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

1555658606186

Comments

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

    A multiplayer game only means you have opportunity to interact - thats it, nothing more. 

    Really? People are still holding onto this belief? If you only have the opportunity to interact, that's called a chat room. A multiplayer game involves two or more players working against or with each other. Name me one multiplayer game that simply gives the opportunity for you to interact. And count MMO's out of that, they're the problem, not the example.

    Let's try a list here:

    Multiplayer Pool - "What do you mean it's my shot? I'm not here to play against you.".

    Multiplayer Blood Bowl - "No, my team isn't moving, I just want to chat if thats okay?"

    Multiplayer Call of Duty - "No! You can't shoot me, I don't want to fight today.".

    The list goes on and on.

    A chat room doesn't have a game portion.  A chat room doesn't let you buy/sell, craft, take orders, auction, group, quest, go on dungeon runs, pvp, random drive by heals, buffs, kills... so no, your wrong.  There are many many many forms of interaction in an MMO, grouping is just one.

    There are many games in pool, some have teams, some are solo, sometimes its just a bunch of friends hanging out.

    And in some games there is a very limited form of interaction.  But MMO's have many many forms of interaction.

    Keep trying though.

    edit - in any one specific game, the rules of the game may dictate how interaction occurs.  That may be just taking turns, it may be something else.  But MMO's have many different forms of interaction and all are equally viable.

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

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

    A multiplayer game only means you have opportunity to interact - thats it, nothing more. 

    Really? People are still holding onto this belief? If you only have the opportunity to interact, that's called a chat room. A multiplayer game involves two or more players working against or with each other. Name me one multiplayer game that simply gives the opportunity for you to interact. And count MMO's out of that, they're the problem, not the example.

    Let's try a list here:

    Multiplayer Pool - "What do you mean it's my shot? I'm not here to play against you.".

    Multiplayer Blood Bowl - "No, my team isn't moving, I just want to chat if thats okay?"

    Multiplayer Call of Duty - "No! You can't shoot me, I don't want to fight today.".

    The list goes on and on.

    The games you listed are all pure adversarial games (you directly compete against another person). 

    Try

    Sailing, Rally Racing, Mountain Climbing, Picking up girls in bars... there are tons of things we do, were we don't directly interact but we are in competition.

  • AdalwulffAdalwulff Sacramento, CAPosts: 1,152Member
    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

    Anyone find it wierd how fantasy fiction, on which most MMO's are based, usually have a single hero or small group of hero's and the fictional content is usually a single soloable (by the hero) or small groupable (by the small group) villian but in MMO's the expectation by a lot of people is in game villians must only be destroyable with  large numbers of people.

    Pretty bizarre.

    @Usual Suspect, you are having a hard time understanding because your definition of multiplayer in MMO's is seriously flawed.

    You can do heaps of things solo in the real world, does that make everything you do in the real world by yourself single player too?  If I go speeding down the road in my car, can I discount everyone else on the road because I'm in the car by myself?. 

    Your assertion that doing something solo in a game world in which many other players are also doing things in the same game world, somehow makes whatever they are doing inconsequtial to other players is total nonsense.

     

    And you guys claim we are trying to tell you soloers how to play MMOs...HAHA!

    Look at you, first you tell usualsuspect his definition of MMO is wrong, when it isnt, because there isnt one definition for all people.

    Then you equate a MMO to a movie???? So game devs should redesign thier MMOs after movies, are you serious???

    Then you try and equate real life with an MMO, by driving a car down the road? Sorry but your making one strawman after another.

    How about you stick to the topic, can you do that?

    image
  • AdalwulffAdalwulff Sacramento, CAPosts: 1,152Member
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by UsualSuspect
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    A multiplayer game only means you have opportunity to interact - thats it, nothing more. 

    Really? People are still holding onto this belief? If you only have the opportunity to interact, that's called a chat room. A multiplayer game involves two or more players working against or with each other. Name me one multiplayer game that simply gives the opportunity for you to interact. And count MMO's out of that, they're the problem, not the example.

    Let's try a list here:

    Multiplayer Pool - "What do you mean it's my shot? I'm not here to play against you.".

    Multiplayer Blood Bowl - "No, my team isn't moving, I just want to chat if thats okay?"

    Multiplayer Call of Duty - "No! You can't shoot me, I don't want to fight today.".

    The list goes on and on.

    A chat room doesn't have a game portion.  A chat room doesn't let you buy/sell, craft, take orders, auction, group, quest, go on dungeon runs, pvp, random drive by heals, buffs, kills... so no, your wrong.  There are many many many forms of interaction in an MMO, grouping is just one.

    There are many games in pool, some have teams, some are solo, sometimes its just a bunch of friends hanging out.

    And in some games there is a very limited form of interaction.  But MMO's have many many forms of interaction.

    Keep trying though.

    edit - in any one specific game, the rules of the game may dictate how interaction occurs.  That may be just taking turns, it may be something else.  But MMO's have many different forms of interaction and all are equally viable.

     

    You just contridicted yourself big time!

    You guys were just telling us that you have no time for- "buy/sell, craft, take orders, auction, group, quest, go on dungeon runs, pvp, random drive by heals, buffs, kills.." , all those things require other players!

    Remember that? You cant be bothered with other players, because you have no time, you need to do everything solo becaues dealing with other players is a hassle. Those are your words.

    Now you claim that you are doing dungeon runs with other players? Taking orders and crafting with other players???

    Make up your mind man, you keep changing your tune with each post, kinda wishy-washy and transparent.

    image
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,290Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Adalwulff
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by UsualSuspect
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    A multiplayer game only means you have opportunity to interact - thats it, nothing more. 

    Really? People are still holding onto this belief? If you only have the opportunity to interact, that's called a chat room. A multiplayer game involves two or more players working against or with each other. Name me one multiplayer game that simply gives the opportunity for you to interact. And count MMO's out of that, they're the problem, not the example.

    Let's try a list here:

    Multiplayer Pool - "What do you mean it's my shot? I'm not here to play against you.".

    Multiplayer Blood Bowl - "No, my team isn't moving, I just want to chat if thats okay?"

    Multiplayer Call of Duty - "No! You can't shoot me, I don't want to fight today.".

    The list goes on and on.

    A chat room doesn't have a game portion.  A chat room doesn't let you buy/sell, craft, take orders, auction, group, quest, go on dungeon runs, pvp, random drive by heals, buffs, kills... so no, your wrong.  There are many many many forms of interaction in an MMO, grouping is just one.

    There are many games in pool, some have teams, some are solo, sometimes its just a bunch of friends hanging out.

    And in some games there is a very limited form of interaction.  But MMO's have many many forms of interaction.

    Keep trying though.

    edit - in any one specific game, the rules of the game may dictate how interaction occurs.  That may be just taking turns, it may be something else.  But MMO's have many different forms of interaction and all are equally viable.

     

    You just contridicted yourself big time!

    You guys were just telling us that you have no time for- "buy/sell, craft, take orders, auction, group, quest, go on dungeon runs, pvp, random drive by heals, buffs, kills.." , all those things require other players!

    Remember that? You cant be bothered with other players, because you have no time, you need to do everything solo becaues dealing with other players is a hassle. Those are your words.

    Now you claim that you are doing dungeon runs with other players? Taking orders and crafting with other players???

    Make up your mind man, you keep changing your tune with each post, kinda wishy-washy and transparent.

    Um once again no.  No one stated they don't have time for that.  Some have stated they don't have to for other people's schedules, but many of those things can be done on the individuals schedule.  So no your just wrong, again.

    As people have stated repeatedly, they do like interaction with other players, however they want to pick and choose how that interaction occurs.  And much of that does not require grouping.

    You need to go back to grade school for reading comprehension.

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

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

    You just contridicted yourself big time!

    You guys were just telling us that you have no time for- "buy/sell, craft, take orders, auction, group, quest, go on dungeon runs, pvp, random drive by heals, buffs, kills.." , all those things require other players!

    Remember that? You cant be bothered with other players, because you have no time, you need to do everything solo becaues dealing with other players is a hassle. Those are your words.

    Now you claim that you are doing dungeon runs with other players? Taking orders and crafting with other players???

    Make up your mind man, you keep changing your tune with each post, kinda wishy-washy and transparent.

    With the whole mess that was SW:TOR I've come to a conclusion. A solo-centric game will never work, it'll be consumed just like a single player game - people will play it, do what needs to be done, then move on leaving the place a barren wasteland. Actually, that reminds me of that quote from The Matrix - "Humans are like a virus, a plague. You soloers are a cancer of this genre.". Okay, that last bit was modified, but anyway, it just reminded me of that quote. Moving on...!

    What I was going to say is that, as much as they hate it, soloers need group content, not for themselves, but for the games whole ambience. People didn't need other people in SW:TOR so the chat channels were mostly silent, there was no need to help anyone nearby, trading was pointless because everyone could craft whatever they needed. It was a single player game dressed up as an MMO.

    In MMO's with a larger focus on group play, the players are working together, the groupers do their group thing while chatting and making the chat channels come alive. Soloers can carry on with their own thing too, but because of the activity required between players they get a more community feel to the game, people will be gathered in areas chatting or preparing to move out to a dungeon, etc.

    In a strictly solo game, everyone would be wandering back and fore doing their own thing, mostly ignoring each other. That community feel would be missing. It's like real life, people walk around doing their own thing, but you always see groups of people, be it a parent and children shopping or an old couple discussing the weather. If everyone was ignoring everyone else, could you imagine how weird it would be?

    So that's how I see the case with the quoted post. He's confused because he needs group content, even if he doesn't want to play it, it's a requirement to make a thriving community. Without it, we end up with games like SW:TOR - empty, soulless, silent and decidedly lonely. A game that is considering F2P within 6 months of opening, despite having cost over $100 million to create.

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

    You just contridicted yourself big time!

    You guys were just telling us that you have no time for- "buy/sell, craft, take orders, auction, group, quest, go on dungeon runs, pvp, random drive by heals, buffs, kills.." , all those things require other players!

    Remember that? You cant be bothered with other players, because you have no time, you need to do everything solo becaues dealing with other players is a hassle. Those are your words.

    Now you claim that you are doing dungeon runs with other players? Taking orders and crafting with other players???

    Make up your mind man, you keep changing your tune with each post, kinda wishy-washy and transparent.

    With the whole mess that was SW:TOR I've come to a conclusion. A solo-centric game will never work, it'll be consumed just like a single player game - people will play it, do what needs to be done, then move on leaving the place a barren wasteland. Actually, that reminds me of that quote from The Matrix - "Humans are like a virus, a plague. You soloers are a cancer of this genre.". Okay, that last bit was modified, but anyway, it just reminded me of that quote. Moving on...!

    What I was going to say is that, as much as they hate it, soloers need group content, not for themselves, but for the games whole ambience. People didn't need other people in SW:TOR so the chat channels were mostly silent, there was no need to help anyone nearby, trading was pointless because everyone could craft whatever they needed. It was a single player game dressed up as an MMO.

    In MMO's with a larger focus on group play, the players are working together, the groupers do their group thing while chatting and making the chat channels come alive. Soloers can carry on with their own thing too, but because of the activity required between players they get a more community feel to the game, people will be gathered in areas chatting or preparing to move out to a dungeon, etc.

    In a strictly solo game, everyone would be wandering back and fore doing their own thing, mostly ignoring each other. That community feel would be missing. It's like real life, people walk around doing their own thing, but you always see groups of people, be it a parent and children shopping or an old couple discussing the weather. If everyone was ignoring everyone else, could you imagine how weird it would be?

    So that's how I see the case with the quoted post. He's confused because he needs group content, even if he doesn't want to play it, it's a requirement to make a thriving community. Without it, we end up with games like SW:TOR - empty, soulless, silent and decidedly lonely. A game that is considering F2P within 6 months of opening, despite having cost over $100 million to create.

    Now this I will agree with, in part.  A game that is too solo-centric is IMO too limiting.  Swtor, was too solocentric, it was also far too linear, had some pretty bug pvp, and had no real end-game.  I"m not sure which one will have the greatest impact, however it's still too early to see if it did indeed fail, at last call it still had 1.3 million subs (yes I know that was still within the 6 month mark, but there are no other meaningfull measures to go by yet).

    However a game that allows people to solo to end-game is not necessarily a solo-centric game.  Again many could and did solo to end game in EQ.

     

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

  • rdrakkenrdrakken Gotham, FLPosts: 426Member

    The very idea that a topic like this is still raging on after so many years points to the very heart of the problem with this genre.

    It is stagnated with closed minds which is why the games themselves havent evolved much...both players AND developers.

    This entire issue could be resolved easily if a game maker would just stop being lazy and use the tools at hand. Scaled content would make a game solo, group AND raid friendly. It can be done, it can be done RIGHT and there have even been top developers that have states so at the game developers conference several times, with examples of HOW it can be done right.

    No company, large or small should be making an MMO that targets ANY one group of players. Doesnt matter if its solo, group, pvp, pve, raid, elite...

    Any game made to target a FEW players will limit their income AND the longevity of the game itself. A game that can scale to the player is the single best way to go.

    player is soloing a mob, the player is level 5, the mob is level 5 and has the skills that matches up best to the lvl 5 class the player belongs to. If a mage, the mob gains a skill set to be challenge a mage.

    If the lvl 5 mage is grouped with a lvl 5 cleric, the mob scales upward to best match a group of 2 with a healer.

    if its a full group of level 5 players, the mob because elite and gains a skillset to match a group.

    That is just one of many examples given by people like Raph Koster, a vet MMO maker(whom I dont even like BTW) that made UO, SWG and EQ2 as how to create an MMO that is for EVERY type of player and not only that, but a game that will remain 100% playable no matter what level you become...no more making 10% of a game for levels 1-20 that may NEVER be played by that character again...100% of the game remains a playable option for every character.

    Stop thinking in terms of the past...as long as the players think in terms of the past, the game makers will never be forced to making games truly new...for the future.

  • silvermembersilvermember saint paul, MNPosts: 531Member
    Originally posted by UsualSuspect
    Originally posted by Adalwulff

    You just contridicted yourself big time!

    You guys were just telling us that you have no time for- "buy/sell, craft, take orders, auction, group, quest, go on dungeon runs, pvp, random drive by heals, buffs, kills.." , all those things require other players!

    Remember that? You cant be bothered with other players, because you have no time, you need to do everything solo becaues dealing with other players is a hassle. Those are your words.

    Now you claim that you are doing dungeon runs with other players? Taking orders and crafting with other players???

    Make up your mind man, you keep changing your tune with each post, kinda wishy-washy and transparent.

    With the whole mess that was SW:TOR I've come to a conclusion. A solo-centric game will never work, it'll be consumed just like a single player game - people will play it, do what needs to be done, then move on leaving the place a barren wasteland. Actually, that reminds me of that quote from The Matrix - "Humans are like a virus, a plague. You soloers are a cancer of this genre.". Okay, that last bit was modified, but anyway, it just reminded me of that quote. Moving on...!

    What I was going to say is that, as much as they hate it, soloers need group content, not for themselves, but for the games whole ambience. People didn't need other people in SW:TOR so the chat channels were mostly silent, there was no need to help anyone nearby, trading was pointless because everyone could craft whatever they needed. It was a single player game dressed up as an MMO.

    Why does an MMO have to be absolute, why cant it be build to support multiple types of gamers? If you look at MMO history, the MMOs that emphasis group play from the beginning tend to not to be as successful as the MMO that trick you into believing you can solo then at endgame pretty much tell you, "oh ya, from now on to progress future you need to start  grouping up with others". And that to me is the problem for most of the game, I am told you can solo, but then at level cap Ifor some odd reason I gotta start grouping up with people I don't know. I personally hate that.

    One of the great things about gw2 for me is I don't really need to group up with people IF I don't want to; In other to get the best gear in the game. I can get the benefits of being in a group without having to deal with those people. IF I have 1 hour to play I can get in get out, don't have to worry about getting a group for anything.

    Also, The problem with swtor IMO was it had multiple problems it being a solo friendly game was not THE issue it was just one of many that lead to its downfall. If it becomes f2p, watch as it blossoms into a very successful game.

     

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

    However a game that allows people to solo to end-game is not necessarily a solo-centric game.  Again many could and did solo to end game in EQ.

    Before one expansion after the other started making content easier, there were only really two classes that could solo to end-game in original EQ. The Druid and the Necromancer. Some say a Bard could do it too, but my first character before even Kunark came out was a Bard and it was a nightmare trying to solo. It was doable, but you were much better off not bothering and going with a group. The time it took to down one Cyclops in the Karanas, for the amount of XP you got for doing it, was just.. yeah, go with the group every time.

    Druids and Necromancers, on the other hand, could snare and dot, so could simply run around waiting for the creature to die before moving on to the next. I believe the Druid could do this with up to 4 at a time, quad kiting. Both could also self heal and the necromancer went one better and could gather mana back as well.

    Other classes, no way. I played a Monk for most of my years in EverQuest and it died so fast solo that it was laughable. Talk about paper tank. It could really dish out the damage, but took hits hard. And this was a Monk with the best gear available, as I was in the top raiding guild on the server, so..

    Anyway, EQ you could solo to end game, but your class choices were limited, as were your XP locations.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,290Member Uncommon

    We've been through that before Usual.  Bards, druids, monk, necro's, rangers, paladins, sk's and later beastlords could all solo.  Yes it took longer but every single one of those classes had ways to either kite, snare, root, seperate mobs and/or heal.

    Necro's and Druids could do it better (except for bards swarm kite) but all those classes could and did do it.

    White/yellow/red mobs were hard, but they absolutely could take blue mobs.

    If you died easily with a monk, you didn't play a monk well.  Find blue, FD to seperate mobs, beat him, mend if needed.  Done, bandage, repeat.

    If kiting, dungeons were definately harder.  In open areas Bards could charm, fear, swarm/dot kite, in dungeons they could charm, if in trouble, fear, than invis. And if you going to dot/swarm kite yes it takes long, but don't do just one mob, grab like 20 of them, fire up your drums and aoe dot to death, or charm kite the cyclops, only a few minutes to fight.

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

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

    Anyone find it wierd how fantasy fiction, on which most MMO's are based, usually have a single hero or small group of hero's and the fictional content is usually a single soloable (by the hero) or small groupable (by the small group) villian but in MMO's the expectation by a lot of people is in game villians must only be destroyable with  large numbers of people.

    Pretty bizarre.

    @Usual Suspect, you are having a hard time understanding because your definition of multiplayer in MMO's is seriously flawed.

    You can do heaps of things solo in the real world, does that make everything you do in the real world by yourself single player too?  If I go speeding down the road in my car, can I discount everyone else on the road because I'm in the car by myself?. 

    Your assertion that doing something solo in a game world in which many other players are also doing things in the same game world, somehow makes whatever they are doing inconsequtial to other players is total nonsense.

     

    And you guys claim we are trying to tell you soloers how to play MMOs...HAHA!

    Look at you, first you tell usualsuspect his definition of MMO is wrong, when it isnt, because there isnt one definition for all people.

    Then you equate a MMO to a movie???? So game devs should redesign thier MMOs after movies, are you serious???

    Then you try and equate real life with an MMO, by driving a car down the road? Sorry but your making one strawman after another.

    How about you stick to the topic, can you do that?

    I never claimed that.  I don't care what groupers think or say.

    His definition is incorrect.  You can make up a definition if you like but I'll go by the original and proper definition of Massively (many) Multiplayer (multiple people playing) Online (while connected via the internet).  

    MMO's are like interactive movies.  MMO's also model real life elements and we interact in MMO gameworlds like we do in Real Life, if we fall we may be damaged, if someone shoots us we may be killed...

    The analogy I used is quite accurate.

    I think Adawulf and Usualsuspectt, you will continue to argue your "points" regardless of whether they are untenable or unreasonable.  You inability to consider other points of view and your willingness to create new definitions or skip logic so that you can "Win" this argument really makes the whole argument a waste of time and "Winning" it worthless. 

    I'm going to go solo something.

  • AdalwulffAdalwulff Sacramento, CAPosts: 1,152Member
    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia
    Originally posted by Adalwulff
    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

    Anyone find it wierd how fantasy fiction, on which most MMO's are based, usually have a single hero or small group of hero's and the fictional content is usually a single soloable (by the hero) or small groupable (by the small group) villian but in MMO's the expectation by a lot of people is in game villians must only be destroyable with  large numbers of people.

    Pretty bizarre.

    @Usual Suspect, you are having a hard time understanding because your definition of multiplayer in MMO's is seriously flawed.

    You can do heaps of things solo in the real world, does that make everything you do in the real world by yourself single player too?  If I go speeding down the road in my car, can I discount everyone else on the road because I'm in the car by myself?. 

    Your assertion that doing something solo in a game world in which many other players are also doing things in the same game world, somehow makes whatever they are doing inconsequtial to other players is total nonsense.

     

    And you guys claim we are trying to tell you soloers how to play MMOs...HAHA!

    Look at you, first you tell usualsuspect his definition of MMO is wrong, when it isnt, because there isnt one definition for all people.

    Then you equate a MMO to a movie???? So game devs should redesign thier MMOs after movies, are you serious???

    Then you try and equate real life with an MMO, by driving a car down the road? Sorry but your making one strawman after another.

    How about you stick to the topic, can you do that?

    I never claimed that.  I don't care what groupers think or say.

    His definition is incorrect.  You can make up a definition if you like but I'll go by the original and proper definition of Massively (many) Multiplayer (multiple people playing) Online (while connected via the internet).  

    MMO's are like interactive movies.  MMO's also model real life elements and we interact in MMO gameworlds like we do in Real Life, if we fall we may be damaged, if someone shoots us we may be killed...

    The analogy I used is quite accurate.

    I think Adawulf and Usualsuspectt, you will continue to argue your "points" regardless of whether they are untenable or unreasonable.  You inability to consider other points of view and your willingness to create new definitions or skip logic so that you can "Win" this argument really makes the whole argument a waste of time and "Winning" it worthless. 

    I'm going to go solo something.

     

    "Pot meet kettle"

    Your claim is bizzare, I see you argueing your point, with no regard to our points of view, you still want games soloable all the way thru. I never said it  wansnt an MMO, I am saying its a stupid way to make an MMO, and I will never play one of those MMOs.

    So when I see you soloers come into a game forum, trying hard to promote more solo mechanics, and its a game I intend to play, you can bet that I will be there to make my view heard.

    Even If I have to repeat it a thousand times..... just like you are doing.

    image
  • IkonoclastiaIkonoclastia SydneyPosts: 182Member
    Originally posted by Adalwulff
    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia
    Originally posted by Adalwulff
    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

    Anyone find it wierd how fantasy fiction, on which most MMO's are based, usually have a single hero or small group of hero's and the fictional content is usually a single soloable (by the hero) or small groupable (by the small group) villian but in MMO's the expectation by a lot of people is in game villians must only be destroyable with  large numbers of people.

    Pretty bizarre.

    @Usual Suspect, you are having a hard time understanding because your definition of multiplayer in MMO's is seriously flawed.

    You can do heaps of things solo in the real world, does that make everything you do in the real world by yourself single player too?  If I go speeding down the road in my car, can I discount everyone else on the road because I'm in the car by myself?. 

    Your assertion that doing something solo in a game world in which many other players are also doing things in the same game world, somehow makes whatever they are doing inconsequtial to other players is total nonsense.

     

    And you guys claim we are trying to tell you soloers how to play MMOs...HAHA!

    Look at you, first you tell usualsuspect his definition of MMO is wrong, when it isnt, because there isnt one definition for all people.

    Then you equate a MMO to a movie???? So game devs should redesign thier MMOs after movies, are you serious???

    Then you try and equate real life with an MMO, by driving a car down the road? Sorry but your making one strawman after another.

    How about you stick to the topic, can you do that?

    I never claimed that.  I don't care what groupers think or say.

    His definition is incorrect.  You can make up a definition if you like but I'll go by the original and proper definition of Massively (many) Multiplayer (multiple people playing) Online (while connected via the internet).  

    MMO's are like interactive movies.  MMO's also model real life elements and we interact in MMO gameworlds like we do in Real Life, if we fall we may be damaged, if someone shoots us we may be killed...

    The analogy I used is quite accurate.

    I think Adawulf and Usualsuspectt, you will continue to argue your "points" regardless of whether they are untenable or unreasonable.  You inability to consider other points of view and your willingness to create new definitions or skip logic so that you can "Win" this argument really makes the whole argument a waste of time and "Winning" it worthless. 

    I'm going to go solo something.

     

    "Pot meet kettle"

    Your claim is bizzare, I see you argueing your point, with no regard to our points of view, you still want games soloable all the way thru. I never said it  wansnt an MMO, I am saying its a stupid way to make an MMO, and I will never play one of those MMOs.

    So when I see you soloers come into a game forum, trying hard to promote more solo mechanics, and its a game I intend to play, you can bet that I will be there to make my view heard.

    Even If I have to repeat it a thousand times..... just like you are doing.

    You are just inventing things to suit your needs (again).  If you read my posts I have never argued against grouping, nor advocated for solo only, my position is in the middle ground. 

    I believe that both group based, solo based and a combination of both in a game are legitimate ways to create MMO's.  I don't like to play group based content at the moment because of the random nature of current grouping mechanics.  Just as I wouldn't like to go to a party with randoms pulled from the street, I don't want to go to a dungeon with a complement of people pulled randomly from the internet.  

    I think your ideology (everyone should be forced to group or not be rewarded)  [mod edit] ignores the natural inclination of humans to group because social activity is already a reward in and of itself.

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

    I think your ideology (everyone should be forced to group or not be rewarded) [mod edit] ignores the natural inclination of humans to group because social activity is already a reward in and of itself.

    The problem here is we're talking about a video game, not people gathering and chatting in a social area. When you're playing a video game you're already on your own, you're sat in front of your screen with nobody else around. This is where you need poking to interact with people, as everyone out there is a stranger. This is where all those comments come from, "I don't want to group with a bunch of strangers.", "They're probably all morons.", "I'd rather group with my friends.", etc.

    It's the same as real life, it's easy to go and chat with people you know, but to just jump in and start interacting with people you don't know is a whole different thing, so we make excuses not to bother. That's where the grouping idea works so well, it brings people together through necessity, and through that necessity you create friendships or acquaintances, or perhaps you find people you won't be bothering with again.

  • jpnzjpnz SydneyPosts: 3,529Member
    Originally posted by UsualSuspect
     

    The problem here is we're talking about a video game, not people gathering and chatting in a social area. When you're playing a video game you're already on your own, you're sat in front of your screen with nobody else around. This is where you need poking to interact with people, as everyone out there is a stranger. This is where all those comments come from, "I don't want to group with a bunch of strangers.", "They're probably all morons.", "I'd rather group with my friends.", etc.

    It's the same as real life, it's easy to go and chat with people you know, but to just jump in and start interacting with people you don't know is a whole different thing, so we make excuses not to bother. That's where the grouping idea works so well, it brings people together through necessity, and through that necessity you create friendships or acquaintances, or perhaps you find people you won't be bothering with again.

    This is 2012, social interaction doesn't have to be face-to-face.

    Sometimes it is over voice-comm (like a phone or skype) or it is typing via IM or in-game client.

    Forcing people to do X will always have smaller appeal than letting people optionally do X as people don't like being forced to do anything.

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

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

    This is 2012, social interaction doesn't have to be face-to-face.

    Sometimes it is over voice-comm (like a phone or skype) or it is typing via IM or in-game client.

    Forcing people to do X will always have smaller appeal than letting people optionally do X as people don't like being forced to do anything.

    This idea of being forced to do anything is one that I really don't like. Nobody is being forced to do anything, there's nobody coming to your house and holding a gun to your head forcing you to join a group. Much like I don't log into Call of Duty and feel forced to shoot things, I wouldn't log in to an MMO and feel forced to group if I didn't want to group. I'd just not be logging in.

    That said, if you don't want to feel forced into a group, then go solo. I don't think anyone ever said the solo option should be removed, just that grouping should be a more viable option than it is now. I could solo the entire way through games like LOTRO and SW:TOR, which by your definition means I was being forced to solo.

  • jpnzjpnz SydneyPosts: 3,529Member
    Originally posted by UsualSuspect
     

    This idea of being forced to do anything is one that I really don't like. Nobody is being forced to do anything, there's nobody coming to your house and holding a gun to your head forcing you to join a group. Much like I don't log into Call of Duty and feel forced to shoot things, I wouldn't log in to an MMO and feel forced to group if I didn't want to group. I'd just not be logging in.

    That said, if you don't want to feel forced into a group, then go solo. I don't think anyone ever said the solo option should be removed, just that grouping should be a more viable option than it is now. I could solo the entire way through games like LOTRO and SW:TOR, which by your definition means I was being forced to solo.

    Groups are a viable option for the vast majority of MMOs.

    WoW/SWTOR/RIFT etc all offer higher exp/gold/item compared to solo.

     

    Group vs Solo are different playstyles and most MMOs offer both choices.

    Whether you agree with what someone's choice (it is their '$15' afterall) or the vast majority of playerbase's choice is irrelevant.

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • IkonoclastiaIkonoclastia SydneyPosts: 182Member

    Yes I think MMO's have gone wrong by basing essential reward which leads to advancement primarily on grouping (the most uber items, acheivements only being attainable by raiding) rather then basing the reward on time / effort.

    I would like to see a system where 1 person could acquire uber item x in 50 hours or 10 people could each acquire the same uber item x in 5 hours.  I think its unacceptable that 1 person could never acquire the item no matter how much time they put in if they didn't want to group. 

    In Everquest I experienced situations where I was never able to acquire items, and found it impossible to advance further even though I had 100+ days played while I had friends with 2 days played alts who had the highest end game items that were acquired by fellow guild members logging that alt in while my friends were sleeping, at work, using call of the hero and looting the item. 

    I know in WoW there are services offered for RL cash in which people can provide account details and have their accounts pimped with gear from the highest end groupable content and where "uber guild" members will pimp out their own alts by running trivial content, its hardly "hard work" or "deserved" loot in comparison to soloers.

  • BeartosserBeartosser Toronto, ONPosts: 92Member
    Originally posted by rdrakken

    The very idea that a topic like this is still raging on after so many years points to the very heart of the problem with this genre.

    It is stagnated with closed minds which is why the games themselves havent evolved much...both players AND developers.

    This entire issue could be resolved easily if a game maker would just stop being lazy and use the tools at hand. Scaled content would make a game solo, group AND raid friendly. It can be done, it can be done RIGHT and there have even been top developers that have states so at the game developers conference several times, with examples of HOW it can be done right.

    No company, large or small should be making an MMO that targets ANY one group of players. Doesnt matter if its solo, group, pvp, pve, raid, elite...

    Any game made to target a FEW players will limit their income AND the longevity of the game itself. A game that can scale to the player is the single best way to go.

    player is soloing a mob, the player is level 5, the mob is level 5 and has the skills that matches up best to the lvl 5 class the player belongs to. If a mage, the mob gains a skill set to be challenge a mage.

    If the lvl 5 mage is grouped with a lvl 5 cleric, the mob scales upward to best match a group of 2 with a healer.

    if its a full group of level 5 players, the mob because elite and gains a skillset to match a group.

    That is just one of many examples given by people like Raph Koster, a vet MMO maker(whom I dont even like BTW) that made UO, SWG and EQ2 as how to create an MMO that is for EVERY type of player and not only that, but a game that will remain 100% playable no matter what level you become...no more making 10% of a game for levels 1-20 that may NEVER be played by that character again...100% of the game remains a playable option for every character.

    Stop thinking in terms of the past...as long as the players think in terms of the past, the game makers will never be forced to making games truly new...for the future.

    I think this is the direction Arenanet is going towards with Guild Wars 2. The dynamic events are scaled, thereby making a larger percentage of the content available to both group and solo players. 

    Additionally, all players enjoy equal access to the highest level of gear functionality without being forced to completely invalidate their respective playstyles. It's good to see devs finally allow all of the cream to rise to the top. 

  • AdalwulffAdalwulff Sacramento, CAPosts: 1,152Member
    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia
    Originally posted by Adalwulff
    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia
    Originally posted by Adalwulff
    Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

    Anyone find it wierd how fantasy fiction, on which most MMO's are based, usually have a single hero or small group of hero's and the fictional content is usually a single soloable (by the hero) or small groupable (by the small group) villian but in MMO's the expectation by a lot of people is in game villians must only be destroyable with  large numbers of people.

    Pretty bizarre.

    @Usual Suspect, you are having a hard time understanding because your definition of multiplayer in MMO's is seriously flawed.

    You can do heaps of things solo in the real world, does that make everything you do in the real world by yourself single player too?  If I go speeding down the road in my car, can I discount everyone else on the road because I'm in the car by myself?. 

    Your assertion that doing something solo in a game world in which many other players are also doing things in the same game world, somehow makes whatever they are doing inconsequtial to other players is total nonsense.

     

    And you guys claim we are trying to tell you soloers how to play MMOs...HAHA!

    Look at you, first you tell usualsuspect his definition of MMO is wrong, when it isnt, because there isnt one definition for all people.

    Then you equate a MMO to a movie???? So game devs should redesign thier MMOs after movies, are you serious???

    Then you try and equate real life with an MMO, by driving a car down the road? Sorry but your making one strawman after another.

    How about you stick to the topic, can you do that?

    I never claimed that.  I don't care what groupers think or say.

    His definition is incorrect.  You can make up a definition if you like but I'll go by the original and proper definition of Massively (many) Multiplayer (multiple people playing) Online (while connected via the internet).  

    MMO's are like interactive movies.  MMO's also model real life elements and we interact in MMO gameworlds like we do in Real Life, if we fall we may be damaged, if someone shoots us we may be killed...

    The analogy I used is quite accurate.

    I think Adawulf and Usualsuspectt, you will continue to argue your "points" regardless of whether they are untenable or unreasonable.  You inability to consider other points of view and your willingness to create new definitions or skip logic so that you can "Win" this argument really makes the whole argument a waste of time and "Winning" it worthless. 

    I'm going to go solo something.

     

    "Pot meet kettle"

    Your claim is bizzare, I see you argueing your point, with no regard to our points of view, you still want games soloable all the way thru. I never said it  wansnt an MMO, I am saying its a stupid way to make an MMO, and I will never play one of those MMOs.

    So when I see you soloers come into a game forum, trying hard to promote more solo mechanics, and its a game I intend to play, you can bet that I will be there to make my view heard.

    Even If I have to repeat it a thousand times..... just like you are doing.

    You are just inventing things to suit your needs (again).  If you read my posts I have never argued against grouping, nor advocated for solo only, my position is in the middle ground. 

    I believe that both group based, solo based and a combination of both in a game are legitimate ways to create MMO's.  I don't like to play group based content at the moment because of the random nature of current grouping mechanics.  Just as I wouldn't like to go to a party with randoms pulled from the street, I don't want to go to a dungeon with a complement of people pulled randomly from the internet.  

    I think your ideology (everyone should be forced to group or not be rewarded) is stupid and closed minded, it ignores the natural inclination of humans to group because social activity is already a reward in and of itself.

     

    Well if all that were true then making MMOs that cater to both crowds would be everywhere, but they arent. In fact what we see is a separation, PvE is now separate from PvP, solo content is before end game, grouping is end game. Thats been the pattern for many years now.

    Im not for forced grouping, I dont play lineage or FX, so you are wrong about me.

    What your not getting, is the more solo mechanics you put into a game, it takes away any incentive for teamwork, or to group. Then you would have us believe that players would naturally group up, basically ignoring all the evidence, your idealogy is short sighted at best.

    Human nature is the follow the path of least resistance, so if we had better game mechanics, teamwork and grouping for something like an epic dungeon or PvP objective would be much easier.

    image
  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by Adalwulff

    Well if all that were true then making MMOs that cater to both crowds would be everywhere, but they arent. In fact what we see is a separation, PvE is now separate from PvP, solo content is before end game, grouping is end game. Thats been the pattern for many years now.

    Im not for forced grouping, I dont play lineage or FX, so you are wrong about me.

    What your not getting, is the more solo mechanics you put into a game, it takes away any incentive for teamwork, or to group. Then you would have us believe that players would naturally group up, basically ignoring all the evidence, your idealogy is short sighted at best.

    Human nature is the follow the path of least resistance, so if we had better game mechanics, teamwork and grouping for something like an epic dungeon or PvP objective would be much easier.

    But that's the problem, it shouldn't take any incentive.  I solo because that's what I enjoy.  I don't do it because it's easier, in fact, it's much more difficult than playing with a group.  I do it because I like it.  That's what groupers ought to do as well.  Play in a group for no other reason than that's what they have fun doing.  If people have to be bribed into playing that way, then it's just not that important to them.  It just doesn't matter.  Having to talk people into it, having to give them extra benefits, that's not a favored manner of play, it's buying people off!

    If  groupers can't play in a group, simply  for the joy of playing in the group, what good are they?

    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

  • AdalwulffAdalwulff Sacramento, CAPosts: 1,152Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by Adalwulff

    Well if all that were true then making MMOs that cater to both crowds would be everywhere, but they arent. In fact what we see is a separation, PvE is now separate from PvP, solo content is before end game, grouping is end game. Thats been the pattern for many years now.

    Im not for forced grouping, I dont play lineage or FX, so you are wrong about me.

    What your not getting, is the more solo mechanics you put into a game, it takes away any incentive for teamwork, or to group. Then you would have us believe that players would naturally group up, basically ignoring all the evidence, your idealogy is short sighted at best.

    Human nature is the follow the path of least resistance, so if we had better game mechanics, teamwork and grouping for something like an epic dungeon or PvP objective would be much easier.

    But that's the problem, it shouldn't take any incentive.  I solo because that's what I enjoy.  I don't do it because it's easier, in fact, it's much more difficult than playing with a group.  I do it because I like it.  That's what groupers ought to do as well.  Play in a group for no other reason than that's what they have fun doing.  If people have to be bribed into playing that way, then it's just not that important to them.  It just doesn't matter.  Having to talk people into it, having to give them extra benefits, that's not a favored manner of play, it's buying people off!

    If  groupers can't play in a group, simply  for the joy of playing in the group, what good are they?

     

    More strawmen... seriously you guys cant come up with anything else?

    Players who enjoy group content are not always in a group. There are only a few MMOs where grouping is needed for advancement, most of them are very solo friendly.

    If a game penalizes you for grouping, then they will not group. Thats what you soloers are asking for, you dont want any group content, because you feel it excludes you. Even if that content offers no rewards at all.

    You say you like to solo because thats how YOU like to play, then you deny players who would rather tackle some group content., because you feel it excludes you.

    If soloers cant go solo thier content without whinning about what other players are doing, what good are they?

    image
  • IkonoclastiaIkonoclastia SydneyPosts: 182Member
    Originally posted by Adalwulff
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by Adalwulff

    Well if all that were true then making MMOs that cater to both crowds would be everywhere, but they arent. In fact what we see is a separation, PvE is now separate from PvP, solo content is before end game, grouping is end game. Thats been the pattern for many years now.

    Im not for forced grouping, I dont play lineage or FX, so you are wrong about me.

    What your not getting, is the more solo mechanics you put into a game, it takes away any incentive for teamwork, or to group. Then you would have us believe that players would naturally group up, basically ignoring all the evidence, your idealogy is short sighted at best.

    Human nature is the follow the path of least resistance, so if we had better game mechanics, teamwork and grouping for something like an epic dungeon or PvP objective would be much easier.

    But that's the problem, it shouldn't take any incentive.  I solo because that's what I enjoy.  I don't do it because it's easier, in fact, it's much more difficult than playing with a group.  I do it because I like it.  That's what groupers ought to do as well.  Play in a group for no other reason than that's what they have fun doing.  If people have to be bribed into playing that way, then it's just not that important to them.  It just doesn't matter.  Having to talk people into it, having to give them extra benefits, that's not a favored manner of play, it's buying people off!

    If  groupers can't play in a group, simply  for the joy of playing in the group, what good are they?

     

    More strawmen... seriously you guys cant come up with anything else?

    Players who enjoy group content are not always in a group. There are only a few MMOs where grouping is needed for advancement, most of them are very solo friendly.

    If a game penalizes you for grouping, then they will not group. Thats what you soloers are asking for, you dont want any group content, because you feel it excludes you. Even if that content offers no rewards at all.

    You say you like to solo because thats how YOU like to play, then you deny players who would rather tackle some group content., because you feel it excludes you.

    If soloers cant go solo thier content without whinning about what other players are doing, what good are they?

    I would say its more accurate that soloers don't want enforced group content, just as you rightfully don't seem to want enforced soloing. 

    It seems you are arguing for enforced grouping, because you believe that not enforcing grouping means making soloing a more viable option than grouping. 

    I believe that a properly balanced mmo can including soloing to end game as well as the majority of content and also include group based play that is challenging and as profitable as soloing.  In fact I think group based gameplay should have accelerated progression (loot / xp) and possibly other benefits but should not exclude any solo person from achieving the same outcomes in terms of xp / loot / achievements abeit at a reduced rate.

    Theres no reason for one or the other (solo vs group).

  • Bonafide25Bonafide25 siedlce, GAPosts: 5Member

    The best thing in mmo games for me is the possible to know new people. When the game is created for singe player people plays alone, and its harder to meet new friends. I like games, where quest or another things we should to do together.  Playing with friends give me more fun than playing alone.

    image

Sign In or Register to comment.