Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Playing With Others vs Playing Alongside Others.

UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,912
Not sure where it was mentioned, but this was something that stuck out to me, was the idea that MMO's have moved away from the idea of playing WITH other people to a system where you play ALONGSIDE other people, and I think that really touches on a great point, and what would be one of the defining cultural shifts in MMO's.

Personally, I have always hated the idea of forced grouping, it reeked of being gamey and unrealistic, and on top of that, it always ended up putting me in a situation where all too often I would end up having to deal with people I didn't care for just to get the loot that was locked behind this Forced Grouping content.  

However, when I first played GW2, it showed me something grand, that players could alongside each other, that we could all be working towards an objective, and even work together and help each other get it, without needing to hitched at the hip in a group.

Now, playing alongside other players is by far the more fluid way to play a game, no need to have this formal group, to just get things done and help each other out, I think however, the main problem with MMO's is that they are not really tapping into how to make this shine better, which is why I think so many players get confused about what to do in an MMO, and cry about needing group content.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
RemalitzervoYashaXAlBQuirkySovrathiixviiiixQuizzicalTillerrojoArcueidWaan
«1345

Comments

  • RemaliRemali Member RarePosts: 577
    Ungood said:
    Not sure where it was mentioned, but this was something that stuck out to me, was the idea that MMO's have moved away from the idea of playing WITH other people to a system where you play ALONGSIDE other people, and I think that really touches on a great point, and what would be one of the defining cultural shifts in MMO's.

    Personally, I have always hated the idea of forced grouping, it reeked of being gamey and unrealistic, and on top of that, it always ended up putting me in a situation where all too often I would end up having to deal with people I didn't care for just to get the loot that was locked behind this Forced Grouping content.  

    However, when I first played GW2, it showed me something grand, that players could alongside each other, that we could all be working towards an objective, and even work together and help each other get it, without needing to hitched at the hip in a group.

    Now, playing alongside other players is by far the more fluid way to play a game, no need to have this formal group, to just get things done and help each other out, I think however, the main problem with MMO's is that they are not really tapping into how to make this shine better, which is why I think so many players get confused about what to do in an MMO, and cry about needing group content.
    Yeah i agree with most you wrote forced grouping or forced anything for the matter is just bad 
    But if you can play alongside others and join a group when you feel like it is a vast improvment
    Another awfull game design was to have specific classes in a group to do content and god forbid if you didnt roll one of those you would spend most of your time lfg but thankfully new mmos are going away from that route
    AlBQuirkyUngoodiixviiiixRoin
  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member RarePosts: 1,313
    I think for some forced grouping is a dogmatic view that it is not just the proper way for MMORPGs to be but the only way, stoically maintaining their position regardless of opinions otherwise. At times it can seem as though it is an argument of passion rather than reason, and nostalgia over practicality.

    GW2's spontaneous grouping is quite nice. ESO has a bit of that in the over world, but not in such a varied manner as GW2 does.

    It is common to run into others in delves and public dungeons in ESO, helping each other by circumstance or design. I enjoy that as it allows for bit of communal play without a commitment to go along with, and maintains the feel of a lively world.
    AlBQuirkyUngood
  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 7,895
    The early MMOs came from D&D....You played a role in a group...a role playing game......You had certain skills but were not awesome at everything.....You needed other people to survive in D&D......Once you take away the classes and the need to play together, then you have a co-op game, not a role playing game....If that works better for people so be it, but it is no longer role playing, its just playing.
    AlBQuirkyUngoodBrainyeoloe
  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 814
    edited January 12
    Ungood said:

    Now, playing alongside other players is by far the more fluid way to play a game, no need to have this formal group, to just get things done and help each other out, I think however, the main problem with MMO's is that they are not really tapping into how to make this shine better, which is why I think so many players get confused about what to do in an MMO, and cry about needing group content.
    Make communication an integral part of the game (i.e. for exchanging critical information) while making "playing alongside others" the normal way of playing and you have the best, most organic way of grouping. One of my favorite MMORPG's does that and it is just awesome: everyone groups up for the common goal, some lead, others follow, some join clans, some just group up spontaneously for fun with others.

    Excellent topic btw.
    ScotAlBQuirkyUngoodiixviiiix
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,951
    GW2 has it as does ESO and even WOW with the increasing number of "world quests" with each expansion but to this day, no one still has done it better than Rift.

    They still need to kick it up several notches and make their resolution affect the game world and its population in longer lasting more permanent ways as well as getting rid of the timers. There is too much RNG in many MMO things but this is a feature that could use a whole lot more of it.

    Currently in most MMOs that have these casual drop in events they are still very gamey with predictable schedules.

    In ESO for example, for the longest time they became the preferred ways to grind XP and levels by figuring out the predictable timer in a zone and using rapid transit shrines to do them in a loop indefinitely for just as long as you wanted. It's easy to cheese them into a trivial metagame as currently implemented.
    YashaXtzervoTorvalAlBQuirkyKyleranSovrathUngood
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • YashaXYashaX Member EpicPosts: 2,783
    Iselin said:
    GW2 has it as does ESO and even WOW with the increasing number of "world quests" with each expansion but to this day, no one still has done it better than Rift.

    They still need to kick it up several notches and make their resolution affect the game world and its population in longer lasting more permanent ways as well as getting rid of the timers. 


    I have been kind of surprised that games have essentially gone backwards since Rift in this regard. Rift made me feel like the holy grail of a truely living dangerous world was within our grasp, so close I could almost taste it, and yet ten years on and there is still nothing even close.
    IselinTorvalRemaliAlBQuirkyKyleranUngoodGdemamiWaan
    ....
  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member LegendaryPosts: 7,451
    edited January 12
    I only know of 3 MMO's where there was content you could fight alongside other players. Those being Warhammer Online's public quests, Rift's rifts and Defiance. Most of the time is scaled according to how many people showed up, but there was also a fair share that simply could not be solo'd, so you still needed to be a part of a group, regardless of whether or not you were in the same party.

    Actually, Guild Wars 2 also had some public quests, but alas, none of which that were truly soloable. However, you have to question at some point why do people play MMOs. If they are truly anti social and simply dont like to group, then wouldn't it make sense to just play single player games? Far as I can remember, MMOs have always focused more on group content in regards to acquiring better gear, not that a player couldn't solo in the game, but just didn't have access to the best loot.
    YashaXAlBQuirkyUngood

  • lahnmirlahnmir Member LegendaryPosts: 4,024
    YashaX said:
    Iselin said:
    GW2 has it as does ESO and even WOW with the increasing number of "world quests" with each expansion but to this day, no one still has done it better than Rift.

    They still need to kick it up several notches and make their resolution affect the game world and its population in longer lasting more permanent ways as well as getting rid of the timers. 


    I have been kind of surprised that games have essentially gone backwards since Rift in this regard. Rift made me feel like the holy grail of a truely living dangerous world was within our grasp, so close I could almost taste it, and yet ten years on and there is still nothing even close.
    Although I think Rift did it well Tabula Rasa did it much, much better with its sieges and active targetting of outposts etc. The huge spaceships flying in and dropping enemies in the zone was also so much more impressive then the glorified spawning of Rift. It all just felt much more dynamic and dangerous.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    ScotTorvaltzervoAlBQuirkyUngoodRhoklawYashaX
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 


    'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'

    Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...



    'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless. 

    It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.

    It is just huge resource waste....'

    Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer

  • Po_ggPo_gg Member EpicPosts: 5,376
    Rhoklaw said:
    I only know of 3 MMO's where there was content you could fight alongside other players. Those being Warhammer Online's public quests, Rift's rifts and Defiance.
    I ain't familiar with WAR (was too pvp-focused for my taste), the other two, rifts and arkfalls are indeed fun and can be quite massive.
    Defiance also has smaller scale public missions, though the scale part ain't the best - easy to troll by going there, and after the extra spawns just leave.

    I'd add a 4th to the list, and maybe the best one (to address Yasha's "surprised that games have essentially gone backwards since Rift in this regard" as well), at least from the story player's perspective: CO.
    The open missions there are similar to rifts/arkfalls in mechanics (multiple stages, boss at the end, mobs in waves, etc.), but they're part of the zone's storyline, and have story within as well (like Defiance's smaller public missions).
    Also, not all stages are about combat, and even combat goals switch often (attack, defense, escort) within the same encounter as the stages go.

    Obviously the story part is only a novum for the first (or first few) times, after that wears off they're just like rifts with more variety and challenge.
    But then there are all the events on top of that, since every event boss uses similar open mission mechanics...
    AlBQuirkyUngoodRhoklawtzervoYashaX
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 14,232
    edited January 12
    What Ungood has left out is that creating and maintaining groups is more difficult than just showing up and joining in. If there is one thing players have been taught to abhor in multiplayer games after being spoon fed easymode for nearly a decade or two it is difficulty.

    Grouping is what makes a multiplayer game multiplayer, otherwise you just see "capes" flashing past you and have been led to believe that is multiplayer. Now this all started with MMOs wanting to attract solo gamers back in the early days of MMOs, that was the beginning of the decline of not just grouping but any sort of interaction in MMOs.

    Instead of taking part in solo events where you can all contribute, why not take part in grouping events where you all contribute so much more? Yes it is more difficult, but did you take up gaming to go asleep at the keyboard? I thought not.

    Imagine being down a bar on your own enjoying the "atmosphere" of being one of many drinking on their own. Then look over to me and my guildmates having a whale of a time on their own table, same goes for nearly any of those guild tables. It just does not compare.
    AlBQuirkytzervoQSatuUngoodYashaXBrainy

     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

  • AAAMEOWAAAMEOW Member RarePosts: 1,373
    Rhoklaw said:
    I only know of 3 MMO's where there was content you could fight alongside other players. Those being Warhammer Online's public quests, Rift's rifts and Defiance. Most of the time is scaled according to how many people showed up, but there was also a fair share that simply could not be solo'd, so you still needed to be a part of a group, regardless of whether or not you were in the same party.

    Actually, Guild Wars 2 also had some public quests, but alas, none of which that were truly soloable. However, you have to question at some point why do people play MMOs. If they are truly anti social and simply dont like to group, then wouldn't it make sense to just play single player games? Far as I can remember, MMOs have always focused more on group content in regards to acquiring better gear, not that a player couldn't solo in the game, but just didn't have access to the best loot.

    I don't' think that is what it mean by play alongside others.  I could log on warhammer and pvp, but I never really have to interact or talk to anyone.  That is probably mean by playing alongside others.


    AlBQuirkyUngood
  • Po_ggPo_gg Member EpicPosts: 5,376
    edited January 12
    Scot said:
    Grouping is what makes a multiplayer game multiplayer, otherwise you just see "capes" flashing past you and have been led to believe that is multiplayer. Now this all started with MMOs wanting to attract solo gamers back in the early days of MMOs, that was the beginning of the decline of not just grouping but any sort of interaction in MMOs.

    Instead of taking part in solo events where you can all contribute, why not take part in grouping events where you all contribute so much more? Yes it is more difficult, but did you take up gaming to go asleep at the keyboard? I thought not.
    I agree on this part, but that's more about GW2 and onwards, which was built on that audience in mind (Shannon had a nice article about that post launch).
    The games listed above, all has (had, in WAR's case) regular group content, the open missions are just an extra on top.

    Actually, maybe not just an extra, but also an aswer to the shift within the general playerbase as well - the shift culminated in GW2 at the end. The shift you described as decline in the grouping need.

    As you too say, grouping is more difficult than simple zerging, and this increases with size, and caused an avoidance by more and more players. In the late 2000s the common answer to it was reducing the size (40 man raids went down to 24, 20 to even 10), and to counter that "lack of massive groups", these open raids were a good substitute. 

    Not to mention it only removed the group assembly/management part (at least in CO's case), it's still regular group content with all the roles, mechanics, etc. present, just with an open sign-up.
    Could even lead to frustration, like when a "leeroyjenkins" starts a phase without enough tanks/heals/CC present, or when the zone's capped (50 players in CO's case) and nobody wants to leave so an additional tank could join :)
    AlBQuirkyUngoodtzervo
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 14,232
    edited January 12
    Po_gg said:
    Scot said:
    Grouping is what makes a multiplayer game multiplayer, otherwise you just see "capes" flashing past you and have been led to believe that is multiplayer. Now this all started with MMOs wanting to attract solo gamers back in the early days of MMOs, that was the beginning of the decline of not just grouping but any sort of interaction in MMOs.

    Instead of taking part in solo events where you can all contribute, why not take part in grouping events where you all contribute so much more? Yes it is more difficult, but did you take up gaming to go asleep at the keyboard? I thought not.
    I agree on this part, but that's more about GW2 and onwards, which was built on that audience in mind (Shannon had a nice article about that post launch).
    The games listed above, all has (had, in WAR's case) regular group content, the open missions are just an extra on top.

    Actually, maybe not just an extra, but also an aswer to the shift within the general playerbase as well - the shift culminated in GW2 at the end. The shift you described as decline in the grouping need.

    As you too say, grouping is more difficult than simple zerging, and this increases with size, and caused an avoidance by more and more players. In the late 2000s the common answer to it was reducing the size (40 man raids went down to 24, 20 to even 10), and to counter that "lack of massive groups", these open raids were a good substitute. 

    Not to mention it only removed the group assembly/management part (at least in CO's case), it's still regular group content with all the roles, mechanics, etc. present, just with an open sign-up.
    Could even lead to frustration, like when a "leeroyjenkins" starts a phase without enough tanks/heals/CC present, or when the zone's capped (50 players in CO's case) and nobody wants to leave so an additional tank could join :)
    I find it astonishing that players can realise that playing alone has its limitations and then think the best idea to help with that is zerg play. Join in, join a guild, put some time into getting to know some people in the game. What would you do if this was a new job or a social event? Stay at your desk, stay in the corner and not speak to anyone? It baffles me. How I see this is that such players are trying to recreate a solo experience in a multiplayer game and even have the cheek to say "we don't seem to be doing much together", well fancy that!

    I have nothing against "smaller grouping" I think Lotro had three man content. I saw that as maybe easing players into larger groups, though it should have been easier content if that is the design intention.

    No matter what sort of system is used for grouping unless it is random it does require some work on our part. The advantage of guild and multi-guild raids etc is the players are known, a lot of concerns about raids occur from simply not knowing the other players, as a couple of you have mentioned.
    AlBQuirkyUngoodGdemamiBrainy

     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

  • Po_ggPo_gg Member EpicPosts: 5,376
    edited January 12
    Scot said:
    I find it astonishing that players can realise that playing alone has its limitations and then think the best idea to help with that is zerg play.
    I'm puzzled now... did I say anything close to that? Or just a wrong quote?

    Let's take it into two.
    First, personally I prefer group content (though fine with solo as well). Nevertheless, over anything my motto or catchphrase could be "option is king".
    Forced anything, be it grouping, scaling, etc. is never good, in my book.

    I like the games and methods cited above, since they give a lot more variety and option for everyone. (CO even has difficulty slider, and a lot of smaller missions with 1-5 options, appropriately adjusted to the group size - or solo)


    Second, regardless of my preferences, there is a massive amount of solo-minded player, and their numbers are growing.
    GW2 was the first bigger game catering this crowd, and as Shannon wrote in her editorial (sadly can't find it to link, silly search function on this site...) they're not antisocial as your new job example, they're mostly just ignorant to the other players. They're maybe even more social, but elsewhere, like on Discord / voice chat /etc.

    They're "playing together", just while one plays GW2, the other Minecraft, the third watches Netflix, the fourth CoD on console, etc.
    And GW2 was the first with the entire design around that playstyle. To play an MMORPG while never even need to give a "Hi" or a /wave to the others around you in the game.


    I don't like, nor support this second part, I prefer kinships/guilds, group play, and regular MMORPGs.
    But the fact is still the same, those players and their playstyle is the dominant now, naturally companies go after the crowd (easier money), hence the genre is on the way of the dodo (and why I play 10+ years old games instead of GW2 :) ).
    AlBQuirkyKyleranUngood
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 14,232
    edited January 12
    Po_gg said:
    Scot said:
    I find it astonishing that players can realise that playing alone has its limitations and then think the best idea to help with that is zerg play.
    I'm puzzled now... did I say anything close to that? Or just a wrong quote?

    Let's take it into two.
    First, personally I prefer group content (though fine with solo as well). Nevertheless, over anything my motto or catchphrase could be "option is king".
    Forced anything, be it grouping, scaling, etc. is never good, in my book.

    I like the games and methods cited above, since they give a lot more variety and option for everyone. (CO even has difficulty slider, and a lot of smaller missions with 1-5 options, appropriately adjusted to the group size - or solo)


    Second, regardless of my preferences, there is a massive amount of solo-minded player, and their numbers are growing.
    GW2 was the first bigger game catering this crowd, and as Shannon wrote in her editorial (sadly can't find it to link, silly search function on this site...) they're not antisocial as your new job example, they're mostly just ignorant to the other players. They're maybe even more social, but elsewhere, like on Discord / voice chat /etc.

    They're "playing together", just while one plays GW2, the other Minecraft, the third watches Netflix, the fourth CoD on console, etc.
    And GW2 was the first with the entire design around that playstyle. To play an MMORPG while never even need to give a "Hi" or a /wave to the others around you in the game.


    I don't like, nor support this second part, I prefer kinships/guilds, group play, and regular MMORPGs.
    But the fact is still the same, those players and their playstyle is the dominant now, naturally companies go after the crowd (easier money), hence the genre is on the way of the dodo (and why I play 10+ years old games instead of GW2 :) ).
    No it was the OP who said that, not you mate. The problem with "choice" is that players always choose the easiest option so we are being forced into solo in my eyes. That's as much of a straightjacket as being forced to group. Difficulty options are for solo games and even there they tend to be rather one dimensional, effecting enemy strength and maybe extra survival elements are about it. Overall the gaming industry moves to ever easier each year for example there was a time when knocking over some pots in AC could get you into fight with guards, that has gone presumably as part of allowing free running on the ground which represented even more of a drop in difficulty level.

    Solo gameplay is the dominant playstyle in MMOs today but it has hardly saved the genre has it? Now I am not saying that loads more grouping would, but solo has most definitely been tried to death in modern MMOs and we are still where we are.
    AlBQuirkyUngoodGdemamiBrainy

     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

  • remsleepremsleep Member EpicPosts: 1,737
    edited January 12
    lahnmir said:
    YashaX said:
    Iselin said:
    GW2 has it as does ESO and even WOW with the increasing number of "world quests" with each expansion but to this day, no one still has done it better than Rift.

    They still need to kick it up several notches and make their resolution affect the game world and its population in longer lasting more permanent ways as well 7as getting rid of the timers. 


    I have been kind of surprised that games have essentially gone backwards since Rift in this regard. Rift made me feel like the holy grail of a truely living dangerous world was within our grasp, so close I could almost taste it, and yet ten years on and there is still nothing even close.
    Although I think Rift did it well Tabula Rasa did it much, much better with its sieges and active targetting of outposts etc. The huge spaceships flying in and dropping enemies in the zone was also so much more impressive then the glorified spawning of Rift. It all just felt much more dynamic and dangerous.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir

    One thing that Tabula Rosa's mobs lacked us they never fought each other and they didnt move in large groups together. 

    Rifts mobs had factions so fire rift would fight water rift etc...

    Also Tabula Rasa didn't have mobs to being able to take over entire zones and move around  in large groups.

    From a coding perspective Rifts system was far more complex
    cheyaneAlBQuirkyUngoodtzervoMendelYashaXGdemami
  • remsleepremsleep Member EpicPosts: 1,737
    There are pluses and minuses to both

    Playing alongside others - easier to form groups but the interaction between players is low and no meaningful relationships are formed 

    Groups disband as soon as the objective is done and that's it

    Also group content tends to be whack-a-mole simple encounters where precise strategy and coordination is unnecessary 


    Playing actively with others just requires more dedication for each player to one another as you are forming social bonds with real people.

    The downside is time investment, also for non-social people the downside is having to actually engage and be social with other humans 

    The quality of group content can be a lot more complex here due to members being able to coordinate and communicate at much more direct level

    Neither system is better - because not everyone has the same preferences - i think both can be done in the same game
    RemaliAlBQuirkyPo_ggScotUngoodYashaX
  • cheyanecheyane Member LegendaryPosts: 7,552
    edited January 12
    Some of the acknowledgement people enjoy getting in groups are lost when you play alongside others. Not saying it is important to me (to some extent I cannot deny I enjoy being praised) but I have read how people playing tanks and healers feel about why they play them. I personally have also mentioned the feeling of satisfaction you get when you know you made the difference in a particular encounter. 

    They talk about being acknowledged for having made the right heals or blocks/taunts and saved mana to manage the situation in a bad pull or when things go bad generally. When you are in a  big gang of people no one is going to have time to check who healed them or who shielded you at the right time and the game loses some of the reasons people play it for. Again not everyone plays for those reasons however when you have assigned roles you can blame and praise people easily. The damage done is always the big factor to bringing an encounter to an end. Suddenly the roles you once had have no longer the prominence they once enjoyed. Who are you? What have you done and what difference does your presence or absence have? You're just a face in the crowd. 

    When I was playing Rift and Warhammer Public Quest I had the best time when there were only a few of us there to fight because then you could see how each person was making a  difference to the encounter. I am afraid Guild Wars 2 never made me feel like I was actually making a  difference. I might just as well not have been there. Not saying it was a bad thing but it just was not very satisfying. However when I played the Mesmer I think it was that could cast those things you can place and other players could overlap effects (sorry cannot recall the exact mechanic it has been ages since I last played) that felt like I was actually interacting in a more meaningful way.

    When I was playing Fallen Earth I was in a great guild that used to organise events and we'd go raid some place as a guild group or go to beginner zones and explain how the game worked to newbies. The main reason I think was that game had so few people playing that every one took that extra step to include people and do things together. That game left an indelible print in my mind and I still recall the players I met there.

    Others have talked about making the right advances (not that kind) to people to make them friends and to join guilds as the means to build the groups you will need. This takes effort and many players that are sought after by game developers are lazy and don't want to make that extra effort it would take to get a good grouping opportunity. They prefer to just auto join or queue up as a class then proceed to play like talking is a huge sacrifice. 

    You cannot really advocate for the exclusion of those types of players because I believe they form a bulk of players that play MMORPGs these days, if WoW is anything to go by. So developers design games that can cater to both types of players and after awhile even the loquacious players like me just shut the hell up. How do you solve this without losing a substantial portion of the player base you need to make  a game viable.

    I know people say PvP is where this type of thing ends because you need each other and communication is more likely to happen but players like me who do not enjoy that are left adrift in a sea of games where I play alongside others.
    AlBQuirkyxpsyncPo_ggUngoodkitarad
    Chamber of Chains
  • lahnmirlahnmir Member LegendaryPosts: 4,024
    remsleep said:
    lahnmir said:
    YashaX said:
    Iselin said:
    GW2 has it as does ESO and even WOW with the increasing number of "world quests" with each expansion but to this day, no one still has done it better than Rift.

    They still need to kick it up several notches and make their resolution affect the game world and its population in longer lasting more permanent ways as well 7as getting rid of the timers. 


    I have been kind of surprised that games have essentially gone backwards since Rift in this regard. Rift made me feel like the holy grail of a truely living dangerous world was within our grasp, so close I could almost taste it, and yet ten years on and there is still nothing even close.
    Although I think Rift did it well Tabula Rasa did it much, much better with its sieges and active targetting of outposts etc. The huge spaceships flying in and dropping enemies in the zone was also so much more impressive then the glorified spawning of Rift. It all just felt much more dynamic and dangerous.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir

    One thing that Tabula Rosa's mobs lacked us they never fought each other and they didnt move in large groups together. 

    Rifts mobs had factions so fire rift would fight water rift etc...

    Also Tabula Rasa didn't have mobs to being able to take over entire zones and move around  in large groups.

    From a coding perspective Rifts system was far more complex
    Very true. But although Rifts system might have been more complex it felt much more structured and predicatble, unexciting even. I guess that goes for all of Rift though, mechanically solid but lacking any from of soul. Funny, since it was all about souls.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    Ungoodtzervo
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 


    'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'

    Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...



    'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless. 

    It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.

    It is just huge resource waste....'

    Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer

  • botrytisbotrytis Member RarePosts: 3,346
    People saying Rift was the holy grail is hysterical, in this respect. If high enough level, yes you could solo Rifts, so no it is not a good choice.

    In GW2 many of the world bosses need coordination as they are hard to beat and you cannot solo them. Then there are the newer areas where you have to have map coordination to actually accomplish something in the map. Same with WvW, where you CAN play with a group and coordinate.

    People just love to hate w/o reason.
    Ungoodtzervo


  • xpsyncxpsync Member RarePosts: 1,576
    Ungood said:
    Not sure where it was mentioned

    Might have been one of my posts as i mentioned this exact thing. I'm finding this happening so much in SL and much of it may be due to areas in the game being much tougher, and at the same time you're competing with the other faction for mobs.

    It has created an almost de facto standard amongst players, you gravitate to fellow faction, one for survival, and two so you can get mobs. You have a big group of alliance and big group of horde all playing and working together, but are not grouped up.

    Ungood
    There are two ways of arguing with a woman, and neither one works. - John Marston

    Currently Playing; SWG:Legends, Wow r/c, DoS2
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 29,239
    Ungood said:


    Personally, I have always hated the idea of forced grouping, it reeked of being gamey and unrealistic, and on top of that, it always ended up putting me in a situation where all too often I would end up having to deal with people I didn't care for just to get the loot that was locked behind this Forced Grouping content.  

    However, when I first played GW2, it showed me something grand, that players could alongside each other, that we could all be working towards an objective, and even work together and help each other get it, without needing to hitched at the hip in a group.


    For the most part I agree but as I've said before, I don't believe in "forced" anything when it comes to games. It's a ridiculous notion.

    They make their game, it has features and the player can either buy the game to play those features or "not."

    Otherwise the whole "forced" concept sort of pushes the notion that every game should have multiple ways to fit every play style. Just not realistic.

    I think an mmorpg should have content that supports solo/small groups but it needs to either be a "solo small group game" or a "group game."

    Also, while I like the idea of Guild Wars 2's group activities out in the open, it very much is a "everyone soloing side by side" game.


    Po_ggUngoodtzervocameltosis
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,558
    I'm actually torn on this topic (great one, Ungood!).

    Scot makes a great point about the origins coming from D&D, a "group game" played in person. I got into MMORPGs seeking something akin to this experience. It has yet to materialize.

    The problems are many fold.
    1) "Face to face vs. Internet screens."
    We act very differently between these 2 ways of communicating. Backstabbing your real life friend across the table is very different from backstabbing some anonymous name on a monitor.

    2) "Who you know."
    The first time playing D&D, you may know one other person. For me, one friend introduced me to the game, then one other joined us, and that person played with a bigger group (from 5 to 7 others) and I eventually joined that group. This doesn't happen easily in MMORPGs. You may meet a player out in the world and adventure together for a session or two. But, this takes an effort to say something to a total stranger. You don't know anything about them. You may want to say a joke and they could (especially today) take it totally wrong and even report you. I met my D&D friend through Debate/speech class and choir. Very small chance for this connection in MMORPGs.

    3) "Forced Grouping"
    I enjoyed grouping in EQ 1. But I also hated it. Depending on others is not good if you have goals and pathways in mind when you log on. But most of the time, a group stared clicking and levels flew by. One person would leave and another would usually hop in. I recall the groups I was in moving from spawn point to spawn point as we gained levels. I could "waste" many hours doing this, even whole weekends :)

    4) "Solo Activities"
    There should be solo activities, though. I "shouldn't" need another player to work on my crafting or fishing. Maybe if I was going someplace way above my current level I may need help, but not generally :)

    I have no answers, as I am conflicted. I agree with Scot that MMOs should be all about grouping and playing with others, not solo affairs that are done better in single player games. But there needs to be activities available if a player has limited time or player specific goals in mind for their session. But it should be organic, not "forced." It should be set up in a way that players seek out and want to ask others for help or just hanging out together, kind of like the old multiplayer console games with everyone sitting on the same couch together.

    What to do... :)
    Po_ggcheyaneScotUngoodMendel

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,912
    There was a lot of informative stuff said.. wow! 
    tzervoAlBQuirky
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 14,232
    edited January 12
    AlBQuirky said:
    I'm actually torn on this topic (great one, Ungood!).

    Scot makes a great point about the origins coming from D&D, a "group game" played in person. I got into MMORPGs seeking something akin to this experience. It has yet to materialize.

    The problems are many fold.
    1) "Face to face vs. Internet screens."
    We act very differently between these 2 ways of communicating. Backstabbing your real life friend across the table is very different from backstabbing some anonymous name on a monitor.

    2) "Who you know."
    The first time playing D&D, you may know one other person. For me, one friend introduced me to the game, then one other joined us, and that person played with a bigger group (from 5 to 7 others) and I eventually joined that group. This doesn't happen easily in MMORPGs. You may meet a player out in the world and adventure together for a session or two. But, this takes an effort to say something to a total stranger. You don't know anything about them. You may want to say a joke and they could (especially today) take it totally wrong and even report you. I met my D&D friend through Debate/speech class and choir. Very small chance for this connection in MMORPGs.

    3) "Forced Grouping"
    I enjoyed grouping in EQ 1. But I also hated it. Depending on others is not good if you have goals and pathways in mind when you log on. But most of the time, a group stared clicking and levels flew by. One person would leave and another would usually hop in. I recall the groups I was in moving from spawn point to spawn point as we gained levels. I could "waste" many hours doing this, even whole weekends :)

    4) "Solo Activities"
    There should be solo activities, though. I "shouldn't" need another player to work on my crafting or fishing. Maybe if I was going someplace way above my current level I may need help, but not generally :)

    I have no answers, as I am conflicted. I agree with Scot that MMOs should be all about grouping and playing with others, not solo affairs that are done better in single player games. But there needs to be activities available if a player has limited time or player specific goals in mind for their session. But it should be organic, not "forced." It should be set up in a way that players seek out and want to ask others for help or just hanging out together, kind of like the old multiplayer console games with everyone sitting on the same couch together.

    What to do... :)
    It was actually Theocritus who made the connection to table top here, but I have done so in the past. I have no magic bullet myself, it is a conundrum. You can have both zerg grouping and proper (yes proper :) ) grouping in the same game as long as you follow the rule that the rewards are concordant with the difficulty of the activity and time invested, I hope I am not offending anyone when I point out how simple it is to turn up to a zerg. But that does not solve the issue, a number of MMOs have both and it was hardly ideal, I played in WH online, Rifts and GW2, though not Tabula Rasa.

    When it comes to PvP versus PvP, you can keep both types of player happy by keeping them in separate zones. Solo versus grouping is far harder, I am not sure they can live together, MMO history has shown that the solo cuckoo slowly pushes grouping out of the nest.

    UngoodAlBQuirkyBrainy

     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

Sign In or Register to comment.