Howdy, Stranger!

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

Do you think forced-grouping could work if...

1911131415

Comments

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,772


    FFXI had a steady 500k subs for like 5 years, and this was in the heat of WoW first being released.


    FFXI is a bad example .. since 500k sub is really nothing to write home about these days. Sure, it is not nothing but also not huge success. 

    WoT, LoL, and all the team e-sport games are better examples. 
  • holdenhamletholdenhamlet Member EpicPosts: 3,756
    Horusra said:
    Grouping fails to group/solo games due to simple facts.  Off hours people can not find groups people leave game.  If the spread of players gets to heavy on one level/content area then new people can not find groups and leave.  Hoping that people will constantly reroll or "run" people through content enough to keep new people is fallacy.  With all the new games and ease of game hopping you can not risk someone logging in and unable to play.
    FFXI made it for years before they made it solo-friendly.  The way they ensured people would be running early areas was by having subjobs giving boosts to your main job if you level it up to half-max, so people were often leveling their subjobs in the early areas.  You did everything on one character.


  • holdenhamletholdenhamlet Member EpicPosts: 3,756

    And any attempts at making a forced grouping game have not failed, ever.

    The opposite is true for forced-soloing games (or what you would call "optional grouping" games).  Most of them have failed.

    Do I need to list WoW clones that have failed (i.e. not lived up to expectations)?

    I can't list forced-grouping games that have failed because there aren't any.  Can you name one?
  • holdenhamletholdenhamlet Member EpicPosts: 3,756


    FFXI had a steady 500k subs for like 5 years, and this was in the heat of WoW first being released.


    FFXI is a bad example .. since 500k sub is really nothing to write home about these days. Sure, it is not nothing but also not huge success. 

    WoT, LoL, and all the team e-sport games are better examples. 
    It's hard to compare since most games are f2p nowadays.  Also a forced grouping MMORPG hasn't been made in over a decade, so it's impossible to say how one would do nowadays.

    MOBAs are forced grouping games, though, you're right about that, and they're doing well.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Wizardry said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    I think 'forced' in a game is a bad idea.

    basically if you have to 'force' people to group then there is something wrong with your group design and the answer is not to force people to do it but rather find ways to make it more appealing...or as more likely the case...somehow fix the toxic community which is usually not possible.

    'forced grouping' to me sounds like 'I am mean to people that that is why I dont have friends, they should make it a requirement for me to have more people to tick off'
    NOBODY means forced, there has  never been a FORCED grouping game ever.

    I am sure Eve players will tell you "join a Corp",most games will say "join a guild",every single game has a NEED for grouping but it is never forced.

    Without mentioning the term forced,grouping would obviously have a benefit,it only makes sense,so just because it benefits you as a player it doesn't make it FORCED,it just makes it an intelligent decision to want to group.

    I don't know why people constantly make excuses why they shouldn't group,yet they have joined a MMO to game,,makes no sense what so ever.
    then there is desperate need to change the wording on this subject. oh and by the way I have first hand witnessed this happen

    Group Leader: 'ok good lets all head that way then'
    we run into a solo player grinding some mobs
    Group Leader: 'let me ask if he wants to join'
    a few mins pass
    Group Leader: 'you know I dont get solo players I think games should force grouping more'

    what the hell!

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,772


    FFXI had a steady 500k subs for like 5 years, and this was in the heat of WoW first being released.


    FFXI is a bad example .. since 500k sub is really nothing to write home about these days. Sure, it is not nothing but also not huge success. 

    WoT, LoL, and all the team e-sport games are better examples. 
    It's hard to compare since most games are f2p nowadays.  Also a forced grouping MMORPG hasn't been made in over a decade, so it's impossible to say how one would do nowadays.

    MOBAs are forced grouping games, though, you're right about that, and they're doing well.
    Well, may be there is no forced grouping pve games .. but there are tons of optional grouping pve games, and you can use those to gauge whether players like to group.

    My take is that people do like convenient grouping (i.e. hit a button ... group .. and don't talk). Just look at Diablo 3 ... lots of players group in that game. 
  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Do I need to list WoW clones that have failed (i.e. not lived up to expectations)?

    I can't list forced-grouping games that have failed because there aren't any.  Can you name one?
    By one unreasonable definition of failure ("not lived up to expectations"), sure.

    By most reasonable definitions (profitable; more profitable than forced-grouping games; popularity) there is a long list of games that've performed better than early forced-grouping MMORPGs.

    Meanwhile over the years several games like Vanguard attempted to rekindle the oldschool feeling, and generally fell flat.  That style of forced-grouping doesn't work at all.

    The style which might work would be a game where grouping was as effortless as it is in League of Legends (so effortless you probably didn't consider LoL's gameplay "grouping" until I mentioned it.)

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Axehilt said:
    Do I need to list WoW clones that have failed (i.e. not lived up to expectations)?

    I can't list forced-grouping games that have failed because there aren't any.  Can you name one?
    By one unreasonable definition of failure ("not lived up to expectations"), sure.

    By most reasonable definitions (profitable; more profitable than forced-grouping games; popularity) there is a long list of games that've performed better than early forced-grouping MMORPGs.

    Meanwhile over the years several games like Vanguard attempted to rekindle the oldschool feeling, and generally fell flat.  That style of forced-grouping doesn't work at all.

    The style which might work would be a game where grouping was as effortless as it is in League of Legends (so effortless you probably didn't consider LoL's gameplay "grouping" until I mentioned it.)
    yeah plus 'living up to expectations' assumes the one with expectations is without fault

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • observerobserver Member RarePosts: 3,685
    Forced grouping has many problems...

    Chain quests, when party members are on different parts of the quests. (was a huge problem in LOTRO)
    Time Zones, where people are forced to schedule just for some quests/dungeons/raids/etc.
    Level populations, where some mmos have top-heavy max lvl characters leaving older zones barren.
    Noobs & Veterans, where veterans aren't willing to waste more time helping out noobs to gear up, etc.

    As i said earlier, the content is what matters.  This question needs to be more specific as to which content should be forced, or which content should be solo.  Instanced or open-world?  Quests or raids?  Need more specifics.
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,516

    And any attempts at making a forced grouping game have not failed, ever.

    The opposite is true for forced-soloing games (or what you would call "optional grouping" games).  Most of them have failed.

    Do I need to list WoW clones that have failed (i.e. not lived up to expectations)?

    I can't list forced-grouping games that have failed because there aren't any.  Can you name one?
    Aaaand checkmate.

    Meme response only confirmed it.


  • ShadanwolfShadanwolf Member UncommonPosts: 2,377
    I'm mainly a solo player.Forced grouping means I would never play the game.
  • CecropiaCecropia Member RarePosts: 3,972
    I'm mainly a solo player.Forced grouping means I would never play the game.
    No biggie. You've got endless choices out there to satisfy your tastes. 

    "Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb

  • AntiquatedAntiquated Member RarePosts: 1,415
    edited November 2015
    And any attempts at making a forced grouping game have not failed, ever.

    The opposite is true for forced-soloing games (or what you would call "optional grouping" games).  Most of them have failed.

    Moving goalposts. "Failure" is never defined, but appears to be verrrrry flexible, as spin requires.

    If < 600k subs is your "failure bar", then every forced-grouping game, ever, has failed. While many forced-soloing games succeeded wildly.

    If I need the goalpost criteria to move in order to be "right," well, just push them around.
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,516
    And any attempts at making a forced grouping game have not failed, ever.

    The opposite is true for forced-soloing games (or what you would call "optional grouping" games).  Most of them have failed.

    Moving goalposts. "Failure" is never defined, but appears to be verrrrry flexible, as spin requires.
    Mkay, then tell us a few examples of any "forced" grouping games in the last, say, decade.

    I await your response from this movie theater with forced seating.


  • AntiquatedAntiquated Member RarePosts: 1,415
    Dullahan said:
    And any attempts at making a forced grouping game have not failed, ever.

    The opposite is true for forced-soloing games (or what you would call "optional grouping" games).  Most of them have failed.

    Moving goalposts. "Failure" is never defined, but appears to be verrrrry flexible, as spin requires.
    Mkay, then tell us a few examples of any "forced" grouping games in the last, say, decade.

    I await your response from this movie theater with forced seating.
    Whooo, you moved them again! Good for you, you're learning how to master this!
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,516
    Dullahan said:
    And any attempts at making a forced grouping game have not failed, ever.

    The opposite is true for forced-soloing games (or what you would call "optional grouping" games).  Most of them have failed.

    Moving goalposts. "Failure" is never defined, but appears to be verrrrry flexible, as spin requires.
    Mkay, then tell us a few examples of any "forced" grouping games in the last, say, decade.

    I await your response from this movie theater with forced seating.
    Whooo, you moved them again! Good for you, you're learning how to master this!
    Nice, using references to a fallacy to perpetrate another fallacy. I don't have anything on you!

    I literally dumped concrete around the goalposts, sport.


  • VardahothVardahoth Member RarePosts: 1,472
    Dullahan said:
    Dullahan said:
    And any attempts at making a forced grouping game have not failed, ever.

    The opposite is true for forced-soloing games (or what you would call "optional grouping" games).  Most of them have failed.

    Moving goalposts. "Failure" is never defined, but appears to be verrrrry flexible, as spin requires.
    Mkay, then tell us a few examples of any "forced" grouping games in the last, say, decade.

    I await your response from this movie theater with forced seating.
    Whooo, you moved them again! Good for you, you're learning how to master this!
    Nice, using references to a fallacy to perpetrate another fallacy. I don't have anything on you!

    I literally dumped concrete around the goalposts, sport.
    brb my bag of Cheetos is empty :(

    I Quit.

    http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/436845/page/1 -> http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/436845/what-killed-mmorpgs-for-you/p1

    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2316034
    .............
    Retired Gamer: all MMORPG's have been destroyed by big business, marketing of false promises, unprofessional game makers, and a generation of "I WIN and GIVE ME NOW" (brought to you by pokeman).

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,772
    Axehilt said:


    The style which might work would be a game where grouping was as effortless as it is in League of Legends (so effortless you probably didn't consider LoL's gameplay "grouping" until I mentioned it.)
    "might work"?

    It does work .. LoL, WoT, CS, even WoW ... lobby one click grouping is quite popular, i will have to say. LoL clearly is NOT harmed by it. 
  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521

    First, I take "can work" as a title that can support itself and a reasonable update schedule over the course of its life. Assuming a title or theorized idea "can't work" because it doesn't/couldn't bring in hundreds of thousands of people is a bad argument IMO.

    I think a forced group MMO can prosper long term as long as there are mechanics to keep the majority of players playing together. Systems such as strait leveling that fracture the playerbase is playing with fire IMO. Finding ways to benefit players playing together, regardless of level (if there are levels) or standing, like the sub jobs of FF can fix this however.

    In short, as long as it's easy to play with others having an MMO focused around grouping can definitely work IMO. Not only that, having codependence on others heightens the chance of social connections, which can keep players playing a title longer, fostering playerbase stability.

  • muffins89muffins89 Member UncommonPosts: 1,585
    I am pretty sure that "forced" is a 4-Letter word in the mmo community.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,762
    edited November 2015
    muffins89 said:
    I am pretty sure that "forced" is a 4-Letter word in the mmo community.
    Yep. That forced needs to be unleashed. :)
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • holdenhamletholdenhamlet Member EpicPosts: 3,756
    muffins89 said:
    I am pretty sure that "forced" is a 4-Letter word in the mmo community.
    Nobody likes to be forced to do anything, but freedom comes at a cost.

    "Forced" just describes the way the game is played.  Chess is a "forced strategy" game.  If you don't like strategic play, you're not going to play it.  But that doesn't make it a bad game.

    People in this thread seem to think WoW has achieved the ultimate formula of offering everything.  It does offer a lot, but because it does, almost all of it sucks balls.

    The solo content sucks, the grouping content is sparse, the pvp is unbalanced because the focus is on PVE.  That's all not to mention the game is freaking ancient in video-game terms, so the graphics and the combat system are terrible.

    I too would love an all-in-one MMO that offered the best of everything, but I'm far past believing that's possible.

    Since it's not, I'd like to see MMOs focus on the different things MMO's have to offer.  WoW has the solo content covered- we don't need any more solo-centric MMOs.  What the community could use is an MMO that focuses on grouping for pve and one that focuses on grouping for pvp.

    Back to chess- one could argue, "I don't need chess, WoW has combat pets- that's kind of strategic gameplay!"  Well, sure it's kind of strategic, but compared to chess it's piss-balls.  


  • AntiquatedAntiquated Member RarePosts: 1,415
    edited November 2015
    Dullahan said:
    Dullahan said:
    And any attempts at making a forced grouping game have not failed, ever.

    The opposite is true for forced-soloing games (or what you would call "optional grouping" games).  Most of them have failed.

    Moving goalposts. "Failure" is never defined, but appears to be verrrrry flexible, as spin requires.
    Mkay, then tell us a few examples of any "forced" grouping games in the last, say, decade.

    I await your response from this movie theater with forced seating.
    Whooo, you moved them again! Good for you, you're learning how to master this!
    Nice, using references to a fallacy to perpetrate another fallacy. I don't have anything on you!

    I literally dumped concrete around the goalposts, sport.
    No, you introduced a new variable. "in the last decade," again, in an effort to "win" by changing the parameters. Does 'in the last decade' matter? No, but it's clearly unassailable. So, yay, you win!

    Speaking of fallacy, you're clearly familiar with "Shifting the burden of evidence."

    Good try, Scooter. /popcorn

    ----

    Now let's get back to defining "failed," the value judgement on which so much of this thread hinges.

    In what ways were FFXI and EQ not failures? Financially they've certainly been eclipsed a dozen times. They're getting eclipsed today by phone aps.

    We know how badly they got buried if you judge by subscriptions. That must still sting.

    Watching their hard-core die hard player audiences drift away to other titles? Yep, that happened.

    All that's left appears to be 'way back when' nostalgia.

    Holden claims no forced grouping title has ever failed. We need to define failure, apparently. Is it just an "everybody knows" sort of thing?

    Or does it need that very careful date bracketing spin "look back ten years, but not fifteen!" in order to work?

    ---

    "If "everybody knows" such-and-such, then it ain't so, by at least ten thousand to one."--RAH
    Post edited by Antiquated on
  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    "might work"?

    It does work .. LoL, WoT, CS, even WoW ... lobby one click grouping is quite popular, i will have to say. LoL clearly is NOT harmed by it. 
    Yes, "might work".  Because for every game that makes it work there are a bunch of other games that fail to make it work because they're just bad games.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,057

    Do I need to list WoW clones that have failed (i.e. not lived up to expectations)?

    I can't list forced-grouping games that have failed because there aren't any.  Can you name one?
    I'm pretty sure you're going to give me a definition of failure that fits your agenda. Just a hint: "I didn't like the game" doesn't mean "failure".

    I'm going to give you one failed forced-grouping game, and a big name too: Everquest 2. The game was utterly failing, having a ghost population, until they started to patch in massive amounts of solo content. So they had to turn the game into a solo friendly one for it to (barely) recover.
    Another forced grouping game that failed up to the point of being closed down: Vanguard.
    Next on the list... Pantheon ? I'd bet real money on it.

    On the other hand, the first mainstream MMORPG ever, despite its very aged 2.5D isometric graphics, Ultima Online, is still alive and kicking today... and guess what? There's no forced grouping in it.

    There may be room for one or two forced grouping games, but not more. Evidence all over the place for those who want to see it.

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.
    CPU: Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 Gaming - RAM: 16GB Kingston HyperX Savage DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Philips 40PUK6809 4K 3D TV - Second display: Philips 273v 27" gaming monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset and Razer Hydra controllers - Soundcard: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.

Sign In or Register to comment.