If you want to play by yourself, go grab a single player game and have at it. MMORPG's are about interaction and socialization, amongst other things of course. Dont get why people want a single player console game as a mmorpg, its silly. You already ahve thousands of solo type games out there, why try to ruin the industry even more
Originally posted by Onomas If you want to play by yourself, go grab a single player game and have at it. MMORPG's are about interaction and socialization, amongst other things of course. Dont get why people want a single player console game as a mmorpg, its silly. You already ahve thousands of solo type games out there, why try to ruin the industry even more
I think people are taking things to extremes here. Having a solo option does nothing but add more to the world. I don't believe that the game should truly be solo, but you should be able to solo for fun. I grouped up in uo and socialized more in that game than most MMOs yet the game never requires me too to do anything in a group, nor did it recommend it or guide me too. If I wanted to take a long time and try taming a dragon solo I would and did. If I wanted to relax and train up my swordsmanship against something I could and at my own pace. I had so much fun doing that it made me want to experience other facets of the game. I also met friends playing solo. Some I still talk to over 10 years later.
I would say that doing it like most games now a days isn't my preference. I like tsw, but its solo then you hit a wall and its suddenly group only. Tsw does not give you the chance like other MMOs to really build a community.
So with that said, I can see the hate towards modern MMOs and their take on solo. They aren't doing it right.
Originally posted by Onomas If you want to play by yourself, go grab a single player game and have at it. MMORPG's are about interaction and socialization, amongst other things of course. Dont get why people want a single player console game as a mmorpg, its silly. You already ahve thousands of solo type games out there, why try to ruin the industry even more
I think people are taking things to extremes here. Having a solo option does nothing but add more to the world. I don't believe that the game should truly be solo, but you should be able to solo for fun. I grouped up in uo and socialized more in that game than most MMOs yet the game never requires me too to do anything in a group, nor did it recommend it or guide me too. If I wanted to take a long time and try taming a dragon solo I would and did. If I wanted to relax and train up my swordsmanship against something I could and at my own pace. I had so much fun doing that it made me want to experience other facets of the game. I also met friends playing solo. Some I still talk to over 10 years later.
I would say that doing it like most games now a days isn't my preference. I like tsw, but its solo then you hit a wall and its suddenly group only. Tsw does not give you the chance like other MMOs to really build a community.
So with that said, I can see the hate towards modern MMOs and their take on solo. They aren't doing it right.
I agree but do believe the OP said he wanted the entire game to be solo, thus a single player game. I like my solo time just as much as the next guy, but want the grouping and social interaction also.
If it is more efficient to do things in a group, why is there a mechanic that divides up the amount of experience you get from doing things in a group? If you want to entice/encourage people to group up without detracting from ones ability to go solo, wouldn't the better solution be to simply give more experience when you work as a group, as opposed to essentially encouraging people to solo for efficiency since your experience isn't being divided up?
If it is more efficient to do things in a group, why is there a mechanic that divides up the amount of experience you get from doing things in a group? If you want to entice/encourage people to group up without detracting from ones ability to go solo, wouldn't the better solution be to simply give more experience when you work as a group, as opposed to essentially encouraging people to solo for efficiency since your experience isn't being divided up?
It depends on what game. Some games do a mentor program, some allow higher levels to drop level to go with lower leveled players.Some games do offer benifits for grouping, and you are right some dont. Its kind of hard for a lvl 80 to get xp by helping a lvl 10 person kill creatures. And the system can be taken advantage of by giving the lower leveled player more xp for the higher leveled player doing all the work.Some mmorpg's give you more xp for grouping to entice this as well.
Originally posted by Onomas If you want to play by yourself, go grab a single player game and have at it. MMORPG's are about interaction and socialization, amongst other things of course. Dont get why people want a single player console game as a mmorpg, its silly. You already ahve thousands of solo type games out there, why try to ruin the industry even more
I think people are taking things to extremes here. Having a solo option does nothing but add more to the world. I don't believe that the game should truly be solo, but you should be able to solo for fun. I grouped up in uo and socialized more in that game than most MMOs yet the game never requires me too to do anything in a group, nor did it recommend it or guide me too. If I wanted to take a long time and try taming a dragon solo I would and did. If I wanted to relax and train up my swordsmanship against something I could and at my own pace. I had so much fun doing that it made me want to experience other facets of the game. I also met friends playing solo. Some I still talk to over 10 years later.
I would say that doing it like most games now a days isn't my preference. I like tsw, but its solo then you hit a wall and its suddenly group only. Tsw does not give you the chance like other MMOs to really build a community.
So with that said, I can see the hate towards modern MMOs and their take on solo. They aren't doing it right.
I agree but do believe the OP said he wanted the entire game to be solo, thus a single player game. I like my solo time just as much as the next guy, but want the grouping and social interaction also.
I think we are mostly on the same level. And I agree with it. My take on the op (and I skimmed it in all honesty), is that he would prefer a game that is soloable but has the options for interaction. Kinda sucks when you are forced to group to enjoy a game, which it appears you agree with too. I guess I just don't think either extreme is good for me. That's why I brought up UO. you could literally max out everything solo in that game if you wanted, but more likely than not you wouldnt because the game subtly encouraged it (groups) by building a community.
Also I guess it wouldn't make sense in certain types of MMOs. In an open world PvP game, pve might be solo able to help you catch up to get to the nitty gritty action, but in games like wow or lotro it doesn't make as much sense as you are playing a story rather than creating one.
If it is more efficient to do things in a group, why is there a mechanic that divides up the amount of experience you get from doing things in a group? If you want to entice/encourage people to group up without detracting from ones ability to go solo, wouldn't the better solution be to simply give more experience when you work as a group, as opposed to essentially encouraging people to solo for efficiency since your experience isn't being divided up?
To the OP: Because grouping can be exciting, or frustrating. It can be rewarding. I think you should really ask yourself why do you even need to socialize if you can do everything alone? So you can show off your awesome gear that you managed to farm on your own, all by yourself? No one would be impressed anyway, since the content is so easy that anyone can do it, solo. Ask yourself this: In such a game, WHAT REASON is there to socialize? Your conclusion must be: NONE. You want to socialize in SUCH a game? What for? If I want to randomly socialize I go to facebook. The game in itself offers noreason to socialize, everyone will be busy running their one man instances.
To you, an MMORPG might be a Social hub zone connected to single player instances. Sorry, that is not enough. To me, that is bad game design, the mark missed in terms of MMORPG.
Everquest (wich is not perfect, by no means. It's slow and cumbersome by todays standards, but it got the principles right) did it like this: You solo, you get all the exp, but its slow as hell. With a full group, killspeed was so high you saw the exp fly in. It was devided by the people, but killspeed made up for it, plus it was more exciting and satisfying than a boring solo grind. Also the location played an important role, outside in the open, AEing or kiting is no problem, but in a tight dungeon its impossible. Also, many named summoned you to their position, so no kiting for you.
Some solo techniques were: Kiting, AoE Kiting, swarm kiting, charm kiting. And some of those were pretty complicated, especially charm kiting took some training and good timing. Nothing you would see in a singleplayer game today. Too difficult, too dangerous for todays kind of consumer.
Even standard mobs in the game of your current level and expansion had alot of HP, and alot of classes would struggle to kill them solo. They could, there were many techniques to do it, but often it took a long time to kill a single mob and was just not effective.
Then you add a healer, and for a tank that is allready better. Other classes like casters can't really tank so a healer doesn't add much to them except for his low DPS. Still not effective, since the tank is takinga heavy pounding and the healer wastes alot of mana healing him. The mob eventually dies but the healers mana is low and he has to regen it, wich is downtime so not really effective either.
Now add an enchanter or shaman or bard, those are utility classes. They can slow the enemys runspeed and/or attack speed, increase the groups runspeed and/or attack speed and thus shifts the balance of the fight heavily. This is allready a good group setup, but still lacks the damage output. Not really effective kill speed wise.
So add some DPS, person number 4, a backup healer or a crowd controller and another DPS and you have a good group.
A good Puller is also nice to have, they can split groups of mobs and bring the ideal amount to the camp, mostly two at once, one killed, one mezzed and held ready to be killed once the other goes down, and at half life the puller allready runs out to bring the next pack.
Everyone has to play his role well, but if you broke into a camp, deep inside a dungeon (means you have killed the standing spawns in a timely manner so the respawns can be handled one by one, with the occasional named spawn)
In Everquest, you needed a group to go deep into that strange dungeon. But you also WANTED to go deep in there for certain nameds and their rare drops. It made you invest time and willpower. Today that is not required anymore.
Also, classes were more diverse than today. Highly specialized classes compared to todays generalists. As they were highly specialized in some areas, they were serisously handicapped in others and thus relied on each other.
This made you look in awe if you found someone really good at his class, not just gear wise but by playskill and managing his skills, positions and abilities (you had 8 Spells up at max, so choose wisely. (Can be switched in battle but have to consult you spellbook wich makes you very vulnerable.) If you made your name known, maybe they invited you to your guild, wich opened up new possibilities to farm certain dungeons or zones and bosses. Back then, bosses were still very difficult to learn. Teamspeak was not invented yet, you had to manage 72 people in a raid via text commands. Learning Vishimtar (Dragons of Norrath final Boss) took my guild weeks and countless attempts. Alot of people would throw in a towel in disgust when they hear that you gained NOTHING from failed attempts except knowledge and real life expirience at how to play the encounter. You even LOST XP and could potentially LOSE YOUR LEVEL if you did not grind an EXP Buffer.
Oh and the corpse run would take about 20 minutes between each attempt. And the fight itself if it went well took about 20-40 minutes pre farm status.
Old style MMOs were also a test of willpower and stamina, wich made the rewards worth SO MUCH MORE than a single player reward that everyone can get with a crippled leg, broken hands, blind.
This may sound complicated to someone who grew up with todays MMOs, but you must not think from the defeatist standpoint. If you played your class well people WANTED you in their group, because they needed you. They added you as friend to invite you the next day. Because a good Player of a Class and a bad one made alot of difference. It meant wipe and 30 minute corpse recovery or named farm and rare loot.
Grouping must remain necessary in MMOs. I don't ask for Everquests old system, but something milder along that line. I don't want to be the "MOST WANTED BOUNTYHUNTER IN THE GALAXY", like 1 million other guys. I don't want single player storyline and content in an MMO.
I think this issue is more closely tied to the concept of "endgame" and a level cap.
This would have been a far better way for the thread to have started. Certain words are a little too radioactive.
The leveling games I've played (admittedly I've not played a lot of different ones to max level) do have a bait-and-switch feel. You are offered one playstyle to max level, then there's an assumption that you're going to want to move to a completely different playstyle once you get there. And so you end up with one group of players who are unhappy they had to grind through a game they didn't enjoy to start playing their game and you have another group that feels cut adrift when they get to the endgame, straining to find the fun.
If devs support each group of players retreating into their own comfort zone from beginning to end, the game practically forks into multiple independant games. But I find myself starting to ask: is that really a bad thing? Is there anything fundementally wrong with letting a community bifurcate into what are, for all practical purposes, seperate games that just happen to share a common pool of assets (lore, art, databases)?
I think this issue is more closely tied to the concept of "endgame" and a level cap.
This would have been a far better way for the thread to have started. Certain words are a little too radioactive.
The leveling games I've played (admittedly I've not played a lot of different ones to max level) do have a bait-and-switch feel. You are offered one playstyle to max level, then there's an assumption that you're going to want to move to a completely different playstyle once you get there. And so you end up with one group of players who are unhappy they had to grind through a game they didn't enjoy to start playing their game and you have another group that feels cut adrift when they get to the endgame, straining to find the fun.
If devs support each group of players retreating into their own comfort zone from beginning to end, the game practically forks into multiple independant games. But I find myself starting to ask: is that really a bad thing? Is there anything fundementally wrong with letting a community bifurcate into what are, for all practical purposes, seperate games that just happen to share a common pool of assets (lore, art, databases)?
It wasn't always like this. Grouping up while leveling was the common thing to do, for many reasons. Won't get into details.
Soloers crying for ages managed to achieve what they wanted. Now soloing is the most efficient way to level up.
And here comes stage 2. End game and hardest content also soloable.
I'm not talking about having companions (npc or player)...but one character being able to solo 100% of everything. Now...hear me out...
Many MMOs, especially themeparks...they in a way...very much mislead you. You can spen levels 1 to 85 (as an example) being able to do EVERYTHING solo. Suddenly you hit max level...and the game had the bait...then it switched...suddenly there is very little content you can solo. You can only do raids if you are in a group, or if the raids become out of date (and that takes a while)...only very few (if any) classes are able to solo (when, while leveling, every class can solo everything).
MMOs are already on the path of becoming quick to play, cheap and more solo oriented. Log on, do raid/dungeon finder...play for 15-30 min and accomplish a lot. Not relying on spamming chat "lfg" "lfg"...15 minutes later... "lfg". And many MMOs are very quickly relying on the player WANTING to group, and not feeling FORCED to group. WoW went far down this path, but to do new raids...still need a group and (last I saw), new raids aren't part of the raid finder. SWTOR was on the way to this path, but found voice acting and adding to the story was much more expensive than adding raids that forced you to group.
But you can still group up while leveling in WoW and themeparks, doing dungeons and what not (that are still solable with certain classes)...if you want to...not if you are forced to.
Because MMORPG's were meant for COMMUNITY. There are 100% soloable RPG's though...on XBox360 and PS3...where they were meant for.
Many MMOs, especially themeparks...they in a way...very much mislead you. You can spen levels 1 to 85 (as an example) being able to do EVERYTHING solo. Suddenly you hit max level...and the game had the bait...then it switched...suddenly there is very little content you can solo. You can only do raids if you are in a group, or if the raids become out of date (and that takes a while)...only very few (if any) classes are able to solo (when, while leveling, every class can solo everything).
...
You can offer players choices. But let's be honest, players have much too often a utilitarian view (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarian) on games. If you offer group content and equivalent solo content players are going the path of least resistance.
There is nothing that can be done to help a soloist. A company can make the game in a way that allows to level, quest and explore most of the world on their own ways (and without help). But there are also those other players that want some group content and some more challenge (i.e. coordinating a group of people isn't that easy). Companies try to cater to both camps of players. And now a soloist complains that there are activities they can't endulge in?
If you take MMORPGs like WoW of SWToR a soloist can take on the old group content (provided his/her toon outlevels the content). If it's just to see the content once that should suffice. But take some group content with levers or puzzles where more than one person is required. In order to make it viable for soloists this content would need to be redone (and the puzzle changed conpletely).
But take some group content with levers or puzzles where more than one person is required. In order to make it viable for soloists this content would need to be redone (and the puzzle changed conpletely).
Anyways, "levers or puzzles" ? What games do you play?
We have no levers and puzzles, and during wotlk we went to AQ just to see newbie people who flamed guildies that they died at sarth3d die 4 times at twin emps, unable absorb the tactics without bossmods, nearly every week...
The bar is rather low, no tactics, levers or the sheer number of people required there.
Noone says it would be easy, just the things you would have to consider regarding loot could fill a page of text if not more.
But it is possible, no 7 day lockout, no mobs that oneshot everybody and are completely immune to cc, that enrage and reset, just so that you have to have a group.
If a soloist wants to kill a mob in 100 minutes that a group of 10 kills in 10minutes, why shouldnt he?
There once was an MMO that did a decent job ( I didn't say perfect, because it was flawed but the right concept was there) on solo v. grouping. For one thing, players did not have levels attached to them. People from the newbie that just logged in for the first time to the player who was close to being "fully developed" (there were skill trees and a person could design their own "template" until they ran out of skill points to unlock new boxes/skills) could group together in rather large groups(I think groups maxed out at 20) and EVERYONE got the same amount of XP from kills. There were certain animals that even a maxed character had to be grouped to get missions from mission terminal and those offered the max XP in the game of 500. It was possible to solo to completed template but grouping was quicker. Also, there were "dungeons" and "bosses" that were designed to need groups.
Unfortunately, game designers did not put into the equation that people would find ways to make stronger armor and buffs than intended and that people would find the "perfect" template combining these factors so that there were those that could solo EVERYTHING in the game. Instead of groups working together on missions, solo groups became popular with people using groups to access the best missions from the terminals but soloing the spawns. Then WoW came on the scene and MMO companies saw that there was potential for a much larger player base. Rather than "tweak" numbers to fix the game that existed, the company totally changed the game to try chasing after the WoW numbers and players who wanted games to be easier/more solo-able.
I personally hate the concept of "end-game" but part of the problem with players having levels is it leads to soloing up to end game. I haven't played WoW in a while but I've made around three attempts at playing it, each attempt lasting a month or two. It was always frustrating hitting a point in the quest line that had a group quest because it meant trying to find enough people who were around the same level, perhaps even had the same quest, in order to do the quest. The other option was to get high enough to be able to solo something designed for group but still low enough to get decent xp from it....or high enough to solo it with very little xp, doing it just to see what the like and get the loot/money from it. Then "endgame" becomes the point in the game for "forced" grouping because at that point people are maxed level and everyone who has hit "endgame" is the same level. Not sure why anyone would want "endgame" content to be solo-able because I still don't understand the importance of endgame. Is it to make your character strong enough for when more levels are added and that is no longer the end of the game? *shrugs*
Anyway, on the subject of solo v groups, there is a reason this genre of games is called MMOrpg. As others have said, there are plenty of solo games available. If all a person wants to do with other people is PvP, there are also plenty of solo games with a multiplayer pvp option. An mmo should not be designed to be 100% solo-able. For me, the "perfect" balance would be a game in which one could totally develop their character using solo-able stuff without extreme frustration BUT there would be motivation to group (such as higher xp from grouping) and there would be 1. things in game that a higher player could solo but a group of lower players could also do (20 players with the newbie gun that was in the inventory the first time they logged in killing a big bad dragon is not only fun to participate in but can be hilarious to watch), 2. things in the game that could not be done solo by ANYONE (not that it necessarily takes a group of maxed out players because that leads too much to elitist guilds plus I love mixed groups where higher players help lower players).
The fact that developers have already made games as "solo freindly" as they are, is prime reason, imo, that the genre has gone down the toilet in the last 6-8 years.
As Raph Koster of SWG design fame has said, "MMOs, in regards to the original implementation, are no longer being made. What is being made now are signle player games in shared space."
As such, there is already too much in "modern MMOs" that can be solo'd. TOR being a prime example, where you never needed interact with another player during the whole time leveling up a toon. And this is a weakness in an MMO, this lack of need for player interdependency and community, is a prime reason TOR crashed so spectacularly.
100% solo MMO? Bad for the genre that has already gone too far in that direction.
I don't know, it's an interesting thought experiment. All content can be done 100% solo, but the world is also something of a sandbox, where players can have land, rent houses, whatever. They have the option of doing content in groups, but it really is optional.
My guess would be player expectations. Even if a player doesn't want to focus on group content, they expect group content to exist. It might hurt sales or retention if a game is too far off the path of 'normal'.
Just a guess.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Onomas If you want to play by yourself, go grab a single player game and have at it. MMORPG's are about interaction and socialization, amongst other things of course. Dont get why people want a single player console game as a mmorpg, its silly. You already ahve thousands of solo type games out there, why try to ruin the industry even more
Group co-op is not the only interaction out there, is it? Trading is an interaction. AH is an interaction.
And i think you get it reverse. It is not people want SP console games as a MMORPG, it is MMORPG devs want to capture the SP console game players as a part of their audience, and integrate SP game elements into MMORPGs.
Lastly, do you really think solo-ability is not a MMORPG issue? With so many MMORPG touting the ability to solo in them.
Originally posted by Onomas If you want to play by yourself, go grab a single player game and have at it. MMORPG's are about interaction and socialization, amongst other things of course. Dont get why people want a single player console game as a mmorpg, its silly. You already ahve thousands of solo type games out there, why try to ruin the industry even more
Group co-op is not the only interaction out there, is it? Trading is an interaction. AH is an interaction.
And i think you get it reverse. It is not people want SP console games as a MMORPG, it is MMORPG devs want to capture the SP console game players as a part of their audience, and integrate SP game elements into MMORPGs.
Lastly, do you really think solo-ability is not a MMORPG issue? With so many MMORPG touting the ability to solo in them.
Do you even know what a mmorpg is, the definition is, and how odd your statement sounds? MMO = massively multiplayer online.................. Doesnt say massively singleplayer online. Here since you still dont get it let me draw you a picture:
See the top left picture is singleplayer, see the solo character.
See the top right is online games with multiplayer function like statistica, moba, etc without the world and fun. Anywhere from 2-a few dozen players that can interact with things that are linked, but not shared.
See the bottom picture is a MMO/MMORPG. Its a whole lot of people in a circle, the circle represents a world, and they all interact at the same time and have lots of fun.
I still cant believe you do not understand the difference and want the entire industry to change for your views of what a mmo is.
And yes single player style games should stay out of mmorpg's, it does nothing but ruin what mmorpgs stand for. Go put some mmorpg into a single player console and be happy with that.
Originally posted by Onomas If you want to play by yourself, go grab a single player game and have at it. MMORPG's are about interaction and socialization, amongst other things of course. Dont get why people want a single player console game as a mmorpg, its silly. You already ahve thousands of solo type games out there, why try to ruin the industry even more
Group co-op is not the only interaction out there, is it? Trading is an interaction. AH is an interaction.
And i think you get it reverse. It is not people want SP console games as a MMORPG, it is MMORPG devs want to capture the SP console game players as a part of their audience, and integrate SP game elements into MMORPGs.
Lastly, do you really think solo-ability is not a MMORPG issue? With so many MMORPG touting the ability to solo in them.
Do you even know what a mmorpg is, the definition is, and how odd your statement sounds? MMO = massively multiplayer online.................. Doesnt say massively singleplayer online. Here since you still dont get it let me draw you a picture:
Playing 100% solo is boring as shit. I can play solo for a while before I get bored (but not overly long), but even then, I'm constantly watching chat to see if anyone wants to group for content I want to do. If everything was 100% solo, I would get very bored, very quickly.
I personally love seeing LFG this and that. It gives me motivation to level to do it myself with others. I like grouping with other players and having fun.
I think games are FAR too solo-heavy as it is and needs to be scaled back. 50-50 is probably fine, but it's currently like 80-20 for soloing.
I generally don't level up just to do things myself. I level up, obtain gear, etc., to be more useful in group situations, and to show off a little while I'm at it if possible.
That being said, OP, I woudln't be surprised if a 100% solo game is in the works. I just don't think it'll last.
Playing 100% solo is boring as shit. I can play solo for a while before I get bored (but not overly long), but even then, I'm constantly watching chat to see if anyone wants to group for content I want to do. If everything was 100% solo, I would get very bored, very quickly.
I personally love seeing LFG this and that. It gives me motivation to level to do it myself with others. I like grouping with other players and having fun.
I think games are FAR too solo-heavy as it is and needs to be scaled back. 50-50 is probably fine, but it's currently like 80-20 for soloing.
I generally don't level up just to do things myself. I level up, obtain gear, etc., to be more useful in group situations, and to show off a little while I'm at it if possible.
That being said, OP, I woudln't be surprised if a 100% solo game is in the works. I just don't think it'll last.
To be fair, i prefer LFD grouping to level in a MMO. But i also understand there are those who prefer solo more. Boring to you is not boring to others, i hope you understand that.
Actually if a game is MMO .. hence online, there is usually a MP component. Even games like Diablo and Torchlight 2 are not 100% solo.
Comments
I think people are taking things to extremes here. Having a solo option does nothing but add more to the world. I don't believe that the game should truly be solo, but you should be able to solo for fun. I grouped up in uo and socialized more in that game than most MMOs yet the game never requires me too to do anything in a group, nor did it recommend it or guide me too. If I wanted to take a long time and try taming a dragon solo I would and did. If I wanted to relax and train up my swordsmanship against something I could and at my own pace. I had so much fun doing that it made me want to experience other facets of the game. I also met friends playing solo. Some I still talk to over 10 years later.
I would say that doing it like most games now a days isn't my preference. I like tsw, but its solo then you hit a wall and its suddenly group only. Tsw does not give you the chance like other MMOs to really build a community.
So with that said, I can see the hate towards modern MMOs and their take on solo. They aren't doing it right.
I agree but do believe the OP said he wanted the entire game to be solo, thus a single player game. I like my solo time just as much as the next guy, but want the grouping and social interaction also.
Mildly offtopic, but I do kinda wonder something:
If it is more efficient to do things in a group, why is there a mechanic that divides up the amount of experience you get from doing things in a group? If you want to entice/encourage people to group up without detracting from ones ability to go solo, wouldn't the better solution be to simply give more experience when you work as a group, as opposed to essentially encouraging people to solo for efficiency since your experience isn't being divided up?
It depends on what game. Some games do a mentor program, some allow higher levels to drop level to go with lower leveled players.Some games do offer benifits for grouping, and you are right some dont. Its kind of hard for a lvl 80 to get xp by helping a lvl 10 person kill creatures. And the system can be taken advantage of by giving the lower leveled player more xp for the higher leveled player doing all the work.Some mmorpg's give you more xp for grouping to entice this as well.
Realy just depends on the game company/game/etc.
I think we are mostly on the same level. And I agree with it. My take on the op (and I skimmed it in all honesty), is that he would prefer a game that is soloable but has the options for interaction. Kinda sucks when you are forced to group to enjoy a game, which it appears you agree with too. I guess I just don't think either extreme is good for me. That's why I brought up UO. you could literally max out everything solo in that game if you wanted, but more likely than not you wouldnt because the game subtly encouraged it (groups) by building a community.
Also I guess it wouldn't make sense in certain types of MMOs. In an open world PvP game, pve might be solo able to help you catch up to get to the nitty gritty action, but in games like wow or lotro it doesn't make as much sense as you are playing a story rather than creating one.
To the OP: Because grouping can be exciting, or frustrating. It can be rewarding. I think you should really ask yourself why do you even need to socialize if you can do everything alone? So you can show off your awesome gear that you managed to farm on your own, all by yourself? No one would be impressed anyway, since the content is so easy that anyone can do it, solo. Ask yourself this: In such a game, WHAT REASON is there to socialize? Your conclusion must be: NONE. You want to socialize in SUCH a game? What for? If I want to randomly socialize I go to facebook. The game in itself offers noreason to socialize, everyone will be busy running their one man instances.
To you, an MMORPG might be a Social hub zone connected to single player instances. Sorry, that is not enough. To me, that is bad game design, the mark missed in terms of MMORPG.
Everquest (wich is not perfect, by no means. It's slow and cumbersome by todays standards, but it got the principles right) did it like this: You solo, you get all the exp, but its slow as hell. With a full group, killspeed was so high you saw the exp fly in. It was devided by the people, but killspeed made up for it, plus it was more exciting and satisfying than a boring solo grind. Also the location played an important role, outside in the open, AEing or kiting is no problem, but in a tight dungeon its impossible. Also, many named summoned you to their position, so no kiting for you.
Some solo techniques were: Kiting, AoE Kiting, swarm kiting, charm kiting. And some of those were pretty complicated, especially charm kiting took some training and good timing. Nothing you would see in a singleplayer game today. Too difficult, too dangerous for todays kind of consumer.
Even standard mobs in the game of your current level and expansion had alot of HP, and alot of classes would struggle to kill them solo. They could, there were many techniques to do it, but often it took a long time to kill a single mob and was just not effective.
Then you add a healer, and for a tank that is allready better. Other classes like casters can't really tank so a healer doesn't add much to them except for his low DPS. Still not effective, since the tank is takinga heavy pounding and the healer wastes alot of mana healing him. The mob eventually dies but the healers mana is low and he has to regen it, wich is downtime so not really effective either.
Now add an enchanter or shaman or bard, those are utility classes. They can slow the enemys runspeed and/or attack speed, increase the groups runspeed and/or attack speed and thus shifts the balance of the fight heavily. This is allready a good group setup, but still lacks the damage output. Not really effective kill speed wise.
So add some DPS, person number 4, a backup healer or a crowd controller and another DPS and you have a good group.
A good Puller is also nice to have, they can split groups of mobs and bring the ideal amount to the camp, mostly two at once, one killed, one mezzed and held ready to be killed once the other goes down, and at half life the puller allready runs out to bring the next pack.
Everyone has to play his role well, but if you broke into a camp, deep inside a dungeon (means you have killed the standing spawns in a timely manner so the respawns can be handled one by one, with the occasional named spawn)
In Everquest, you needed a group to go deep into that strange dungeon. But you also WANTED to go deep in there for certain nameds and their rare drops. It made you invest time and willpower. Today that is not required anymore.
Also, classes were more diverse than today. Highly specialized classes compared to todays generalists. As they were highly specialized in some areas, they were serisously handicapped in others and thus relied on each other.
This made you look in awe if you found someone really good at his class, not just gear wise but by playskill and managing his skills, positions and abilities (you had 8 Spells up at max, so choose wisely. (Can be switched in battle but have to consult you spellbook wich makes you very vulnerable.) If you made your name known, maybe they invited you to your guild, wich opened up new possibilities to farm certain dungeons or zones and bosses. Back then, bosses were still very difficult to learn. Teamspeak was not invented yet, you had to manage 72 people in a raid via text commands. Learning Vishimtar (Dragons of Norrath final Boss) took my guild weeks and countless attempts. Alot of people would throw in a towel in disgust when they hear that you gained NOTHING from failed attempts except knowledge and real life expirience at how to play the encounter. You even LOST XP and could potentially LOSE YOUR LEVEL if you did not grind an EXP Buffer.
Oh and the corpse run would take about 20 minutes between each attempt. And the fight itself if it went well took about 20-40 minutes pre farm status.
Old style MMOs were also a test of willpower and stamina, wich made the rewards worth SO MUCH MORE than a single player reward that everyone can get with a crippled leg, broken hands, blind.
This may sound complicated to someone who grew up with todays MMOs, but you must not think from the defeatist standpoint. If you played your class well people WANTED you in their group, because they needed you. They added you as friend to invite you the next day. Because a good Player of a Class and a bad one made alot of difference. It meant wipe and 30 minute corpse recovery or named farm and rare loot.
Grouping must remain necessary in MMOs. I don't ask for Everquests old system, but something milder along that line. I don't want to be the "MOST WANTED BOUNTYHUNTER IN THE GALAXY", like 1 million other guys. I don't want single player storyline and content in an MMO.
/sigh
sometimes i miss my baby ;(
This would have been a far better way for the thread to have started. Certain words are a little too radioactive.
The leveling games I've played (admittedly I've not played a lot of different ones to max level) do have a bait-and-switch feel. You are offered one playstyle to max level, then there's an assumption that you're going to want to move to a completely different playstyle once you get there. And so you end up with one group of players who are unhappy they had to grind through a game they didn't enjoy to start playing their game and you have another group that feels cut adrift when they get to the endgame, straining to find the fun.
If devs support each group of players retreating into their own comfort zone from beginning to end, the game practically forks into multiple independant games. But I find myself starting to ask: is that really a bad thing? Is there anything fundementally wrong with letting a community bifurcate into what are, for all practical purposes, seperate games that just happen to share a common pool of assets (lore, art, databases)?
ah man now im sad asswell
EQOA (yes ps2 console MMO:P) had the same settings oh god i miss it.
It wasn't always like this. Grouping up while leveling was the common thing to do, for many reasons. Won't get into details.
Soloers crying for ages managed to achieve what they wanted. Now soloing is the most efficient way to level up.
And here comes stage 2. End game and hardest content also soloable.
Because MMORPG's were meant for COMMUNITY. There are 100% soloable RPG's though...on XBox360 and PS3...where they were meant for.
-
You can offer players choices. But let's be honest, players have much too often a utilitarian view (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarian) on games. If you offer group content and equivalent solo content players are going the path of least resistance.
There is nothing that can be done to help a soloist. A company can make the game in a way that allows to level, quest and explore most of the world on their own ways (and without help). But there are also those other players that want some group content and some more challenge (i.e. coordinating a group of people isn't that easy). Companies try to cater to both camps of players. And now a soloist complains that there are activities they can't endulge in?
If you take MMORPGs like WoW of SWToR a soloist can take on the old group content (provided his/her toon outlevels the content). If it's just to see the content once that should suffice. But take some group content with levers or puzzles where more than one person is required. In order to make it viable for soloists this content would need to be redone (and the puzzle changed conpletely).
You can't always please everyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeatist
Anyways, "levers or puzzles" ? What games do you play?
We have no levers and puzzles, and during wotlk we went to AQ just to see newbie people who flamed guildies that they died at sarth3d die 4 times at twin emps, unable absorb the tactics without bossmods, nearly every week...
The bar is rather low, no tactics, levers or the sheer number of people required there.
Noone says it would be easy, just the things you would have to consider regarding loot could fill a page of text if not more.
But it is possible, no 7 day lockout, no mobs that oneshot everybody and are completely immune to cc, that enrage and reset, just so that you have to have a group.
If a soloist wants to kill a mob in 100 minutes that a group of 10 kills in 10minutes, why shouldnt he?
Flame on!
There once was an MMO that did a decent job ( I didn't say perfect, because it was flawed but the right concept was there) on solo v. grouping. For one thing, players did not have levels attached to them. People from the newbie that just logged in for the first time to the player who was close to being "fully developed" (there were skill trees and a person could design their own "template" until they ran out of skill points to unlock new boxes/skills) could group together in rather large groups(I think groups maxed out at 20) and EVERYONE got the same amount of XP from kills. There were certain animals that even a maxed character had to be grouped to get missions from mission terminal and those offered the max XP in the game of 500. It was possible to solo to completed template but grouping was quicker. Also, there were "dungeons" and "bosses" that were designed to need groups.
Unfortunately, game designers did not put into the equation that people would find ways to make stronger armor and buffs than intended and that people would find the "perfect" template combining these factors so that there were those that could solo EVERYTHING in the game. Instead of groups working together on missions, solo groups became popular with people using groups to access the best missions from the terminals but soloing the spawns. Then WoW came on the scene and MMO companies saw that there was potential for a much larger player base. Rather than "tweak" numbers to fix the game that existed, the company totally changed the game to try chasing after the WoW numbers and players who wanted games to be easier/more solo-able.
I personally hate the concept of "end-game" but part of the problem with players having levels is it leads to soloing up to end game. I haven't played WoW in a while but I've made around three attempts at playing it, each attempt lasting a month or two. It was always frustrating hitting a point in the quest line that had a group quest because it meant trying to find enough people who were around the same level, perhaps even had the same quest, in order to do the quest. The other option was to get high enough to be able to solo something designed for group but still low enough to get decent xp from it....or high enough to solo it with very little xp, doing it just to see what the like and get the loot/money from it. Then "endgame" becomes the point in the game for "forced" grouping because at that point people are maxed level and everyone who has hit "endgame" is the same level. Not sure why anyone would want "endgame" content to be solo-able because I still don't understand the importance of endgame. Is it to make your character strong enough for when more levels are added and that is no longer the end of the game? *shrugs*
Anyway, on the subject of solo v groups, there is a reason this genre of games is called MMOrpg. As others have said, there are plenty of solo games available. If all a person wants to do with other people is PvP, there are also plenty of solo games with a multiplayer pvp option. An mmo should not be designed to be 100% solo-able. For me, the "perfect" balance would be a game in which one could totally develop their character using solo-able stuff without extreme frustration BUT there would be motivation to group (such as higher xp from grouping) and there would be 1. things in game that a higher player could solo but a group of lower players could also do (20 players with the newbie gun that was in the inventory the first time they logged in killing a big bad dragon is not only fun to participate in but can be hilarious to watch), 2. things in the game that could not be done solo by ANYONE (not that it necessarily takes a group of maxed out players because that leads too much to elitist guilds plus I love mixed groups where higher players help lower players).
The fact that developers have already made games as "solo freindly" as they are, is prime reason, imo, that the genre has gone down the toilet in the last 6-8 years.
As Raph Koster of SWG design fame has said, "MMOs, in regards to the original implementation, are no longer being made. What is being made now are signle player games in shared space."
As such, there is already too much in "modern MMOs" that can be solo'd. TOR being a prime example, where you never needed interact with another player during the whole time leveling up a toon. And this is a weakness in an MMO, this lack of need for player interdependency and community, is a prime reason TOR crashed so spectacularly.
100% solo MMO? Bad for the genre that has already gone too far in that direction.
I don't know, it's an interesting thought experiment. All content can be done 100% solo, but the world is also something of a sandbox, where players can have land, rent houses, whatever. They have the option of doing content in groups, but it really is optional.
My guess would be player expectations. Even if a player doesn't want to focus on group content, they expect group content to exist. It might hurt sales or retention if a game is too far off the path of 'normal'.
Just a guess.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Group co-op is not the only interaction out there, is it? Trading is an interaction. AH is an interaction.
And i think you get it reverse. It is not people want SP console games as a MMORPG, it is MMORPG devs want to capture the SP console game players as a part of their audience, and integrate SP game elements into MMORPGs.
Lastly, do you really think solo-ability is not a MMORPG issue? With so many MMORPG touting the ability to solo in them.
Do you even know what a mmorpg is, the definition is, and how odd your statement sounds? MMO = massively multiplayer online.................. Doesnt say massively singleplayer online. Here since you still dont get it let me draw you a picture:
See the top left picture is singleplayer, see the solo character.
See the top right is online games with multiplayer function like statistica, moba, etc without the world and fun. Anywhere from 2-a few dozen players that can interact with things that are linked, but not shared.
See the bottom picture is a MMO/MMORPG. Its a whole lot of people in a circle, the circle represents a world, and they all interact at the same time and have lots of fun.
I still cant believe you do not understand the difference and want the entire industry to change for your views of what a mmo is.
And yes single player style games should stay out of mmorpg's, it does nothing but ruin what mmorpgs stand for. Go put some mmorpg into a single player console and be happy with that.
Solo PvE content in a PvP MMO where you need to group up to overcome the PvP obstacles.
Problem solved & a perfect game.
I go with this industry definition:
http://www.newzoo.com/insights/the-global-mmo-market-sizing-and-seizing-opportunities-2/
And since that includes LOL .. certainly there is SP game features in MMOs.
Do YOU know what the current MMO definition is?
Playing 100% solo is boring as shit. I can play solo for a while before I get bored (but not overly long), but even then, I'm constantly watching chat to see if anyone wants to group for content I want to do. If everything was 100% solo, I would get very bored, very quickly.
I personally love seeing LFG this and that. It gives me motivation to level to do it myself with others. I like grouping with other players and having fun.
I think games are FAR too solo-heavy as it is and needs to be scaled back. 50-50 is probably fine, but it's currently like 80-20 for soloing.
I generally don't level up just to do things myself. I level up, obtain gear, etc., to be more useful in group situations, and to show off a little while I'm at it if possible.
That being said, OP, I woudln't be surprised if a 100% solo game is in the works. I just don't think it'll last.
To be fair, i prefer LFD grouping to level in a MMO. But i also understand there are those who prefer solo more. Boring to you is not boring to others, i hope you understand that.
Actually if a game is MMO .. hence online, there is usually a MP component. Even games like Diablo and Torchlight 2 are not 100% solo.