Howdy, Stranger!

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

Encouraged to group, but not forced. The key to a good MMORPG

jeeshadowjeeshadow Member UncommonPosts: 133
I've gone back to playing DAOC on Phoenix, a new free server.  I keep coming back to DAOC, with it's outdated graphics, clunky characters, and 2001 animations.  

I think i've keyed in on why I like the DAOC format that was similar to a lot of games in that era and not so much today.  They seem to have found the right balance between encouraging you to group up and you actually have fun grinding mobs or hunting in rvr in a group.  While at the same time, you're not forced to.  In fact, if that's not your bag, you can roll some VERY effective solo classes for rvr purposes.

It rewards coordination in a group.  Not just grouping for the sake of it and bursting through something assuming everyone can keep up with you.  That seems to be the mechanic now, you group up, but you're not "really" a group.  You're just doing your solo skill without much talk or planning at all.

Or other games that remove the need to group at all, where you go the entire game as an RPG without the MMO.

Then there's the other swing of the pendulum, where the game is very very painful unless you have the perfect group...all the time.


Hats off to old DAOC for getting that balance close to perfect. :smile:
Blaze_RockerKyleranOctagon7711ultimateduckScot
«13

Comments

  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,114
    Even DAOC was mostly a collection of solo skills, at least, when I played it.  But, there's not enough coordinated skills that require 2 or more characters.  One to create an exploitable condition, another to take advantage of that.  Some aspects of LotRO's Fellowship maneuvers are that way, and some classes are (were) devoted to creating these advantages for others.

    I'd love to see a bit more of these types of skills to give an advantage to group mates.



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

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Mendel said:
    Even DAOC was mostly a collection of solo skills, at least, when I played it.  But, there's not enough coordinated skills that require 2 or more characters.  One to create an exploitable condition, another to take advantage of that.  Some aspects of LotRO's Fellowship maneuvers are that way, and some classes are (were) devoted to creating these advantages for others.

    I'd love to see a bit more of these types of skills to give an advantage to group mates.



    The issue with these are explained in the title, though: requiring two or more players to use a skill is forcing them to group to utilize said skill.  That's not an attractive proposition to many.

    image
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 5,362
    If you can kill a monster grouped that you cannot kill ungrouped, or if you can kill it faster, or if you get any xp bonus from being in a group, then someone will say there is forced grouping.   I have learned that people who see the world that way are just sensitive about that issue and likely cannot be persuaded.

    I have never understood the concept of "forced grouping." To me it's like forced kicking in soccer or forced dribbling in basketball - that's just how those particular games are played, just as there is no "forced solo play" in shot put. 
    MendelChildoftheShadowsOctagon7711AlBQuirkySteelhelm

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

  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,114
    Mendel said:
    Even DAOC was mostly a collection of solo skills, at least, when I played it.  But, there's not enough coordinated skills that require 2 or more characters.  One to create an exploitable condition, another to take advantage of that.  Some aspects of LotRO's Fellowship maneuvers are that way, and some classes are (were) devoted to creating these advantages for others.

    I'd love to see a bit more of these types of skills to give an advantage to group mates.



    The issue with these are explained in the title, though: requiring two or more players to use a skill is forcing them to group to utilize said skill.  That's not an attractive proposition to many.
    I know what you're saying here.  I think that a single skill that is used in groups only is the way to go with these.

    A player can open an opportunity for another, but can't benefit from it themselves.  I.E., it doesn't help solo.  Instead it improves other players' skills.  Holding a bad guy makes your friends punches more powerful.  They can still punch without someone holding their target, it just makes it more effective.  It's more a two-on-one tactic implemented as a skill.

    How someone interprets that (an advantage) as 'forcing them to group' isn't my problem.  A 'leading a horse to water' type thing.



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

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Mendel said:
    Mendel said:
    Even DAOC was mostly a collection of solo skills, at least, when I played it.  But, there's not enough coordinated skills that require 2 or more characters.  One to create an exploitable condition, another to take advantage of that.  Some aspects of LotRO's Fellowship maneuvers are that way, and some classes are (were) devoted to creating these advantages for others.

    I'd love to see a bit more of these types of skills to give an advantage to group mates.



    The issue with these are explained in the title, though: requiring two or more players to use a skill is forcing them to group to utilize said skill.  That's not an attractive proposition to many.
    I know what you're saying here.  I think that a single skill that is used in groups only is the way to go with these.

    A player can open an opportunity for another, but can't benefit from it themselves.  I.E., it doesn't help solo.  Instead it improves other players' skills.  Holding a bad guy makes your friends punches more powerful.  They can still punch without someone holding their target, it just makes it more effective.  It's more a two-on-one tactic implemented as a skill.

    How someone interprets that (an advantage) as 'forcing them to group' isn't my problem.  A 'leading a horse to water' type thing.



    Don't get me wrong here; I'm absolutely okay with having contextually interactive group skills (still waiting on Rocksteady to essentially port Arkham combat into a co-op focused TMNT game), and would enjoy such a system.

    It just doesn't seem to be a popular sentiment.  I agree the term "forced grouping" is over used to the point of being a "cry foul" buzzword among gamers.
    SovrathKyleran

    image
  • WarEnsembleWarEnsemble Member UncommonPosts: 160
    MMO... Massively MULTIPLAYER Online... you want to solo all the time, play a different game.
    KyleranMaddog666Palebane
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,023
    Amathe said:
    If you can kill a monster grouped that you cannot kill ungrouped, or if you can kill it faster, or if you get any xp bonus from being in a group, then someone will say there is forced grouping.   I have learned that people who see the world that way are just sensitive about that issue and likely cannot be persuaded.

    I have never understood the concept of "forced grouping." To me it's like forced kicking in soccer or forced dribbling in basketball - that's just how those particular games are played, just as there is no "forced solo play" in shot put. 
    I never thought of EQ as forced grouping and loved leveling my character for literally years. Played WoW and EQ2 on their opening days and was disappointed severely. EQ2 was really bad with it's monster difficulty icons with "group only" versions. So bad.
    Palebane
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 33,254
    MMO... Massively MULTIPLAYER Online... you want to solo all the time, play a different game.
    That saying is so overused and inaccurate you should create a funny meme for it.
    aummoidMaddog666AlBQuirkyRoin

    "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 POE 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






  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 3,885
    Amathe said:
    If you can kill a monster grouped that you cannot kill ungrouped, or if you can kill it faster, or if you get any xp bonus from being in a group, then someone will say there is forced grouping.   I have learned that people who see the world that way are just sensitive about that issue and likely cannot be persuaded.

    I have never understood the concept of "forced grouping." To me it's like forced kicking in soccer or forced dribbling in basketball - that's just how those particular games are played, just as there is no "forced solo play" in shot put. 
    I dislike forced group content because you can't always find a group. You won't always find a group that works. I don't always want to group.

    I don't mind content based around grouping at all.  Just not to be the only content.  I prefer professions needing each other in the background with combat being another profession. It makes interactions more genuine IMO because it's a need not a requirement. 

    I don't really like the expectation that the genre must be a EQ mob grinders or WoW themepark. It's uses almost no potential of the genre.  It's dated and overused.  You can also have simulated world and stack mob grinding and themepark in them.  
    Maddog666
  • iixviiiixiixviiiix Member RarePosts: 1,944
    edited February 6
    Yeah yeah , the quest is not repeatable to do it as group and the reward is not trade-able between friends .
    Instances become boring after 5 run or so and you get to max level in just a month of casual solo.

    Mob spawn system also no good and i missed HS aka high (or hell) spawn spot .
  • aummoidaummoid Member UncommonPosts: 80
    Amathe said:
    If you can kill a monster grouped that you cannot kill ungrouped, or if you can kill it faster, or if you get any xp bonus from being in a group, then someone will say there is forced grouping.   I have learned that people who see the world that way are just sensitive about that issue and likely cannot be persuaded.

    I have never understood the concept of "forced grouping." To me it's like forced kicking in soccer or forced dribbling in basketball - that's just how those particular games are played, just as there is no "forced solo play" in shot put. 

    Obviously groups of players should be able to take on harder targets than single players. That isn't "forced grouping", it's a natural consequence of having more players hitting the same target.
    Obviously groups of players should be able to kill normal targets faster than single players. That isn't "forced grouping", it's a natural consequence of having more players hitting the same target.

    Getting an additional EXP bonus in addition to those natural consequences of being in a group--just because you're in a group--is not common sense. That's the game telling its players "this is how I want you to play and if you don't, then I'm penalizing you for doing it wrong".

    Designing content to have explicit checks for more than one player, like multiple switches that must be flipped at the same time or DPS checks that exceed the maximum output of a single player, is not common sense. That's the game telling its players "this is how I want you to play and if you don't, GTFO."

    When the game tells its players things like that, well, there are natural consequences to that too.
    Maddog666Gdemami
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    aummoid said:
    Amathe said:
    If you can kill a monster grouped that you cannot kill ungrouped, or if you can kill it faster, or if you get any xp bonus from being in a group, then someone will say there is forced grouping.   I have learned that people who see the world that way are just sensitive about that issue and likely cannot be persuaded.

    I have never understood the concept of "forced grouping." To me it's like forced kicking in soccer or forced dribbling in basketball - that's just how those particular games are played, just as there is no "forced solo play" in shot put. 

    Obviously groups of players should be able to take on harder targets than single players. That isn't "forced grouping", it's a natural consequence of having more players hitting the same target.
    Obviously groups of players should be able to kill normal targets faster than single players. That isn't "forced grouping", it's a natural consequence of having more players hitting the same target.

    Getting an additional EXP bonus in addition to those natural consequences of being in a group--just because you're in a group--is not common sense. That's the game telling its players "this is how I want you to play and if you don't, then I'm penalizing you for doing it wrong".

    Designing content to have explicit checks for more than one player, like multiple switches that must be flipped at the same time or DPS checks that exceed the maximum output of a single player, is not common sense. That's the game telling its players "this is how I want you to play and if you don't, GTFO."

    When the game tells its players things like that, well, there are natural consequences to that too.
    No, it isn't.  It's recognizing that there are challenges to grouping beyond the difficulties of a higher level mob.

    It's compensation for the additional time and effort of the logistics of grouping.
    Gdemami

    image
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 3,885
    aummoid said:
    Amathe said:
    If you can kill a monster grouped that you cannot kill ungrouped, or if you can kill it faster, or if you get any xp bonus from being in a group, then someone will say there is forced grouping.   I have learned that people who see the world that way are just sensitive about that issue and likely cannot be persuaded.

    I have never understood the concept of "forced grouping." To me it's like forced kicking in soccer or forced dribbling in basketball - that's just how those particular games are played, just as there is no "forced solo play" in shot put. 

    Obviously groups of players should be able to take on harder targets than single players. That isn't "forced grouping", it's a natural consequence of having more players hitting the same target.
    Obviously groups of players should be able to kill normal targets faster than single players. That isn't "forced grouping", it's a natural consequence of having more players hitting the same target.

    Getting an additional EXP bonus in addition to those natural consequences of being in a group--just because you're in a group--is not common sense. That's the game telling its players "this is how I want you to play and if you don't, then I'm penalizing you for doing it wrong".

    Designing content to have explicit checks for more than one player, like multiple switches that must be flipped at the same time or DPS checks that exceed the maximum output of a single player, is not common sense. That's the game telling its players "this is how I want you to play and if you don't, GTFO."

    When the game tells its players things like that, well, there are natural consequences to that too.
    No, it isn't.  It's recognizing that there are challenges to grouping beyond the difficulties of a higher level mob.

    It's compensation for the additional time and effort of the logistics of grouping.
    My principle is group combat should be rewarding but not required in general.    
    KyleranMaddog666
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,773
    edited February 7
    MMO... Massively MULTIPLAYER Online... you want to solo all the time, play a different game.
    That would be MMGO... Massively Multiplayer Grouping Online...  :smile:

    I like dynamic events that give you the option of beating that world boss or other content in open groups that let you have formal groups if you want but not mandatory to handle the content.  Plus the dynamic aspect means the smaller events generate NPCs based on the number of players doing the event.
    GdemamiMaddog666AlBQuirky

    "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

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,011
    edited February 7
    DAoC was mostly forced grouping if you wanted to do anything remotely efficiently, just like EQ1, it's model.

    To me, forced grouping is if you want to make any significant progress in a game at a decent rate, you must group.

    Games like Vanilla WoW had a MUCH better balance between solo and grouping than those old relics like DAoC ever had. Hell, even UO and AC1 where better at it. Specially AC1, with it's awesome guild/group mechanics while never stopping a player from soloing efficiently.
    kjempff
    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.
    CPU: Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 Gaming - RAM: 16GB Kingston HyperX Savage DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Philips 40PUK6809 4K 3D TV - Second display: Philips 273v 27" gaming monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset and Razer Hydra controllers - Soundcard: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.

  • DarkswormDarksworm Member RarePosts: 987
    edited February 7
    IMO, leveling should not involve forced grouping.  I don't even think it should take long, as this wastes tons of developer resources on low level content that eventually becomes worthless.  I'd rather faster leveling with tons of stuff to do at higher levels - dungeons, raids, battlegrounds, pvp, etc.  Games have to look towards the future.  Yes, it's nice to sit there and pretend like you're living in a video game, taking forever to gain a level... but no one likes it when they get to end game and the content is very thin there... because so much development was devoted to low level content that is really quite disposable in the grand scheme of things.

    End-game PvE in DAoC involved forced grouping.  It wasn't optional, and you needed Trinity Setups because Heals and Tanks were a thing, and very much required.  I played it back in the day.  You couldn't do high level dungeons without a balanced group, and you certainly couldn't solo them.

    As time has gone passed, those older games have introduced tons of convenience patches that have made it more palatable to low-investment solo and casual players.  What DAoC is like now is not comparable to what it was a 15 years ago.  Same for EverQuest.  EQ was a lot harder to play as a casual in 2001 than it was in 2004.

    In just a few years, those older games did a lot to open the game up to people who aren't no-lifers and don't have the time to search for and sit in a group for extended periods of time.
    Jean-Luc_PicardKyleranMaddog666
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited February 7
    aummoid said:
    Amathe said:
    If you can kill a monster grouped that you cannot kill ungrouped, or if you can kill it faster, or if you get any xp bonus from being in a group, then someone will say there is forced grouping.   I have learned that people who see the world that way are just sensitive about that issue and likely cannot be persuaded.

    I have never understood the concept of "forced grouping." To me it's like forced kicking in soccer or forced dribbling in basketball - that's just how those particular games are played, just as there is no "forced solo play" in shot put. 

    Obviously groups of players should be able to take on harder targets than single players. That isn't "forced grouping", it's a natural consequence of having more players hitting the same target.
    Obviously groups of players should be able to kill normal targets faster than single players. That isn't "forced grouping", it's a natural consequence of having more players hitting the same target.

    Getting an additional EXP bonus in addition to those natural consequences of being in a group--just because you're in a group--is not common sense. That's the game telling its players "this is how I want you to play and if you don't, then I'm penalizing you for doing it wrong".

    Designing content to have explicit checks for more than one player, like multiple switches that must be flipped at the same time or DPS checks that exceed the maximum output of a single player, is not common sense. That's the game telling its players "this is how I want you to play and if you don't, GTFO."

    When the game tells its players things like that, well, there are natural consequences to that too.
    No, it isn't.  It's recognizing that there are challenges to grouping beyond the difficulties of a higher level mob.

    It's compensation for the additional time and effort of the logistics of grouping.
    My principle is group combat should be rewarding but not required in general.    
    It's a matter of balance, but that balance has to recognize the biggest reason most will forego grouping if it isn't any more efficient than soloing: the extra time, effort, and uncontrollable uncertainty that's involved with the logistics of building a group of like-minded players.


    You don't control when the healer has to take a bathroom break, or how good the tank is at managing aggro, or how many folks around your level are even interested in grouping.  All of that can have significant effects on how productive your time is.  Without affording for that uncertainty, most players will forego the grouping even if it means they're enjoying a relatively bland experience (that's not to say one can't enjoy soloing, but even those of us who like grouping will be put off by the lack of any additional consideration for the logistical uncertainties).

    Instead of trying to find a balance, devs have simply tried to eliminate all logistical uncertainty.  It's had the added effect of class role homogenization and the devaluing of fellow players and community.

    image
  • ExistentialistExistentialist Member UncommonPosts: 54
    Is there a game that does the following:
    - Allows you to get the same rewards via solo or group play, but takes a factor of 10 times longer to get it via the solo option
    - Allows your class to toggle between its solo template and its grouping template with a push of a button

    The closest I can think of is Diablo 3.

  • aummoidaummoid Member UncommonPosts: 80
    aummoid said:
    Amathe said:
    If you can kill a monster grouped that you cannot kill ungrouped, or if you can kill it faster, or if you get any xp bonus from being in a group, then someone will say there is forced grouping.   I have learned that people who see the world that way are just sensitive about that issue and likely cannot be persuaded.

    I have never understood the concept of "forced grouping." To me it's like forced kicking in soccer or forced dribbling in basketball - that's just how those particular games are played, just as there is no "forced solo play" in shot put. 

    Obviously groups of players should be able to take on harder targets than single players. That isn't "forced grouping", it's a natural consequence of having more players hitting the same target.
    Obviously groups of players should be able to kill normal targets faster than single players. That isn't "forced grouping", it's a natural consequence of having more players hitting the same target.

    Getting an additional EXP bonus in addition to those natural consequences of being in a group--just because you're in a group--is not common sense. That's the game telling its players "this is how I want you to play and if you don't, then I'm penalizing you for doing it wrong".

    Designing content to have explicit checks for more than one player, like multiple switches that must be flipped at the same time or DPS checks that exceed the maximum output of a single player, is not common sense. That's the game telling its players "this is how I want you to play and if you don't, GTFO."

    When the game tells its players things like that, well, there are natural consequences to that too.
    No, it isn't.  It's recognizing that there are challenges to grouping beyond the difficulties of a higher level mob.

    It's compensation for the additional time and effort of the logistics of grouping.
    The difficulties of higher level mobs are not a "challenge to grouping", because grouping makes fights easier, not harder. There are many types of mobs that would be very difficult for a single player that are easy for a group. Mobs that are easier for single players than groups, not so much.

    If the logistics of grouping are so burdensome that nobody wants to do it even though it allows those better and easier opportunities, that's bad game design.
    Gdemami
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    aummoid said:
    aummoid said:
    Amathe said:
    If you can kill a monster grouped that you cannot kill ungrouped, or if you can kill it faster, or if you get any xp bonus from being in a group, then someone will say there is forced grouping.   I have learned that people who see the world that way are just sensitive about that issue and likely cannot be persuaded.

    I have never understood the concept of "forced grouping." To me it's like forced kicking in soccer or forced dribbling in basketball - that's just how those particular games are played, just as there is no "forced solo play" in shot put. 

    Obviously groups of players should be able to take on harder targets than single players. That isn't "forced grouping", it's a natural consequence of having more players hitting the same target.
    Obviously groups of players should be able to kill normal targets faster than single players. That isn't "forced grouping", it's a natural consequence of having more players hitting the same target.

    Getting an additional EXP bonus in addition to those natural consequences of being in a group--just because you're in a group--is not common sense. That's the game telling its players "this is how I want you to play and if you don't, then I'm penalizing you for doing it wrong".

    Designing content to have explicit checks for more than one player, like multiple switches that must be flipped at the same time or DPS checks that exceed the maximum output of a single player, is not common sense. That's the game telling its players "this is how I want you to play and if you don't, GTFO."

    When the game tells its players things like that, well, there are natural consequences to that too.
    No, it isn't.  It's recognizing that there are challenges to grouping beyond the difficulties of a higher level mob.

    It's compensation for the additional time and effort of the logistics of grouping.
    The difficulties of higher level mobs are not a "challenge to grouping", because grouping makes fights easier, not harder. There are many types of mobs that would be very difficult for a single player that are easy for a group. Mobs that are easier for single players than groups, not so much.

    If the logistics of grouping are so burdensome that nobody wants to do it even though it allows those better and easier opportunities, that's bad game design.
    No, it isn't just bad design.  Grouping logistics transcend game design.  Logistics themselves are inherent to involving multiple people in working towards a shared goal.  XP bonuses are merely a way for devs to balance those logistics against the consistent progress that comes with depending upon no one else for your own progression.

    And your first point doesn't conflict with mine in any way.  I never said the mobs become harder as a group; only that grouping entails you would face more difficult mobs because the shared power of the group makes you able to do so (or makes the equivalent mob "easier" than if you attempted it alone, as you put it).  The higher rewards of facing said more powerful mobs are then diffused across multiple people (primarily through the splitting of XP, though some games have altered this in a backwards attempt to alleviate some of the inherent downsides of involving multiple people to take down each individual mob).  None of that accounts for the logistics in the sense that optional grouping means grouping can literally only enable you to work faster or fight relatively more powerful mobs than if you were solo.

    XP bonuses for grouping don't define forced grouping in any way, which means it's a way to encourage grouping without forcing it.  Of course, the cynic can phrase that as a penalty for not grouping, but the cynic can invert any bonus to construe it as a negative (rested XP bonus?  BAH!  You mean a penalty for NOT logging out where the devs tell me to!).  Forced grouping is quite literally nothing but a situation where certain content cannot realistically be experienced or completed without a group.  That's it.  Implying anything else is included is merely a projection of one's own opinion on the two words towards a meaning it does not entail on and of itself.


    In that sense, most MMORPGs actually perform a bait and switch of sorts, lulling gamers into a false sense of solo-friendliness, only to hit them with a very real and insurmountable wall of forced grouping as soon as they hit endgame.
    Kyleran

    image
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 16,204
    FFXI was that game,you needed to group for a few things but if you wanted you could solo but slowly as should be,which encourages grouping.Now a days FFXI is way more solo friendly simply by killing and doing it with the books and you can use npc's to make your own full group.
    Problem i have is it sort of trivializes levels because they go by so fast which was the intent of Square Enix to ensure they could sell more expansion packs.

    Problem is not so much the developers but the new era of gamer does not care one bit for original  mmorpg designs.it would have never mattered to me though because i didn't jump in early mmorpg's because it was a trend or a new popular thing,i had to see first and decide if it was designed the way i would enjoy them.So for myself it is not about old school or new,i simply have an agenda that games must adhere to or i am not interested in them.I do not feel the modern gamer has anything more than a rope attached around their waist that is tied to  the person in front of them and everyone plays follow the leader.


    Maddog666

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,758
    Personally, I think DDO had one of the better Grouping Mechanics all things said and done.
    Kyleran
  • aummoidaummoid Member UncommonPosts: 80
    aummoid said:
    aummoid said:
    Amathe said:
    If you can kill a monster grouped that you cannot kill ungrouped, or if you can kill it faster, or if you get any xp bonus from being in a group, then someone will say there is forced grouping.   I have learned that people who see the world that way are just sensitive about that issue and likely cannot be persuaded.

    I have never understood the concept of "forced grouping." To me it's like forced kicking in soccer or forced dribbling in basketball - that's just how those particular games are played, just as there is no "forced solo play" in shot put. 

    Obviously groups of players should be able to take on harder targets than single players. That isn't "forced grouping", it's a natural consequence of having more players hitting the same target.
    Obviously groups of players should be able to kill normal targets faster than single players. That isn't "forced grouping", it's a natural consequence of having more players hitting the same target.

    Getting an additional EXP bonus in addition to those natural consequences of being in a group--just because you're in a group--is not common sense. That's the game telling its players "this is how I want you to play and if you don't, then I'm penalizing you for doing it wrong".

    Designing content to have explicit checks for more than one player, like multiple switches that must be flipped at the same time or DPS checks that exceed the maximum output of a single player, is not common sense. That's the game telling its players "this is how I want you to play and if you don't, GTFO."

    When the game tells its players things like that, well, there are natural consequences to that too.
    No, it isn't.  It's recognizing that there are challenges to grouping beyond the difficulties of a higher level mob.

    It's compensation for the additional time and effort of the logistics of grouping.
    The difficulties of higher level mobs are not a "challenge to grouping", because grouping makes fights easier, not harder. There are many types of mobs that would be very difficult for a single player that are easy for a group. Mobs that are easier for single players than groups, not so much.

    If the logistics of grouping are so burdensome that nobody wants to do it even though it allows those better and easier opportunities, that's bad game design.
    No, it isn't just bad design.  Grouping logistics transcend game design.  Logistics themselves are inherent to involving multiple people in working towards a shared goal.  XP bonuses are merely a way for devs to balance those logistics against the consistent progress that comes with depending upon no one else for your own progression.

    And your first point doesn't conflict with mine in any way.  I never said the mobs become harder as a group; only that grouping entails you would face more difficult mobs because the shared power of the group makes you able to do so (or makes the equivalent mob "easier" than if you attempted it alone, as you put it).  The higher rewards of facing said more powerful mobs are then diffused across multiple people (primarily through the splitting of XP, though some games have altered this in a backwards attempt to alleviate some of the inherent downsides of involving multiple people to take down each individual mob).  None of that accounts for the logistics in the sense that optional grouping means grouping can literally only enable you to work faster or fight relatively more powerful mobs than if you were solo.

    XP bonuses for grouping don't define forced grouping in any way, which means it's a way to encourage grouping without forcing it.  Of course, the cynic can phrase that as a penalty for not grouping, but the cynic can invert any bonus to construe it as a negative (rested XP bonus?  BAH!  You mean a penalty for NOT logging out where the devs tell me to!).  Forced grouping is quite literally nothing but a situation where certain content cannot realistically be experienced or completed without a group.  That's it.  Implying anything else is included is merely a projection of one's own opinion on the two words towards a meaning it does not entail on and of itself.


    In that sense, most MMORPGs actually perform a bait and switch of sorts, lulling gamers into a false sense of solo-friendliness, only to hit them with a very real and insurmountable wall of forced grouping as soon as they hit endgame.
    Nope, sorry. Grouping logistics do not transcend game design. Grouping can be as easy and as optional as a game chooses to make it.

    If nobody on a team can bow out for a few minutes to deal with real life interruptions without everyone's game grinding to a halt, that's bad design--unless, of course, it's a team trying to do content they're not really ready for. 

    If your game requires teams to cater to complete jerks because the team can't function without prima donnas, that's bad design--unless, of course, it's a team trying to do content they're not really ready for. 

    And if it is a team trying to do content they're not really ready for, then giving them a bonus to try to encourage them to play that way is not only bad design but sheer lunacy.

    As for your protesting the inverse equivalence of bonuses and penalties, that's just reality in a progression-based game where more progress translates into more economic power. That's not being a cynic, that's acknowledging what an in-game free market economy is.

    Don't like calling it "forced grouping"? Fine. Call it whatever you want, it's still an incentive to group that shouldn't be necessary in the first place.
    Gdemami
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    aummoid said:
    Nope, sorry. Grouping logistics do not transcend game design. Grouping can be as easy and as optional as a game chooses to make it.

    If nobody on a team can bow out for a few minutes to deal with real life interruptions without everyone's game grinding to a halt, that's bad design--unless, of course, it's a team trying to do content they're not really ready for. 

    If your game requires teams to cater to complete jerks because the team can't function without prima donnas, that's bad design--unless, of course, it's a team trying to do content they're not really ready for. 

    And if it is a team trying to do content they're not really ready for, then giving them a bonus to try to encourage them to play that way is not only bad design but sheer lunacy.

    As for your protesting the inverse equivalence of bonuses and penalties, that's just reality in a progression-based game where more progress translates into more economic power. That's not being a cynic, that's acknowledging what an in-game free market economy is.

    Don't like calling it "forced grouping"? Fine. Call it whatever you want, it's still an incentive to group that shouldn't be necessary in the first place.
    Yes, it does.  By definition.  Systems that help to alleviate that don't eliminate logistics, they merely find ways to make things run more efficiently or mitigate loss to progression should things not go well.

    And you're presenting a false dichotomy; nothing about grouping being beneficial means you have to deal with assholes.  Your rabid aversion to a group XP bonus seems to color this for you in a way that exceeds the reality of the situation.

    Gamers will take the path of least resistance because they're human- and depending upon others is not the path of least resistance.  It never will be unless progression is impossible or completely impractical solo, because it introduces resistance outside the control of the player (i.e. the skills of the other players around them).  Your ignoring this because you dislike grouping or have an issue with a group XP bonus doesn't make it less true.  That's the great thing about reality: it exists whether you believe in it or not.


    Palebane

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Also, another poster mentioned this today, and I just experienced it- all the edit buttons have disappeared.
    Kyleran

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.