Games with "forced" grouping (like e.g. EQ1) will never work again since people now know better. It only worked back then because there was little alternative. With todays large choice of games, if people are forced to do something they don't enjoy, they will simply go play another game.
The same could be said about solo-centric games- we're offered little alternative.
And plenty of people did enjoy forced grouping in FFXI- 500k of them for 5 years after WoW was released, and the ultimate alternative was available for anyone that wanted to play it.
But sure, it wouldn't be for everyone, and I don't think a forced grouping game would ever reach WoW levels because for those kind of numbers you need a casual-friendly game, and partying for hours on end every day isn't exactly casual-friendly.
But that doesn't mean a forced grouping game couldn't be successful nowadays.
Based on the success of EQ1 and FFXI, I would bet on a forced grouping being successful over another WoW clone (which have proven to be able to and often fail- unlike forced grouping games).
The primary issue with forced grouping (beyond personal preference) is what do you do when you can't find a group?
If you can't find a group, but the only way to play the game is in a group, then your choice is to switch character or log off. That is very, very bad design.
Not being able to find a group is also a problem that gets worse and worse over time and I've not seen anyone in this thread address that issue. After a relatively short period of time, most MMO populations are top heavy - lots of level capped players, some newbie players/alts and a very small amount of mid-level players. This makes it harder and harder to reach the level cap if you can't find groups, which means lower retention rates, fewer newbies joining and ultimately, less money for the devs to sustain the game.
As a real world example for you to relate to, I did play FFXI when it had forced grouping. I joined start 2007, so a few years after release, as a relative MMO newbie. Once I hit lvl10 and had to start grouping, the game became unbearable. My evenings would be split 50/50 between searching for a group and grinding mobs. I stuck it out for 2 months but honestly, it wasn't a fun experience. Once I was in a group, yeh, it was fun and I'm a group orientated player so I loved it, but there would be some evenings when I'd log on, spend 30mins-1hr purely searching for a group before logging off in despair. Maybe I chose the wrong server, maybe the linkshells I joined were just not active enough, but whatever the reason, the game's design prevented me from progressing if there weren't enough people online.
For those referencing LoL / Dota as examples of popular forced grouping games - these work because there is no permanent progression. Whenever you search for a match, everyone is effectively the same level and eligible for the group. This makes it very easy to find people and jump into a match.
As soon as you start adding permanent worlds / progression that results in different effectiveness between players, you immediately make matchmaking much harder due to smaller numbers of players who are similar to you. Classes / gear / quests / attunement make it harder still.
So, whilst I'm a fan of grouping and would love a group orientated MMO, there are soooooo many other features in the game that would need to differ from the typical MMO design in order for forced grouping to become viable.
Games with "forced" grouping (like e.g. EQ1) will never work again since people now know better. It only worked back then because there was little alternative. With todays large choice of games, if people are forced to do something they don't enjoy, they will simply go play another game.
The same could be said about solo-centric games- we're offered little alternative.
And plenty of people did enjoy forced grouping in FFXI- 500k of them for 5 years after WoW was released, and the ultimate alternative was available for anyone that wanted to play it.
But sure, it wouldn't be for everyone, and I don't think a forced grouping game would ever reach WoW levels because for those kind of numbers you need a casual-friendly game, and partying for hours on end every day isn't exactly casual-friendly.
But that doesn't mean a forced grouping game couldn't be successful nowadays.
Based on the success of EQ1 and FFXI, I would bet on a forced grouping being successful over another WoW clone (which have proven to be able to and often fail- unlike forced grouping games).
The primary issue with forced grouping (beyond personal preference) is what do you do when you can't find a group?
If you can't find a group, but the only way to play the game is in a group, then your choice is to switch character or log off. That is very, very bad design.
Not being able to find a group is also a problem that gets worse and worse over time and I've not seen anyone in this thread address that issue. After a relatively short period of time, most MMO populations are top heavy - lots of level capped players, some newbie players/alts and a very small amount of mid-level players. This makes it harder and harder to reach the level cap if you can't find groups, which means lower retention rates, fewer newbies joining and ultimately, less money for the devs to sustain the game.
As a real world example for you to relate to, I did play FFXI when it had forced grouping. I joined start 2007, so a few years after release, as a relative MMO newbie. Once I hit lvl10 and had to start grouping, the game became unbearable. My evenings would be split 50/50 between searching for a group and grinding mobs. I stuck it out for 2 months but honestly, it wasn't a fun experience. Once I was in a group, yeh, it was fun and I'm a group orientated player so I loved it, but there would be some evenings when I'd log on, spend 30mins-1hr purely searching for a group before logging off in despair. Maybe I chose the wrong server, maybe the linkshells I joined were just not active enough, but whatever the reason, the game's design prevented me from progressing if there weren't enough people online.
For those referencing LoL / Dota as examples of popular forced grouping games - these work because there is no permanent progression. Whenever you search for a match, everyone is effectively the same level and eligible for the group. This makes it very easy to find people and jump into a match.
As soon as you start adding permanent worlds / progression that results in different effectiveness between players, you immediately make matchmaking much harder due to smaller numbers of players who are similar to you. Classes / gear / quests / attunement make it harder still.
So, whilst I'm a fan of grouping and would love a group orientated MMO, there are soooooo many other features in the game that would need to differ from the typical MMO design in order for forced grouping to become viable.
It's a good point and I think there should be something else you can do to progress on your own. Something like a meaningful craft and trade system would be cool.
BTW, spending 30 min- 1 hour looking for a group was not at all uncommon- even when I played back in 2003. I believe the lfg system should be improved (ffxi didn't even have one...) and classes would have to be actively and carefully balanced so everyone would be wanted for groups (they didn't balance the game at all when I played).
They did however have a good system in place that kept people cycling through the early levels- the subjob system where subjobs improved your main class but had to be leveled on their own.
I think the problems could be addressed if done thoughtfully and carefully, especially since, as you mentioned, grouping is actually fun.
"Failed" "WoW clones" like SW:TOR still have millions of players nowadays. Several times more than your single example, which is actually soloable to max level...
How dare you? Facts and reason can't stand in his way!
Grouping is a fundamental feature that defines the whole genre of gaming - MMOs.
Not anymore. If so, why would so many MMOs are solo-friendly? It may be a fundamental feature before, but fundamentals change when they are no longer embraced by the audience.
I think we all need to get used to thinking outside the box when discussing "how to make something work" that either currently doesn't work, or just has bad stigma tied to it.
No we don't. We can just say why it does not work, and abandon the idea. There are so many features, gameplay styles. So what if an old feature got abandoned? There is no reason why we need to bring back old stuff just because ....
Are we going to talk about "out of the box ideas" to make text adventures popular again too?
I think we all need to get used to thinking outside the box when discussing "how to make something work" that either currently doesn't work, or just has bad stigma tied to it.
No we don't. We can just say why it does not work, and abandon the idea. There are so many features, gameplay styles. So what if an old feature got abandoned? There is no reason why we need to bring back old stuff just because ....
Are we going to talk about "out of the box ideas" to make text adventures popular again too?
We're not trying to bring back an old feature "just because" and I think abandoning features because they dont work in some games is a waste. My thought process goes something like this:
1) Identify Feature - Grouping
2) Examine popularity
If I were the dev, this is where I'd go out and gather data. I'd be looking for multiplayer games where grouping is forced / encouraged / doesn't happen, examine the popularity across genres etc and compare to MMOs.
My assumption at this point is that grouping with other people is a generally fun activity, becoming more popular the more hardcore the game/player, but that in MMOs its a less enjoyed feature in comparison to the general gaming market. I'm also assuming that there is a large crossover between mmo players and players of other genres, which indicates that the lack of popularity of grouping in mmos is more down to implementation rather than core idea.
Again, if I'm the dev / designer, this is the first stage where you decide to proceed or not. For example, lets say you were evaluating whether to build a gardening feature into your MMO. I would expect the data to reveal that there has never been a popular gardening game and gardening features in other mmos have never been popular. If that were the case, at this point I'd abandon the idea.
3) Identify Common Issues with Feature
So, with grouping, I'd be looking to understand why grouping was popular in the past, is popular in other genres but is no longer popular in MMOs. My list would be something like
Strict class requirements makes finding groups too hard
Class imbalance makes some classes unpopular
Quest structure makes finding people on the same quest hard
Gear / level imbalance makes finding similar people hard
Population spread makes it hard to find people once the game matures
Some people just dont like grouping full stop
4) Come up with solutions to common issues
This is the hard bit and I fully believe this is the reason why most MMOs are now solo based. Coming up with solutions requires creative thinking and, usually, a completely different approach to designing your MMO. The themepark design (quests / hubs / chains / levels / gear) will always stand in the way of making a truely group-orientated MMO. Still, my uneducated list of solutions (not all at once!) would be something like:
Scaling technology - quests automatically scale to group size / level / gear / classes. This is by far the most complicated solution if you are keeping standard themepark quests in your game but if you have some seriously intelligent designers and programmers, it can be done. If you are more about mob grinding instead of quests, you could go with a modern version of SWG's scaling tech.
Horizontal Progression - matchmaking in games like cod, lol, dota etc is all easy and straight forwards because everyone is essentially exactly the same. There is no built in imbalance (like levels, gear etc). You could potentially build this into your MMO, making it horizontal rather than vertical, meaning that as long as at least 1 other person is online, there will be someone eligible to group with.
Better matchmaking systems - most MMOs include an LFG tool of some sort, but most of them aren't used much or don't work properly. Perhaps implementing a better system could make grouping easier.
Change combat design - remove tanks and healers. Controversial one this but if everyone is essentially DPS with a few support skills, then you wouldn't be reliant on having certain classes in your group all the time.
5) Perform feasibility study on possible solutions
So, my preference would be to have an MMO where quests are handed out like in SWG (generic kill quests, picking up a quest spawns the mobs) and they automatically scale to group size. Then, just have a few carefully scripted solo quests for the purposes of story telling (like swtors class quests). This would give players the ability to level however the hell they want: solo or group. But, it requires good scaling technology and it really means your combat and world building need to be top notch as you can't rely on the story to keep people entertained.
Whatever solutions you come up with, they need to be feasible and I don't think current MMO designers have found a feasible solution for making grouping more popular in themepark MMOs.
6) Implement or move on.
I firmly believe that proper scaling technology is too difficult to get into a themepark mmo which is why we dont have it (we have half-arsed mentoring / level matching tech), and I also believe that publishers are unwilling to invest in sandbox mmos, so for the moment we just have to move on and wait. But, someone will get it done at some point, we just need to wait for a seriously clever and imaginative designer / dev to come along and do it.
Games with "forced" grouping (like e.g. EQ1) will never work again since people now know better. It only worked back then because there was little alternative. With todays large choice of games, if people are forced to do something they don't enjoy, they will simply go play another game.
The same could be said about solo-centric games- we're offered little alternative.
And plenty of people did enjoy forced grouping in FFXI- 500k of them for 5 years after WoW was released, and the ultimate alternative was available for anyone that wanted to play it.
But sure, it wouldn't be for everyone, and I don't think a forced grouping game would ever reach WoW levels because for those kind of numbers you need a casual-friendly game, and partying for hours on end every day isn't exactly casual-friendly.
But that doesn't mean a forced grouping game couldn't be successful nowadays.
Based on the success of EQ1 and FFXI, I would bet on a forced grouping being successful over another WoW clone (which have proven to be able to and often fail- unlike forced grouping games).
The primary issue with forced grouping (beyond personal preference) is what do you do when you can't find a group?
If you can't find a group, but the only way to play the game is in a group, then your choice is to switch character or log off. That is very, very bad design.
Not being able to find a group is also a problem that gets worse and worse over time and I've not seen anyone in this thread address that issue. After a relatively short period of time, most MMO populations are top heavy - lots of level capped players, some newbie players/alts and a very small amount of mid-level players. This makes it harder and harder to reach the level cap if you can't find groups, which means lower retention rates, fewer newbies joining and ultimately, less money for the devs to sustain the game.
As a real world example for you to relate to, I did play FFXI when it had forced grouping. I joined start 2007, so a few years after release, as a relative MMO newbie. Once I hit lvl10 and had to start grouping, the game became unbearable. My evenings would be split 50/50 between searching for a group and grinding mobs. I stuck it out for 2 months but honestly, it wasn't a fun experience. Once I was in a group, yeh, it was fun and I'm a group orientated player so I loved it, but there would be some evenings when I'd log on, spend 30mins-1hr purely searching for a group before logging off in despair. Maybe I chose the wrong server, maybe the linkshells I joined were just not active enough, but whatever the reason, the game's design prevented me from progressing if there weren't enough people online.
For those referencing LoL / Dota as examples of popular forced grouping games - these work because there is no permanent progression. Whenever you search for a match, everyone is effectively the same level and eligible for the group. This makes it very easy to find people and jump into a match.
As soon as you start adding permanent worlds / progression that results in different effectiveness between players, you immediately make matchmaking much harder due to smaller numbers of players who are similar to you. Classes / gear / quests / attunement make it harder still.
So, whilst I'm a fan of grouping and would love a group orientated MMO, there are soooooo many other features in the game that would need to differ from the typical MMO design in order for forced grouping to become viable.
What did I do when I couldn't find a group? Multiboxed of course, problem solved.
Must have leveled 10 alts to max level with either my Necro or Vamp in DAOC.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Games with "forced" grouping (like e.g. EQ1) will never work again since people now know better. It only worked back then because there was little alternative. With todays large choice of games, if people are forced to do something they don't enjoy, they will simply go play another game.
You mean, EQ and AC didn't exist? Or the other MMO that let you solo? EQ worked because it worked for those who liked it. WoW snatched a lot of that base because it was leagues ahead in playability.
Conveniences have spoiled many things. Its like going camping and forcing everyone to leave electronics at home. Refinement at its best and worst. It maybe fun to find your own group, dungeon or whatever, but that little voice will tell you it's easier to let the game automate it. Especially when you fail at it.
Grouping is a fundamental feature that defines the whole genre of gaming - MMOs.
Not anymore.
Nor was it ever. EQ was part of the exception, not the rule. Add in FFXI, Planetside and WW2 Online and you've got the majority of pre-WOW forced grouping MMOs right there.
Solo-friendly MMOs in the same time period? A list of the majority of those looks a lot like this:
Furcadia, The Realm Online, Tibia, Legend of Mir 2 (odd, I dont remember there being a 1), Hostile Space, Ultima Online, Graal Kingdoms, Westward Journey, Clan Lord, EverQuest, Lineage, Blade Mistress, The 4th Coming, Dark Ages, Asheron's Call, Asheron's Call 2, Endless Ages, Ogre Island, Motor City Online, Kingdom of Drakkar, WWII Online, Shattered Galaxy, Anarchy Online, Neocron, Shadowbane, Jumpgate, Dark Age of Camelot, Priston Tale, Rubies of Eventide, Astonia, Phantasy Star Online, Ragnarok Online, Everquest Adventures, Earth and Beyond Online, The Sims Online, Mu Online, A Tale in the Desert, There, Planet Entropia, EVE Online, PlanetSide, Horizons, Maple Story, Second Life, ToonTown, Puzzle Pirates, and Ashen Empires
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Games with "forced" grouping (like e.g. EQ1) will never work again since people now know better. It only worked back then because there was little alternative. With todays large choice of games, if people are forced to do something they don't enjoy, they will simply go play another game.
You mean, EQ and AC didn't exist?
I played AC for five or six years. Other than four quests - Gaerlan, Aerlinthe, Frore, and the Focusing Stone - I don't remember a group needed for any of the other content. But maybe I misunderstood where you were going with that. Were you saying that AC and the other MMO were alternatives? f so, that's possible. However, UO was 2D and the big thing was 3D... people were more inclined to jump on the 3D train especially since they've heard of it. UO might have been advertised but not much. AC, barely advertised. EQ... it was the first with TV commercials. Oh, my stars and garters, you must see the commercials...
While there were alternatives, why choose 2D or a game that no one heard of when you could play a game by an entertainment company you have heard of (What's Origin? And isn't Microsoft the company that does Windows and Encarta?) in full 3D!
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Regardless of the original design intentions, it may be inevitable for games to grow more solo-friendly over time.
We don't have a huge number of data points to study, but there aren't any decade-old games that have not grown less dedicated to "forced grouping" over time. Including EQ and FFXI.
And I think that's for reasons that should be obvious. We like to say "they caved!" but it's almost certainly for reasons of Retention.
Which, the proprietary former owners (consumers) of the older titles never, ever like.
Between 2004 and 2012, I played RuneScape; which, was originally created as a Solo Game.
Jagex had some Quests that required Group-Play cooperation in order to perform, and complete, those Quests.
The Wilderness was a Free-For-All Zone; in which, Group Of Players formed a Team Group then lured another Player into the Wilderness; and, the team Gang-Attacked the Lured Player.
For many years, The Wilderness was the only F2P PvP Zone in RuneScape. Then Jagex started creating Battle Areas; in which, the Players could engage in various, but specific, Group Play & PvP Styles. Each Battle Area was designed for one Specific Style of Group, and/or PvP, Play Style.
Players wanting to engage in Group Attacks with Monsters/NPCs were limited to performing Multi-Player Quests; until, Jagex created Battle Areas in which Players could Group Attack Monsters/NPCs.
In 2014, I played Villagers & Heroes; which, allowed Players to Group Attack Monsters/NPCs without having to be in a Multi-Player Quest or in a Specific Battle Area.
I am pretty much a Solo Player; because, my Group-Play Experience have been more on the negative side than being positive.
I had helped form a number of In-Game Guilds in RuneScape; but, I left those Guilds because of bad treatment by the other Guild Founders after the Guilds were formed.
Alot of Players in various MMORPGs who encouraged me to Group-Play with them, just sat around doing nothing, or just wander around aimlessly, with no agenda other than to waste my Gameplay Time. My Avatars weren't even involved in fighting Monsters/NPCs in defending the Team Player's Avatar.
In Villagers & Heroes, I would join Player Groups for exploring New Areas; because, I needed Crafting Resources. Even though, I had told the other Group Players that I was wanting to Collect Resources in the New Area, the other Group Players were only interested in speeding through the New Area to Map it. Thus, I was often left behind as I Collected Items and managed my Backpacks.
I generally avoided Boss Battles in MMORPGs; but, I frequently participated in the Villagers & Heroes Event Zone Boss Battles. My Primary Avatar in Villagers & Heroes was an Archer; but, I also had a Cleric Avatar because Players were asking for a Medic in the Event Zone Boss Battles. Whenever, I would change my Archer Avatar for my Cleric Avatar because there were no Clerics in the Event Zone Boss Battle, when the Villagers & Heroes Event Zone Boss Battles do start, my Cleric Avatar Medic Abilities aren't needed at all. Thus, I am like..."This is a total waste of my time. My Archer needs to be here instead for Battle Worthiness and for the Socket Rewards for Crafting my Archer's Gear.".
I am not opposed to Group-Play; but, Group-Play and Solo-Play should both be available.
Group-Play requires all Players in the Player Team to be of a single mind-set and/or going for a Specific Goal/Achievement; otherwise, some Players won't be getting any benefits from the Group-Play Experience.
Solo-Play should be available because Players sometimes can't find a compatible Player Team and/or, a Player is burned out from playing in Group-Play; and/or, there are some things that a Player can do that is only Solo-Play.
Grouping is a fundamental feature that defines the whole genre of gaming - MMOs.
Not anymore.
Nor was it ever. EQ was part of the exception, not the rule. Add in FFXI, Planetside and WW2 Online and you've got the majority of pre-WOW forced grouping MMOs right there.
Solo-friendly MMOs in the same time period? A list of the majority of those looks a lot like this:
Furcadia, The Realm Online, Tibia, Legend of Mir 2 (odd, I dont remember there being a 1), Hostile Space, Ultima Online, Graal Kingdoms, Westward Journey, Clan Lord, EverQuest, Lineage, Blade Mistress, The 4th Coming, Dark Ages, Asheron's Call, Asheron's Call 2, Endless Ages, Ogre Island, Motor City Online, Kingdom of Drakkar, WWII Online, Shattered Galaxy, Anarchy Online, Neocron, Shadowbane, Jumpgate, Dark Age of Camelot, Priston Tale, Rubies of Eventide, Astonia, Phantasy Star Online, Ragnarok Online, Everquest Adventures, Earth and Beyond Online, The Sims Online, Mu Online, A Tale in the Desert, There, Planet Entropia, EVE Online, PlanetSide, Horizons, Maple Story, Second Life, ToonTown, Puzzle Pirates, and Ashen Empires
I guess MMOs are not only about group play from the start. Either way is fine .. what is important is that what modern MMOs are about.
I personally don't like forced (or "required") anything.
Obviously, MMOs are designed to be social games, but that's like sitting someone down in a room full of strangers and telling them that they have to make at least 3 friends before they can go home.
There are a lot of ways that MMOs can be designed to encourage interaction and cooperation (traffic control, resource placement, etc.). I feel like a lot of these things have been tossed to the wayside since the invention of LFG tools because, well, it's just easier to force someone into a group and then give them a button to do it.
I've made more friends with games that encouraged interaction rather than required it. When there was a lot to do and mysteries to unlock, people talked to each other, and it developed into a great community. When I've been forced into a group of strangers to fight Boss X, I almost never spoke to any of them after the quest was done. Even worse, the forced group quest typically felt unrewarding because I was just a cog rather than a teammate.
I'm starting to see this "forced" term applied to MMO mechanics lately? Is this some new emotional trigger word they are teaching in schools? Just curious.
I'm starting to see this "forced" term applied to MMO mechanics lately? Is this some new emotional trigger word they are teaching in schools? Just curious.
BTW, nobody is "forcing" you to even play.
It's a poor choice of words. OP really meant "required". So "forced if you want to play".
I'm starting to see this "forced" term applied to MMO mechanics lately? Is this some new emotional trigger word they are teaching in schools? Just curious.
BTW, nobody is "forcing" you to even play.
It's a poor choice of words. OP really meant "required". So "forced if you want to play".
Nah, "forced" is used on purpose. Kids are being taught to use words the invoke emotion to get what they want.
Probably not allowed to discuss it because it's taught in Common Core and of course, that will make this into a no-no debate thread for being political.
So like I said previously, back then, people lacked alternatives. Today, they have dozens of games with the familiar "Dungeons and Dragons" like setting. So if one forces them into the EQ1 "group or die" nonsense, well, they just said "get lost!" and play another game with a similar setting but where they have the choice.
That's when you cue up the Mad Elite Gamerz sales pitch. Marketing a game with based on archaic features is an art form.
People trying to dismiss the correlation between group oriented games and strong communities:
Until a study proves otherwise, the connection is obvious. Communities went downhill when games became more soloable, and the thing is, communities aren't improving.
Some people are naturally nice, and a highly competitive game will either change them or cause them to leave because stealing kills is not their idea of fun.
Some are naturally mean to anyone that they don't have a use for, and a teamwork-oriented game will either cause them to work with other players, cause them to leave, or isolate themselves with other like-minded afkholes.
It is more than likely true that a teamwork-oriented game will never be as successful as a solo with everyone else game.
I fully acknowledge that a polished up FFXI will never be as successful as WoW, and probably not as FFXIV, but you don't have to be king of the mountain to be great.
Companies aren't trying it because it's not how Blizzard got ELEVENTY MILLION PEOPLE. Nobody wants to be Target, they want to be Wal Mart. Wal Mart, imo, is a great comparison to Blizzard. Everyone seems to hate it (me as well), but even hated so much, it's still the biggest of them.
The great thing about XI, is they never tried to compete with WoW. When they introduced more solo-friendly tools, it's because the game was lacking an influx of new players. Two of those tools, Level-sync and Campaign Battle removed the relevancy of closeness of levels/gear from playing together (in those contexts).
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug. 12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
Until a study proves otherwise, the connection is obvious. Communities went downhill when games became more soloable, and the thing is, communities aren't improving.
And you have studies to back this up? Of course you don't as it's utter nonsense.
There
are literally hundreds of great online communities devoted to single
player games (Skyrim/Fallout/Minecraft etc, the list is endless) that
prove you don't need group encouraged games to form great communities.
People trying to dismiss the correlation between group oriented games and strong communities:
Until a study proves otherwise, the connection is obvious. Communities went downhill when games became more soloable, and the thing is, communities aren't improving.
No. People are just dismissing that strong communities are important.
In fact, it is quite clear that MMOs are solo-able, and also disposable because players are looking for gameplay fun, and communities are just incidental. Otherwise games with toxic communities (like LoL0 would not be so popular.
The primary issue with forced grouping (beyond personal preference) is what do you do when you can't find a group?
...
I can't agree with this statement more! It's the truth. It applies to all mmo's that require grouping in any context.. In WoW, when you're level capped and want to raid but can't find the necessary members? What do you do? Wait? Go Craft? Log off?
There were too many times where I just sat on my thumbs, watching shouts.
Someone claimed FFXI didn't have an LFG system. It did! It was very basic though. You could only seek on the job you were on, and only if you weren't in a party. It had robust elements but needed...more. Much more.
Thankfully, this is one area where MMOs have VASTLY improved over the years. Learning new and better ways.
You can have all of these:
- Traditional Grouping
- Level Sync/sidekicking where you can go down to the party leader's level, or bring the party up to yours. I prefer level sync.
- Encouraging randoms to join up as a source for their precious tokens (currency for endgame content).
- Cross-server group finders for open-world content and instanced content.
- NPCs smart enough to fill the roles.
- Rested EXP Buffs
- Like I said earlier in the thread, the longer a person waits in a LFG queue, the more exp they should get when they finally get in. If an average dungeon takes 30 minutes, each minute they spend in the queue will earn them 3.3% (100/average time) bonus exp per kill up to a cap of say 200%. Tanks will benefit the least from this, as they always get groups quickly. Healers almost as quickly. DPS are the ones who suffer. They might spend the full 30 minutes in queue, so when they get in, they'll gain twice the exp of the tank.
- Public Quests (Rifts/Fates/Nexuses) - IN MODERATION, these can be great. The problem, like I've said, with thease is you have players just using their fastest aoe to tag things.
- NPC-oriented training missions that reward exp and teach people how to play their jobs.
- FFXIV's crafting was the best ever in one regard. Treated as a job all it's own, you could craft/harvest while LFP.
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug. 12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
Until a study proves otherwise, the connection is obvious. Communities went downhill when games became more soloable, and the thing is, communities aren't improving.
And you have studies to back this up? Of course you don't as it's utter nonsense.
There
are literally hundreds of great online communities devoted to single
player games (Skyrim/Fallout/Minecraft etc, the list is endless) that
prove you don't need group encouraged games to form great communities.
I think it goes without saying that the OP isn't referring to single player games but to MMO's, we are after all on the MMORPG.com forum.
I think it would be equally obvious that he's not referring to the modding community backing games like Skyrim but to the online community that exists within an MMO's game world or shard. In that example he's completely correct. Comparing the server community of say an old EQ server with any modern solo centric MMO (take your pick here) there is a marked difference in the level of community and co-operation.
Modern MMO's are designed from the ground up for a solo experience with a few group dungeons thrown in along the way but they are in no way required content. This fosters a community that has no use for other players until they get to the level cap and start to raid, if the game includes them. In either case you're more likely to have a toxic FPS style community that an old school MMO community. Sweeping generalities aside, there will always be a few helpful players that don't talk smack and help players out but for the most part my experience of modern MMO's has been pretty dire when it comes to community.
People trying to dismiss the correlation between group oriented games and strong communities:
No one is trying to dismiss it. Even you don't believe that, otherwise you wouldn't hav changed the term to make your statement valid. Several here have stated that incentivizing interaction or rewarding interaction makes for good community.
ATITD is a group oriented game. Puzzle Pirates is a group oriented game. Neither one of them forces grouping. Neither one of them makes solo play intentionally more difficult, yet both have great communities.
There, Second Life, and Furcadia are group oriented games, but there is no mechanic that makes it harder or more difficult to participate in content if a person attempts it alone. In each of those games much of the social and community content is built or initiated by individuals.
Disingenuous claims and intentional misdirection isn't productive. No one is falling for it, and it doesn't help further the discussion.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Comments
The primary issue with forced grouping (beyond personal preference) is what do you do when you can't find a group?
If you can't find a group, but the only way to play the game is in a group, then your choice is to switch character or log off. That is very, very bad design.
Not being able to find a group is also a problem that gets worse and worse over time and I've not seen anyone in this thread address that issue. After a relatively short period of time, most MMO populations are top heavy - lots of level capped players, some newbie players/alts and a very small amount of mid-level players. This makes it harder and harder to reach the level cap if you can't find groups, which means lower retention rates, fewer newbies joining and ultimately, less money for the devs to sustain the game.
As a real world example for you to relate to, I did play FFXI when it had forced grouping. I joined start 2007, so a few years after release, as a relative MMO newbie. Once I hit lvl10 and had to start grouping, the game became unbearable. My evenings would be split 50/50 between searching for a group and grinding mobs. I stuck it out for 2 months but honestly, it wasn't a fun experience. Once I was in a group, yeh, it was fun and I'm a group orientated player so I loved it, but there would be some evenings when I'd log on, spend 30mins-1hr purely searching for a group before logging off in despair. Maybe I chose the wrong server, maybe the linkshells I joined were just not active enough, but whatever the reason, the game's design prevented me from progressing if there weren't enough people online.
For those referencing LoL / Dota as examples of popular forced grouping games - these work because there is no permanent progression. Whenever you search for a match, everyone is effectively the same level and eligible for the group. This makes it very easy to find people and jump into a match.
As soon as you start adding permanent worlds / progression that results in different effectiveness between players, you immediately make matchmaking much harder due to smaller numbers of players who are similar to you. Classes / gear / quests / attunement make it harder still.
So, whilst I'm a fan of grouping and would love a group orientated MMO, there are soooooo many other features in the game that would need to differ from the typical MMO design in order for forced grouping to become viable.
BTW, spending 30 min- 1 hour looking for a group was not at all uncommon- even when I played back in 2003. I believe the lfg system should be improved (ffxi didn't even have one...) and classes would have to be actively and carefully balanced so everyone would be wanted for groups (they didn't balance the game at all when I played).
They did however have a good system in place that kept people cycling through the early levels- the subjob system where subjobs improved your main class but had to be leveled on their own.
I think the problems could be addressed if done thoughtfully and carefully, especially since, as you mentioned, grouping is actually fun.
1) Identify Feature - Grouping
2) Examine popularity
If I were the dev, this is where I'd go out and gather data. I'd be looking for multiplayer games where grouping is forced / encouraged / doesn't happen, examine the popularity across genres etc and compare to MMOs.
My assumption at this point is that grouping with other people is a generally fun activity, becoming more popular the more hardcore the game/player, but that in MMOs its a less enjoyed feature in comparison to the general gaming market. I'm also assuming that there is a large crossover between mmo players and players of other genres, which indicates that the lack of popularity of grouping in mmos is more down to implementation rather than core idea.
Again, if I'm the dev / designer, this is the first stage where you decide to proceed or not. For example, lets say you were evaluating whether to build a gardening feature into your MMO. I would expect the data to reveal that there has never been a popular gardening game and gardening features in other mmos have never been popular. If that were the case, at this point I'd abandon the idea.
3) Identify Common Issues with Feature
So, with grouping, I'd be looking to understand why grouping was popular in the past, is popular in other genres but is no longer popular in MMOs. My list would be something like
- Strict class requirements makes finding groups too hard
- Class imbalance makes some classes unpopular
- Quest structure makes finding people on the same quest hard
- Gear / level imbalance makes finding similar people hard
- Population spread makes it hard to find people once the game matures
- Some people just dont like grouping full stop
4) Come up with solutions to common issuesThis is the hard bit and I fully believe this is the reason why most MMOs are now solo based. Coming up with solutions requires creative thinking and, usually, a completely different approach to designing your MMO. The themepark design (quests / hubs / chains / levels / gear) will always stand in the way of making a truely group-orientated MMO. Still, my uneducated list of solutions (not all at once!) would be something like:
- Scaling technology - quests automatically scale to group size / level / gear / classes. This is by far the most complicated solution if you are keeping standard themepark quests in your game but if you have some seriously intelligent designers and programmers, it can be done. If you are more about mob grinding instead of quests, you could go with a modern version of SWG's scaling tech.
- Horizontal Progression - matchmaking in games like cod, lol, dota etc is all easy and straight forwards because everyone is essentially exactly the same. There is no built in imbalance (like levels, gear etc). You could potentially build this into your MMO, making it horizontal rather than vertical, meaning that as long as at least 1 other person is online, there will be someone eligible to group with.
- Better matchmaking systems - most MMOs include an LFG tool of some sort, but most of them aren't used much or don't work properly. Perhaps implementing a better system could make grouping easier.
- Change combat design - remove tanks and healers. Controversial one this but if everyone is essentially DPS with a few support skills, then you wouldn't be reliant on having certain classes in your group all the time.
5) Perform feasibility study on possible solutionsSo, my preference would be to have an MMO where quests are handed out like in SWG (generic kill quests, picking up a quest spawns the mobs) and they automatically scale to group size. Then, just have a few carefully scripted solo quests for the purposes of story telling (like swtors class quests). This would give players the ability to level however the hell they want: solo or group. But, it requires good scaling technology and it really means your combat and world building need to be top notch as you can't rely on the story to keep people entertained.
Whatever solutions you come up with, they need to be feasible and I don't think current MMO designers have found a feasible solution for making grouping more popular in themepark MMOs.
6) Implement or move on.
I firmly believe that proper scaling technology is too difficult to get into a themepark mmo which is why we dont have it (we have half-arsed mentoring / level matching tech), and I also believe that publishers are unwilling to invest in sandbox mmos, so for the moment we just have to move on and wait.
But, someone will get it done at some point, we just need to wait for a seriously clever and imaginative designer / dev to come along and do it.
Must have leveled 10 alts to max level with either my Necro or Vamp in DAOC.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Conveniences have spoiled many things. Its like going camping and forcing everyone to leave electronics at home. Refinement at its best and worst. It maybe fun to find your own group, dungeon or whatever, but that little voice will tell you it's easier to let the game automate it. Especially when you fail at it.
Solo-friendly MMOs in the same time period? A list of the majority of those looks a lot like this:
Furcadia, The Realm Online, Tibia, Legend of Mir 2 (odd, I dont remember there being a 1), Hostile Space, Ultima Online, Graal Kingdoms, Westward Journey, Clan Lord, EverQuest, Lineage, Blade Mistress, The 4th Coming, Dark Ages, Asheron's Call, Asheron's Call 2, Endless Ages, Ogre Island, Motor City Online, Kingdom of Drakkar, WWII Online, Shattered Galaxy, Anarchy Online, Neocron, Shadowbane, Jumpgate, Dark Age of Camelot, Priston Tale, Rubies of Eventide, Astonia, Phantasy Star Online, Ragnarok Online, Everquest Adventures, Earth and Beyond Online, The Sims Online, Mu Online, A Tale in the Desert, There, Planet Entropia, EVE Online, PlanetSide, Horizons, Maple Story, Second Life, ToonTown, Puzzle Pirates, and Ashen Empires
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I played AC for five or six years. Other than four quests - Gaerlan, Aerlinthe, Frore, and the Focusing Stone - I don't remember a group needed for any of the other content. But maybe I misunderstood where you were going with that. Were you saying that AC and the other MMO were alternatives? f so, that's possible. However, UO was 2D and the big thing was 3D... people were more inclined to jump on the 3D train especially since they've heard of it. UO might have been advertised but not much. AC, barely advertised. EQ... it was the first with TV commercials. Oh, my stars and garters, you must see the commercials...
While there were alternatives, why choose 2D or a game that no one heard of when you could play a game by an entertainment company you have heard of (What's Origin? And isn't Microsoft the company that does Windows and Encarta?) in full 3D!
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
We don't have a huge number of data points to study, but there aren't any decade-old games that have not grown less dedicated to "forced grouping" over time. Including EQ and FFXI.
And I think that's for reasons that should be obvious. We like to say "they caved!" but it's almost certainly for reasons of Retention.
Which, the proprietary former owners (consumers) of the older titles never, ever like.
Jagex had some Quests that required Group-Play cooperation in order to perform, and complete, those Quests.
The Wilderness was a Free-For-All Zone; in which, Group Of Players formed a Team Group then lured another Player into the Wilderness; and, the team Gang-Attacked the Lured Player.
For many years, The Wilderness was the only F2P PvP Zone in RuneScape. Then Jagex started creating Battle Areas; in which, the Players could engage in various, but specific, Group Play & PvP Styles. Each Battle Area was designed for one Specific Style of Group, and/or PvP, Play Style.
Players wanting to engage in Group Attacks with Monsters/NPCs were limited to performing Multi-Player Quests; until, Jagex created Battle Areas in which Players could Group Attack Monsters/NPCs.
In 2014, I played Villagers & Heroes; which, allowed Players to Group Attack Monsters/NPCs without having to be in a Multi-Player Quest or in a Specific Battle Area.
I am pretty much a Solo Player; because, my Group-Play Experience have been more on the negative side than being positive.
I had helped form a number of In-Game Guilds in RuneScape; but, I left those Guilds because of bad treatment by the other Guild Founders after the Guilds were formed.
Alot of Players in various MMORPGs who encouraged me to Group-Play with them, just sat around doing nothing, or just wander around aimlessly, with no agenda other than to waste my Gameplay Time. My Avatars weren't even involved in fighting Monsters/NPCs in defending the Team Player's Avatar.
In Villagers & Heroes, I would join Player Groups for exploring New Areas; because, I needed Crafting Resources. Even though, I had told the other Group Players that I was wanting to Collect Resources in the New Area, the other Group Players were only interested in speeding through the New Area to Map it. Thus, I was often left behind as I Collected Items and managed my Backpacks.
I generally avoided Boss Battles in MMORPGs; but, I frequently participated in the Villagers & Heroes Event Zone Boss Battles. My Primary Avatar in Villagers & Heroes was an Archer; but, I also had a Cleric Avatar because Players were asking for a Medic in the Event Zone Boss Battles. Whenever, I would change my Archer Avatar for my Cleric Avatar because there were no Clerics in the Event Zone Boss Battle, when the Villagers & Heroes Event Zone Boss Battles do start, my Cleric Avatar Medic Abilities aren't needed at all. Thus, I am like..."This is a total waste of my time. My Archer needs to be here instead for Battle Worthiness and for the Socket Rewards for Crafting my Archer's Gear.".
I am not opposed to Group-Play; but, Group-Play and Solo-Play should both be available.
Group-Play requires all Players in the Player Team to be of a single mind-set and/or going for a Specific Goal/Achievement; otherwise, some Players won't be getting any benefits from the Group-Play Experience.
Solo-Play should be available because Players sometimes can't find a compatible Player Team and/or, a Player is burned out from playing in Group-Play; and/or, there are some things that a Player can do that is only Solo-Play.
I guess MMOs are not only about group play from the start. Either way is fine .. what is important is that what modern MMOs are about.
Obviously, MMOs are designed to be social games, but that's like sitting someone down in a room full of strangers and telling them that they have to make at least 3 friends before they can go home.
There are a lot of ways that MMOs can be designed to encourage interaction and cooperation (traffic control, resource placement, etc.). I feel like a lot of these things have been tossed to the wayside since the invention of LFG tools because, well, it's just easier to force someone into a group and then give them a button to do it.
I've made more friends with games that encouraged interaction rather than required it. When there was a lot to do and mysteries to unlock, people talked to each other, and it developed into a great community. When I've been forced into a group of strangers to fight Boss X, I almost never spoke to any of them after the quest was done. Even worse, the forced group quest typically felt unrewarding because I was just a cog rather than a teammate.
BTW, nobody is "forcing" you to even play.
Probably not allowed to discuss it because it's taught in Common Core and of course, that will make this into a no-no debate thread for being political.
Many can be enjoyed as solo-game. The social aspect is completely optional in many MMOs.
Until a study proves otherwise, the connection is obvious. Communities went downhill when games became more soloable, and the thing is, communities aren't improving.
Some people are naturally nice, and a highly competitive game will either change them or cause them to leave because stealing kills is not their idea of fun.
Some are naturally mean to anyone that they don't have a use for, and a teamwork-oriented game will either cause them to work with other players, cause them to leave, or isolate themselves with other like-minded afkholes.
It is more than likely true that a teamwork-oriented game will never be as successful as a solo with everyone else game.
I fully acknowledge that a polished up FFXI will never be as successful as WoW, and probably not as FFXIV, but you don't have to be king of the mountain to be great.
Companies aren't trying it because it's not how Blizzard got ELEVENTY MILLION PEOPLE. Nobody wants to be Target, they want to be Wal Mart. Wal Mart, imo, is a great comparison to Blizzard. Everyone seems to hate it (me as well), but even hated so much, it's still the biggest of them.
The great thing about XI, is they never tried to compete with WoW. When they introduced more solo-friendly tools, it's because the game was lacking an influx of new players. Two of those tools, Level-sync and Campaign Battle removed the relevancy of closeness of levels/gear from playing together (in those contexts).
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug.
12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
There are literally hundreds of great online communities devoted to single player games (Skyrim/Fallout/Minecraft etc, the list is endless) that prove you don't need group encouraged games to form great communities.
In fact, it is quite clear that MMOs are solo-able, and also disposable because players are looking for gameplay fun, and communities are just incidental. Otherwise games with toxic communities (like LoL0 would not be so popular.
There were too many times where I just sat on my thumbs, watching shouts.
Someone claimed FFXI didn't have an LFG system. It did! It was very basic though. You could only seek on the job you were on, and only if you weren't in a party. It had robust elements but needed...more. Much more.
Thankfully, this is one area where MMOs have VASTLY improved over the years. Learning new and better ways.
You can have all of these:
- Traditional Grouping
- Level Sync/sidekicking where you can go down to the party leader's level, or bring the party up to yours. I prefer level sync.
- Encouraging randoms to join up as a source for their precious tokens (currency for endgame content).
- Cross-server group finders for open-world content and instanced content.
- NPCs smart enough to fill the roles.
- Rested EXP Buffs
- Like I said earlier in the thread, the longer a person waits in a LFG queue, the more exp they should get when they finally get in. If an average dungeon takes 30 minutes, each minute they spend in the queue will earn them 3.3% (100/average time) bonus exp per kill up to a cap of say 200%. Tanks will benefit the least from this, as they always get groups quickly. Healers almost as quickly. DPS are the ones who suffer. They might spend the full 30 minutes in queue, so when they get in, they'll gain twice the exp of the tank.
- Public Quests (Rifts/Fates/Nexuses) - IN MODERATION, these can be great. The problem, like I've said, with thease is you have players just using their fastest aoe to tag things.
- NPC-oriented training missions that reward exp and teach people how to play their jobs.
- FFXIV's crafting was the best ever in one regard. Treated as a job all it's own, you could craft/harvest while LFP.
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug.
12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
I think it would be equally obvious that he's not referring to the modding community backing games like Skyrim but to the online community that exists within an MMO's game world or shard. In that example he's completely correct. Comparing the server community of say an old EQ server with any modern solo centric MMO (take your pick here) there is a marked difference in the level of community and co-operation.
Modern MMO's are designed from the ground up for a solo experience with a few group dungeons thrown in along the way but they are in no way required content. This fosters a community that has no use for other players until they get to the level cap and start to raid, if the game includes them. In either case you're more likely to have a toxic FPS style community that an old school MMO community. Sweeping generalities aside, there will always be a few helpful players that don't talk smack and help players out but for the most part my experience of modern MMO's has been pretty dire when it comes to community.
No one is trying to dismiss it. Even you don't believe that, otherwise you wouldn't hav changed the term to make your statement valid. Several here have stated that incentivizing interaction or rewarding interaction makes for good community.
ATITD is a group oriented game. Puzzle Pirates is a group oriented game. Neither one of them forces grouping. Neither one of them makes solo play intentionally more difficult, yet both have great communities.
There, Second Life, and Furcadia are group oriented games, but there is no mechanic that makes it harder or more difficult to participate in content if a person attempts it alone. In each of those games much of the social and community content is built or initiated by individuals.
Disingenuous claims and intentional misdirection isn't productive. No one is falling for it, and it doesn't help further the discussion.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?