming soloers are selfish, do you not see the irony in that statement when your stance is against soloing and seems likely you would like everyone to play MMO's like you do or not play at all.
We were discussing the meaning of the definition of what an MMO is, no twisting required.
As for whether they should ignore each other, or group or whatever its entirely dependent on the gameplay, gameplay and mechanics being the factors that influence whether players interact, not whether or not its an mmo.
Every time a player loots an item, generates a unit of currency, kills a rare spawning mob, buys or sells that person is changing the game for every other person in it. The change can be negative or positive and so it fits into your requirement of "multiple players working with or against each other".
@ the above post claiming soloers are selfish, do you not see the irony in that statement when your stance is against soloing and seems likely you would like everyone to play MMO's like you do or not play at all.
I believe we were talking about the definition of what a Multiplayer game is, or is supposed to be. At its most basest level it has multiple players in the same game environment, which is a given as that's the only way they'd be able to game together. But the description goes on to encapsulate the fact that these players either play with or against each other, there is nothing in any description of any multiplayer game of people playing alone. It's just not what these games are designed for. If I can play Online Monopoly against a computer opponent then why the hell am I online?
And that's why I back the claim that soloers are selfish. There are a million and one single player games, yet people come into multiplayer games and start whining and bitching because their solo play style isn't supported until it finally is. They can't simply decide that the game or genre isn't for them, they have to force change, until we end up with what we have now. Shallow, soulless MMO's with very little in the way of grouping, a rather bland quest grind to max level that can be done in a couple of weeks, and a genre that's rapidly dying.
Community and the working together toward a main goal was what kept people playing the original MMO's, but now everything has become solo play these new MMO's last little more than a few months before becoming ghost towns and switching to FTP.
Nope thats not whats happening at all. Very few soloers actually complain about a games solo friendliness or lack of it. We just don't play the game.
The developers want us in their games because there is a crap load ton of us. We don't have to say a thing, we just play the games that give us what we want.
The developers are coming to us. We are not coming to them.
And since the games are being developed for us, the genre is for us.
I would say that anyone who demands the genre change to them is selfish - so you. We just play the games we like. You are the one complaining that you aren`t getting what you want - that is the very definition of selfish.
Games today are just as deep, or shallow and soulfull or soulless as the old games. They also havea crap ton of grouing in them. But the grouping is for pvp, bg's, dungeons... You can (and a tonne of people do) completely group from beginning to max level in WoW. You get more xp, more loot, more coin, better gear by doing so. So yes there is a lot of grouping - just not for most quests.
The quests are better than old quests. Yes there still are lots of kill and fed ex. But there are a lot of fun ones now too.
The genre is more popular, bigger than ever before. More people, more money, more games, more developers, more being developed. By every objective measurable data point the genre is the exact opposite of dying.
So there is still lots of grouping, more choice than in most (not all but most) old games in how you play, more games to choose from, more people to group with and you still complain. Maybe the genre is not for you.
And soloers still make great community. We help, we communicate, we even group from time to time. Istaria has a great community, one of the best out there, and the game is almost completely soloable.
Grouping does not guarantee a great community. The only thing that does guarantee a great community is like-mindedness. Old games had communties just as bad (or good depending on your pov) as today's games. Anyone who disagrees, just remember EQ had to implement a play nice policy because people were such jerks. If they weren't jerks they wouldn't have had to implement the policy: scams, ksing, ninja loot, griefing, delibertatly finishing mobs so that others couldn't advance, camps... people were jerks. Yes there were a lot of nice ones, just like today, but there were a lot of jerks... just like today.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
We were discussing the meaning of the definition of what an MMO is, no twisting required.
As for whether they should ignore each other, or group or whatever its entirely dependent on the gameplay, gameplay and mechanics being the factors that influence whether players interact, not whether or not its an mmo.
Every time a player loots an item, generates a unit of currency, kills a rare spawning mob, buys or sells that person is changing the game for every other person in it. The change can be negative or positive and so it fits into your requirement of "multiple players working with or against each other".
@ the above post claiming soloers are selfish, do you not see the irony in that statement when your stance is against soloing and seems likely you would like everyone to play MMO's like you do or not play at all.
I believe we were talking about the definition of what a Multiplayer game is, or is supposed to be. At its most basest level it has multiple players in the same game environment, which is a given as that's the only way they'd be able to game together. But the description goes on to encapsulate the fact that these players either play with or against each other, there is nothing in any description of any multiplayer game of people playing alone. It's just not what these games are designed for. If I can play Online Monopoly against a computer opponent then why the hell am I online?
And that's why I back the claim that soloers are selfish. There are a million and one single player games, yet people come into multiplayer games and start whining and bitching because their solo play style isn't supported until it finally is. They can't simply decide that the game or genre isn't for them, they have to force change, until we end up with what we have now. Shallow, soulless MMO's with very little in the way of grouping, a rather bland quest grind to max level that can be done in a couple of weeks, and a genre that's rapidly dying.
Community and the working together toward a main goal was what kept people playing the original MMO's, but now everything has become solo play these new MMO's last little more than a few months before becoming ghost towns and switching to FTP.
You are missing the main point - unless the mmo is a completely static world, where nothing is looted, no currency is generated, no spawns are fought over etc etc then any activity like that is affecting your game world.
In an average MMO we probably only directly interact with a fraction of the entire servers playerbase. Does that mean those other people don't have an effect on the server and your gameplay experience? Its nonesense to think that.
In short - there is no way to play an average MMO like a single player game as you claim soloers play. The game world experience is dictated by other players actions. Have you ever played a single player game where another player suddenly appears and kills you, kill steals you, underbids you, undercuts you, who earlier killed the rare spawn mob you were hoping to kill when you logged on, trains you, devalues your currency by farming etc etc etc.
We were discussing the meaning of the definition of what an MMO is, no twisting required.
As for whether they should ignore each other, or group or whatever its entirely dependent on the gameplay, gameplay and mechanics being the factors that influence whether players interact, not whether or not its an mmo.
Every time a player loots an item, generates a unit of currency, kills a rare spawning mob, buys or sells that person is changing the game for every other person in it. The change can be negative or positive and so it fits into your requirement of "multiple players working with or against each other".
@ the above post claiming soloers are selfish, do you not see the irony in that statement when your stance is against soloing and seems likely you would like everyone to play MMO's like you do or not play at all.
I believe we were talking about the definition of what a Multiplayer game is, or is supposed to be. At its most basest level it has multiple players in the same game environment, which is a given as that's the only way they'd be able to game together. But the description goes on to encapsulate the fact that these players either play with or against each other, there is nothing in any description of any multiplayer game of people playing alone. It's just not what these games are designed for. If I can play Online Monopoly against a computer opponent then why the hell am I online?
And that's why I back the claim that soloers are selfish. There are a million and one single player games, yet people come into multiplayer games and start whining and bitching because their solo play style isn't supported until it finally is. They can't simply decide that the game or genre isn't for them, they have to force change, until we end up with what we have now. Shallow, soulless MMO's with very little in the way of grouping, a rather bland quest grind to max level that can be done in a couple of weeks, and a genre that's rapidly dying.
Community and the working together toward a main goal was what kept people playing the original MMO's, but now everything has become solo play these new MMO's last little more than a few months before becoming ghost towns and switching to FTP.
You are missing the main point - unless the mmo is a completely static world, where nothing is looted, no currency is generated, no spawns are fought over etc etc then any activity like that is affecting your game world.
In an average MMO we probably only directly interact with a fraction of the entire servers playerbase. Does that mean those other people don't have an effect on the server and your gameplay experience? Its nonesense to think that.
In short - there is no way to play an average MMO like a single player game as you claim soloers play. The game world experience is dictated by other players actions. Have you ever played a single player game where another player suddenly appears and kills you, kill steals you, underbids you, undercuts you, who earlier killed the rare spawn mob you were hoping to kill when you logged on, trains you, devalues your currency by farming etc etc etc.
Your argument just does not stack up.
To be honest, you give a weak counter argument.
In a nutshell, your trying to equate a game experience with a group of people, exploring or questing, to being undercut at the auction house. They are NOTHING alike, at all.
There is no reason for soloers to play MMOs, unless its to show off thier uber gear...lol.. because other than that, they dont want to be bothered with people.
Comments
I have always found it hilarious when people cite the second M in MMO as proof that the genre is supposed to be about group play.
How many of those people write detailed backstories, in depth personas, and engage in meaningful Roleplay in a genre with RP in its description ?
When all has been said and done, more will have been said than done.
I find it funny how you guys keep trying to turn MMO into a solo online game, its pathetic and transparent.
You already admitted the devs nerfed you, so obviously you were NOT playing the game as intended. Actually, you were giving other players a bad experience, and enjoying it. How is that playing solo?
What your going on about, is the ability to grief players, because you have already admitted you are not playing the game SOLO, you were a pirate, and as a pirate your whole game experience depends apon griefing other players. Which is NOT SOLO.....HAHA!!!!
I don't think the meaning of MMO needs a redefinition. It refers to a game, that is played online, by many people. As stated earlier whether cooperative play is included is an option not a requirement.
In most MMO's, there are fundamental advantages to those who cooperate over those who do not. There is no requirement to pressure people to cooperate when those fundamental advantages exist. These advantages are additional to any enforced or scripted advantages which are deliberately added in by development.
As for EvE and the developers nerfing alliance war declarations it remains arguable that the changes were in response to complaints by alliances in the game who preferred the developers to step in rather then for them to defend themselves. It remains arguable that in a sandbox game, the alliances should have dealt with Privateers both militarily, logistically and diplomatically in the spirit of the game but instead chose a easy option, a cheat if you like on the Adapt or Die.
The title of this thread is "The Group Play vs Solo Play" so in the context of this thread, pirating outside of a group would fit the definition of solo play.
In your opinion. Which is the opinion taken by all soloers to justify their gameplay style. The thing is, once you stick that second M in there it becomes a game that involves fighting with or against a fellow player. That's what a multiplayer game is. Name one that isn't - excluding the recent batch of MMO's of course. Hell, just do a search on Google for multiplayer games. What do you get? Online games for two players, play games online with your friends, etc.
Why does the definition of Multiplayer change when applied to an MMO? Simple answer: It shouldn't. But recent development has taken it that way. We need to shift back to a group focus if we want to see an MMO last more than a few months before hitting FTP, just like almost every release since WoW.
I don't get what you are trying to say. In the first paragraph you are arguing my point for me. I have been saying fighting against other players satisfies the definition of multiplayer so we're in agreement.
The definition of multiplayer
"a mode of play involving more than one player at one time in a computer or video game "
Dictionary Link
If we accept that the above is a correct definition of the term multiplayer then the following activities are a legitimate part of an mmo as they satisfy the the criteria (playing, more then one player, simultaneously, computer game)
- killing an npc solo or grouped
- killing another player solo or grouped
- farming a resource solo or grouped
- trading
- hunting or being hunted by another player solo or grouped
- potential possible interaction by being logged in and causing another player to modify his / her behaviour because of that.
You are probably going to argue that more then one person refers to that person being in the same location or the players fighting each other but thats a simplistic view. All players who are actively playing in the average mmo are interacting with each other by competing for mobs, equipment, currency, groups.
And that is the correct definition of a multiplayer game. Multiple players at one time. Now tell me a multiplayer game, excluding the current solo-infested MMO's, that allow you to solo your way through. Even wiki has this to say about it:
"In a variety of different multiplayer game types, players may individually compete against two or more human contestants, work cooperatively with a human partner(s) in order to achieve a common goal, supervise activities of other players, or engage in a game type that incorporates any possible combination of the above."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer_video_game
From online Monopoly to Battlefield 3, they all involve playing with or against another player. Just because an MMO allows you to solo doesn't mean that's the point of an MMO, soloing was added as something to do during downtime, it used to be very hard to solo. Now the pendulum has swung the other way and it's very easy to solo and very hard to get anything involving multiplayer. Top example: SW:TOR has one flashpoint every 10 levels, two or three group instances every planet.
Excluding the current MMO's? All the old MMO's. UO you didn't need to group, it was advised but not needed. EQ you didn't need to group. Almost half the classes could solo to endgame, it took a little bit longer but not much.
The point of an MMO is entertainment. Thats it. Neither grouping, nor soloing, nor trading, nor gathering, nor dungeons... none of that is the point of an MMO, they are just things you CAN, not MUST do in an MMO.
Two classes could solo to endgame in EQ; Druid and Necromancer. A Bard also had a good chance, but that wasn't at all easy. That's hardly half the classes, plus it took a hell of a lot longer not 'a little bit' due to the amount of downtime between fights. The only real success in that case for soloing was the Necromancer, as he could harvest mana and also lifetap to keep health up, whereas the Druid had to stop to regen mana.
It wasn't until later expansions that other classes could start to solo and even then it was a nightmare. I managed to solo for a while with an Enchanter using charm but it was an absolute nightmare and really not worth the effort. One resist or a mob taking a bad path and you could say goodbye to all the XP you'd made up to that point. The Bard got easier in later expansions with the inclusion of /melody and areas allowing swarm kiting, but that was dangerous too. For all classes you were really better off in a group.
That said, my point was about the current crop of MMO's being a solo path to endgame, not the ability to perhaps solo in other MMO's if you don't mind taking a few extra months to level up and restrict yourself to certain locations. There is no challenge in modern MMO's, you fight multiple mobs at once, you regen your health and mana in seconds once the fight is over, if you even lose any health during the fight. Why, with that level of difficulty, would you want to create a group? You can do it alone.
And that's not how MMO's are meant to be developed, they're supposed to be multiplayer games, it's there in the title. As I've been trying to say, every other multiplayer game requires you to play with or against other players, MMO's are moving so far away from that they're becoming little more than single player games with chat rooms. Is that what you really want from an MMO?
Two classes could solo to endgame in EQ; Druid and Necromancer.
Druid, Necro, Bard, Beastlord, SK, Monk, ranger could and frequently did solo to end game. And it was longer, I stated that, but no it wasn't a hell of a lot longer. Bards, before they were nerfed were better than druids and almost as good as necro's - charm, fear, swarm kiting ftw.
Again it wasn't hard, just longer. You had to watch the wandering mobs, and learn to kite for most of those classes but definately do-able and once you got the hang of it, pretty easy. Melody wasn't added till years later, strap on drums, fire up selo's and dot everyone, have a charm and fear for the just in case moments.
But yes for all classes grouping was better.
For modern MMO's there is just as much challenge as you make. In EQ and even con was a good fight. In WoW 5 levels higher is a good fight. The numbers are just arbitrary, you find the mob that gives the challenge. You run the dungeon that gives the challenge with or without a group. So if you ignore the color or level indicator and just go by which mobs/area is harder - there is no difference.
They are multiplayer games. But multiplayer in MMO's has never, ever ever meant MUST BE GROUPED. It has only EVER meant can interact. Thats it.
Your comment about MMO's being chat rooms is funny. My very first day in EQ, right when I ksed someone (thought I was helping him, yes I was a noob) thats exactly what I remember people saying about it then. Welcome to EQ, a glorified chat room.
What I want is entertainment and the chance to interact, the more ways to interact the better. I absolutely do not want anything forced in any way shape or form.
What is being forced? That description irritates me for some reason. Let's say, for example, a company creates a game with content that really needs groups to get through it at a fair pace, while solo is possible but incredibly hard. Are they forcing you to group? Are they forcing you to play the game in a certain way? Are they forcing you to play the game at all?
That's the thing that tweaks me. Let's say I play Mass Effect, am I being forced to play solo? If so, who do I cry out to? Do I tell the developers to change it so I can co-op play through with a friend? Am I even being forced to play solo? No. I can decide not to play it, I can seek entertainment elsewhere.
Putting the word 'forced' in front of something, i.e. forced grouping, makes it seem like you have no choice. But you do, you have the choice not to play it. If an MMO with a focus on grouping doesn't interest you, go elsewhere, find one of the many solo MMO's or.. better yet.. try a single player game. But beware, in those single player games they have forced soloing.
Just wanted to comment on this. I played a Bard before Kunark was even released and the only place they could solo was in the Karana's, though soloing Cyclops was quite fun. The Monk soloing? Hah! No.. I played a Monk for years, I went from Kunark era after quitting the Bard to Plane of Time in PoP and I can tell you now, their solo ability was laughable. And I had good equipment, too.
It says "a mode of play involving more than one player at one time" .
It does not say "a mode of cooperative play involving more than one player at one time".
The only requirement based on the definition is for both players to be logged on to play at the same time. Your link and quote support what I am saying.
The point of an MMO in a general sense is to have a common area for players to play in. The specific point of an MMO is at the discretion of the developer and specific to the game play set up.
In your opinion MMO's which don't require players to group are bad.
In my opinion MMO's which don't provide both solo and group based game play are bad. In my opinion Everquest was a pretty terrific game, it allowed both solo play with a trade off on group desirabilty and still required grouping for things like epics, raiding with a good balance of tradeoff on solo classes vs group desirabilty (Clerics couldn't solo well but were loved in groups, Necros could solo like gods but were not as desirable).
The WoW method of pick any class and solo is not my cup of tea but WoW vs EQ content difficulty is way out there.
In my version of a perfect game the most amazing items in the game are attainable by all players, either solo or in huge uber guilds. Either through trade, time or effort (questing) but it would need to be in terms of if a guild of 10 people takes 3 days played to obtain Staff of Uberness then it should require 1 person to spend 30 days played to obtain the same item through questing solo. There should not be case for most items where they become unobtainable simply because of preferred style of play.
If "with" was synonymous with just "along side" then I could see that. MMOs have never been about parallel play.
Simply, solo play should be harder than coop or group play, some of the things in game should only be able to be completed by groups and a few things should only be able to be accomplished by raids. Content just like a pyramid, solo at the bottom, group middle, raid top.
My problem with today's MMO's is most everything besides the level grind is trivialized. When I began to game, there were viable alternatives to the level grind and the best gear was raid gear, followed closely by crafted gear. Crafting was not trivialized, it took time, resources and cooperation with other types of crafters to make the top level items.
Maps were hand drawn affairs or crude online affairs, exploration was also part of the game, not like today where the companion guide is released the same day as the game...
Housing and guilds we also part of the mix and even reputation played its part in filling out the game.
To me there is a place for both types of play, but give me a world to explore and own a piece of, just not a game where all there is to do is grind to max level in 3-4 weeks.
Saying MMOs are not about the invisible actions of other players in the game is like saying the invisible actions of chinese industry is not important to American economics and industry.
You're taking the most obvious point of a multiplayer game and twisting it so it supports your claim. Of course the requirement of a multiplayer game is for multiple players to be in the same game world, how are they going to be able to play together otherwise? At it's most basic a multiplayer game requires people to be in the same game world, sure. But does that mean they then should ignore each other and play it as a single player game? Why even create a multiplayer game in that case?
Why? Because a multiplayer game isn't a single player game and isn't meant to be played as a single player game. It's a multiplayer game, multiple players working with or against each other. Read the description.
Exactly, and the part where you say "But does that mean they then should ignore each other and play it as a single player game? Why even create a multiplayer game in that case?"
Thats what I dont get either, and I have never seen a soloer give any good answer. This is why I call soloers selfish.
Because really, all they want, is a solo game with a big chat room, so they dont get bored. They dont give a damn if it ruins the fun for people looking to actually play the game with other people.
What makes them really bad, is they go into every game being developed, and complain so much about any percieved "forced grouping", that changes are almost always made in thier favor, they are a very vocal group, and yet so small.
Soloers are selfish, nuff said.
amen to that bro..
We were discussing the meaning of the definition of what an MMO is, no twisting required.
As for whether they should ignore each other, or group or whatever its entirely dependent on the gameplay, gameplay and mechanics being the factors that influence whether players interact, not whether or not its an mmo.
Every time a player loots an item, generates a unit of currency, kills a rare spawning mob, buys or sells that person is changing the game for every other person in it. The change can be negative or positive and so it fits into your requirement of "multiple players working with or against each other".
@ the above post claiming soloers are selfish, do you not see the irony in that statement when your stance is against soloing and seems likely you would like everyone to play MMO's like you do or not play at all.
I believe we were talking about the definition of what a Multiplayer game is, or is supposed to be. At its most basest level it has multiple players in the same game environment, which is a given as that's the only way they'd be able to game together. But the description goes on to encapsulate the fact that these players either play with or against each other, there is nothing in any description of any multiplayer game of people playing alone. It's just not what these games are designed for. If I can play Online Monopoly against a computer opponent then why the hell am I online?
And that's why I back the claim that soloers are selfish. There are a million and one single player games, yet people come into multiplayer games and start whining and bitching because their solo play style isn't supported until it finally is. They can't simply decide that the game or genre isn't for them, they have to force change, until we end up with what we have now. Shallow, soulless MMO's with very little in the way of grouping, a rather bland quest grind to max level that can be done in a couple of weeks, and a genre that's rapidly dying.
Community and the working together toward a main goal was what kept people playing the original MMO's, but now everything has become solo play these new MMO's last little more than a few months before becoming ghost towns and switching to FTP.
Nope thats not whats happening at all. Very few soloers actually complain about a games solo friendliness or lack of it. We just don't play the game.
The developers want us in their games because there is a crap load ton of us. We don't have to say a thing, we just play the games that give us what we want.
The developers are coming to us. We are not coming to them.
And since the games are being developed for us, the genre is for us.
I would say that anyone who demands the genre change to them is selfish - so you. We just play the games we like. You are the one complaining that you aren`t getting what you want - that is the very definition of selfish.
Games today are just as deep, or shallow and soulfull or soulless as the old games. They also havea crap ton of grouing in them. But the grouping is for pvp, bg's, dungeons... You can (and a tonne of people do) completely group from beginning to max level in WoW. You get more xp, more loot, more coin, better gear by doing so. So yes there is a lot of grouping - just not for most quests.
The quests are better than old quests. Yes there still are lots of kill and fed ex. But there are a lot of fun ones now too.
The genre is more popular, bigger than ever before. More people, more money, more games, more developers, more being developed. By every objective measurable data point the genre is the exact opposite of dying.
So there is still lots of grouping, more choice than in most (not all but most) old games in how you play, more games to choose from, more people to group with and you still complain. Maybe the genre is not for you.
And soloers still make great community. We help, we communicate, we even group from time to time. Istaria has a great community, one of the best out there, and the game is almost completely soloable.
Grouping does not guarantee a great community. The only thing that does guarantee a great community is like-mindedness. Old games had communties just as bad (or good depending on your pov) as today's games. Anyone who disagrees, just remember EQ had to implement a play nice policy because people were such jerks. If they weren't jerks they wouldn't have had to implement the policy: scams, ksing, ninja loot, griefing, delibertatly finishing mobs so that others couldn't advance, camps... people were jerks. Yes there were a lot of nice ones, just like today, but there were a lot of jerks... just like today.
You are missing the main point - unless the mmo is a completely static world, where nothing is looted, no currency is generated, no spawns are fought over etc etc then any activity like that is affecting your game world.
In an average MMO we probably only directly interact with a fraction of the entire servers playerbase. Does that mean those other people don't have an effect on the server and your gameplay experience? Its nonesense to think that.
In short - there is no way to play an average MMO like a single player game as you claim soloers play. The game world experience is dictated by other players actions. Have you ever played a single player game where another player suddenly appears and kills you, kill steals you, underbids you, undercuts you, who earlier killed the rare spawn mob you were hoping to kill when you logged on, trains you, devalues your currency by farming etc etc etc.
Your argument just does not stack up.
To be honest, you give a weak counter argument.
In a nutshell, your trying to equate a game experience with a group of people, exploring or questing, to being undercut at the auction house. They are NOTHING alike, at all.
There is no reason for soloers to play MMOs, unless its to show off thier uber gear...lol.. because other than that, they dont want to be bothered with people.