Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Hard game forced group vs casual group friendly

iixviiiixiixviiiix Member RarePosts: 2,131
Hard game forced group:
Game so hard (hard mode) that if you not group up you can't keep playing , solo isn't optional .
Casual group friendly:
normal mode game , not so hard so player can solo playing most of it contents .
Group friendly mean no restriction or punishment for group up with other , more reward for group up compare to solo.

What type of group system is better ?

Forced group vs group friendly
  1. What's better ?35 votes
    1. forced group
      40.00%
    2. Group friendly
      60.00%
wolf4000
«1345

Comments

  • AlbatroesAlbatroes Member LegendaryPosts: 7,268
    I wont say FFXI executed group-centric play perfectly but it did in a way that made solo seem like a poor choice. You could obviously solo stuff (some playstyles were better at it than others like beastmaster) but being in a group just made things faster thus gave more incentive to do it most of the time, which I feel games should go with. People are playing a massive multiplayer online game so they really should not expect to do 80% of the game solo. Its about striking a balance between those that have and those that do not have the time.
  • AAAMEOWAAAMEOW Member RarePosts: 1,353
    I honestly don't care as long as they make it easy to find a group.  But if I can't find a group, that is when I get very upset.
    KyleranQuizzical
  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,298
    DMKano said:
    Anything forced is worse.

    This.
    Mendel
    "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: Intel Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER EVO 8GB DDR6 - RAM: 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator 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: Samsung U32J590 32" 4K monitor - Second display: Philips 273v 27" monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset - Sound: 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.


  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,364
    edited March 2018
    The one that is better is whichever one you prefer.

    There is nothing wrong with both types of games being on the market for players to choose the ones they like.

    "Forced" is a silly word btw. In some games group cooperation is usually needed for success. That doesn't mean it's "forced." 
    Post edited by Amathe on
    KyleranUngooddelete5230

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,603
    I have no problems with areas that are "so hard" that one needs a group to get through. As long as a player can progress in some way or at least have options at their disposal to help them.

    So, if there is a certain item that a character needs but it's at the end of a long, difficult dungeon, I am all for it provided that item can be obtained and sold on the market for people who want it.


  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 7,663
    In EQs early years the grouping was great, but as time went on it got harder to find them...The only times when it worked well was when you had alot of people to choose from to group with (like your guild).....In 2018 you need alot of players to make this work....Even WoW had to go to a cross server platform for grouping to work in many of the dungeons later on.
  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,586
    Variety is the spice of life. 

    So, I want my game to have a mixture of solo content and group content. I want the group content to range from 2 players up to 1000+. I want the difficult range for all types of content to range from trivial to super hard. I also want my game to be accessible, so the game should progressively take you from easy to hard, solo to group, so that there is a steady "on ramp" for everybody to learn as they go. 

    The current method of trivial solo content, then a massive jump to challenging group content is just silly. 
    SovrathKyleranMendelMadFrenchiedelete5230
  • ShaighShaigh Member RarePosts: 2,058
    My fun starts when there is group content that requires cooperation so that means I favor option #1
    The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,348
    edited March 2018
    Grouping has to be kept optional and casual so I can join my guild or friends when I'm in the mood without requiring me to jump through gear score hoops or "knowing the fights" to do so.

    My raiding days are long past.

    Either that or provide a new raid mode called "with training wheels."

    ;)

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    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






  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    Amathe said:
    The one that is better is whichever one you prefer.

    There is nothing wrong with both types of games being on the market for players to choose the ones they like.

    "Forced" is a silly word btw. In some games group cooperation is usually needed for success. That doesn't mean it's "forced." 
    I think it's more just a silly poll with a clear answer right from the start. I think what he's talking about is "X quest must be completed to progress, X quest requires a group to beat at the appropriate level." In that instance you really are kind forced to group.

    Of course as a sandbox enthusiast I'm very much against anything in a game that gives a single path to progression so I'm against forced grouping. I'm not against group only content if it's completely optional and one of many equally viable paths to progression though.
  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,211

    I'm amazed every time someone says forced multiplayer. It is so stupid. Nobody calls singleplayer games forced singleplayer, so how the multiplayer is forced? Obviously if you can play a game only solo, it is not a multiplayer game. A game without competition and cooperation is not a multiplayer game. A game where the group content is optional is not a multiplayer game. To call a game multiplayer if there is a solo way to be played, it should be optional, but not the main way.

    Kylerancameltosis
  • nerovergilnerovergil Member UncommonPosts: 680
    grouping = faster leveling because mobs spawn in group, so we also fight in group

    solo = slower leveling, need to stop for regen, food, run if mobs too many
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,348
    ikcin said:

    I'm amazed every time someone says forced multiplayer. It is so stupid. Nobody calls singleplayer games forced singleplayer, so how the multiplayer is forced? Obviously if you can play a game only solo, it is not a multiplayer game. A game without competition and cooperation is not a multiplayer game. A game where the group content is optional is not a multiplayer game. To call a game multiplayer if there is a solo way to be played, it should be optional, but not the main way.

    You are confusing the term multiplayer which requires no group content at all (see most any BR game out there) with the term "group centric" which is more accurate to your definition.

    It of course requires multiplayer in most situations unless the game provides NPC group members as in GW1)


    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    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






  • centkincentkin Member RarePosts: 1,526
    I think the problem is that group and raid loot make you solo better.  If that were not the case, then there wouldn't be so much of an issue of content.

    Rather than giving YOU extra stats, a group weapon might add +5% group healing or +5% to the group's DPS making you better in a group while not making you a solo powerhouse.

  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,897
    Forced grouping to advance is indicative of a deeper problem, content with a single path.  If you need to group to get past a specific encounter, and beating that encounter is some kind of bottleneck to your character's progress (and presumably everyone else's progress), that requires every character to pass this one 'gate'.   Why is progression buried by a Kill Mob A, when it could be Kill A or B or C?  That's a problem the developers created for themselves.  It doesn't have to be related to the difficulty of the content, even.



    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    ikcin said:

    I'm amazed every time someone says forced multiplayer. It is so stupid. Nobody calls singleplayer games forced singleplayer, so how the multiplayer is forced? Obviously if you can play a game only solo, it is not a multiplayer game. A game without competition and cooperation is not a multiplayer game. A game where the group content is optional is not a multiplayer game. To call a game multiplayer if there is a solo way to be played, it should be optional, but not the main way.

    MMOs in general are more about virtual worlds than the size of the group you are running content with. The reason Skyrim is a singleplayer game as opposed to an MMO isn't because you do all the content solo. It's because the entire world is yours / you are the only one to access with it. You could have a very similar game exist enjoyably as an MMO simply by allowing a massive quantity of players access to the same world so that while you're out questing you happen upon other players.

    IMO, good MMOs make the level of interaction you will have with those other players largely based upon player choice. You might see them and keep running. You might see them and decide to work together. In PvP areas you may see them and choose to kill or rob them.

    Personally I've nearly entirely stopped playing single player games. I play Total War games occasionally and that's about it. And it's because at the end of a single player game, the game is done and my accomplishments mean nothing. All the content of a singleplayer game can exist within an MMO and when it's done I can go do other things within the same game world.

    So I play MMOs to solo, PvP, PvE, Craft etc. The more styles of play the game covers the better since it's a game I'm likely devoting at least 90% of my gaming time to.
  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,211
    Kyleran said:
    ikcin said:

    I'm amazed every time someone says forced multiplayer. It is so stupid. Nobody calls singleplayer games forced singleplayer, so how the multiplayer is forced? Obviously if you can play a game only solo, it is not a multiplayer game. A game without competition and cooperation is not a multiplayer game. A game where the group content is optional is not a multiplayer game. To call a game multiplayer if there is a solo way to be played, it should be optional, but not the main way.

    You are confusing the term multiplayer which requires no group content at all (see most any BR game out there) with the term "group centric" which is more accurate to your definition.

    It of course requires multiplayer in most situations unless the game provides NPC group members as in GW1)



    It is a marketing nonsense. If you made a solo game with few multiplayer options how will you call it? Singleplayer - will not sell well. Solo friendly - better. Group friendly, but not forced - excellent. To call a game multiplayer, you must play - I will say bold: play, with other players. The existence of other people in does not make the game multiplayer. Group centric could be used only if we are talking about the cooperative style of multiplayer gameplay. But I doubt the OP means that. As before any cooperation the game needs competition. The players must compete with something or someone - AI or other players, the cooperation to be meaningful. If there is not competition, the cooperation is pointless. The OP calls that forced. I call that multiplayer.

    Gdemami
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    I believe the OP is referring mostly to the fact that at least traditionally in many MMOs you had to participate in raids or at least group dungeons to get the best gear in the game. Progression caps out short of your full potential if you are running solo content. Hence the idea of "forced multiplayer".

    I can agree with the OP that is crap. 
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited March 2018
    Eldurian said:
    I believe the OP is referring mostly to the fact that at least traditionally in many MMOs you had to participate in raids or at least group dungeons to get the best gear in the game. Progression caps out short of your full potential if you are running solo content. Hence the idea of "forced multiplayer".

    I can agree with the OP that is crap. 
    I don't see an issue with it in a PvE game.  PvP games are different.

    I'm playing Rift Prime, for example, and it's a PvE server.  It doesn't bother me to have high-end content require grouping.  Nothing they do at that level will realistically affect me.

    image
  • iixviiiixiixviiiix Member RarePosts: 2,131
    ^ well , what i mean is simple . Most post i see about improve multiplayer is about make the game harder so player have to depend on other . But in the age when MMO still MMO though the level grind was tough but the game wasn't that hard and people not join with other because the game is hard but because it enjoyable (not all old MMORPGs were so , i not from EQ age). While they weren't that casual , they are group friendly .

    That's why i make a poll between hard+forced and casual+friendly . To see what people here prefer .


  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    My issue with that is that solo content loses emphasis late game and even the group content becomes exceptionally repetitive in games with a late game raiding focus. In games without that kind of focus you see a lot of variety content and the ability to switch between many equally viable options makes the game seem less repetitive.
  • danwest58danwest58 Member RarePosts: 2,012
    If you are playing an MMORPG you should expect to be grouping with people.  I am not talking about FFXI type grouping but grouping like you had to in Vanilla WOW.  Otherwise you should play a single player game.   MSORPG which is what we have today is why the genera is crap.   There are tons of single player games for players who dont ever want to play with people.
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    danwest58 said:
    If you are playing an MMORPG you should expect to be grouping with people.  I am not talking about FFXI type grouping but grouping like you had to in Vanilla WOW.  Otherwise you should play a single player game.   MSORPG which is what we have today is why the genera is crap.   There are tons of single player games for players who dont ever want to play with people.
    The genre is crap because:

    1. Repetitive grinding has been accepted as a suitable substitute for engaging content.
    2. 99% of the genre are clones of the same model.

    Giving people the choice to participate it solo content enjoyably has done nothing but good for the genre.
  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,211
    edited March 2018


    Eldurian said:
    danwest58 said:
    If you are playing an MMORPG you should expect to be grouping with people.  I am not talking about FFXI type grouping but grouping like you had to in Vanilla WOW.  Otherwise you should play a single player game.   MSORPG which is what we have today is why the genera is crap.   There are tons of single player games for players who dont ever want to play with people.
    The genre is crap because:

    1. Repetitive grinding has been accepted as a suitable substitute for engaging content.
    2. 99% of the genre are clones of the same model.

    Giving people the choice to participate it solo content enjoyably has done nothing but good for the genre.
    I disagree completely.

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,603
    danwest58 said:
    If you are playing an MMORPG you should expect to be grouping with people.  I am not talking about FFXI type grouping but grouping like you had to in Vanilla WOW.  Otherwise you should play a single player game.   MSORPG which is what we have today is why the genera is crap.   There are tons of single player games for players who dont ever want to play with people.
    I'm going to have to disagree with that. This whole attitude of "you should be doing x and if not then do what 'I' think you should do and do y" just doesn't wash.

    What one should expect to do is to, at the very least, be ready to deal with/work with people.

    But I suppose part of this is predicated on the idea that an mmorpg is supposed to be (at least originally) a world.

    It makes sense that one isn't always going to be "grouping with" people i.e. dealing with/working with people all the time.

    I DO think that it's ok for having content that is so challenging that it requires a group. But I also think that depending on how the game is set up, it should be ok to pass on that.

    I say "set up" because if the game is designed to solely be a group centric game then of course one is going to have to group (or else don't play it).

    But mmorpg's can have a variety of activities and unless it's a grouping only game, I think it's ok for people to find their own fun.

    Sometimes just being around people is fun enough.
    Morgenes83
Sign In or Register to comment.