Saw this post 3 betas ago on the beta forums, I think it says it pretty well:
I have spent a good 12 hours before I had to go to sleep questing while grouping from Bleak Rock to Stonefalls, slogging through the most ridiculously convoluted and frustrating phasing and questing systems I have ever experienced.
It's been a lot of fun overall, but the frustration with these systems is already mounting within the first 7 levels. So I will keep this as brief as I can:
PROBLEM 1: Phasing overrides groups and takes priority. I will lose track of my group-members if they are on slightly different quest as me
SOLUTION: Make grouping override phasing. I should never lose sight of my group-members, even if what they are doing I can't see or cross a phase-line I haven't yet. This already happens a bit but if they cross a phase-line, or are doing a quest that I have already done and is phased out for me, let me at least SEE them.
I really dislike HUD elements so I tend to turn off things like group member indicators: the phasing made this desire IMPOSSIBLE to deal with so I am choosing between a lesser of two evils. I should never have to do that mechanically, (although lesser of two evils in questing is great!).
PROBLEM 2: Main Quest instanced scenarios override grouping.
SOLUTION: I get why you guys are doing this. The philosphy is that the player should feel special and all the other players should feel like red-shirt NPCs when it comes to the main story, a la a single-player TES game where you are "the one." But this is unfortunately, not a good approach, it creates more frustrating problems than it does create immersion.
What I say is, simply drop that philosophy when it comes to quests. We KNOW that we are doing the same thing at the same time in parallel planes and we KNOW that both of us are soul-shriven and we have no souls and we have the same MQ goals. If you are grouped with people when doing one of these missions, simply treat it like a party: let us do the quests together. Just go there, it will bother zero people and it will take out a ton of frustration from this.
I am a heavy RPer, lore-nerd extraordinaire and immersion junkie and this would not bother me at all, in fact it would help me enjoy the game more. To a person playing by themselves it will feel individual but I like to play MMOs with my friends, please never restrict me from doing ANYTHING with my friends if I want that experience.
PROBLEM 3:Open-world Quests do not always take groups into consideration when they should.
EXAMPLE: The quest when leaving Bleak Rock, when you run through that Barrow right next to the town and out to the ship, was incredibly frustrating playing with another player. He would activate something and I would have to do it too. This makes no sense. If one of my group members talks to an NPC and activates a part of a quest, then it should activate for me too. This prevents waiting on friends to finish quests which should never really happen if grouped.
There are quests with minor objectives that are group-linked but they are few and far-between. All quests should be group-linked. Keep in mind it is MY choice that I quest while grouped, and mine alone (well, my group-member also has the choice). So you as designers do not need to compensate for that. If I choose to group up with someone else and do the a quest, please let me do that.
This includes the quest-givers who you follow. Make them one per group, not one per player. The other players in the group can always catch up with the one who initiated but it is completely immersion-breaking the way it currently works.
Treat the group like one single entity in this way. Even with gather quests. The quest-giver should treat you as one unit, working together.
IN CLOSING: As an avid PvEer (also love PvP) and quester, I really think this is the most glaring issue I have seen thus far. It is potentially game-breaking and ridiculously frustrating and I do not see how fixing it would cause any problems for any other people with a different play-style. If someone wants to treat the game like a single-player experience then so be it, but then they should not join a group. That seems logical to me and the game does not need to hold anyone's hand in that regard.
Again, sorry for sounding so critical, but this game means everything to me. I have always wanted a TES MMO and am so grateful to have been invited to beta. I hope you find my feedback to be well-intentioned and realize that I just want to see this game become what is truly should be (and is so close to becoming): the greatest MMORPG ever created. Keep up the amazing work!
Saw this post 3 betas ago on the beta forums, I think it says it pretty well:
I have spent a good 12 hours before I had to go to sleep questing while grouping from Bleak Rock to Stonefalls, slogging through the most ridiculously convoluted and frustrating phasing and questing systems I have ever experienced.
It's been a lot of fun overall, but the frustration with these systems is already mounting within the first 7 levels. So I will keep this as brief as I can:
PROBLEM 1: Phasing overrides groups and takes priority. I will lose track of my group-members if they are on slightly different quest as me
SOLUTION: Make grouping override phasing. I should never lose sight of my group-members, even if what they are doing I can't see or cross a phase-line I haven't yet. This already happens a bit but if they cross a phase-line, or are doing a quest that I have already done and is phased out for me, let me at least SEE them.
I really dislike HUD elements so I tend to turn off things like group member indicators: the phasing made this desire IMPOSSIBLE to deal with so I am choosing between a lesser of two evils. I should never have to do that mechanically, (although lesser of two evils in questing is great!).
PROBLEM 2: Main Quest instanced scenarios override grouping.
SOLUTION: I get why you guys are doing this. The philosphy is that the player should feel special and all the other players should feel like red-shirt NPCs when it comes to the main story, a la a single-player TES game where you are "the one." But this is unfortunately, not a good approach, it creates more frustrating problems than it does create immersion.
What I say is, simply drop that philosophy when it comes to quests. We KNOW that we are doing the same thing at the same time in parallel planes and we KNOW that both of us are soul-shriven and we have no souls and we have the same MQ goals. If you are grouped with people when doing one of these missions, simply treat it like a party: let us do the quests together. Just go there, it will bother zero people and it will take out a ton of frustration from this.
I am a heavy RPer, lore-nerd extraordinaire and immersion junkie and this would not bother me at all, in fact it would help me enjoy the game more. To a person playing by themselves it will feel individual but I like to play MMOs with my friends, please never restrict me from doing ANYTHING with my friends if I want that experience.
PROBLEM 3:Open-world Quests do not always take groups into consideration when they should.
EXAMPLE: The quest when leaving Bleak Rock, when you run through that Barrow right next to the town and out to the ship, was incredibly frustrating playing with another player. He would activate something and I would have to do it too. This makes no sense. If one of my group members talks to an NPC and activates a part of a quest, then it should activate for me too. This prevents waiting on friends to finish quests which should never really happen if grouped.
There are quests with minor objectives that are group-linked but they are few and far-between. All quests should be group-linked. Keep in mind it is MY choice that I quest while grouped, and mine alone (well, my group-member also has the choice). So you as designers do not need to compensate for that. If I choose to group up with someone else and do the a quest, please let me do that.
This includes the quest-givers who you follow. Make them one per group, not one per player. The other players in the group can always catch up with the one who initiated but it is completely immersion-breaking the way it currently works.
Treat the group like one single entity in this way. Even with gather quests. The quest-giver should treat you as one unit, working together.
IN CLOSING: As an avid PvEer (also love PvP) and quester, I really think this is the most glaring issue I have seen thus far. It is potentially game-breaking and ridiculously frustrating and I do not see how fixing it would cause any problems for any other people with a different play-style. If someone wants to treat the game like a single-player experience then so be it, but then they should not join a group. That seems logical to me and the game does not need to hold anyone's hand in that regard.
Again, sorry for sounding so critical, but this game means everything to me. I have always wanted a TES MMO and am so grateful to have been invited to beta. I hope you find my feedback to be well-intentioned and realize that I just want to see this game become what is truly should be (and is so close to becoming): the greatest MMORPG ever created. Keep up the amazing work!
This was an excellent post.
I tried to post something similiar, and since there was no feedback or suggestions sections on the forums, it was promptly removed.
I would be amazed if ZOS changed any of the phasing mechanics before launch. The best you can hope for is that they fix some of the bugs that apparently occur even when 2 grouped players are at similar points in a quest.
As for overriding phasing of the main story while grouped, forget it. They are not going to redesign their entire game flow at this point (or most likely ever).
I'm sure the closed beta testers must have raised concerns about the impact of phasing on group play. ZOS have obviously decided to ignore those objections, for better or for worse...
I love it how so many people define a MMORPG Based on other MMORPG's. Phasing is fine in fact really good. The game would be more of a stale feel without it. I want less ever other MMORPG and more of this. I bet most people who hate the phasing are also the people who don't read every quest and book in the game. Their target audience is not you its me!
well, if ZOS is so anxious to make each player feel "the One", then why not simply make this a SPG till the solo quest line is completed and THEN open it up to multiplayer...
Your logic is so backwards it hurts. We're not discussing whether or not soloing or grouping is better. In an organic real world sense, with real world logic, grouping to take on solo content isn't something that needs to be artificially limited. It's so simple I almost can't figure out how to explain it to you. A game that is supposed to simulate a virtual world does NOT need to put rules in place to STOP people from grouping. Grouping is an organic and desired outcome. YOu play a multiplayer game to be able to interact with other people. If a game forces you to play singleplayer, that's just silly. Now if a game does the opposite, has big imposing challenges that encourages you to group, that ALSO makes sense because that is ALSO how the real world works. There are big challenges that one person cannot face, so they need others to help them. THIS GAME creates weird splinter realities that just make it hard to PLAY A MULTIPLAYER GAME WITH FRIENDS. It is BACKWARDS design and very obviously not intended, or it would be 100% clear and not so sporadic and glitchy.
You mean, not a lot? If it was making a ton of money and had a ton of players they wouldn't have done 3 server merges and fired 80% of the game staff, nor would EA have had a huge stock drop that year. It didn't start getting into the black until they were running a skeleton crew of devs who are so understaffed they can't even add a single new class to the game because its too technically challenging. Are you high? In what universe does having your business implode = success? Meanwhile, Eve is STILL growing. THAT'S a success, and it has the second most number of subs in the MMO market. It didn't start with many more, and it had the biggest MMO budget in the history of the genre. Do you not understand how business works? Profits? Nothing?
There wasn't. There was arguably more competition because there were about 3-4 AAA releases every year, and a much smaller user base. Now we have about 2 AAA MMOs a year.
A game that was trying to be an "organic real world" wouldn't have static content. When having an "organic" or "real" world is ruled out by the fundamental design elements of the game, it ceases to be a relevant argument, and the developers can focus just on what makes sense for the game as a game, rather than as a world simulation. When you have multiple playstyles that your game is trying to cater to, it makes sense to provide exclusive content for each of those playstyles. And, if a given piece of content is designed with a particular playstyle in mind, it makes perfect sense to require you to play it in the manner intended. Players shouldn't be able to circumvent the intended difficulty of solo content by having groups carry them any more than they should be able finish group content by themselves.
And did we step into a time warp? Is there some reason you are talking about 2012 TOR instead of 2014 TOR? Any product that is profitable is successful. TOR made more money on it's cash shop alone in 2013 than any game other than WoW pulls in from their subscriptions, and it still had roughly half a million subscribers. At EvE's last reported numbers, it's sub numbers had finally grown, after several years, to reach what TOR's sub numbers have stabilized at after dropping. Do you not understand how business works? Games pulling in more than 200 million a year in revenue are generally considered successes. TOR and Eve, at the last reported numbers for each, had roughly the same number of subscribers, and once you add in cash shop revenue, TOR is making a lot more money year to year.
And 3-4 AAA releases a year, seriously? Someone could make a very believable argument that prior to WoW, there had never been a AAA MMO, and that that was a major one of the reasons for WoW's success, it was like the Yankees competing in a little league tournament. The only game that released in the same window that even eventually became halfway decent was EQ2, and it started out in pretty bad shape.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
by your so called logic anything outside dungeons are designed to be solo contents?
and by solo contents i do quest A in area X and my friend does B in area X why cant i see my friend? its not like he/she is helping with my solo content quest A.
and then if i do quest A and my friend decide to do quest A too. we can then see each other and quest A become multi player content???
its really simple. i want to lvl with friends. but i cannot see my friends. so as mentioned, i will play it as a single player game. except for rare occasions one or two of my friends maybe on the same quest.
i believe in most mmo we are able to lvl with friends. some games even have content scaling with number of participating players. i love es serie & i want eso to be successful so i hope there will be some improvements on this. but seriously your counter argument does not make any sense.
I don't know how much attention you paid to the narrative in ESO, but the PvE side of it is fundamentally single player. You are *the* chosen one who helped the Prophet escape Coldharbour. It frankly doesn't make any sense for you to be grouped with other players while doing most quest content. ESO is essentially two different games; a single player, narratively driven Elder Scrolls game in the PvE areas, and DAOC 2 with an Elder Scrolls theme in the PvP area.
There are dungeons for groups, but honestly they feel a little tacked on, they have nothing to do with the PvP side of the game and feel inconsistent with the rest of the PvE side where you are the One True Hero.
ok it must be my mistake wanting to play this game with friends.
ok it must be my mistake wanting to play this game with friends.
thanks for your insight.
There is an entire (massive) zone dedicated to playing with your friends. You just have to be prepared to fight the other groups of people playing with their friends.
Originally posted by Riannes
Its facinating how one thought process can be like that isnt it?
sometime i just wish there is a topic discussing what is more helping, defend baby at whatever the cost or constructive criticism.
Criticism is only constructive this late in the development of a game if it is something that can be changed quickly and easily. The way they approach phasing is far too integral to the game to fall into that category.
Originally posted by Tibernicuspa
Yeah, who wants multiplayer in their massively multiplayer games? I love being forced into a pocket dimension away from my group mate. That OBVIOUSLY means I love reading quest text too!
Singleplayer storylines and MMOs never mix well. This game is a good reminder of that.
Yeah, who wants their MMORPG to actually be a decent RPG?
Singleplayer storylines and MMOs can mix extremely well. This game is a good reminder of that.
EDIT: And as for the TOR sub-discussion, you're trying to hard. Professionally produced studies from a reputable company that people in the industry pay to get full access to are supposed to be considered less credible than your random theories based on absolutely nothing?
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Everyone wants to be an expert game critic these days ... no MMO failed because some player predicted it. A good MMO needs to finds it niche and stick with it ... what WoW did won't be repeated as players have become fiercely divided over what they feel constitutes a well done game.
For me? It is all about the Lore and the variety of things to do such as questing, exploration, crafting, collectibles, housing, etc. The catering too much towards either PvP or "End-Game Raiding" has never proven effective in keeping a game profitable. Being from the early UO, DAoC and EQ era ... I find the way PvP is done via battlegrounds and scripted raids to be a step in the wrong direction for an RPG.
I like how someone earlier in this thread mentioned that it's not a problem for PvP. If anything it's the PvPers mostly affected by this, cause in PvE you can add your friends, group with them, it's something solvable, but in PvP this system forces you to fight against random strangers each time. And that's where PvP becomes just another treadmill grind, instead of being a close and personal game.
GW2 did the same thing with server groups changing every week and enemies with no name plates...
Devs should understand that PvP is about fighting against other players, not against mobs with a human AI.
Ummm...that's not how PvP works in this game, once you pick a Campaign..it doesn't change...Unless you pay to move servers, The people on your campaign is the people you'll always fight.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
I was referring to the running point you've been alluding to in the thread, which basically equates to, "Content that can be soloed in the game should always be done exclusively in that way, regardless of whether you'd actually enjoy playing with your friends or not. Deal with it." That argument is asinine in the context of an online game, quite frankly. Discouraging people from having a multiplayer experience in a multiplayer game makes no sense whatsoever.
You may not be able to relate, but some of us have friends and family we like to play online games with, and to deter people from doing so by making it nearly impossible to stay in the same instance with them through the leveling experience is idiotic beyond belief. No amount of spin-doctoring can change that, in my eyes. And this is coming from someone who predominantly solos in mmorpgs.
I was referring to the running point you've been alluding to in the thread, which basically equates to, "Content that can be soloed in the game should always be done exclusively in that way, regardless of whether you'd actually enjoy playing with your friends or not. Deal with it." That argument is asinine in the context of an online game, quite frankly. Discouraging people from having a multiplayer experience in a multiplayer game makes no sense whatsoever.
You may not be able to relate, but some of us have friends and family we like to play online games with, and to deter people from doing so by making it nearly impossible to stay in the same instance with them through the leveling experience is idiotic beyond belief. No amount of spin-doctoring can change that, in my eyes. And this is coming from someone who predominantly solos in mmorpgs.
So...do you also craft grouped? Just curious since you seem to think that ALL features of an MMO MUST be multiplayer.
The fact is that MMOs contain a mix of content that caters to different interests and tastes. There is not a damn thing wrong with a tiny portion of the content being solo only... sort of the opposite of instanced dungeons which are group only.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I would like to seem them make some tweaks to phasing like having all the group enter the phase of the earliest version of the quest the group members are on but overall I don't think it's that bad.
On the bright side it really does bring a sense of change to the world when your playing that I have not seen in a MMO before and it's not like there isn't lots of places where this isn't going to matter. Dungeons, PVP and end game areas won't have these issues so it's really only a short term annoyance that's going to go away as soon as you and your friends hit level cap. I have several friends who are not huge MMO fans that are buying this game just because of phasing.
I was referring to the running point you've been alluding to in the thread, which basically equates to, "Content that can be soloed in the game should always be done exclusively in that way, regardless of whether you'd actually enjoy playing with your friends or not. Deal with it." That argument is asinine in the context of an online game, quite frankly. Discouraging people from having a multiplayer experience in a multiplayer game makes no sense whatsoever.
You may not be able to relate, but some of us have friends and family we like to play online games with, and to deter people from doing so by making it nearly impossible to stay in the same instance with them through the leveling experience is idiotic beyond belief. No amount of spin-doctoring can change that, in my eyes. And this is coming from someone who predominantly solos in mmorpgs.
So...do you also craft grouped? Just curious since you seem to think that ALL features of an MMO MUST be multiplayer.
The fact is that MMOs contain a mix of content that caters to different interests and tastes. There is not a damn thing wrong with a tiny portion of the content being solo only... sort of the opposite of instanced dungeons which are group only.
Oh, give me a break with the strawman arguments. Obviously some things in the game aren't going to be a group activity (when has crafting ever been considered one?), but I'd never put something like quest leveling or anything else that would work just as well in a group setting, in that category. I mean what is there to gain exactly? How does anyone at all benefit from having content in an online game be exclusively solo? All it accomplishes is keeping people apart that would like to experience the lion share of the game together -- you know, the focal point of an mmorpg.
And again, like I said in the post you quoted, I am and have always been predominantly a solo player. I love being able to solo content and it's one of the biggest highlights that I find in ESO. But at the same time, I think arbitrarily designing content in a way (or in this case, a system like phasing) that makes it difficult to experience the ride together with a friend or two if you so choose, is just a failure of design in this genre of video gaming. I don't even see how this can be argued.
This post and the point you're attempting to make here are both so ridiculous I can't even find words for it. You should get some kind of award for this.
Which point? I count at least four in that post.
I was referring to the running point you've been alluding to in the thread, which basically equates to, "Content that can be soloed in the game should always be done exclusively in that way, regardless of whether you'd actually enjoy playing with your friends or not. Deal with it." That argument is asinine in the context of an online game, quite frankly. Discouraging people from having a multiplayer experience in a multiplayer game makes no sense whatsoever.
You may not be able to relate, but some of us have friends and family we like to play online games with, and to deter people from doing so by making it nearly impossible to stay in the same instance with them through the leveling experience is idiotic beyond belief. No amount of spin-doctoring can change that, in my eyes. And this is coming from someone who predominantly solos in mmorpgs.
So...do you also craft grouped? Just curious since you seem to think that ALL features of an MMO MUST be multiplayer.
The fact is that MMOs contain a mix of content that caters to different interests and tastes. There is not a damn thing wrong with a tiny portion of the content being solo only... sort of the opposite of instanced dungeons which are group only.
Oh, give me a break with the strawman arguments. Obviously some things in the game aren't going to be a group activity (when has crafting ever been considered one?), but I'd never put something like quest leveling or anything else that would work just as well in a group setting, in that category. I mean what is there to gain exactly? How does anyone at all benefit from having content in an online game be exclusively solo? All it accomplishes is keeping people apart that would like to experience the lion share of the game together -- you know, the focal point of an mmorpg.
And again, like I said in the post you quoted, I am and have always been predominantly a solo player. I love being able to solo content and it's one of the biggest highlights that I find in ESO. But at the same time, I think arbitrarily designing content in a way (or in this case, a system like phasing) that makes it difficult to experience the ride together with a friend or two if you so choose, is just a failure of design in this genre of video gaming. I don't even see how this can be argued.
Are you really saying you don't understand the purpose of phasing? That they can make the world appear to change through your actions? It's a pretty old story-telling device in themeparks by now. That is what you gain exactly... the world changes for you but it doesn't spoil the ability for others to experience the same change you just experienced.
You can like it or not but you can ease of on your silly absolutist statements such as "Duh...what part pf multiplayer don't you understand?" which is exactly what your reply to the previous poster was.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
This post and the point you're attempting to make here are both so ridiculous I can't even find words for it. You should get some kind of award for this.
Which point? I count at least four in that post.
I was referring to the running point you've been alluding to in the thread, which basically equates to, "Content that can be soloed in the game should always be done exclusively in that way, regardless of whether you'd actually enjoy playing with your friends or not. Deal with it." That argument is asinine in the context of an online game, quite frankly. Discouraging people from having a multiplayer experience in a multiplayer game makes no sense whatsoever.
You may not be able to relate, but some of us have friends and family we like to play online games with, and to deter people from doing so by making it nearly impossible to stay in the same instance with them through the leveling experience is idiotic beyond belief. No amount of spin-doctoring can change that, in my eyes. And this is coming from someone who predominantly solos in mmorpgs.
So...do you also craft grouped? Just curious since you seem to think that ALL features of an MMO MUST be multiplayer.
The fact is that MMOs contain a mix of content that caters to different interests and tastes. There is not a damn thing wrong with a tiny portion of the content being solo only... sort of the opposite of instanced dungeons which are group only.
Oh, give me a break with the strawman arguments. Obviously some things in the game aren't going to be a group activity (when has crafting ever been considered one?), but I'd never put something like quest leveling or anything else that would work just as well in a group setting, in that category. I mean what is there to gain exactly? How does anyone at all benefit from having content in an online game be exclusively solo? All it accomplishes is keeping people apart that would like to experience the lion share of the game together -- you know, the focal point of an mmorpg.
And again, like I said in the post you quoted, I am and have always been predominantly a solo player. I love being able to solo content and it's one of the biggest highlights that I find in ESO. But at the same time, I think arbitrarily designing content in a way (or in this case, a system like phasing) that makes it difficult to experience the ride together with a friend or two if you so choose, is just a failure of design in this genre of video gaming. I don't even see how this can be argued.
Are you really saying you don't understand the purpose of phasing? That they can make the world appear to change through your actions? It's a pretty old story-telling device in themeparks by now. That is what you gain exactly... the world changes for you but it doesn't spoil the ability for others to experience the same change you just experienced.
You can like it or not but you can ease of on your silly absolutist statements such as "Duh...what part pf multiplayer don't you understand?" which is exactly what your reply to the previous poster was.
I understand full well the purpose of phasing, but Zenimax's implementation is truly flawed if it's overused to the point of rarely being able to play with others (unless they just so happen to be doing the same exact content as you and they manage to stay in-sync with you the entire time, or vice versa.) I love good story, and I like feeling immersed, but I personally don't need phasing to appreciate either. In fact, it has the opposite effect for me as it makes the world feel shallow and artificial.
So...do you also craft grouped? Just curious since you seem to think that ALL features of an MMO MUST be multiplayer.
I dont think he has mentioned ALL features MUST be multiplayer. differently, he just stated players should be able to level together outside dungeon and ava if they choose too. much like other mmo.
arbitrarily designing content in a way (or in this case, a system like phasing) that makes it difficult to experience the ride together with a friend or two if you so choose, is just a failure of design in this genre of video gaming. I don't even see how this can be argued.
Are you really saying you don't understand the purpose of phasing? That they can make the world appear to change through your actions? It's a pretty old story-telling device in themeparks by now. That is what you gain exactly... the world changes for you but it doesn't spoil the ability for others to experience the same change you just experienced.
Most people understand phasing just fine. We are not saying phasing in general is a bad thing. but rather it is how phasing is implemented in eso that is bad.
and you also mentioned phasing cover just a tiny bit of gameplay in eso. perhaps you dont have actual experience with how it really is and auto assume it is like wow phasing where it appear from time to time but not always. in eso phasing does not cover just a tiny bit but it covers almost everything.
now lets me give you another example. lets forget about quest just for a minute (as to bypass the debate this content is solo, this content is group etc.). imagine you login to game. you want to meet your friend in game. you are not going to do quest with him instead you just want to meet him and to greet him and show what your character look like in game and see what his character look like. instead you cant, because you cant see each other. you want to meet your friend in game and you cant. you seriously think it should stay this way???
So...do you also craft grouped? Just curious since you seem to think that ALL features of an MMO MUST be multiplayer.
I dont think he has mentioned ALL features MUST be multiplayer. differently, he just stated players should be able to level together outside dungeon and ava if they choose too. much like other mmo.
arbitrarily designing content in a way (or in this case, a system like phasing) that makes it difficult to experience the ride together with a friend or two if you so choose, is just a failure of design in this genre of video gaming. I don't even see how this can be argued.
Are you really saying you don't understand the purpose of phasing? That they can make the world appear to change through your actions? It's a pretty old story-telling device in themeparks by now. That is what you gain exactly... the world changes for you but it doesn't spoil the ability for others to experience the same change you just experienced.
Most people understand phasing just fine. We are not saying phasing in general is a bad thing. but rather it is how phasing is implemented in eso that is bad.
and you also mentioned phasing cover just a tiny bit of gameplay in eso. perhaps you dont have actual experience with how it really is and auto assume it is like wow phasing where it appear from time to time but not always. in eso phasing does not cover just a tiny bit but it covers almost everything.
now lets me give you another example. lets forget about quest just for a minute (as to bypass the debate this content is solo, this content is group etc.). imagine you login to game. you want to meet your friend in game. you are not going to do quest with him instead you just want to meet him and to greet him and show what your character look like in game and see what his character look like. instead you cant, because you cant see each other. you want to meet your friend in game and you cant. you seriously think it should stay this way???
Lol. Are you sure YOU know what you're talking about? Unless your friend is in another alliance, you group and travel to him or he travels to you...problem solved.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I actually quite enjoy the use of phasing, as it makes the experience so much more immersive, as opposed to SWTOR, where you despite all of the choices you can make you really don't feel as if you can make any changes to the environment.
There are some problems with bosses not properly spawning which I think is because of phasing, but this has apparently been fixed on the permanent beta servers. I was disappointed that those changes did not make their way into the weekend beta.
I actually quite enjoy the use of phasing, as it makes the experience so much more immersive, as opposed to SWTOR, where you despite all of the choices you can make you really don't feel as if you can make any changes to the environment.
There are some problems with bosses not properly spawning which I think is because of phasing, but this has apparently been fixed on the permanent beta servers. I was disappointed that those changes did not make their way into the weekend beta.
That's exactly right. I first saw this type of bug in The Secret World. It uses the same single server with multiple phase/shards. They actually released with a lot of those bugs but we quickly figured out that all you had to do was ask in chat (it wasn't phased) if someone was in a working version of that quest and then group and travel to that player's phase.
Here you can sort-of do something similar by logging off, waiting ~ 10 seconds and logging back in. More often than not you end up in a working version.
At any rate...annoying bug. I hope that's one of the alleged 2000+ they fixed on version 0.18 which we'll see next beta weekend.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I was referring to the running point you've been alluding to in the thread, which basically equates to, "Content that can be soloed in the game should always be done exclusively in that way, regardless of whether you'd actually enjoy playing with your friends or not. Deal with it." That argument is asinine in the context of an online game, quite frankly. Discouraging people from having a multiplayer experience in a multiplayer game makes no sense whatsoever.
You may not be able to relate, but some of us have friends and family we like to play online games with, and to deter people from doing so by making it nearly impossible to stay in the same instance with them through the leveling experience is idiotic beyond belief. No amount of spin-doctoring can change that, in my eyes. And this is coming from someone who predominantly solos in mmorpgs.
Actually, my primary point was about hypocrisy. I started with a question; why is it justified for people who prefer grouping to complain about content that doesn't let them group, but it's not justified for people who prefer soloing to complain about content that doesn't let them solo? When a game allows multiple playstyles, why is it fair to treat one preferentially? How is it fair for people who prefer grouping to get to experience all of the content via their preferred playstyle, even when it isn't content designed with that playstyle in mind, while people who prefer soloing are limited to only a subset of the content? How is it asinine to allow the solo playstyle to have exclusive content in an MMORPG, but not asinine to allow the group playstyle to have exclusive content in an MMORPG? Why should the MMO be treated as more important than the RPG? (Or, to be fair, vice versa.)
You may not be able to relate, but some people have schedules that don't allow them to plan out their play time around when they can get a group, or simply prefer soloing. It would be fair in an RPG to say that preventing people from accessing content just because they have schedules and/or preferences that result in them not grouping is "idiotic beyond belief." No amount of spin-doctoring can change that.
MMORPGs haven't been necessarily "about" grouping since WoW launched. Isn't it about time fans of the group play style stopped acting superior and accepted that solo play is at least as popular, if not more so, and it's only fair for it to get exclusive content the same way the group playstyle does? If there isn't exclusive content for both styles, there shouldn't be exclusive content for either style. It's only fair.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
I like how someone earlier in this thread mentioned that it's not a problem for PvP. If anything it's the PvPers mostly affected by this, cause in PvE you can add your friends, group with them, it's something solvable, but in PvP this system forces you to fight against random strangers each time. And that's where PvP becomes just another treadmill grind, instead of being a close and personal game.
GW2 did the same thing with server groups changing every week and enemies with no name plates...
Devs should understand that PvP is about fighting against other players, not against mobs with a human AI.
So support camelot unchained? There already is death spam in the game IT client which i saw on the twitch.tv stream of theirs and it's all pvp.. But is written off because MJ is the developer behind it. While warhammer didn't turn out so well... I blame EA for that, Dark age of camelot sure did...
Grouping up to experience the games content with friends and guildies is a massive part of most MMORPGs for most players. Given that this aspect represents such a huge part of the overall experience, I would say this is broken. It most definitely should NOT be released in this state.
MMORPGs haven't been "all about" grouping for ten years. WoW changed that with it's heavy focus on solo friendly content in the leveling experience. New games quickly followed their lead, and some games that were already released made massive changes to their systems, because WoW proved that the vast majority of the potential market fell into one of two categories; those who want to solo some of the time, and those who want to solo most of the time. MMORPGs prior to WoW focused almost exclusively on people who *only* want to play in a group, and that demographic just isn't very large.
Does anyone have an exact breakdown on how much time players as a whole spend soloing vs. grouping? Not that I am aware of, but there have been articles about which activities people spend time on, and the more intense group-oriented activities (such as Raids) tend to be seriously pursued by only tiny fragments of the population of any given game.
The average age of gamers is somewhere in the early to mid 30s now, and most people in that age range aren't going to be able to schedule marathon gaming sessions with each other on any kind of regular basis, so while they may be able to manage to coordinate their schedules well enough to complete content that actually requires groups together, they will probably end up soloing most of the content which can be whether they want to or not.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
I was referring to the running point you've been alluding to in the thread, which basically equates to, "Content that can be soloed in the game should always be done exclusively in that way, regardless of whether you'd actually enjoy playing with your friends or not. Deal with it." That argument is asinine in the context of an online game, quite frankly. Discouraging people from having a multiplayer experience in a multiplayer game makes no sense whatsoever.
You may not be able to relate, but some of us have friends and family we like to play online games with, and to deter people from doing so by making it nearly impossible to stay in the same instance with them through the leveling experience is idiotic beyond belief. No amount of spin-doctoring can change that, in my eyes. And this is coming from someone who predominantly solos in mmorpgs.
Actually, my primary point was about hypocrisy. I started with a question; why is it justified for people who prefer grouping to complain about content that doesn't let them group, but it's not justified for people who prefer soloing to complain about content that doesn't let them solo? When a game allows multiple playstyles, why is it fair to treat one preferentially? How is it fair for people who prefer grouping to get to experience all of the content via their preferred playstyle, even when it isn't content designed with that playstyle in mind, while people who prefer soloing are limited to only a subset of the content? How is it asinine to allow the solo playstyle to have exclusive content in an MMORPG, but not asinine to allow the group playstyle to have exclusive content in an MMORPG? Why should the MMO be treated as more important than the RPG? (Or, to be fair, vice versa.)
You may not be able to relate, but some people have schedules that don't allow them to plan out their play time around when they can get a group, or simply prefer soloing. It would be fair in an RPG to say that preventing people from accessing content just because they have schedules and/or preferences that result in them not grouping is "idiotic beyond belief." No amount of spin-doctoring can change that.
MMORPGs haven't been necessarily "about" grouping since WoW launched. Isn't it about time fans of the group play style stopped acting superior and accepted that solo play is at least as popular, if not more so, and it's only fair for it to get exclusive content the same way the group playstyle does? If there isn't exclusive content for both styles, there shouldn't be exclusive content for either style. It's only fair.
What's funny about this is I actually totally agree with you. I have never been a fan of restricting content to a certain play style, and if it were up to me, I'd have all content in-game open to anyone and everyone -- regardless of the size of the group. I would, however, implement a scaling system that would change the difficulty of course, and maybe increase certain drop rates in relation to the challenge/difficulty.
All in all, I don't think anything should be restricted to anyone, but as I'm not designing the game, there's nothing I can do about it. Nonetheless, I still see no reason to arbitrarily add insult to injury by making it difficult to group with your friends at any time, when there really doesn't seem to be a need for it. I'm really not worried about it though, to be honest. I'm fairly certain they will add the ability for players in different phases to see each other while grouping (if they so choose), at some point in the probably-not-so-distant future. The fact that it isn't like that already is what I find baffling.
Comments
Agreed 100%.
Saw this post 3 betas ago on the beta forums, I think it says it pretty well:
I have spent a good 12 hours before I had to go to sleep questing while grouping from Bleak Rock to Stonefalls, slogging through the most ridiculously convoluted and frustrating phasing and questing systems I have ever experienced.
It's been a lot of fun overall, but the frustration with these systems is already mounting within the first 7 levels. So I will keep this as brief as I can:
PROBLEM 1: Phasing overrides groups and takes priority. I will lose track of my group-members if they are on slightly different quest as me
SOLUTION: Make grouping override phasing. I should never lose sight of my group-members, even if what they are doing I can't see or cross a phase-line I haven't yet. This already happens a bit but if they cross a phase-line, or are doing a quest that I have already done and is phased out for me, let me at least SEE them.
I really dislike HUD elements so I tend to turn off things like group member indicators: the phasing made this desire IMPOSSIBLE to deal with so I am choosing between a lesser of two evils. I should never have to do that mechanically, (although lesser of two evils in questing is great!).
PROBLEM 2: Main Quest instanced scenarios override grouping.
SOLUTION: I get why you guys are doing this. The philosphy is that the player should feel special and all the other players should feel like red-shirt NPCs when it comes to the main story, a la a single-player TES game where you are "the one." But this is unfortunately, not a good approach, it creates more frustrating problems than it does create immersion.
What I say is, simply drop that philosophy when it comes to quests. We KNOW that we are doing the same thing at the same time in parallel planes and we KNOW that both of us are soul-shriven and we have no souls and we have the same MQ goals. If you are grouped with people when doing one of these missions, simply treat it like a party: let us do the quests together. Just go there, it will bother zero people and it will take out a ton of frustration from this.
I am a heavy RPer, lore-nerd extraordinaire and immersion junkie and this would not bother me at all, in fact it would help me enjoy the game more. To a person playing by themselves it will feel individual but I like to play MMOs with my friends, please never restrict me from doing ANYTHING with my friends if I want that experience.
PROBLEM 3:Open-world Quests do not always take groups into consideration when they should.
EXAMPLE: The quest when leaving Bleak Rock, when you run through that Barrow right next to the town and out to the ship, was incredibly frustrating playing with another player. He would activate something and I would have to do it too. This makes no sense. If one of my group members talks to an NPC and activates a part of a quest, then it should activate for me too. This prevents waiting on friends to finish quests which should never really happen if grouped.
There are quests with minor objectives that are group-linked but they are few and far-between. All quests should be group-linked. Keep in mind it is MY choice that I quest while grouped, and mine alone (well, my group-member also has the choice). So you as designers do not need to compensate for that. If I choose to group up with someone else and do the a quest, please let me do that.
This includes the quest-givers who you follow. Make them one per group, not one per player. The other players in the group can always catch up with the one who initiated but it is completely immersion-breaking the way it currently works.
Treat the group like one single entity in this way. Even with gather quests. The quest-giver should treat you as one unit, working together.
IN CLOSING: As an avid PvEer (also love PvP) and quester, I really think this is the most glaring issue I have seen thus far. It is potentially game-breaking and ridiculously frustrating and I do not see how fixing it would cause any problems for any other people with a different play-style. If someone wants to treat the game like a single-player experience then so be it, but then they should not join a group. That seems logical to me and the game does not need to hold anyone's hand in that regard.
Again, sorry for sounding so critical, but this game means everything to me. I have always wanted a TES MMO and am so grateful to have been invited to beta. I hope you find my feedback to be well-intentioned and realize that I just want to see this game become what is truly should be (and is so close to becoming): the greatest MMORPG ever created. Keep up the amazing work!
This was an excellent post.
I tried to post something similiar, and since there was no feedback or suggestions sections on the forums, it was promptly removed.
Hope they are at least getting the message.
I would be amazed if ZOS changed any of the phasing mechanics before launch. The best you can hope for is that they fix some of the bugs that apparently occur even when 2 grouped players are at similar points in a quest.
As for overriding phasing of the main story while grouped, forget it. They are not going to redesign their entire game flow at this point (or most likely ever).
I'm sure the closed beta testers must have raised concerns about the impact of phasing on group play. ZOS have obviously decided to ignore those objections, for better or for worse...
I love it how so many people define a MMORPG Based on other MMORPG's. Phasing is fine in fact really good. The game would be more of a stale feel without it. I want less ever other MMORPG and more of this. I bet most people who hate the phasing are also the people who don't read every quest and book in the game. Their target audience is not you its me!
[mod edit]SNIP
A game that was trying to be an "organic real world" wouldn't have static content. When having an "organic" or "real" world is ruled out by the fundamental design elements of the game, it ceases to be a relevant argument, and the developers can focus just on what makes sense for the game as a game, rather than as a world simulation. When you have multiple playstyles that your game is trying to cater to, it makes sense to provide exclusive content for each of those playstyles. And, if a given piece of content is designed with a particular playstyle in mind, it makes perfect sense to require you to play it in the manner intended. Players shouldn't be able to circumvent the intended difficulty of solo content by having groups carry them any more than they should be able finish group content by themselves.
And did we step into a time warp? Is there some reason you are talking about 2012 TOR instead of 2014 TOR? Any product that is profitable is successful. TOR made more money on it's cash shop alone in 2013 than any game other than WoW pulls in from their subscriptions, and it still had roughly half a million subscribers. At EvE's last reported numbers, it's sub numbers had finally grown, after several years, to reach what TOR's sub numbers have stabilized at after dropping. Do you not understand how business works? Games pulling in more than 200 million a year in revenue are generally considered successes. TOR and Eve, at the last reported numbers for each, had roughly the same number of subscribers, and once you add in cash shop revenue, TOR is making a lot more money year to year.
And 3-4 AAA releases a year, seriously? Someone could make a very believable argument that prior to WoW, there had never been a AAA MMO, and that that was a major one of the reasons for WoW's success, it was like the Yankees competing in a little league tournament. The only game that released in the same window that even eventually became halfway decent was EQ2, and it started out in pretty bad shape.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
ok it must be my mistake wanting to play this game with friends.
thanks for your insight.
Yeah, who wants their MMORPG to actually be a decent RPG?
Singleplayer storylines and MMOs can mix extremely well. This game is a good reminder of that.
EDIT: And as for the TOR sub-discussion, you're trying to hard. Professionally produced studies from a reputable company that people in the industry pay to get full access to are supposed to be considered less credible than your random theories based on absolutely nothing?
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Everyone wants to be an expert game critic these days ... no MMO failed because some player predicted it. A good MMO needs to finds it niche and stick with it ... what WoW did won't be repeated as players have become fiercely divided over what they feel constitutes a well done game.
For me? It is all about the Lore and the variety of things to do such as questing, exploration, crafting, collectibles, housing, etc. The catering too much towards either PvP or "End-Game Raiding" has never proven effective in keeping a game profitable. Being from the early UO, DAoC and EQ era ... I find the way PvP is done via battlegrounds and scripted raids to be a step in the wrong direction for an RPG.
Ummm...that's not how PvP works in this game, once you pick a Campaign..it doesn't change...Unless you pay to move servers, The people on your campaign is the people you'll always fight.
Which point? I count at least four in that post.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I was referring to the running point you've been alluding to in the thread, which basically equates to, "Content that can be soloed in the game should always be done exclusively in that way, regardless of whether you'd actually enjoy playing with your friends or not. Deal with it." That argument is asinine in the context of an online game, quite frankly. Discouraging people from having a multiplayer experience in a multiplayer game makes no sense whatsoever.
You may not be able to relate, but some of us have friends and family we like to play online games with, and to deter people from doing so by making it nearly impossible to stay in the same instance with them through the leveling experience is idiotic beyond belief. No amount of spin-doctoring can change that, in my eyes. And this is coming from someone who predominantly solos in mmorpgs.
So...do you also craft grouped? Just curious since you seem to think that ALL features of an MMO MUST be multiplayer.
The fact is that MMOs contain a mix of content that caters to different interests and tastes. There is not a damn thing wrong with a tiny portion of the content being solo only... sort of the opposite of instanced dungeons which are group only.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I would like to seem them make some tweaks to phasing like having all the group enter the phase of the earliest version of the quest the group members are on but overall I don't think it's that bad.
On the bright side it really does bring a sense of change to the world when your playing that I have not seen in a MMO before and it's not like there isn't lots of places where this isn't going to matter. Dungeons, PVP and end game areas won't have these issues so it's really only a short term annoyance that's going to go away as soon as you and your friends hit level cap. I have several friends who are not huge MMO fans that are buying this game just because of phasing.
Oh, give me a break with the strawman arguments. Obviously some things in the game aren't going to be a group activity (when has crafting ever been considered one?), but I'd never put something like quest leveling or anything else that would work just as well in a group setting, in that category. I mean what is there to gain exactly? How does anyone at all benefit from having content in an online game be exclusively solo? All it accomplishes is keeping people apart that would like to experience the lion share of the game together -- you know, the focal point of an mmorpg.
And again, like I said in the post you quoted, I am and have always been predominantly a solo player. I love being able to solo content and it's one of the biggest highlights that I find in ESO. But at the same time, I think arbitrarily designing content in a way (or in this case, a system like phasing) that makes it difficult to experience the ride together with a friend or two if you so choose, is just a failure of design in this genre of video gaming. I don't even see how this can be argued.
Are you really saying you don't understand the purpose of phasing? That they can make the world appear to change through your actions? It's a pretty old story-telling device in themeparks by now. That is what you gain exactly... the world changes for you but it doesn't spoil the ability for others to experience the same change you just experienced.
You can like it or not but you can ease of on your silly absolutist statements such as "Duh...what part pf multiplayer don't you understand?" which is exactly what your reply to the previous poster was.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I understand full well the purpose of phasing, but Zenimax's implementation is truly flawed if it's overused to the point of rarely being able to play with others (unless they just so happen to be doing the same exact content as you and they manage to stay in-sync with you the entire time, or vice versa.) I love good story, and I like feeling immersed, but I personally don't need phasing to appreciate either. In fact, it has the opposite effect for me as it makes the world feel shallow and artificial.
[mod edit]
and you also mentioned phasing cover just a tiny bit of gameplay in eso. perhaps you dont have actual experience with how it really is and auto assume it is like wow phasing where it appear from time to time but not always. in eso phasing does not cover just a tiny bit but it covers almost everything.
now lets me give you another example. lets forget about quest just for a minute (as to bypass the debate this content is solo, this content is group etc.). imagine you login to game. you want to meet your friend in game. you are not going to do quest with him instead you just want to meet him and to greet him and show what your character look like in game and see what his character look like. instead you cant, because you cant see each other. you want to meet your friend in game and you cant. you seriously think it should stay this way???
Lol. Are you sure YOU know what you're talking about? Unless your friend is in another alliance, you group and travel to him or he travels to you...problem solved.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I actually quite enjoy the use of phasing, as it makes the experience so much more immersive, as opposed to SWTOR, where you despite all of the choices you can make you really don't feel as if you can make any changes to the environment.
There are some problems with bosses not properly spawning which I think is because of phasing, but this has apparently been fixed on the permanent beta servers. I was disappointed that those changes did not make their way into the weekend beta.
That's exactly right. I first saw this type of bug in The Secret World. It uses the same single server with multiple phase/shards. They actually released with a lot of those bugs but we quickly figured out that all you had to do was ask in chat (it wasn't phased) if someone was in a working version of that quest and then group and travel to that player's phase.
Here you can sort-of do something similar by logging off, waiting ~ 10 seconds and logging back in. More often than not you end up in a working version.
At any rate...annoying bug. I hope that's one of the alleged 2000+ they fixed on version 0.18 which we'll see next beta weekend.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Actually, my primary point was about hypocrisy. I started with a question; why is it justified for people who prefer grouping to complain about content that doesn't let them group, but it's not justified for people who prefer soloing to complain about content that doesn't let them solo? When a game allows multiple playstyles, why is it fair to treat one preferentially? How is it fair for people who prefer grouping to get to experience all of the content via their preferred playstyle, even when it isn't content designed with that playstyle in mind, while people who prefer soloing are limited to only a subset of the content? How is it asinine to allow the solo playstyle to have exclusive content in an MMORPG, but not asinine to allow the group playstyle to have exclusive content in an MMORPG? Why should the MMO be treated as more important than the RPG? (Or, to be fair, vice versa.)
You may not be able to relate, but some people have schedules that don't allow them to plan out their play time around when they can get a group, or simply prefer soloing. It would be fair in an RPG to say that preventing people from accessing content just because they have schedules and/or preferences that result in them not grouping is "idiotic beyond belief." No amount of spin-doctoring can change that.
MMORPGs haven't been necessarily "about" grouping since WoW launched. Isn't it about time fans of the group play style stopped acting superior and accepted that solo play is at least as popular, if not more so, and it's only fair for it to get exclusive content the same way the group playstyle does? If there isn't exclusive content for both styles, there shouldn't be exclusive content for either style. It's only fair.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
So support camelot unchained? There already is death spam in the game IT client which i saw on the twitch.tv stream of theirs and it's all pvp.. But is written off because MJ is the developer behind it. While warhammer didn't turn out so well... I blame EA for that, Dark age of camelot sure did...
MMORPGs haven't been "all about" grouping for ten years. WoW changed that with it's heavy focus on solo friendly content in the leveling experience. New games quickly followed their lead, and some games that were already released made massive changes to their systems, because WoW proved that the vast majority of the potential market fell into one of two categories; those who want to solo some of the time, and those who want to solo most of the time. MMORPGs prior to WoW focused almost exclusively on people who *only* want to play in a group, and that demographic just isn't very large.
Does anyone have an exact breakdown on how much time players as a whole spend soloing vs. grouping? Not that I am aware of, but there have been articles about which activities people spend time on, and the more intense group-oriented activities (such as Raids) tend to be seriously pursued by only tiny fragments of the population of any given game.
The average age of gamers is somewhere in the early to mid 30s now, and most people in that age range aren't going to be able to schedule marathon gaming sessions with each other on any kind of regular basis, so while they may be able to manage to coordinate their schedules well enough to complete content that actually requires groups together, they will probably end up soloing most of the content which can be whether they want to or not.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
What's funny about this is I actually totally agree with you. I have never been a fan of restricting content to a certain play style, and if it were up to me, I'd have all content in-game open to anyone and everyone -- regardless of the size of the group. I would, however, implement a scaling system that would change the difficulty of course, and maybe increase certain drop rates in relation to the challenge/difficulty.
All in all, I don't think anything should be restricted to anyone, but as I'm not designing the game, there's nothing I can do about it. Nonetheless, I still see no reason to arbitrarily add insult to injury by making it difficult to group with your friends at any time, when there really doesn't seem to be a need for it. I'm really not worried about it though, to be honest. I'm fairly certain they will add the ability for players in different phases to see each other while grouping (if they so choose), at some point in the probably-not-so-distant future. The fact that it isn't like that already is what I find baffling.