Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The problem with "Solo-friendly"
sfc1971
Member UncommonPosts: 421
Recently some MMO companies seem to have embraced the solo-player. When you read the FAQ for Guild Wars 2, they proudly announce "Yes. You will be able to advance your character to the maximum level without ever joining a group if you so desire."
This is odd. Why? Just a few years ago a series of games launched that could ONLY be played with other people. I am talking of course about Multiplayer First Person Shooters. Games like Counterstrike and numerous other mods on single player FPS all could only be played against other people, they had no single player element. Later on even commercial games launched that if you didn't want to play with others, you just couldn't play.
So what has happened with MMO's that games that by their very name suggest playing with others, people want to solo?
It could be a more individualized society in which many people no longer have the social skills to work together. Working together in a game is after all not the same as a deadmatch or joining a social site. The previous two you can do on your own terms. More so in fact then their old fashioned equivelant. A paintball match requires everyone to agree on a date and has strict rules. You can't shoot the guy sipping a beer in the bar. People with real guns will stop you. And meeting up on facebook is a lot less involved then meeting up in said bar.
But it could also be that the MMO's themselves make grouping needlessly hard. Why drop 1 item in a group instance when you also allow said group instance to be soloed and then that one person gets everything? That is what "Lord of the Rings Online" is currently doing, solo an instance and you get all the rare drops for yourself. Seems an odd way to encourage group play.
Yet is it such a problem to be solo-friendly? That is after all the title of this rant. And yes, I think it is. NOT because you couldn't design a good solo MMORPG, however odd such a game would be, but that current companies just can't get it right.
A game like Lord of the Rings Online has been designed as a group game, were each class has its own weaknesses and is particularly strong against certain type of enemies.
The champ: +light multiple melee enemies -ranged enemies +enemies that rely on inductions
Minstrel: +low dps heavies -multiple anything +human +undead -animals
The champs is the prime solo class, up to a point as there are a few parts where multiple ranged enemies have to be engaged and the champ ain't all that well suited for it.
The minstrel is far less lucky. Some new enemies in Moria self-heal, if that skill isn't interrupted, the minstrel faces an enemy with a full health bar. The minstrel got ONE interrupt, fear, and that one is also needed to deal with multiple mobs.
The result? The champion can steamroll through content, but gets stuck, he then screams for a minstrel who is stuck far further back. Since solo-players are by definition not capable of thinking "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" the two will never meet up. The champion will demand more solo-friendlyness and the minstrel will give up or only play with friends.
For a game to be solo-friendly, it is NOT enough to just lower the enemy rank, EVERYTHING has to be redesigned. Turbine has done this, a quest that used to have an elite and two regulars now has only two regulars. Easy for a champ, do-able by a minstrel. (V1 Book5 Get the plans) But in the previous book the instance with legolas is a pain in the ass for anyone who is not a champ. Multiple elite mobs. Sure, you won't die with the solo-buff, but it becomes the most boring grind you could ever imagine. Just taking down 12 roots with a single target class is enough to turn people off the game forever.
For Turbine, solo-friendly means taking Counterstrike, putting in the dumbest AI ever found and then selling it as a single player game and four of the levels have you bare-fisted against entrenced snipers and machine gunners. A single player game can be played by a single player. A group game requires a group. Start to mix those two up and you get a game that doesn't appeal to either one.
The group players get fed up looking for a group because everyone else in the area is soloing it, and the soloers get fed up having to skip content because they can't find anyone willing to play with them.
MMO designers should I think stick to one of three designs:
Single player game with chat lobby, there is a market for this, where the social aspect is trading items, showing of your stats and bragging about how fast you could run an instance. X-box live?
Multiple player group game. You group or you don't play. Each class has its weaknesses and strengths and only together can you overcome the odds. Multiplayer FPS are the closest to it.
Hybrid. But NOT mixing the two, putting the previous two in the same game but seperated. Clear GROUP and clear SOLO content. No epic quests that force a small group, solo, large group, solo in the same hour. When you want to solo, you go to the solo area. When you want to group you head to the group content. Easy travel to gather up and loot drops not designed to encourage greed.
Current games try to please everyone and end up pleasing nobody. Not because a solo-mmorpg is a bad idea, but because they try to refactor a group game into a solo game and get it horribly wrong. Why does Lotro put a solo quest behind a horde of elites even the best champ can't tackle on his own? Because its designers never figured out the difference between solo and group. They rate a quest based on the end mob, the health bar it has. Not its skills or were it is positioned.
Don't mix group and solo content up. You don't put the disco and the library in the same room do you?
Comments
It doesn't mean you have to play a certain way, it's just there as an option.
Personally I like to play both ways because sometimes people just make me want to set baby seals on fire.
I mean, if I played a game where I was forced to either play by myself (in an MMO setting) or if I was forced to group (as in, I couldn't get a damn thing done by myself) I would get really irritated with the game and probably not play.
The satisfaction is in the style you choose, and the best part is that you don't have to stick with one option.
Just my thoughts.
If the game is designed to be played solo only, then it would be bad. But most of these new MMO's that come out with solo friendly paths, that's a great idea IMO. It doesn't take any of the MMO out of MMO, it just lets you decide when you want to interact, instead of forcing you to play with other people. Some days I just feel like I want to progress, but really don't want to talk to other people, just play the game on my own terms. If the game is designed to be solo and group oriented, that gives you the option to do what you want and options should be what gaming is about. Nothing forced.
It's the fact that the majority of players are whiny, inarticulate and immature - and I'm not referring to age there, by the way - as well as incompetent. Additionally, the much-vaunted socialising in groups these days, which everyone bangs on about as if it's some stupendous and wonderful thing, is simply the odd LOL, KK, WTF appearing into the chat box every now and again, or if they really exert themselves, a comment about what their favourite snack is.
Bollocks to putting up with any or all of that! I'll either use the taciturn but reasonably competent NPC Hirelings/Henchmen or just solo the damn thing while voice-chatting to REAL friends.
Well where you tell us "Yes. You will be able to advance your character to the maximum level without ever joining a group if you so desire." this doesnt mean that just because it is a solo-friendly game mean its going to be able to solo end game things. In WoW I have leveled a few characters completely solo.... but WoW isnt really a game built on Solo friendly end game. I do believe every game should at least have the option to level your character to the full extent on your own other wise you wouldnt be able to progress at all without a group.... big reason why I gave up on DDO...
There is at least one reason why "solo-friendly" is a good thing.
If you want to experience the story the game provides then it's best to solo this part for the first time (or even first few times). Or if you want to figure out how the quest can be solved on your own. The problem with going in a group is that not every group member will have the time or patience to wait. Some people just want the quest finished as soon as possible, so they can get their rewards. And even if the games provide some sort of social panel or grouping panel, there are lots that plainly ignore comments like "quest x", "slow play", "no zerg", etc.
But then again, personally I don't like playing with a single character. Instead I rather prefer the way the single player CRPGs did it, where you have to control a whole party.
This genre isn't called MGGO (Massive Grouping Games Online)
This genre is supose to be about the freedom it can provide it's players.
I know plenty of ingame solo players among myself aswell, I keep in contact with, occasionally we meet up to group for the fun of it, we chat, we trade or help with crafted items, we help newbies, we are very social, where I feel the random grouping actually lacks the social part as it often goes like: Hey I need a group, you enter, hardly any talk apart from Hi, when quest/mission is done it's Bye. It's actually the grouping in the last several years that has somewhat forced me into a more solo play, as I want to immerse myself when playing a MMORPG, not worry about the useless argument as to why someone who takes a "NEED" of loot and not worry I need to hurry but can take my time to experiance the actuall content.
I also treath ingame players as I do in real life, meaning I like to get to know people over a period of time, finding like minded people, I truly dislike the instant lvl 1 enter my guild/clan type of players as why would I join a guild/clan of people I hardly know, let me get to know you first, let me see what your playstyle is like, get to know me first, then after some time perhaps we mght end up liking eachother playstyles and become ingame "friends"
MMORPG's are suposed to be games for long term play, so in time you're bound to meet likeminded people to explore things you might not have experianced the solo way. Or you might find out the game isn't right for you and leave. Where I have seen plenty of guilds/clans where people just disappeared which is one of hte reason I like to get to know people first to see how dedicated they are towards the game before I start a "ingame relationship" with them.
But the point I am trying to make is that is NOT an option. People who picked the "wrong" class are forced to group because "solo-friendly" content doesn't take them into account, while solo players are still forced to group for the really though content.
That is why I suggest at the end that MMO's design themselves for either one group or the other OR combine them but by keeping the two types of content seperate. Constant mixing of group and solo content just doesn't work for either group.
The Original Guild wars was soloable up to max level as well. I don't see the problem. The noob flakes and loot whores pissed me off so much in that game, I ended up only playing solo.
I play solo because I just don't like having to work harder for less. And usually group play in guild wars was for less until end game pvp. I hate carrying people because they don't know how to play. Alternatively when I'm new to an older MMO, I play solo so that I don't become a drag on others until I get down the skills, timing, placement, etc.
Solo play is valuable. If it wasn't for solo play, I'd have quit many games long before I quit them out of frustration with other people.
All excellent points.
they fixing these things....GW2 with no healer at all, so all should solo relative easy Id guess. and newer MMOs got healers with extra DPS to make them play less painfull solo.
the only reason Id ever play a MMO is for the group play, so many folks on this site complaint about kill x of y quests, which is what you get from solo quests, most of these even punish you if you would be in a group of 1 or 2 others - single player games is just so much more fun and involving in their solo play.
either way wish MMOs would move away from put their focus on solo gameplay...not remove it just not making it a as valid way to progress as grouping. but well as OP say they dont, they go toward making solo play more fun, so the only thing you got other ppl in the world for, is to make the game less enjoyable...well or enhance it like GW2 and believe rift too, by make events scale dynamicly, tho you d still risk the guy coming into "your" event aint a good player and maybe you d loose cause of this guy....and again wouldnt make the game more enjoyable, having other ppl in the gameworld with you.
The problem with solo-friendly games is that it kills community, as can be seen by almost all the replies to this thread. I'll show you what I mean:
Personally I like to play both ways because sometimes people just make me want to set baby seals on fire.
It's the fact that the majority of players are whiny, inarticulate and immature - and I'm not referring to age there, by the way - as well as incompetent.
The problem with going in a group is that not every group member will have the time or patience to wait. Some people just want the quest finished as soon as possible, so they can get their rewards.
Hey I need a group, you enter, hardly any talk apart from Hi, when quest/mission is done it's Bye. It's actually the grouping in the last several years that has somewhat forced me into a more solo play...
The noob flakes and loot whores pissed me off so much in that game, I ended up only playing solo. Solo play is valuable. If it wasn't for solo play, I'd have quit many games long before I quit them out of frustration with other people.
All this animosity grows from having solo-friendly games. People prefer to solo as a lot of them came from single player games, so when it comes to grouping they don't know how to interact. They don't understand how their character should work as a team with other classes. The system is probably designed so this one quest is group only in a sea of solo quests, so they just want to get it done and don't care who they're grouping with, so they can get back to their solo quests. As they're soloers they think that they're entitled to whatever loot drops, not realising the concept of sharing between other members.
Community is simply killed by solo-friendly content. Groups bring people together, they have to learn to interact with each other, to understand how their class works with other classes, friendships are created, people trust other players to help them through content. Until all this "Solo to Max Level" stuff is pushed out of MMO's people are going to continue to be whiny, immature, incompetent, uncaring, loot whores.. because they won't be 'taught' to act any differently.
There's only one real issue here.
I think these are facts:
Solo friendly games are good, because many people like to play them. If you have fun, the game is good.
Group friendly games are good, because many people like to play them. If you have fun, the game is good.
You cannot design a game that is BOTH solo friendly, AND group friendly, at the same time.
The common argument you see, is solo players will argue that a solo friendly game allows group play, so it's the best design!
But what kind of design is that? A SOLO FRIENDLY design. So they are in essence just saying, they like solo friendly games, and NOT group friendly games.
A "group friendly" game, must have challening group content. Optional group content is not challenging. A group can just plow through solo content in a solo friendly game, or at any time they can just break up the group, and go solo making just as much, if not more XP solo.
This means the group content is "optional", not challenging, and therefore the game is SOLO FRIENDLY.
When you make the group content "challenging" instead of optional, the solo player will encounter difficulty. They will look for a path that gives them EQUAL or better XP to the group content, and it will not be there. Therefore the game will be GROUP FRIENDLY, but the solo player will often label the game "forced" grouping.
So again, BOTH designs are good, because players enjoy BOTH types of games.
The only question is, can you design a game that is SOLO Friendly, and GROUP Friendly, AT THE SAME TIME?
The answer is no.
All other arguments are simply WHY you prefer group friendly, or solo friendly.
There is no "PROBLEM" with group friendly, or solo friendly games.
Solo players LOVE solo friendly games.
Group players LOVE group friendly games.
The only problem is when you think you can satisfy BOTH groups with one game. It cannot be done, because they are the opposite, and one cancels the other out.
I do not buy that you can't have a game that is solo and group friendly.
As a gedanken experiment, what would happen if we glued the LOTRO world with the EQ1 world. I think those are examples of one of each world. Meaning, you could take a boat from Freeport to the Grey Havens (assuming that zone existed).
Also please ignore graphics and ui differences...
How would that destroy the EQ1 world? Is such a gluing not possible because the skill/character mechanics could never match up? By that i mean that it is the character design that makes a game solo friendly, world design doesn't matter.
Or maybe everyone would flee Norrath to go to middle earth. It is believable to me that a group oriented game only survives if people are forced to play it. EQ1 in its first year (when all the 'hardcore' were playing it) had its detractors saying that you couldn't tie your shoe unless you had a group. And the reply was that they were free to leave and play any other mmorpgs out there (there were none save UO). However when both these games are glued together, a person who didn't like having a group to tie their shoe could leave to middle earth.
The simple answer is that most people are self-centered, egotistical, the world should be all about me.
That is what these newer MMOs and Real life has taught me.
I've said this before. Yes you can.
yes.
Lineage 2 was both solo friendly and group friendly. I mostly soloed in Lineage 2. There were a few things that did require group but overall there was group content and solo content. Group areas and solo areas.
I would state that if one did run in a group then one would be safer and take advantage of safety in numbers.
But the majority of all my levels was done solo. Yes there were people grouping in Cruma, Tower of Insolence, Forge of the Gods, Catas/Necros.
While I was in the Wastes, Forest of Mirrors, Sea of Spores, Forsaken plains. Forest of the Dead (think that was its name).
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I did'nt read the whole OP post but i'll tell you this. If you want to know why peoples prefer to solo, go to WOW and try the Looking for Dungeon feature. I guarantee that after a few hours of this you'll go back playing solo. The golden ages of MMO is long gone. Gone the time when socializing, hunting in group was fun, now today is all about speed and efficiency, having to wait an hour just to find a group to do quests (not solo friendly) is not what peoples wants these days, back 10 years ago it was an all other story, but back then MMO were new.
I per-fer solo..I dont need a party to hold my hand to kill 10 of these and that..Party is a time waster takes forever to get one going,even if you did get one going..One player will disconnect..the other one my mom is calling me,the other one is talking on a phone not paying attention to the game.The list can go on..Oh and the guilds are useless..They should have everything solo even bosses..Why make bosses for party only, when i am out there killing 50 of these and that all by my self..These types of games i find useless..I am sure i am not the only one feels this way..Glad that GW2 can be solo..
Mod edit correction
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Community is killed by having a way too high level of dickheads in the game. If the community is moribund, players like me resort to solo play to avoid the cretins - not because we wish to solo, per se. The groups I have joined in most games have actively driven out any urge I have to join/form a group, and most DEFINITELY fail at bringing people together. I started off as being happy to group, many years ago and was in a warm, friendly guild, then when people moved out to newer games - as did I - I got to the point where the people just weren't worth my time or effort on any level of interaction you could name.
At the moment, Perpetuum is the only game in YEARS I have enjoyed grouping and chatting in. Good community, you see - not yet ruined by an influx of people that I wouldn't even want to sit next to on a bus, never mind interact with. It's like the good old days as I remember them - helpful, ethusiastic people in chat, groups who - incredibly - might pool all the loot they've gathered into a Field Canister, and amicably share the loot out afterwards with each other without grumbles and whining. Incredible. Hell, I'll team up with a newbie, blast the crap out of everything and let them get all the loot, purely because I once again, for the first time in YEARS, get a kick out of helping players who are appreciative, talkative and who go on to pay good deeds forward by helping others in turn.
I bet my bottom dollar it will not last, though. When the closed Beta ends, I'm concerned that the enthusiasts will be overrun with f**kwits, and the community will rapidly wither. Hopefully the relatively steep learning curve will discourage most of them, but I'm not holding my breath.
One final thing... Perpetuum IS that sort of game which is solo AND group friendly. You can solo as a Miner, maybe concentrate on Production or simply be a Hunter/Looter. You can, however, do any or all of these better as a group, and in fact things go much better if players form a Player Corp and pool resources or assign themselves to roles in the Corp that fit their play-style. Now you don't see that much these days - and yes, after several years of being driven to solo play because of the shitty playerbase most games have, I have in fact joined a very friendly Corp and I am once again having a blast. I really hope things stay this way....
What is killing community is the "i dont care" mentality of most gamers nowadays. A MMO should filter the cretins on its own through active participations of the good players . Let me give an example: in WoW if you have been ninja'ed and you try to warn the other players about a ninja they will flame you away instead of asking for evidence . If people would actively work on ignoring the morons they will be forced to become nicer , but now if you grief players you might end up being ignored by what , 1% of the community? Nothing to be really worried about, so why try to be nicer?
And huge communities is for instance one of the problems. If i'd need to be ignoring every moron in WoW i'd have pages full of ignore lists , its almost impossible to ignore every cretin because there are just too many of them.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
Yes, it does. It's not just being solo friendly, it's making it be much easier and faster to solo than to group. Most modern MMOs do that, and its a big problem. If people think having the option to solo doesn't change the feel of a game, and that people that enjoy grouping will still group, they're wrong. I know from experience.
I played Dark Age of Camelot for 6 years. For the first 2 years it was very focused on group being the fastest way to level. I knew a few folks that never grouped with a single other person, but just hunted by themselves. They got to the level cap, and they had fun, that was how they wanted to play. But the majority of players played in groups. You could log in, say you were LFG, or run into a well camped area and join up with other people almost immediately. People would hunt together, talk, and socialize. I met many online friends this way, and sometimes, even if you didn't become good friends, you'd run into them months later in the frontier and remember their name and the time you hunted with them, the conversations you had.
Then it suddenly became just as fast to solo as it was to group. Groups totally dissapeared. The game stopped gaining new subscribers because there were no vets around to teach newbies the ropes. The community feel began to die. Every just ran into their own private corner and grinded to cap, avoiding others if they could.
As one who loved grouping, it was VERY hard to ever find a group after that, and the mentality stayed forever shifted. If I did group, it was with 1 or 2 people who didn't say a word and we just mindlessly killed. When you cater to people who don't socialize as your primary audience, the social side of the game decays. Look at LotRO. All about fellowship and great quests, but its all solo focused, so no one groups and no one talks.
If you don't design an MMO with social interaction in its core, than you might as well just make a single player MMO.
Anyone else find it ironic that it's nearly always the "group" player shitting on the solo player? Solo players are happy with letting the groupers do their thing, but the groupers want to eliminate the solo option.
I can't keep track of how many times this gauy has made this same lame argument. No matter how many times you type it, it will never become true.
LIFE contains both solo and group elements, and they both seem to exist in the same plane of existence. MMO's work the same way, even if you close your eyes and plug your ears and pretend that it doesn't.
You can solo in EVERY MMORPG.
You can group in EVERY MMORPG.
That fact alone does not make a game group friendly, or solo friendly.
There is no MMORPG that instanly kills your character and gives you ZERO xp if you don't group, but decide to solo.
There is no MMORPG that instanly kills your character and gives you ZERO xp if you decide to group.
Group friendly or solo friendly is determined by the rate of XP made group or solo.
If you make the same XP either way the game is solo friendly. There's no reason to group, therefore no challenging group content. It's an option in the game, like crafting. Do it if you want, don't do it if you don't want to.
If you make more xp solo, it's a solo friendly game.
If you make substantially more xp grouping, it's a group friendly game.
You cannot make more xp solo, and more xp grouping, at the same time.
The XP rate encourages you to engage in one activity or the other. If the XP is the same, the time it takes to group is discouraging you to group, because you are losing XP, even if it's just walking over to meet someone in an area.
If the XP rate is more for grouping, you are encouraged to group for the faster xp.
"Friendly" is the encouragement for one activity or another.
Friendly =/= allows you do do the activity.
You are allowed to group or solo in ALL MMORPGs.
People solo'ed to the cap in the "forced grouping" game of EQ. People play exclusively groups in the "solo friendly" game of WoW.
Allowing you to solo or group is not "friendly" in any way.
Ok, great, then I still hold up Lineage 2 as an example.
They've played around with group bonuses over the years but there are places where you can group and get excellent xp. Heck, there was a point where there were just mage groups going up to Tower of Insolence and hitting wind weak mobs and getting great xp. There were also places where one could solo and get great xp.
It's not a perfect balance and I haven't seen any game with perfect balance, but the truth of it was that people can get cata/necro groups together, get very decent xp and get seal stones. Or they can go to one of the very solo friendly places and get great xp.
There is a dungeon (and I can't remember the name) that has a giant library where we would camp, get huge trains of mobs to follow the tank into a corner and we would AOE the heck out of them. extremely good xp. But when my clan wasn't doing that I could go to Hot Springs and get very good xp.
There are also places for solo with lousy xp and same for group.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
This is actually just a distortion of the facts.
I want to play in a group friendly game.
How is you letting me group in your solo friendly game "letting me do my thing"?
It's not.
It's just you saying I should like playing a solo friendly game.
I do the exact same thing, and you say it's "shitting on you".
Name one game that gives you ZERO xp, and does not allow you to kill one mob solo and get xp?
You can't, becaues it doesn't exist.
So you can technically "do your thing", solo, in EVERY MMORPG.
What's the difference?
The only difference is, you want to say because I can group in your solo friendly game, that's great, but even though you can solo in my group frienldy game, it's terrible.
Why the hypocrisy?
Can you solo in a group friendly game? Yes you can.
Can you group in a solo friendly game? yes you can.
Difference?
You LIKE solo friendly, you DON"T LIKE group friendly.
I LIKE group friendly, DON"T LIKE solo friendly.
Why keep saying there's some big difference in liking solo friendly and liking group friendly?
We're exactly opposite sides of the same coin.