If people are able to group up to experience content and choose not to do so, then providing a "group bonus" does not give an incentive for groupers to group, it gives an incentive for soloers to group, i.e. to play the game how you want them to play the game, rather than the way that they would personally prefer.
Imo, the way to resolve the LFG problem isn't to force soloers to group with artificial bonuses or be left in the dust; it's to make group mechanics more dynamic and fun so that people would want to group in the first place, and/or have an NPC companion/henchmen system so that groupers can still experience group play during those LFG dry times.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Arguments about xp and fairness miss the point, we need an incentive to group, otherwise we never would. That incentive does not have to be xp, but it has to be there. Because people are so damn lazy and the early part of MMO's is quite rightly all solo.
Giving someone a reward for doing the simplest thing, i.e. soloing will mean that’s all anyone ever does. MMO's can be so much more, let’s not be content with second best.
That means we don't really truly like to group. We just want the incentive. In that case, there is no point "forcing" people to group. The best test is level the playing field. Have the SAME reward playing solo or group. If no one group .. well, people don't really like to group and there is no point in supporting it.
No it just means humans are lazy buggers who always follow the easiest route.
If you could only kill any mob in a game if you were in a group, everyone would group. This is the poison chalice of soloing, you think you have a gaming soloution that allows you to do something when not many others are on. You end up with a gaming problem that has people saying 'I can never find a group'.
A balance can be made, but only if you if you give grouping an incentive.
No it just means humans are lazy buggers who always follow the easiest route.
If you could only kill any mob in a game if you were in a group, everyone would group. This is the poison chalice of soloing, you think you have a gaming soloution that allows you to do something when not many others are on. You end up with a gaming problem that has people saying 'I can never find a group'. A balance can be made, but only if you if you give grouping an incentive.
The problem is, grouping already has an incentive. You get more XP, more loot, bigger weapons, more support, all earlier and faster than you could possibly get solo, what more incentive do you want? And the fact is, even with all of that, people still don't want to group.
The fact is, if everyone had to group, you'd have most people leaving games entirely. MMOs only really hit it big when people were able to solo and more and more people signed up because they didn't have to play in a group. You might not like that, but that's the reality of it. Whether or not you like that reality is irrelevant, you're trying to force people who do not enjoy grouping to do something they hate doing in the hopes that you'll get to do something with people who don't want to do it with you.
No it just means humans are lazy buggers who always follow the easiest route.
If you could only kill any mob in a game if you were in a group, everyone would group. This is the poison chalice of soloing, you think you have a gaming soloution that allows you to do something when not many others are on. You end up with a gaming problem that has people saying 'I can never find a group'. A balance can be made, but only if you if you give grouping an incentive.
Then give them the easiest route. There is no point in forcing them to do more in their ENTERTAINMENT. We are not trying to get players to conquer cancer here.
If a solo game is indeed easier and less down time, there is no reason not to give it to them.
No it just means humans are lazy buggers who always follow the easiest route.
If you could only kill any mob in a game if you were in a group, everyone would group. This is the poison chalice of soloing, you think you have a gaming soloution that allows you to do something when not many others are on. You end up with a gaming problem that has people saying 'I can never find a group'. A balance can be made, but only if you if you give grouping an incentive.
The problem is, grouping already has an incentive. You get more XP, more loot, bigger weapons, more support, all earlier and faster than you could possibly get solo, what more incentive do you want? And the fact is, even with all of that, people still don't want to group.
The fact is, if everyone had to group, you'd have most people leaving games entirely. MMOs only really hit it big when people were able to solo and more and more people signed up because they didn't have to play in a group. You might not like that, but that's the reality of it. Whether or not you like that reality is irrelevant, you're trying to force people who do not enjoy grouping to do something they hate doing in the hopes that you'll get to do something with people who don't want to do it with you.
Is that supposed to make any sense whatsoever?
"The problem is, grouping already has an incentive. You get more XP, more loot, bigger weapons, more support, all earlier and faster than you could possibly get solo, what more incentive do you want"
Current games on the market do not support this statement. Only "school games" fit into this anymore.. EQ, UO, Lin2, FFX, EQ2 and maybe Vanguard. The new games support solo play..... Basicly any quest grind game is made for soloers and rewards soloing over groups.
I agree that more s"olo people are playing MMOs and that is the reality but why can't my type of gamer get a game for us? Why does every new game have to be a WoW clone with full solo mode?
Making failure after failure trying to cater to the solo crowed does not make any sense whatsoever but they keep doing it.
No it just means humans are lazy buggers who always follow the easiest route.
If you could only kill any mob in a game if you were in a group, everyone would group. This is the poison chalice of soloing, you think you have a gaming soloution that allows you to do something when not many others are on. You end up with a gaming problem that has people saying 'I can never find a group'. A balance can be made, but only if you if you give grouping an incentive.
Thats' one way to look at it. I tend to look at it as humans are intelligent and find the easiest way to get what they want.
It is not more intelligent to jump through hoops to get something as opposed to just walking over to a table and getting it. Humanity looks for the best and fastest ways to obtain what they need.
If someone told you that you had two choices, to climb a mountain and at the top there was 10 million dollars OR you could just open the chest at your feet, the only way you would pick the mountain option is if you would have climbed the mountain anways.
And I still maintain that it's not hard to include grouping content and solo content in a game. Lineage 2 had both and those who soloed did the solo stuff and those who grouped did the grouping stuff.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
"The problem is, grouping already has an incentive. You get more XP, more loot, bigger weapons, more support, all earlier and faster than you could possibly get solo, what more incentive do you want" Current games on the market do not support this statement. Only "school games" fit into this anymore.. EQ, UO, Lin2, FFX, EQ2 and maybe Vanguard. The new games support solo play..... Basicly any quest grind game is made for soloers and rewards soloing over groups. I agree that more s"olo people are playing MMOs and that is the reality but why can't my type of gamer get a game for us? Why does every new game have to be a WoW clone with full solo mode? Making failure after failure trying to cater to the solo crowed does not make any sense whatsoever but they keep doing it.
Every game out there does this. With any given team, you can always fight mobs that are far too difficult for the teammembers to fight solo. That means more XP, more and better loot, faster advancing, etc. It's just inherent in the system. Groupers will always advance faster than soloers of the same level. That's the incentive to group.
And why do games provide soloing? Because that's where the majority of their money comes from. MMOs didn't really hit the mainstream until they made soloing possible. You don't get millions of subscriptions by being a grouping-only game, the majority of players do not want to take part in that type of gameplay. WoW-clones don't fail because they offer solo play, they fail because they're crappy clones, trying to cash in on something big and everyone sees right through them.
The fact remains, there just aren't enough group-only players to support a large MMO property and making money is all these games are about for the devs. That's not likely to change and trying to force people to group is only going to guarantee a failed game.
FFXI's forced grouping seemed tedious at times as I played it but I'd give anything to go back to a game like that. (referring to a newer release and a high population)
Originally posted by Cephus404 The fact remains, there just aren't enough group-only players to support a large MMO property and making money is all these games are about for the devs. That's not likely to change and trying to force people to group is only going to guarantee a failed game.
Originally posted by Demonshank There are alot of avenues that need exploring. Ive been around as long as most of you, maybe longer than some. We all got a dog in this fight. Many playstyles can be appreciated. The depth gets overlooked for both soloers and groupers when they are placed on equal footing. I agree that developers must heavily weigh out which type of audience they are trying to capture. I know its about making enough money to fill Fort Knox. I appreciate the difficulty in appeasing both sides. Im not in the camp that thinks you must rack up millions and millions to be seen as a credible contribution to the genre. Maybe we(groupers) are in the minority. Im not willing to concede that point. I think that with the expansion of mmo gamer population through this decade its not indisputable. I for some reason believe(call me crazy) we want a good game #1. That trumps everything. If its a good game, we will play it. Hopefully through enough debate and consideration we can prevent screwing up our respective games when/if we do come together in the future. I think its more when not if. The main point is groupers are equally deserving of a new/next gen game focused around good grouping, built on a more forgiving and accessible(not lame/easy mode) platform than yesterdays mmo. Never know, you guys/gals might like the hell out of it. We need a refresh though. We need to redefine Pick Up Group. Childish behavior and community separatists should not be accepted as 'the way it is'. If this type of gaming is to flourish further it needs to be nurtured appropriately. There are alot of really great gamers out there, all over the world. They've been driven into solitary, unattached to their community by the vocal harrassment and foolishness of the unrejected hoodlums.
^^+
I appreciate your opinions Cephus. Although, its inappropriate stating as fact, those opinions. There really is a very large population of group-minded gamers seeking a new game with the principles many here, and several other sites lately, have discussed conscientiously. With that said, I believe you'd be very good at anything involving evasion, cause you've ducked, dipped, and dodged every real point that would in turn make your opinions more valid as fact. Its a callous approach in any good debate.
Solo play is ruining MMO's for who? If the majority of people prefer to solo instead of group i would assume the the game isnt ruined for them. Ive also heard it said that scenarios ruined rvr in warhmammer i guess because people preferred scenarios over rvr. I have not played an MMO yet that groupers couldnt group if they wanted to. What the "pro group" people want is forced grouping. You can spin it any way you want to but that is what you want.
yeah i agree too.. soloing in rpg games are killing the content of the game.. but that's why there are many games that require partying and grouping with other players esp if you want to defeat a boss... but i feel if a game is strongly towards soloing in a game... it can get boring really fast
Solo play is ruining MMO's for who? If the majority of people prefer to solo instead of group i would assume the the game isnt ruined for them. Ive also heard it said that scenarios ruined rvr in warhmammer i guess because people preferred scenarios over rvr. I have not played an MMO yet that groupers couldnt group if they wanted to. What the "pro group" people want is forced grouping. You can spin it any way you want to but that is what you want.
A little misleading GPG. Scenarios were not preferred they were the most efficient way to level your character and since people could not wait to get to the RVR they blasted through scenarios hundreds of times. Because of this any RvR that could happen in the lower tiers was pretty much nonexistent, which is why Mythic added loot rewards and RvR influence, to entice people OUT of the faster xp scenarios in the lower tiers.
Solo play is ruining MMO's for who? If the majority of people prefer to solo instead of group i would assume the the game isnt ruined for them. Ive also heard it said that scenarios ruined rvr in warhmammer i guess because people preferred scenarios over rvr. I have not played an MMO yet that groupers couldnt group if they wanted to. What the "pro group" people want is forced grouping. You can spin it any way you want to but that is what you want.
A little misleading GPG. Scenarios were not preferred they were the most efficient way to level your character and since people could not wait to get to the RVR they blasted through scenarios hundreds of times. Because of this any RvR that could happen in the lower tiers was pretty much nonexistent, which is why Mythic added loot rewards and RvR influence, to entice people OUT of the faster xp scenarios in the lower tiers.
Not trying to mislead anyone and you could be correct, the warhammer reference was just an example of people doing what they like to do. I do not want to mince terms but people did what they preferred, due to effieciency or pleasure or whatever reason. However the topic is why solo play is ruining mmo's and i maintain my stance that it isnt, at least for the people who prefer solo play. And like it or not, i think solo play is preferred by the majority today for a variety or reasons the main one is due to time restrictions i think. Most of us work and have families and just want a couple hours of downtime in the evening and do not want or have the time to do what most group content requires.
Not trying to mislead anyone and you could be correct, the warhammer reference was just an example of people doing what they like to do. I do not want to mince terms but people did what they preferred, due to effieciency or pleasure or whatever reason. However the topic is why solo play is ruining mmo's and i maintain my stance that it isnt, at least for the people who prefer solo play. And like it or not, i think solo play is preferred by the majority today for a variety or reasons the main one is due to time restrictions i think. Most of us work and have families and just want a couple hours of downtime in the evening and do not want or have the time to do what most group content requires.
Preferred and liked are two different terms, but I totally understand your point.
As for the solo vs. group play my problem is solo play detracts group play (not going to spend forever arguing it like has been done before though). That being said about the time requirements is a lame duck argument in my opinion. People have no time but a "couple hours" to play a game and being solo or grouped makes the difference in that time? Poppycock.
Two hours is two hours regardless of what you're doing and technically you progress faster in a group, whatever you're doing, so soloing is more a waste of those two hours is grouping. If you're saying epic raids, well epic raids are what they are. There is no illusion and if you want to do one you find a time to do it, again that has nothing to do with a two hour window being time restrictive on 90% of the game with grouping, because it's not. Don't get me wrong, people can play how they want, but at least make legitimate or truthful arguments if they feel the need to defend them.
What I really think is needed is a compromise. Group size needs to be shrunk. 3-4 players max should be group size and content should be designed around that mechanic for the majority of gameplay. I"m not saying remove solo content nor I am saying that epic encounters should be removed either. But if group size was smaller it would still provide a personable and social environment for us groupers and it would lessen the gap between solo and group play significantly from what it is today.
"The problem is, grouping already has an incentive. You get more XP, more loot, bigger weapons, more support, all earlier and faster than you could possibly get solo, what more incentive do you want" Current games on the market do not support this statement. Only "school games" fit into this anymore.. EQ, UO, Lin2, FFX, EQ2 and maybe Vanguard. The new games support solo play..... Basicly any quest grind game is made for soloers and rewards soloing over groups. I agree that more s"olo people are playing MMOs and that is the reality but why can't my type of gamer get a game for us? Why does every new game have to be a WoW clone with full solo mode? Making failure after failure trying to cater to the solo crowed does not make any sense whatsoever but they keep doing it.
Every game out there does this. With any given team, you can always fight mobs that are far too difficult for the teammembers to fight solo. That means more XP, more and better loot, faster advancing, etc. It's just inherent in the system. Groupers will always advance faster than soloers of the same level. That's the incentive to group.
And why do games provide soloing? Because that's where the majority of their money comes from. MMOs didn't really hit the mainstream until they made soloing possible. You don't get millions of subscriptions by being a grouping-only game, the majority of players do not want to take part in that type of gameplay. WoW-clones don't fail because they offer solo play, they fail because they're crappy clones, trying to cash in on something big and everyone sees right through them.
The fact remains, there just aren't enough group-only players to support a large MMO property and making money is all these games are about for the devs. That's not likely to change and trying to force people to group is only going to guarantee a failed game.
Any game that uses a quest hub system as the primary leveling tool is not group friendly because group players will gain less exp then the soloers running quests.. Sure I can group to run quests but what is the point if i can simply do it solo and quicker?
The problem is not soloers, its developers trying to copy only MMO on the market with a ton of subs... WoW which is a solo game untill end game then it is a group/raid game. I want a game like the Everquest (1) that allows both solo and group play, grouping being faster and more rewarding but soloing is a slower solution for those that want it.
I am currently playing EQ1 still. For the reasons above... Yes I solo in the game when I want too and it is faster for some things and I group alot because I like grouping. I just want a game like EQ with all the modern toys and graphics.
Any game that uses a quest hub system as the primary leveling tool is not group friendly because group players will gain less exp then the soloers running quests.. Sure I can group to run quests but what is the point if i can simply do it solo and quicker?
The problem is not soloers, its developers trying to copy only MMO on the market with a ton of subs... WoW which is a solo game untill end game then it is a group/raid game. I want a game like the Everquest (1) that allows both solo and group play, grouping being faster and more rewarding but soloing is a slower solution for those that want it. I am currently playing EQ1 still. For the reasons above... Yes I solo in the game when I want too and it is faster for some things and I group alot because I like grouping. I just want a game like EQ with all the modern toys and graphics.
It just means that there ought to be harder quests for teams, or at the very least, user-definable difficulty settings. Even if there aren't team-specific quests, someone ought to be able to walk up to the quest giver and be able to set a slider higher for harder quests, then take the team into that harder quest which will give more loot and XP. Some games do that, some do not, pointing fingers at WoW specifically doesn't really mean much, if you don't like the way they do things, don't play that particular game.
WoW is a solo game because that's where they get the majority of their subs. They are catering to their audience and getting a lot of new people out of it, it's no surprise whatsoever that people who want to copy that success are doing the same thing. Find a grouping-only game that has that kind of success and you'll get the same kind of copycat behavior.
I appreciate your opinions Cephus. Although, its inappropriate stating as fact, those opinions. There really is a very large population of group-minded gamers seeking a new game with the principles many here, and several other sites lately, have discussed conscientiously. With that said, I believe you'd be very good at anything involving evasion, cause you've ducked, dipped, and dodged every real point that would in turn make your opinions more valid as fact. Its a callous approach in any good debate.
Group-minded gamers or gamers who enjoy both soloing and grouping depending on the situation? I really don't see many people who only want to group 100% of the time and apparently, neither do game devs who have put soloing into every single game they make because they know that's where their money comes from. It's funny how the pro-gamers keep asserting there's this massive group of people out there who are dying for a grouping-only game, but nobody can actually prove they exist. Game devs do extensive research to see what the market wants and then they provide what that research shows. Apparently, based on all the evidence that we have, that research does not show a huge grouping-only contingent.
Originally posted by Cephus404 Originally posted by Demonshank I appreciate your opinions Cephus. Although, its inappropriate stating as fact, those opinions. There really is a very large population of group-minded gamers seeking a new game with the principles many here, and several other sites lately, have discussed conscientiously. With that said, I believe you'd be very good at anything involving evasion, cause you've ducked, dipped, and dodged every real point that would in turn make your opinions more valid as fact. Its a callous approach in any good debate.
Group-minded gamers or gamers who enjoy both soloing and grouping depending on the situation? I really don't see many people who only want to group 100% of the time and apparently, neither do game devs who have put soloing into every single game they make because they know that's where their money comes from. It's funny how the pro-gamers keep asserting there's this massive group of people out there who are dying for a grouping-only game, but nobody can actually prove they exist. Game devs do extensive research to see what the market wants and then they provide what that research shows. Apparently, based on all the evidence that we have, that research does not show a huge grouping-only contingent.
Ive never played a game besides Shadowrun for xbox 360 & pc that was 100% group only in design. Although it did have a bot mode for offline use, but that was just afterthought. 100% grouping is probably similar to the full death players out there, population-wise. I already made reference to Fort Knox money. We do not disagree. I however cannot concede that a very large, even equal, yet maybe not 'massive', contingent doesnt exist.
This debate has been enthusiastically, and at times vehemently, continuing for quite awhile now across many sites, forums, and blogs. This speaks loudly for how much discussion and point taking needs to be done to know what the real outcome can be. Neither side is a vocal minority, I beleive.
Group-minded, those that wish to group for the majority of the experience while gaming online.
Please read my other posts within this thread. I never advocate for the elimination of all solo gameplay. I represent the viewpoint that it hinders the fundamentals of grouping when soloing progression is included at a equal or greater amount to group progression.
1. If you create a solo focused title, then throw in equal amount of grouping to obtain greater progression, that undermines the structure of the game.
2. Now create a group focused title and throw in an equal amount of solo ability and it allows for the focus to be completely avoided, therby undermining the structure.
I have no problem with the soloer or choices. I have a problem when it comes to playing to the game focus and finding no one playing it, cause they can avoid that focus for the same outcome. Progression. Please dont wrap me up in the gear debate cause its pointless while progressing through any title to need group earned rewards to progress effectively. I can play pretty much any game out now with greens and common drop 'junk' and make the tasks seem like a leisurly game of solitaire. That goes to the difficulty also, but again thats another debate.
What research does a new developer do today? Look at WoW numbers(highly inflated) and drool? I think the tests are out there. We need to understand this isnt a medium that has been in practice for 40, 50, or 100yrs. We have a decade worth of history using a massive online game platform. MMO's are similar so far to consoles. They need an update to current tech. and quality every few years to stay appealing. If EQ, DaoC, even UO would have tech. updates and adaption to creative principles by todays standards, I think they would still appeal to us as games, not just structures for recreation.
Not trying to mislead anyone and you could be correct, the warhammer reference was just an example of people doing what they like to do. I do not want to mince terms but people did what they preferred, due to effieciency or pleasure or whatever reason. However the topic is why solo play is ruining mmo's and i maintain my stance that it isnt, at least for the people who prefer solo play. And like it or not, i think solo play is preferred by the majority today for a variety or reasons the main one is due to time restrictions i think. Most of us work and have families and just want a couple hours of downtime in the evening and do not want or have the time to do what most group content requires.
Preferred and liked are two different terms, but I totally understand your point.
As for the solo vs. group play my problem is solo play detracts group play (not going to spend forever arguing it like has been done before though). That being said about the time requirements is a lame duck argument in my opinion. People have no time but a "couple hours" to play a game and being solo or grouped makes the difference in that time? Poppycock.
Two hours is two hours regardless of what you're doing and technically you progress faster in a group, whatever you're doing, so soloing is more a waste of those two hours is grouping. If you're saying epic raids, well epic raids are what they are. There is no illusion and if you want to do one you find a time to do it, again that has nothing to do with a two hour window being time restrictive on 90% of the game with grouping, because it's not. Don't get me wrong, people can play how they want, but at least make legitimate or truthful arguments if they feel the need to defend them.
What I really think is needed is a compromise. Group size needs to be shrunk. 3-4 players max should be group size and content should be designed around that mechanic for the majority of gameplay. I"m not saying remove solo content nor I am saying that epic encounters should be removed either. But if group size was smaller it would still provide a personable and social environment for us groupers and it would lessen the gap between solo and group play significantly from what it is today.
Group size might be helpful. As for the poppycock i guess when you log in you get a group right away? Ive never been that fortunate unless its a guild thing and preplanned, and as for guilds i have my ideas about them as well but thats another discussion.
From a skill standpoint, you can't contribute to a group well enough if you haven't figured your class out on your own.
From a personal standpoint, I would never play a game that I would have to sit around to wait on people with no solo content to pass the time or be forced to log in and be stuck using my time to play with random children. It's just ridiculous.
I play games a lot (especially during the summer months) and most of my time is solo just because I like it that way. Having to depend on yourself lets you get things done in a timely fashion, keeps things orderly and you don't have to deal with children.
What's ruining group gameplay is the kids with no lives with superiority complexes who think that everyone else should stay locked in their bedrooms like them.
Group size might be helpful. As for the poppycock i guess when you log in you get a group right away? Ive never been that fortunate unless its a guild thing and preplanned, and as for guilds i have my ideas about them as well but thats another discussion.
No, groups are not right there anymore because of the solo play. This argument has gone on for weeks now on these forums though. As games continually design themselves around solo play less and less groups will be found.
Comments
If people are able to group up to experience content and choose not to do so, then providing a "group bonus" does not give an incentive for groupers to group, it gives an incentive for soloers to group, i.e. to play the game how you want them to play the game, rather than the way that they would personally prefer.
Imo, the way to resolve the LFG problem isn't to force soloers to group with artificial bonuses or be left in the dust; it's to make group mechanics more dynamic and fun so that people would want to group in the first place, and/or have an NPC companion/henchmen system so that groupers can still experience group play during those LFG dry times.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
That means we don't really truly like to group. We just want the incentive. In that case, there is no point "forcing" people to group. The best test is level the playing field. Have the SAME reward playing solo or group. If no one group .. well, people don't really like to group and there is no point in supporting it.
No it just means humans are lazy buggers who always follow the easiest route.
If you could only kill any mob in a game if you were in a group, everyone would group. This is the poison chalice of soloing, you think you have a gaming soloution that allows you to do something when not many others are on. You end up with a gaming problem that has people saying 'I can never find a group'.
A balance can be made, but only if you if you give grouping an incentive.
The problem is, grouping already has an incentive. You get more XP, more loot, bigger weapons, more support, all earlier and faster than you could possibly get solo, what more incentive do you want? And the fact is, even with all of that, people still don't want to group.
The fact is, if everyone had to group, you'd have most people leaving games entirely. MMOs only really hit it big when people were able to solo and more and more people signed up because they didn't have to play in a group. You might not like that, but that's the reality of it. Whether or not you like that reality is irrelevant, you're trying to force people who do not enjoy grouping to do something they hate doing in the hopes that you'll get to do something with people who don't want to do it with you.
Is that supposed to make any sense whatsoever?
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Then give them the easiest route. There is no point in forcing them to do more in their ENTERTAINMENT. We are not trying to get players to conquer cancer here.
If a solo game is indeed easier and less down time, there is no reason not to give it to them.
The problem is, grouping already has an incentive. You get more XP, more loot, bigger weapons, more support, all earlier and faster than you could possibly get solo, what more incentive do you want? And the fact is, even with all of that, people still don't want to group.
The fact is, if everyone had to group, you'd have most people leaving games entirely. MMOs only really hit it big when people were able to solo and more and more people signed up because they didn't have to play in a group. You might not like that, but that's the reality of it. Whether or not you like that reality is irrelevant, you're trying to force people who do not enjoy grouping to do something they hate doing in the hopes that you'll get to do something with people who don't want to do it with you.
Is that supposed to make any sense whatsoever?
"The problem is, grouping already has an incentive. You get more XP, more loot, bigger weapons, more support, all earlier and faster than you could possibly get solo, what more incentive do you want"
Current games on the market do not support this statement. Only "school games" fit into this anymore.. EQ, UO, Lin2, FFX, EQ2 and maybe Vanguard. The new games support solo play..... Basicly any quest grind game is made for soloers and rewards soloing over groups.
I agree that more s"olo people are playing MMOs and that is the reality but why can't my type of gamer get a game for us? Why does every new game have to be a WoW clone with full solo mode?
Making failure after failure trying to cater to the solo crowed does not make any sense whatsoever but they keep doing it.
Sooner or Later
Thats' one way to look at it. I tend to look at it as humans are intelligent and find the easiest way to get what they want.
It is not more intelligent to jump through hoops to get something as opposed to just walking over to a table and getting it. Humanity looks for the best and fastest ways to obtain what they need.
If someone told you that you had two choices, to climb a mountain and at the top there was 10 million dollars OR you could just open the chest at your feet, the only way you would pick the mountain option is if you would have climbed the mountain anways.
And I still maintain that it's not hard to include grouping content and solo content in a game. Lineage 2 had both and those who soloed did the solo stuff and those who grouped did the grouping stuff.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Every game out there does this. With any given team, you can always fight mobs that are far too difficult for the teammembers to fight solo. That means more XP, more and better loot, faster advancing, etc. It's just inherent in the system. Groupers will always advance faster than soloers of the same level. That's the incentive to group.
And why do games provide soloing? Because that's where the majority of their money comes from. MMOs didn't really hit the mainstream until they made soloing possible. You don't get millions of subscriptions by being a grouping-only game, the majority of players do not want to take part in that type of gameplay. WoW-clones don't fail because they offer solo play, they fail because they're crappy clones, trying to cash in on something big and everyone sees right through them.
The fact remains, there just aren't enough group-only players to support a large MMO property and making money is all these games are about for the devs. That's not likely to change and trying to force people to group is only going to guarantee a failed game.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
FFXI's forced grouping seemed tedious at times as I played it but I'd give anything to go back to a game like that. (referring to a newer release and a high population)
^^+
I appreciate your opinions Cephus. Although, its inappropriate stating as fact, those opinions. There really is a very large population of group-minded gamers seeking a new game with the principles many here, and several other sites lately, have discussed conscientiously. With that said, I believe you'd be very good at anything involving evasion, cause you've ducked, dipped, and dodged every real point that would in turn make your opinions more valid as fact. Its a callous approach in any good debate.
Solo play is ruining MMO's for who? If the majority of people prefer to solo instead of group i would assume the the game isnt ruined for them. Ive also heard it said that scenarios ruined rvr in warhmammer i guess because people preferred scenarios over rvr. I have not played an MMO yet that groupers couldnt group if they wanted to. What the "pro group" people want is forced grouping. You can spin it any way you want to but that is what you want.
yeah i agree too.. soloing in rpg games are killing the content of the game.. but that's why there are many games that require partying and grouping with other players esp if you want to defeat a boss... but i feel if a game is strongly towards soloing in a game... it can get boring really fast
A little misleading GPG. Scenarios were not preferred they were the most efficient way to level your character and since people could not wait to get to the RVR they blasted through scenarios hundreds of times. Because of this any RvR that could happen in the lower tiers was pretty much nonexistent, which is why Mythic added loot rewards and RvR influence, to entice people OUT of the faster xp scenarios in the lower tiers.
A little misleading GPG. Scenarios were not preferred they were the most efficient way to level your character and since people could not wait to get to the RVR they blasted through scenarios hundreds of times. Because of this any RvR that could happen in the lower tiers was pretty much nonexistent, which is why Mythic added loot rewards and RvR influence, to entice people OUT of the faster xp scenarios in the lower tiers.
Not trying to mislead anyone and you could be correct, the warhammer reference was just an example of people doing what they like to do. I do not want to mince terms but people did what they preferred, due to effieciency or pleasure or whatever reason. However the topic is why solo play is ruining mmo's and i maintain my stance that it isnt, at least for the people who prefer solo play. And like it or not, i think solo play is preferred by the majority today for a variety or reasons the main one is due to time restrictions i think. Most of us work and have families and just want a couple hours of downtime in the evening and do not want or have the time to do what most group content requires.
Preferred and liked are two different terms, but I totally understand your point.
As for the solo vs. group play my problem is solo play detracts group play (not going to spend forever arguing it like has been done before though). That being said about the time requirements is a lame duck argument in my opinion. People have no time but a "couple hours" to play a game and being solo or grouped makes the difference in that time? Poppycock.
Two hours is two hours regardless of what you're doing and technically you progress faster in a group, whatever you're doing, so soloing is more a waste of those two hours is grouping. If you're saying epic raids, well epic raids are what they are. There is no illusion and if you want to do one you find a time to do it, again that has nothing to do with a two hour window being time restrictive on 90% of the game with grouping, because it's not. Don't get me wrong, people can play how they want, but at least make legitimate or truthful arguments if they feel the need to defend them.
What I really think is needed is a compromise. Group size needs to be shrunk. 3-4 players max should be group size and content should be designed around that mechanic for the majority of gameplay. I"m not saying remove solo content nor I am saying that epic encounters should be removed either. But if group size was smaller it would still provide a personable and social environment for us groupers and it would lessen the gap between solo and group play significantly from what it is today.
Every game out there does this. With any given team, you can always fight mobs that are far too difficult for the teammembers to fight solo. That means more XP, more and better loot, faster advancing, etc. It's just inherent in the system. Groupers will always advance faster than soloers of the same level. That's the incentive to group.
And why do games provide soloing? Because that's where the majority of their money comes from. MMOs didn't really hit the mainstream until they made soloing possible. You don't get millions of subscriptions by being a grouping-only game, the majority of players do not want to take part in that type of gameplay. WoW-clones don't fail because they offer solo play, they fail because they're crappy clones, trying to cash in on something big and everyone sees right through them.
The fact remains, there just aren't enough group-only players to support a large MMO property and making money is all these games are about for the devs. That's not likely to change and trying to force people to group is only going to guarantee a failed game.
Any game that uses a quest hub system as the primary leveling tool is not group friendly because group players will gain less exp then the soloers running quests.. Sure I can group to run quests but what is the point if i can simply do it solo and quicker?
The problem is not soloers, its developers trying to copy only MMO on the market with a ton of subs... WoW which is a solo game untill end game then it is a group/raid game. I want a game like the Everquest (1) that allows both solo and group play, grouping being faster and more rewarding but soloing is a slower solution for those that want it.
I am currently playing EQ1 still. For the reasons above... Yes I solo in the game when I want too and it is faster for some things and I group alot because I like grouping. I just want a game like EQ with all the modern toys and graphics.
Sooner or Later
It just means that there ought to be harder quests for teams, or at the very least, user-definable difficulty settings. Even if there aren't team-specific quests, someone ought to be able to walk up to the quest giver and be able to set a slider higher for harder quests, then take the team into that harder quest which will give more loot and XP. Some games do that, some do not, pointing fingers at WoW specifically doesn't really mean much, if you don't like the way they do things, don't play that particular game.
WoW is a solo game because that's where they get the majority of their subs. They are catering to their audience and getting a lot of new people out of it, it's no surprise whatsoever that people who want to copy that success are doing the same thing. Find a grouping-only game that has that kind of success and you'll get the same kind of copycat behavior.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
/agree with title of this thread
Group-minded gamers or gamers who enjoy both soloing and grouping depending on the situation? I really don't see many people who only want to group 100% of the time and apparently, neither do game devs who have put soloing into every single game they make because they know that's where their money comes from. It's funny how the pro-gamers keep asserting there's this massive group of people out there who are dying for a grouping-only game, but nobody can actually prove they exist. Game devs do extensive research to see what the market wants and then they provide what that research shows. Apparently, based on all the evidence that we have, that research does not show a huge grouping-only contingent.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
MMO should be about grouping otherwise there is no reason for them to online. Thats why I loved FFXI.
Of course there are.
1) people to compete with.
2) people to show off gear to
3) people to pvp with
4) people to buy & sell with
5) people to chat with
You don't need grouping to have an online game. There are a lot more interaction than just grouping.
Group-minded gamers or gamers who enjoy both soloing and grouping depending on the situation? I really don't see many people who only want to group 100% of the time and apparently, neither do game devs who have put soloing into every single game they make because they know that's where their money comes from. It's funny how the pro-gamers keep asserting there's this massive group of people out there who are dying for a grouping-only game, but nobody can actually prove they exist. Game devs do extensive research to see what the market wants and then they provide what that research shows. Apparently, based on all the evidence that we have, that research does not show a huge grouping-only contingent.
Ive never played a game besides Shadowrun for xbox 360 & pc that was 100% group only in design. Although it did have a bot mode for offline use, but that was just afterthought. 100% grouping is probably similar to the full death players out there, population-wise. I already made reference to Fort Knox money. We do not disagree. I however cannot concede that a very large, even equal, yet maybe not 'massive', contingent doesnt exist.
This debate has been enthusiastically, and at times vehemently, continuing for quite awhile now across many sites, forums, and blogs. This speaks loudly for how much discussion and point taking needs to be done to know what the real outcome can be. Neither side is a vocal minority, I beleive.
Group-minded, those that wish to group for the majority of the experience while gaming online.
Please read my other posts within this thread. I never advocate for the elimination of all solo gameplay. I represent the viewpoint that it hinders the fundamentals of grouping when soloing progression is included at a equal or greater amount to group progression.
1. If you create a solo focused title, then throw in equal amount of grouping to obtain greater progression, that undermines the structure of the game.
2. Now create a group focused title and throw in an equal amount of solo ability and it allows for the focus to be completely avoided, therby undermining the structure.
I have no problem with the soloer or choices. I have a problem when it comes to playing to the game focus and finding no one playing it, cause they can avoid that focus for the same outcome. Progression. Please dont wrap me up in the gear debate cause its pointless while progressing through any title to need group earned rewards to progress effectively. I can play pretty much any game out now with greens and common drop 'junk' and make the tasks seem like a leisurly game of solitaire. That goes to the difficulty also, but again thats another debate.
What research does a new developer do today? Look at WoW numbers(highly inflated) and drool? I think the tests are out there. We need to understand this isnt a medium that has been in practice for 40, 50, or 100yrs. We have a decade worth of history using a massive online game platform. MMO's are similar so far to consoles. They need an update to current tech. and quality every few years to stay appealing. If EQ, DaoC, even UO would have tech. updates and adaption to creative principles by todays standards, I think they would still appeal to us as games, not just structures for recreation.
Preferred and liked are two different terms, but I totally understand your point.
As for the solo vs. group play my problem is solo play detracts group play (not going to spend forever arguing it like has been done before though). That being said about the time requirements is a lame duck argument in my opinion. People have no time but a "couple hours" to play a game and being solo or grouped makes the difference in that time? Poppycock.
Two hours is two hours regardless of what you're doing and technically you progress faster in a group, whatever you're doing, so soloing is more a waste of those two hours is grouping. If you're saying epic raids, well epic raids are what they are. There is no illusion and if you want to do one you find a time to do it, again that has nothing to do with a two hour window being time restrictive on 90% of the game with grouping, because it's not. Don't get me wrong, people can play how they want, but at least make legitimate or truthful arguments if they feel the need to defend them.
What I really think is needed is a compromise. Group size needs to be shrunk. 3-4 players max should be group size and content should be designed around that mechanic for the majority of gameplay. I"m not saying remove solo content nor I am saying that epic encounters should be removed either. But if group size was smaller it would still provide a personable and social environment for us groupers and it would lessen the gap between solo and group play significantly from what it is today.
Group size might be helpful. As for the poppycock i guess when you log in you get a group right away? Ive never been that fortunate unless its a guild thing and preplanned, and as for guilds i have my ideas about them as well but thats another discussion.
It's just ridiculous to want group only gameplay.
From a skill standpoint, you can't contribute to a group well enough if you haven't figured your class out on your own.
From a personal standpoint, I would never play a game that I would have to sit around to wait on people with no solo content to pass the time or be forced to log in and be stuck using my time to play with random children. It's just ridiculous.
I play games a lot (especially during the summer months) and most of my time is solo just because I like it that way. Having to depend on yourself lets you get things done in a timely fashion, keeps things orderly and you don't have to deal with children.
What's ruining group gameplay is the kids with no lives with superiority complexes who think that everyone else should stay locked in their bedrooms like them.
No, groups are not right there anymore because of the solo play. This argument has gone on for weeks now on these forums though. As games continually design themselves around solo play less and less groups will be found.