Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

The 'Group Play vs Solo Play in an MMO' Thread

1525355575886

Comments

  • RefMinorRefMinor MyTownPosts: 3,452Member
    Originally posted by UsualSuspect


    Originally posted by Beartosser
    MMOers may come in all shapes and sizes, but on the sliding scale between extravert and introvert, the demographics of people who play these games skews decidedly towards introversion. MMO's are incorporating more solo play because that's what the majority of the playerbase wants.
    Unfortunately for both personality types, there exists a push pull relationship within this genre in terms of wants and needs. I'm surprized the devs haven't tried out either a solo based MMO, or even a solo designated server within an existing one. A little compartmentalization could go a long way towards ending the acrimony.

    If you're going to state demographics you're going to have to show some colorful bargraphs, pie charts, trend fluctations and at least half a dozen flow charts. Or, more seriously, something that proves your point. Just saying it doesn't make it true.

    And devs have made a solo based MMO, it's called Star Wars: The Old Republic.

     

    I am stealing the gag from someone else, but haven't they got personal servers for everyone over at SWTOR
  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member

    Originally posted by Beartosser

    MMOers may come in all shapes and sizes, but on the sliding scale between extravert and introvert, the demographics of people who play these games skews decidedly towards introversion. MMO's are incorporating more solo play because that's what the majority of the playerbase wants.

    Unfortunately for both personality types, there exists a push pull relationship within this genre in terms of wants and needs. I'm surprized the devs haven't tried out either a solo based MMO, or even a solo designated server within an existing one. A little compartmentalization could go a long way towards ending the acrimony.

    Exactly.  These game companies have already done the research and make games designed to appeal to the largest demographic.  In this case, it's soloers.  There just aren't enough paying groupers to make it worthwhile to make a game catering directly to them.  Welcome to the wild world of business.

    That said though, compartmentalizing wouldn't really change anything because, based on statistics, grouping games probably wouldn't exist at all.  There's just no money in it.  Add to the fact that so many groupers are convinced, wrongly, that these games are "all about grouping" and anyone not grouping is doing it wrong, you're never going to solve the problem.  Everyone has to group or they're being bad players, in the view of a lot of fanatical groupers.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect CardiffPosts: 1,243Member

    Originally posted by Cephus404

    Exactly.  These game companies have already done the research and make games designed to appeal to the largest demographic.

    This is probably a good reason why so many of these games fail. If you're doing market research and trying to find the right formula that will appeal to consumers, then your goal is money and not making a game for the sake of making something you want to see come to life.

    Like original EQ was born because the developers wanted to see their text MUD's in graphical format, so they went about creating it. There was no real question of whether this would appeal to X or Y, they did it because they wanted to play it and knew others would too.

    Now? Most developers look at exactly what you said, market research, demographics, etc, then make a game that they think will net them the biggest amount of income. Hence the mass of WoW clones. It's so clinical and designed to sell that most of these games just lack the soul that a game made for game's sake actually has.

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member

    Originally posted by UsualSuspect

    This is probably a good reason why so many of these games fail. If you're doing market research and trying to find the right formula that will appeal to consumers, then your goal is money and not making a game for the sake of making something you want to see come to life.

    Like original EQ was born because the developers wanted to see their text MUD's in graphical format, so they went about creating it. There was no real question of whether this would appeal to X or Y, they did it because they wanted to play it and knew others would too.

    Now? Most developers look at exactly what you said, market research, demographics, etc, then make a game that they think will net them the biggest amount of income. Hence the mass of WoW clones. It's so clinical and designed to sell that most of these games just lack the soul that a game made for game's sake actually has.

    That's a mythology that comes along after the fact.  They were in it to make money too.  They had bills to pay and mouths to feed and whether they were trying to make something come to life or not, their primary motivator was cash, the same as it is for every business on the planet.  They weren't doing charity, they were running a for-profit company.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect CardiffPosts: 1,243Member

    Originally posted by Cephus404

    That's a mythology that comes along after the fact.  They were in it to make money too.  They had bills to pay and mouths to feed and whether they were trying to make something come to life or not, their primary motivator was cash, the same as it is for every business on the planet.  They weren't doing charity, they were running a for-profit company.

    Oh sure, there's still money to be made, which is why they make it as best they can rather than 'acceptable', but it wasn't about flowcharts and market research originally. Games were made by gamers - now everyone is coming out of University with Computer Science degrees and jumping into the business for the money rather than for the love of creating something original. Big business has smothered originality, not a lot of original games coming out anymore, they're all based on a game that came before it.

    The only company I can think of that still create games because they love them is, I think, IO Interactive? The company that created the Hitman games. I've seen interviews and stuff with them and they're genuinely excited about creating an idea and seeing it come together, rather than the EA style of being excited about a product that's going to rake in loads of cash.

  • SkurzillaSkurzilla Duluth, GAPosts: 3Member

    I have a question for you all.  Maybe this is a stereotype, but do all WOW players not like sports games? 

    When you have a minute check out my Kickstarter project Touchdown Wars.  It is a Football MMO.

    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/138756426/touchdown-wars-where-there-is-no-off-season-0

  • IkonoclastiaIkonoclastia SydneyPosts: 182Member

    Originally posted by UsualSuspect

    Originally posted by Beartosser

    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.

     

  • AdalwulffAdalwulff Sacramento, CAPosts: 1,152Member

    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

    Originally posted by UsualSuspect

    Originally posted by Beartosser

    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.

    image
  • RookedRooked Toronto, ONPosts: 2Member

    Historically MMO game design has attacked the group vs solo dicotomy by making the level grind a solo affair and endgame content group based.  In an earlier post (I did not read all 100+ pages) someone referred to this as chickening out by not following through on the solo aspect through endgame.  However, current themepark games have further introduced mechanisms for solo play in the endgame such as dungeon/raid queuing systems as well as daily quests.  And while the former of these gives the illusion of 'group play' it really isn't.  I don't think that these queuing systems are necesarily poor design, in fact I think they were a clever idea.  The problem as I see it is that they introduced them with another design decision, that being cross server queuing.  In order to foster true group play dynamics there needs to be a sense of community.  Having cross server queuing destroys this possibility by further pushing the player into a state of annonymity.

    In order to build a sense of community players need to be able to recognize one another and know who else is a 'team player' and who is not.  If MMO's (especially themepark) can break down this barrier then some of their previous design decisions would start to work better to break down the dicotomy.

    I'm very interested to see if GW2's approach of server vs server can actually address this issue.

  • IkonoclastiaIkonoclastia SydneyPosts: 182Member

    Originally posted by Adalwulff

    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia


    Originally posted by UsualSuspect


    Originally posted by Beartosser

    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. 

     

  • Ashen_XAshen_X PLEASANT HILL, CAPosts: 363Member

    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.

  • AdalwulffAdalwulff Sacramento, CAPosts: 1,152Member

    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

    Originally posted by Adalwulff

    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

    Originally posted by UsualSuspect

    Originally posted by Beartosser

    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!!!!

    image
  • IkonoclastiaIkonoclastia SydneyPosts: 182Member

    Originally posted by Adalwulff

    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia


    Originally posted by Adalwulff


    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia


    Originally posted by UsualSuspect


    Originally posted by Beartosser

    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. 

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect CardiffPosts: 1,243Member

    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

    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.

  • IkonoclastiaIkonoclastia SydneyPosts: 182Member
    Originally posted by UsualSuspect
    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

    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 "

    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. 

     

     

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect CardiffPosts: 1,243Member
    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

    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.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,290Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by UsualSuspect
    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

    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.

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect CardiffPosts: 1,243Member
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    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? 

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,290Member Uncommon

    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. 

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect CardiffPosts: 1,243Member
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    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.

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect CardiffPosts: 1,243Member
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    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.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,290Member Uncommon
    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

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,290Member Uncommon
    Err meant north and south ro. Loio of course wasn't out pre kunark haha

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • IkonoclastiaIkonoclastia SydneyPosts: 182Member
    Originally posted by UsualSuspect
    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

    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.

    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.

  • pierthpierth San Antonio, TXPosts: 1,503Member
    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia
    Originally posted by UsualSuspect
    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

    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.

    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.