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

124

Comments

  • Cyber_wastelandCyber_wasteland Member UncommonPosts: 187
    A good medium is what needs to be found. Back in old EQ days where grouping was necessary, yes it forged bonds that made it seem like a second home, but time has changed.

    You make something so easy that it becomes casual you may as well just be playing it as a single player game with optional multiplayer content. 

    Making it so hard that you need to find other people to do it with has its own problems, especially when the game gets some age on it and most of the ones that stuck around are end game. 

    There needs to be a solid medium. 

  • deniterdeniter Member RarePosts: 1,367
    Neither of the extremes will make a good game but to find a good balance i would lean more towards 'forced group'. The whole point of MMORPG is to play together with others. If you can solo everything the game becomes more or less a single player game.
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,967
    For the player the whole point of the game is to have fun.  Most games that do the best tend to be the most flexible.
    Jean-Luc_Picard

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • DarkswormDarksworm Member RarePosts: 1,034
    edited April 2018
    Eldurian said:
    @Darksworm - You are obviously coming from a WoW clone perspective here.

    "The gear treadmill is probably singlehandedly keeping half of MMORPG players on the genre, otherwise what is the point of the game?"

    I don't know? Fun??? Why do people sink so much time into games like League, Minecraft, and Starcraft where character bound gear is not a thing? How has EVE done so well over the years?

    Sure. Baiting people in to your game and then keeping them around with the idea "You've invested so much into this character, how can you quit now?" may work for some people. For a lot of people though this doesn't work anymore, and there are plenty of games fighting over the market it does work on already.

    Content droughts are a problem with scripted content common to WoW clones. Good sandboxes never suffer this problem because the unpredictability of players and emergent gameplay make simple reusable content types constantly interesting and unpredictable.

    I started playing MMORPGs with EQ in 2000.  I don't even play WoW right now, or really much of anything MMO-related.  The games simply aren't that good and they don't have the "stick" that a player like me is looking for, due to poor social experiences.  If you're into PvP or want something that plays more like Diablo III, then I'm sure something like FFXIV, ESO, GW2, etc. would scratch your casual, solo-friendly itch...

    It has nothing to do with WoW clones, unless you've only been playing MMOs for a few years and tend to think that WoW literally defines this genre.  Telling me that I am coming from a "WoW Clone" perspective simply because you identify everything you disagree with as being related to WoW, due to you believing that WoW somehow defines the genre for everyone, does not make it so.

    You're actually doing nothing but projecting, here.

    There is no point in playing an MMORPG if all you do is log in and kill random things, and there are basically no rewards that scale appropriate to the difficulty of the content (Solo, Group, Raid), the difficulty rating of that content (Normal, Heroic, Mythic), or the time requirements for that content (i.e. Raid Weapons vs. Epic Weapons from long, difficult quests).

    People will simply ignore the stuff that is harder, and then complain that there isn't enough content because content that is not worth doing (rewards out of line with requirements) mind as well not exist to players.

    There has to be all of this in there, and players need that carrot to chase, otherwise the game is relegated to nothing other than a glorified, 3D chat box.

    And I'm certainly not going to pay for that.

    If you don't like grouping or raiding, then don't group or raid.

    But don't complain that your gear sucks compared to those people who put in the time and effort to do so.  You have to deal with your own decisions, not expect developers to dumb down the games just so you can feel "equal" when you're actually just lazy or have different preferences from other people.

    It's a role playing game.  If all you want to do is kill elpies, then enjoy your elpy drops.  Want better?  Do better.

    This has nothing to do with WoW.  In EQ, we didn't complain that Mr. Joe Schmoe Wizard had a cool Najena robe.  We put together a group, went wipe 50 times in the dungeon and got one for ourselves.
  • DarkswormDarksworm Member RarePosts: 1,034
    In any case, this isn't an issue because in games like EQ many classes could solo.  No, you weren't getting great gear doing so, but you also had the option to group and should have been exercising that option where appropriate.  That's the whole point: choices.

    The issue we're seeing these days is that games are being designed to cater to one crowd to the exclusion of another.  Therefore, you end up with games that have really bad balance in terms of solo and group content, and often the gameplay is designed with a bias for one which affect that aspect of the game, as well.

    Games like WoW and EQ2 weren't as faceroll as people make it out to be.  The reason why games are designed the way they are is because the players asked for it.  Game developers develop games to make money.  It's a business model.  Developing for niche forum cliques is not the best way to build a viable business.  You go where the money is.

    Games like EQ were made more softcore over time because even their own player bases demanded it.  This isn't a new phenomenon.  EQ got stupid easy well before WoW entered the market.  It got daily quests and easy vendor/token gears WAY before WoW released.
  • iixviiiixiixviiiix Member RarePosts: 2,131
    edited April 2018
    deniter said:
    Neither of the extremes will make a good game but to find a good balance i would lean more towards 'forced group'. The whole point of MMORPG is to play together with others. If you can solo everything the game becomes more or less a single player game.
    The game being singleplayer not because player can solo everything but because it was made as singleplayer .
    There are many reason that make player don't want to group up , for example: Player get punished for group up .

    Low level player can't join high level quests and high level can't join low level quests because they ready done them . And if you force to group up , low level player get punish and don't have EXP from killing mob (that's half of exp from quests) .
    In some game , they don't allow power level so even lowbie join high level , they don't get EXP .

    In short , you get punish by group up with people that not same levels as you .

    Hard game forced group in fact do not help to group up . Because to do contents , it require players need group have a level of progression . For example if you need to kill level 60 boss , you can't call a level 30 in because they will get 1 shoot by boss . So it limited the range of player that allow to join the contents .

    The problem with WOW generation aka 2008 to 2018 MMORPG is developer don't want you to group up when doing quests because it will ruin they design , they want you to play as they want , and punish you if you don't play as they wanted . They want player to solo quests and then have to group up for raid . They want to sell singleplayer game with MMO laber .

    Also , being solo thing wasn't make it easy . For example you need 5 to 10 minutes and lots of potions , scrolls , items to solo a thing , yes it solo able but group up still prefer since it faster and less cost . Though the reward is half if you group up , but it more enjoy able than solo .
  • DarkswormDarksworm Member RarePosts: 1,034
    edited April 2018
    WoW was released in 2005, not 2008.  Why the odd range of dates?  Did Quest-to-Level suddenly get added to WoW in the second expansion?  This has nothing to do with WoW.  Most quests in MMORPGs are solo, and this design predates WoW by many years.  EQ had these quests over a year before WoW was released... and by then they had become commonplace and part of the players' "Daily Rotation."  This included solo instances for some quests, even.  And yes, they were done for XP and tokens to buy items off a vendor.

    The problem is not the quests, it's the leveling experienced tied to predominantly to questing.

    The reason why this is the case is because players complained about games lacking immersion and people skipping the story to rush through levels.  Tying the leveling to questing forces the players to experience the story/lore as they level up.  Casual players prefer this.  More hardcore players hate it.  FFXIV has a mixed reaction predominantly due to this design, which it takes much further than WoW ever has (gating everything behind the MSQ).

    You can always ask people to grind their XP killing MOBs, but we know how that usually turns out...  Complaints, Bots, Power-Leveling Services, Account Selling, Shift Leveling, etc.

    I actually think WoW strikes a decent balance between the two.  I think EQ2 actually struck a better balance.

    If the game is good, and the content is good, then it doesn't matter because people will do it, anyways.  The only time this becomes an issue is when you are rolling alternate characters, and this is a non-issue for veterans in most MMORPGs as giving Character Boosts with Expansion purchases has become a fairly commonplace marketing norm, these days.

    You can actually group up and quest in WoW.  The quests share progress and you don't have the same issues leveling together than you'd have in a game like Elder Scrolls Online, for example.

    No one expects to be able to repeat non-repeatable quests, so I'm not sure why high level players not being able to do trivial low level quests with low level players [due to having already done them] is an issue.  Low level players should be doing level-appropriate content with other low level players, not worrying about killing MOBs or bosses 30 levels over them.  That is a complete non-factor.

    If you want to quest with your lowbie friends, then start a toon with them and go quest with them.  That's what I did when I got a friend to try Guild Wars 2.

    Developers don't "not want you to group up for quests."  What you're asking for just doesn't make any sense.
  • iixviiiixiixviiiix Member RarePosts: 2,131
    edited April 2018
    2008 because it's time when WOW start the 12 million subs BS and after that's the 5 year of WOW killer clone trend .
    2004-2007 wow yet to start the clone trend .

    And make alts just to play with other ? it more like punishment than enjoying .
  • Morgenes83Morgenes83 Member UncommonPosts: 197
    I think an mmoRPG should allow both. But in group you level faster. For skills I'm totally for having skill levels that are separated into group and solo as it is something different to fight alone a have to watch out for friends while hitting that bad guy.

    This way you can also play the lone wolf if you want to, but you aren't as good in a group as someone who does it all the time.

    IMHO they shouldn't force the social aspect of games through grouping but with other design decisions instead. By being more a RPG than a coop game.
    iixviiiix

    1997 Meridian 59 'til 2019 ESO 

    Waiting for Camelot Unchained & Pantheon

  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    @Darkswom - While EQ is not a WoW clone strictly speaking, it falls into the same general category as WoW is an EQ clone.

    WoW Clones AKA Themeparks always follow the same predictable patterns.

    The primary focus of early game revolves around level grinding, generally primarily through quests. There are preset races and classes you choose upon character creation that cannot be changed. And once the level grinding is done the game shifts focus over to gear progression earned by running "endgame content".

    These basic principles of a themepark/WoW-Clone and they cover every single game you mentioned in your posts. They are all the same game in a different skin with less meaningful variation then is found in any true genre. For instance within the RTS genre you can kind both Total War titles and Age of Empires / Starcraft / Warcraft / Halo Wars. The later all being close enough in format to be considered clones, but the former existing in the same genre while only sharing a few general principles with the later. 

    To understand what a truly different title is, you have to look at MMOs such as EVE, Planetside, Runescape or a whole score of indie MMOs such as Darkfall, Life is Feudal, Wurm Online, or upcoming titles such as Star Citizen and Crowfall that all completely reject the model of WoW clones and make game completely different in concept and form.
    Kyleran
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 13,302
    edited April 2018
    What about a system like this?

    If you want to solo you play the solo game, you see no one else.

    If you want forced grouping you are in the multiplayer game, where you see other players.

    A person who had soloed up their avatar could join the grouping world, but there would have to be some checks and balances. Possibly they would not be able to buy, sell or craft anything, maybe not do quests or PvP.

    It would depend how it was set up but at least they could join other players if they got lonely. ;)


    Post edited by Scot on

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • ShishamoShishamo Member UncommonPosts: 26
    Another thing I'd like is something to prevent people from speed running everything, because honestly that kills the social aspect. FFXIV has a huge problem with nobody wanting to talk, skipping content and blitzing the heck out of everything. Cut it out!
    Morgenes83
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,348
    Scot said:
    What about a system like this?

    If you want to solo you play the solo game, you see no one else.

    If you want forced grouping you are in the multiplayer game, where you see other players.

    A person who had soloed up their avatar could join the grouping world, but there would have to be some checks and balances. Possibly they would not be able to buy, sell or craft anything, maybe not do quests or PvP.

    It would depend how it was set up but at least they could join other players if they got lonely. ;)


    This is basically how SotA works. Players can choose whether to go it solo, team up with friends in a group instance or join the full world of all players.
    Scot

    "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
    I think that is also how Squadron 42 and Star Citizen work. Squadron 42 is a single player or co-op game. Star Citizen MMO-like in nature. From what I understand after playing through Squadron 42 you'll be allowed to introduce that character into the Star Citizen universe with the money you earned in the campaign.
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 13,302
    edited April 2018
    Kyleran said:
    Scot said:
    What about a system like this?

    If you want to solo you play the solo game, you see no one else.

    If you want forced grouping you are in the multiplayer game, where you see other players.

    A person who had soloed up their avatar could join the grouping world, but there would have to be some checks and balances. Possibly they would not be able to buy, sell or craft anything, maybe not do quests or PvP.

    It would depend how it was set up but at least they could join other players if they got lonely. ;)


    This is basically how SotA works. Players can choose whether to go it solo, team up with friends in a group instance or join the full world of all players.

    I was wondering if someone would spot that. :)

    It was one of the reasons why I think SotA is an innovative MMO, but way too early to even think about playing it now.

    Various ways it can be done Eldurian, it is the either/or that the OP has framed this topic in that I don't think should be a given.
    Post edited by Scot on

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,298
    Darksworm said:
    ... in games like EQ many classes could solo.
    I'd love to enjoy your definition of the word "many", because I'm sure we don't have the same.
    Kyleran
    "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.


  • DarkswormDarksworm Member RarePosts: 1,034
    WoW wasn't an EQ clone.  WoW built upon some systems in EQ (as pretty much any fantasy MMORPG these days does), but the gameplay and progression - in general - is far removed from EQ.  EQ2 came before WoW, and WoW was more similar to that game.  Both of them were in development at the same time.  But EQ2 is very dissimilar from EQ.  This is why EQ2 never displaced or replaced EQ.

    My point is that the changes that came with WoW were not WoW innovations - they were MMORPG survival requirements.  They were demands that players put on the industry developing these games, and these started getting implemented well before EQ2 and WoW even hit the market - in games like EQ and DAoC.

    The difference is that EQ2 and WoW were developed with these assumptions built into the game and its gameplay, while games like EQ, DAoC and others had to bolt it onto an already existing base game designed for a bygone era.  This is what makes EQ2 and WoW look like clones.  You probably barely played EQ before they started dumping these features into the game, so you don't have the correct perspective or experience to see how the industry and the playerbases changed over the years.

    The game that EQ is right now is not what most EQ players from 1999 probably would have asked for, but if a game has to survive, it has to cater to its players...  The ACTUAL players, not the theoretical players some company wants to design for (simply because those theoretical players agree with their own gameplay preferences).

    By the time WoW released, we were at EverQuest:  Dragons of Norrath, and things like instancing (LDoN), vendor/token gear (LDoN), fast travel (PoP), easy corpse recovery (OoW), veteran rewards/XP Boosts, Dailies/Tasks (OoW), mounted combat (permanent medding) (GoD), etc. had already become mainstays in EverQuest.

    EQ2 and WoW were simply better games for most people because they were designed with these systems from the ground up and had better Graphics and Gameplay.  They were designed for that new generation of players, which was the very vast majority of players in the market.  This is why a lot of the games seem similar.  Games like Eve are and have always been extremely niche in the MMORPG genre, so they are a pretty good proof that the market cannot sustain more than a few of these types of games (otherwise the saturation would eventually kill off all but one or two - as has been happening in the Fantasy MMORPG sub-genre).

    WoW was not an EQ clone.  Sharing common characteristics is part and parcel of being part of the same genre.  Overwatch isn't a CoD clone simply because it's an FPS.

    This obsession with calling games clones of something is unfounded and typically based on ignorance or a lack of knowledge of how these games evolved or were developed.

    Both EQ2 and WoW launched with a ton of similarities.  These were due to market demands.  Blizzard recruited a lot of EQ players and personalities, and the result of this were systems very unlike what was in EQ - and those that were in EQ were usually later additions added due to player demand...  Many of which exist and are expected to exist in practically any decent MMORPG these days.

    Lots of MMORPG did try to work off of the WoW formula (barely extend it, or clone it entirely), but that doesn't work well because WoW was designed for the [still, IMO] current market and Blizzard develops it heavily.  This means they tend to react to player demands pretty decently, and can easily steal/copy/clone features from other games that their players want.  Smaller developers aren't as agile, aren't as well funded, and don't have the Lore Backing of WoW upon which they can build compelling content.  A lot of other games also focused too much on graphics, which made their games unplayable for a lot of less affluent MMORPG players.  FFXIV cited the obsessions on graphics as one of the reason why their 1.0 launch failed, for example, and the Vanguard Developers cited the massive system requirements as a big reason why that game failed.

    WoW benefited from being the "de facto viable choice" for millions of players who wanted a decently modern MMORPG to play, which wouldn't force them to buy a new computer system.

    Shaniqua from the Compton could get a cheap computer from Rent-A-Center and it would run WoW flawlessly, while choking in EQ2, Vanguard, Even, Rift, and a bevy of other games.
  • DarkswormDarksworm Member RarePosts: 1,034
    edited April 2018
    Darksworm said:
    ... in games like EQ many classes could solo.
    I'd love to enjoy your definition of the word "many", because I'm sure we don't have the same.
    Enchanter, Mage, Necromancer, Druid, Shaman, Ranger, Paladin, Shadow Knight, Bard, Wizard, Monk

    All of these classes, at least, could solo in EverQuest.

    That's most classes in the game, so "many" totally applies.

    I'm not sure what game you were playing.

    Lots of content in EQ was designed explicitly not to be soloed, so that was a clear limiting factor - this became more and more direct through the expansions (Summon Mechanic for example).  And, of course, degrees of solo prowess were in flux.  But all of those classes I listed could solo.

    Not even Bards and Necros could solo MOBs that Summoned and had Melee Hits designed for Tank Classes.  You'd just get summoned and lose half+ your HP.  This didn't become possible until gear got OP (as often happens in old MMORPGs), but SoE usually responded by simply making new expansion MOBs hit increasingly harder (compare PoP PoFire MOBs to Tipt/Vxed (on release) MOBs in GoD).

    There were a few classes that were pretty SoL when it came to soloing, yes...  But most classes could solo.  It simply didn't make sense to solo if you were a class that could easily get a party (or was wanted in a party).  You could solo, slowly, on a Cleric...  But why would you ever do that, when you could find a group almost instantaneously at almost any hour of the day or night?
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Eldurian said:
    @Darkswom - While EQ is not a WoW clone strictly speaking, it falls into the same general category as WoW is an EQ clone.

    WoW Clones AKA Themeparks always follow the same predictable patterns.

    The primary focus of early game revolves around level grinding, generally primarily through quests. There are preset races and classes you choose upon character creation that cannot be changed. And once the level grinding is done the game shifts focus over to gear progression earned by running "endgame content".

    These basic principles of a themepark/WoW-Clone and they cover every single game you mentioned in your posts. They are all the same game in a different skin with less meaningful variation then is found in any true genre. For instance within the RTS genre you can kind both Total War titles and Age of Empires / Starcraft / Warcraft / Halo Wars. The later all being close enough in format to be considered clones, but the former existing in the same genre while only sharing a few general principles with the later. 

    To understand what a truly different title is, you have to look at MMOs such as EVE, Planetside, Runescape or a whole score of indie MMOs such as Darkfall, Life is Feudal, Wurm Online, or upcoming titles such as Star Citizen and Crowfall that all completely reject the model of WoW clones and make game completely different in concept and form.
    While true, it isn't the method by which EVE delivers content that is the primary driver there, but the method by which a player's skill progress independently of their in-game actions.


    Even with that, EVE centers around grinding ISK to pay for upgrades, new ships, and replacing ships lost.  You aren't magically alleviating that by utilizing a skill-based system or a sandbox.

    You might argue it provides more emergent gameplay, and I agree.  Emergent gameplay has it's own downsides, though, one onown very well to anyone who knows a modicum about the reputation of EVE regarding scamming and griefing.

    image
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    The thing with a sandbox like EVE is how do you make your isk?

    Mining, exploration, faction warfare, missions, complexes, trading etc. Many different ways and you can choose whichever one engages you most.

    With a WoW clone it's quests until you switch over to dungeons and raids. Maybe an enjoyable option for PvP arenas and a halfassed crafting system on the side if you are lucky.

    I'm not doing any specific content purely because that is what I need to be doing to progress. When currency is the main way to progress and there are many ways to earn it, that's a liberating and enjoyable system.
    Kyleran
  • DarkswormDarksworm Member RarePosts: 1,034
    edited April 2018
    Eldurian said:
    The thing with a sandbox like EVE is how do you make your isk?

    Mining, exploration, faction warfare, missions, complexes, trading etc. Many different ways and you can choose whichever one engages you most.

    With a WoW clone it's quests until you switch over to dungeons and raids. Maybe an enjoyable option for PvP arenas and a halfassed crafting system on the side if you are lucky.

    I'm not doing any specific content purely because that is what I need to be doing to progress. When currency is the main way to progress and there are many ways to earn it, that's a liberating and enjoyable system.

    Quests in a Game like WoW, EQ2, ESO, GW2, and others (many of which are not very similar to WoW, BTW) is the primary means by which Lore and Story is delivered to the user.

    That's why the quests exists.  The leveling experience familiarizes users who may not know anything at all about the Lore to it, so that they can understand the base upon which later content is built.

    Because Guldan wans't just a randomly generated MOB.  He was a specific MOB that existed for specific reasons.

    You're not looking at it in the right way, and you aren't even understanding WHY the quest driven gameplay (primarily the leveling and solo content) became a mainstay in the genre.

    One could argue that the Warcraft lore was the primary reason why WoW was successful, in comparison to EQ whose player base was generally not nearly as invested or even interested in the lore, because the first game did a very poor job at exposing players to it and getting them invested in it.

    FFXIV isn't even that good (it's like an MMORPG Diablo III, in the grand scheme of things), but the Lore and the fact that it's Final Fantasy single-handedly carries the game.

    The quests are the means by which this is delivered to the user.  There is currently no better delivery mechanism for the story content in MMORPGs than Quests...

    LOTs of quests.

    The quests are never an issue when you're invested and very interested in the lore.

    It only becomes a drag when you're not that interested in the story and simply want to get to the group/raid content ASAP.

    More and more people are playing MMORPGs, these days, with little to no interest in the story content, so your "mistaken perspective" is not surprising to me.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited April 2018
    Eldurian said:
    The thing with a sandbox like EVE is how do you make your isk?

    Mining, exploration, faction warfare, missions, complexes, trading etc. Many different ways and you can choose whichever one engages you most.

    With a WoW clone it's quests until you switch over to dungeons and raids. Maybe an enjoyable option for PvP arenas and a halfassed crafting system on the side if you are lucky.

    I'm not doing any specific content purely because that is what I need to be doing to progress. When currency is the main way to progress and there are many ways to earn it, that's a liberating and enjoyable system.
    I don't disagree.  But consider a game in which ISK is grinded, but there's quests for faction warfare, exploration, mining, etc..  Is that possible?  If so, are quests the real issue?  Or is the game's focus around combat activities exclusively to progress the issue?

    Quests are merely the way in which progression is segmented and displayed for the player.  It's just a framework of activities to do that progress your character.  In that sense, they have little effect on the issue you're getting at.

    I don't disagree with you that theme parks have an ultra-laser focus on combat and that's an issue.  I just wanted to caution you when you start throwing around questing and dungeons/raids like it's part of the issue.  Quests can reward any given activity with any given currency.  Theme park MMORPGs have simply refrained from using these themes to their best potential.

    EDIT- Allow me to say that you may not be intending to include dungeons/quests/raids as part of the issue, but the vibe of your responses have seemed to include them.  So apologies if I mistook it!

    image
  • DarkswormDarksworm Member RarePosts: 1,034
    I agree with poster upthread.  A balance can be met.  I actually think WoW has balance, especially since the introduction of Mythic+.  Warfronts and Expeditions will increase that balance next expansion.

    You'll have Quests, World Quests, Crafting, etc. for solo players.

    You'll have Dungeons, Mythic+, Expeditions, etc. for groupers.

    Then there are raids.

    With Tier Sets and Azerite Armor, raiding will be less of a "hard requirement."  The game will allow all types of players to benefit more from more types of content.

    Don't have an issue with the leveling content in modern MMORPGs, because there is not a large market for grinders.  Additionally, with faster-paced combat gameplay, grinding for hours means hours of button mashing.  It's not fun, and it ends up not being very social.  FFXIV's new Eureka zone is a good example.

    Go grind Elemental XP there.  You'll be exhausted within an hour.

    The problem is that there simply aren't enough WoW-quality MMORPPGs on the market, and players are too worried about finding the "perfect game" and not content enough with what is currently on the market.  This causes most games to have small pedestrian player populations, which exacerbates the current trend towards Cash Shops and Pay to Win.

    When developers don't have the players to sustain their game through subscriptions, it's only understandable that they'll cash grab in other ways.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    The cash shop monetization has created a vicious cycle.  We have AAA production values with pubs going "okay, we'll set the value of the game itself to zero, then try to make it up by taxing the shit out of a small protion of the playerbase."

    Well, now gamers expect AAA production MMORPGs for free.  Take a guess at how sustainable that will be long-term in attracting and retaining large investors?
    Scot

    image
  • time007time007 Member UncommonPosts: 1,061
    hard game forced group

    IMPORTANT:  Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING.  Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally.  If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead.  I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING.  Thank you.
Sign In or Register to comment.