I think there is only one solutions that works for the group vs solo conundrum. First of all, let me explain the problem for groupers to the solo crowd. I am never, ever, ever, not ever, asking you to LET me group in a game. I really do not care if i CAN group if I want to. Grouping for no reason is pointless, not fun, and IMO retarded.
Well sorry to burt your bubble but many people find grouping fun. Even if it's only to chat with someone while you grind off mobs its still better than nothing. Aside from that i agree that there needs to be far more group content (5-10 dungeons over 50-60 levels (in most games) is no where near enough to keep a grouper happy).
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds -Solid non level based game -Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
I think there is only one solutions that works for the group vs solo conundrum. First of all, let me explain the problem for groupers to the solo crowd. I am never, ever, ever, not ever, asking you to LET me group in a game. I really do not care if i CAN group if I want to. Grouping for no reason is pointless, not fun, and IMO retarded.
Well sorry to burt your bubble but many people find grouping fun. Even if it's only to chat with someone while you grind off mobs its still better than nothing. Aside from that i agree that there needs to be far more group content (5-10 dungeons over 50-60 levels (in most games) is no where near enough to keep a grouper happy).
I think he's right... grouping with him would never be fun.. All of the whining, crying, tantrums, etc. Not fun at all.
Zorndorf's accurate explanation of the factors certainly holds more weight then Ihmotepp's "MMORPGs should be this way" opinion.
Time and again, I've described the ideal group/solo balance as one where solo is completely viable, but grouping is a bit faster at achieving goals. If we're talking about average (player skill) soloers and average groupers, then saying groupers should advance 2x or more as fast as soloers is just insane. The amount of time/effort expended is not that different, so the reward shouldn't be either.
A relatively close reward balance, with grouping barely edging an advantage, is optimal.
But this refers to the majority of "normal" MMORPGs, and what makes the most business sense. I could just as easily see another Tribes or Enemy Territory or Planetside type of MMORPG, where grouping is the only thing you do. But as fun as these games could potentially be, they're inherently going to be less popular than games which allow soloing. That's the nature of the industry.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Hmm. Hypothetically speaking would you then be happy having a difficult solo encounter be more rewarding than a pish-easy tank and spank 25-man raid boss? Assuming both required equal levels of preparation.
If you could guarantee it would be soloed, yup. Absolutely.
Huzzah, an accord!
There was a quest like this in WoW; only available to Hunters. We had to solo 4 elite mobs using a variety of different skills and tactics available to the class. Interference of any form caused the elites to immediately despawn.
Need more challenging solo content is all.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Huzzah, an accord! There was a quest like this in WoW; only available to Hunters. We had to solo 4 elite mobs using a variety of different skills and tactics available to the class. Interference of any form caused the elites to immediately despawn. Need more challenging solo content is all.
Sounds good, alright.
I think MMOs should have three paths of gear progression (since that is what most people regard as end game) - solo PvE, group PvE, and PvP. I'm not really a fan of raiding, but you could add it in as a fourth path.
Soloers are right to complain that MMOs tend to force grouping at end game. Just as groupers are right to complain that leveling favours soloers.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Hmm. Hypothetically speaking would you then be happy having a difficult solo encounter be more rewarding than a pish-easy tank and spank 25-man raid boss? Assuming both required equal levels of preparation.
If you could guarantee it would be soloed, yup. Absolutely.
Huzzah, an accord!
There was a quest like this in WoW; only available to Hunters. We had to solo 4 elite mobs using a variety of different skills and tactics available to the class. Interference of any form caused the elites to immediately despawn.
Need more challenging solo content is all.
Indeed. There are ways to do it, they just prefer to focus mainly on raiding, or so far at least. I think that will change though, as mmo's become more solofriendly they need to add challenging solo content sooner or later.
Originally posted by Fyendiar Indeed. There are ways to do it, they just prefer to focus mainly on raiding, or so far at least. I think that will change though, as mmo's become more solofriendly they need to add challenging solo content sooner or later.
Well, honestly, I think most players don't want to be challenged. Challenge means you might fail. A lot of people are afraid of failing.
WoW is being made easier and easier to play.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Originally posted by Fyendiar Indeed. There are ways to do it, they just prefer to focus mainly on raiding, or so far at least. I think that will change though, as mmo's become more solofriendly they need to add challenging solo content sooner or later.
Well, honestly, I think most players don't want to be challenged. Challenge means you might fail. A lot of people are afraid of failing.
Or.. You can do what AoC did and have two "copies" of the world; a group based one and a solo based one. The idea of segregating group and solo servers is silly. The vast majority of people don't solo or group exclusively; most of us enjoy a mix of both (to varying degrees). All your "solution" does is force people to have two entirely separate characters on two different servers in order to enjoy a varied playstyle. Daft.
They're not happy with that though.... they want everyone to have to be forced to group. You must conform, or go away.
Umm. Actually the OP is recommending that you "conform" and group or go play the on the solo server which is like a Single player RPG with a Massive Multiplayer Chat root.
Attempting to mix the radically different play styles has never worked. Solo players feel slighted that they can't achieve the same rewards of group players and then the developers cave to the crying and then the group players feel slighted because their rewards have been devalued due to the ease they are gained by solo players that don't need to build and organize a group.
Personally I think the rewards should be earned based on the effort and risk the players undertake. So solo players get small rewards due to the small amount of effort and a challenged. Groups of 6 players would get Large rewards for challenging group content since it requires more effort and challenge.
Or.. You can do what AoC did and have two "copies" of the world; a group based one and a solo based one. The idea of segregating group and solo servers is silly. The vast majority of people don't solo or group exclusively; most of us enjoy a mix of both (to varying degrees). All your "solution" does is force people to have two entirely separate characters on two different servers in order to enjoy a varied playstyle. Daft.
They're not happy with that though.... they want everyone to have to be forced to group. You must conform, or go away.
Umm. Actually the OP is recommending that you "conform" and group or go play the on the solo server which is like a Single player RPG with a Massive Multiplayer Chat root.
Attempting to mix the radically different play styles has never worked. Solo players feel slighted that they can't achieve the same rewards of group players and then the developers cave to the crying and then the group players feel slighted because their rewards have been devalued due to the ease they are gained by solo players that don't need to build and organize a group.
Personally I think the rewards should be earned based on the effort and risk the players undertake. So solo players get small rewards due to the small amount of effort and a challenged. Groups of 6 players would get Large rewards for challenging group content since it requires more effort and challenge.
It is simply ridiculous to assume that because there is a group that there is inherently more risk and/or challenge. All that you guarantee is more time putting up with other idiots in the game.
OP: It took a very long time to get to the last paragraph and most of the that post was redundant
like i care.
Anyway its a good idea but could split the population hardcore into a 5:2 relationship, as long as the world can support that low of a population to make grouping possible, than it seems like a good idea.
the only challenge people in favor of forced grouping seem to have, is finding, and maintaining a group.... how is that suppose to be fun? how is that a challenge worth doing? don't get me wrong, i enjoy grouping, but generally only with people i know, i only do pugs if they are having issues someplace i'm soloing, and need help. i'll be specific though, they ask for help first. i can't stand people who invite for a group, without talking to me. i've been killed cause i'm soloing a hard mob, and that damn invite screen pops up.
to the original poster, i like the idea of having servers with certain rulesets. i mean, we do it for pvp already. having a server with difficulty settings, isn't a bad idea at all. i'd kind of like the option to play harder servers. i know turbine made LOTRO easier a little after moria came out, and i find it way to easy now. and LOTRO wasn't exactly difficulty to begin with. but you said you don't want to be allowed to group, that you don't want to ask to group, that grouping for grouping sake isn't fun.... why are you playing a mmo honestly? you seem more anti-social then those of us, that like to solo regularly? maybe you'd be happier with a RTS? they always have large groups, and it's pretty much mandatory to finish any level. plus you get to control everyone, without having to ask for anything.....
I always enjoy reading the group vs solo threads. People get so angry when fighting for their own opinion. The Multiplayer aspect of the MMO insures this disagreement over play style. The Massively large demographic of the MMO will ensure that you have thousands of different opinons on what is fun or not fun, what should be in a game or not in a game. It is a never ending argument. One without a true right answer. That is why we get the answer in the form of making games that make the most money.
Segregation of servers goes against the MMO part of the game. It is multiplayer for a reason and needs to stay that way. Forcing players to play only one way decreases the amount of subs a game will get. The best is for more options within the same sever, not less. Most games still get this wrong though IMHO. They try to cater to the casual mentality. That goes for both solo and group play. If you read many of the posts in this thread alone, you see how many agree that both are not difficult to complete.
The answer is in the design of the games and quests. To meld all play styles into one system. That means options for all.
An option for the theme park games could be like DDO, but without all the instances. You could offer multiple quest options for each play style. A normal solo, expert solo, normal group and expert group. Each would use the same quest but increase the requirements to complete them. Once you choose which one you want to run, the requirements are shown to you. This would require the dev's to create a questing area that contains all the options.
Normal solo would require you to enter a quest area and take out a few mobs or find x and bring it back as usual. The expert solo would force you to kill and find the same item, but send you in deeper to fight tougher mobs and figure out a dev created solution. Group normal would do all of the above plus enter a dungeon. Expert group would do everything as well as having to clear the dungeon and boss.
This would be very difficult for dev's and expensive, so I wouldn't expect it anytime soon. But having multiple options with better rewards for a more difficult option in the same game would be a more healthy game with larger subs.
I am at work, so I have to cut this short.
How many people long for that "past, simpler, and better world," I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them? R.A.Salvatore
Time and again, I've described the ideal group/solo balance as one where solo is completely viable, but grouping is a bit faster at achieving goals. If we're talking about average (player skill) soloers and average groupers, then saying groupers should advance 2x or more as fast as soloers is just insane. The amount of time/effort expended is not that different, so the reward shouldn't be either.
I don't know that I really agree with that. I don't think the reward should be ARTIFICIALLY increased, but a group of people ought to be inherently able to take on harder content than a soloer, thus giving them more XP, more gold, more gear as a direct consequence of their gameplay, not because the game artificially piles more stuff on them because they're grouping. It should be gameplay that determines how much XP you get, not how much time you sit on your ass waiting to create a group.
It's interesting to see pros and cons for the solo vs. group argument, however opinions do little to lend themselves to a solution.
Every group encounter has solo elements, and therefor, anything that holds true for a solo encounter will by definition be present in a group senario. However, a solo encounter offers no weak links other than the individual challenged. It's the ultimate test of competitence.
The answer lies within the mathmatical functions 'union' and 'inter'.
If group content requires only 1 of x participants to accomplish a task within a larger goal, in order to complete the goal, then your average competitence of participants will always be inferior to an equivalently tailored solo encounter.
If group content requires x out of x participants to accomplish a task within a larger goal, in order to complete the goal, then this group content will always be exponentially more demanding than an equivalently designed solo encounter. The more you increase the required number of participants, while maintaining an equally demanding solo play within the whole, you by definition multiply the challenge by folds.
A previous poster alluded to the epic hunter chain in WoW and the beauty that it was. Absolutely. But you failed to mention much of the background involved with this particular quest. What it did right was require a hunter to be fully compitent at their class- kiting, melee, when to burst and when to CC etc... however there isn't a hunter I knew who did this quest who didn't have preperation that didn't involve buffs from other players, consumables from other players, and other players clearing the way to prevent griefing or despawns. This 'solo' quest was very much a group endevour. To its credit, the quest was of great design. It required the fullness of individual play.
Since the previous poster referrenced WoW, I will echo his tableau of metaphors and claim that Sunwell, for those who experienced it, was beyond anything any epic hunter quest chain could have ever been. By the nature of things, group content, when properly tailored, will always, no discussion involved, be more demanding than an equally tailored solo encounter. It has to do with our mathmatical functions.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Time and again, I've described the ideal group/solo balance as one where solo is completely viable, but grouping is a bit faster at achieving goals. If we're talking about average (player skill) soloers and average groupers, then saying groupers should advance 2x or more as fast as soloers is just insane. The amount of time/effort expended is not that different, so the reward shouldn't be either.
I don't know that I really agree with that. I don't think the reward should be ARTIFICIALLY increased, but a group of people ought to be inherently able to take on harder content than a soloer, thus giving them more XP, more gold, more gear as a direct consequence of their gameplay, not because the game artificially piles more stuff on them because they're grouping. It should be gameplay that determines how much XP you get, not how much time you sit on your ass waiting to create a group.
I was talking just about rate of advancement, not the specifics of how that rate was achieved. The specifics aren't really that important. I've had fun in games where you kill "elites" (WOW) and games where you just kill normal stuff faster (COH). And in basically all MMORPGs out there they're adding a grouping bonus to your XP to offset the fact that group XP is usually divided evenly amongst party members (so the reward is artificially increased.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Sorry OP,but i am tired and only read the first paragraph .
Yes you hit it on the nose,you cannot have both,if the bar is set to solo,then grouping fun is lost.If you set the bar challenging for group play,then it cannot be soloed.
FFXI is the game that did it right,but we may not see this type of game ever again,sadly to say.It still allowed solo play through the use of the Beastmaster system,where by you tame pets to fight for you.It also had a Dragoon class that could slowly solo and a Summoner class that could also slowly solo.Eventually the game had more and more solo abilities,because after 75 levels players amassed many skills to utilize many different techniques.This pretty much meant you could solo but you had to earn the right to solo,by unlocking several jobs and leveling them up and lots of farming to be able to equip yourself to solo.
It also utilized a well thought out system utilizing level gaps and xp chains.Also by not having any easy healing pot methods,meant skill management in using MP.It also kept you from auto killing over and over,it made the game more realistic.I cannot imagine in real life anyone being able to fight non stop,even for a game i find that scenario ridiculous.
One other HUGE factor as grouping vs SOLO,is the fact you LIMIT game mechanics.You can no longer have player to player combo attacks,NOTHING in the game can be designed for player to player interaction,witch is the whole purpose of a MMO game.FFXI did have it's flaws by allowing outside healing and buffs,but they made sure to set the time limit very short,so you couldn't buff and walk away[if over buffed],they made sure you had to waste your time if you wanted to exploit the game.
So perhaps the biggest flaw is that a solo game LIMITS how many mechanics you can do in a game,and that is never a good thing,why would we want a game that is limited?just to meet the needs of those who want to solo?Those type of games are in the F2P genre,they have no mechanics,they are pretty much one dimensional games,that fit perfectly to a solo player.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It is simply ridiculous to assume that because there is a group that there is inherently more risk and/or challenge. All that you guarantee is more time putting up with other idiots in the game.
You may not like grouping, you may not respect the playstyle, you may deem it a waste of time but that doesn't change the fact that its is more challenging.
1. Group Content is certainly more of a challenge hence the simple fact that it requires more than a single person to complete. If it wasn't more challenging than a solo player could complete it.
2. The Logisitics required to form a group is more complex than just playing by yourself unless you have multiple personalities or some other mental disorder.
3. Coordinating the activities of a group of players that have to work together to achive a goal is more challenging and has higher risk of failure due to mistakes made by any member of the group.
if spending time with other players in a game bothers you then perhaps you should look up the definiiton of Mulitplayer. It sounds like you would be much happier playing a nice RPG.
It is simply ridiculous to assume that because there is a group that there is inherently more risk and/or challenge. All that you guarantee is more time putting up with other idiots in the game.
You may not like grouping, you may not respect the playstyle, you may deem it a waste of time but that doesn't change the fact that its is more challenging.
1. Group Content is certainly more of a challenge hence the simple fact that it requires more than a single person to complete. If it wasn't more challenging than a solo player could complete it.
2. The Logisitics required to form a group is more complex than just playing by yourself unless you have multiple personalities or some other mental disorder.
3. Coordinating the activities of a group of players that have to work together to achive a goal is more challenging and has higher risk of failure due to mistakes made by any member of the group.
if spending time with other players in a game bothers you then perhaps you should look up the definiiton of Mulitplayer. It sounds like you would be much happier playing a nice RPG.
1. You and I have a different opinion on what is considered challenging gameplay. The mob that has to be killed may be too strong for an individual to kill, but is the individual challenge inside that group any higher? The fact that you need a group to get something done does not increase the individual's challenge, it just means you need more people. Yes the mob is harder, no the challenge is not automaticly also harder because of this. A good example is the standard tank&spank bosses, they are so easy you have trouble staying awake, yet they require a full raid to kill, hardly challenging content in my eyes.
2. Agreed, it takes more time to get a group together than it is to just go in solo. Do you consider making a team a challenge though? I know I don't., but okay takes some effort.
3. Yes coordinating a full team would indeed be far more c hallenging than soloing when encounters require it and yes the risk is higher because of the moron-factor. However I consider it a gameplay choise that should be with the player and not enforced on you.
Basicly all you are proving is that grouping takes some extra effort, but that does not automaticly make the encounters more challenging.
I love grouping with friends, it can be great fun and well worth the time gathering up groups like that, but still I solo most of my time in mmo's since endgame is mostly doing the same thing over and over to get some nice goodies. It is fun for a while, but gets boring fast. While leveling up I usually can't team up with friends because of the lvl differences Luckily I love soloing as much as grouping. In a group oriented game I would be forced to pug and maybe you love pugging, however I hate it because too often they are terrible, no fun and a waste of time. The few good pugs don't make up for the bad ones for me.
I think you should reconsider your definition of multiplayer because there is a difference between teambased and multiplayer.
Or you groupers could grow up and address your personality flaws that are limiting you from enjoying a game while allowing others to play the game in the way they wish.
LoL, he's probably right. Groupers just don't belong in todays MMORPGs. If you had separate servers there'd probably only be like 5 people on the grouping server. The only reason players group in modern MMORPGs is phat loot.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
LoL, he's probably right. Groupers just don't belong in todays MMORPGs. If you had separate servers there'd probably only be like 5 people on the grouping server. The only reason players group in modern MMORPGs is phat loot.
To a degree, that's true. There is nothing "massively multiplayer" about intelligence, co-operation, and skill.
The big money is in slack-minded, selfish, sociopaths.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
LoL, he's probably right. Groupers just don't belong in todays MMORPGs. If you had separate servers there'd probably only be like 5 people on the grouping server. The only reason players group in modern MMORPGs is phat loot.
Yeah and the 5 on the server would probably be all the anti-group extremists from this thread who would roll alts on there just to flame the groupers.
It really is entertaining reading the things you guys come up with to bash people who enjoy something other than soloing.
LoL, he's probably right. Groupers just don't belong in todays MMORPGs. If you had separate servers there'd probably only be like 5 people on the grouping server. The only reason players group in modern MMORPGs is phat loot.
Yeah and the 5 on the server would probably be all the anti-group extremists from this thread who would roll alts on there just to flame the groupers.
It really is entertaining reading the things you guys come up with to bash people who enjoy something other than soloing.
It's interesting that you should say that, as one of the common views among the people who like to solo is that they are perfectly fine with others being able to group and they have nothing against grouping with their friends and guildmates. They are also perfectly fine with people who group having their own path to gear and xp. Is it that you really don't understand - despite the thousands of replies in the scores of threads (most of which were started by the OP) - that the issue isn't with grouping but with people who are basically saying "I can't/won't find people who will play with me so here's my latest contrivance to either force you to play with me or make your playstyle less enjoyable for you so that you really won't have much fun unless you play with me?"
Do you really not follow that?
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
LoL, he's probably right. Groupers just don't belong in todays MMORPGs. If you had separate servers there'd probably only be like 5 people on the grouping server. The only reason players group in modern MMORPGs is phat loot.
Yeah and the 5 on the server would probably be all the anti-group extremists from this thread who would roll alts on there just to flame the groupers.
It really is entertaining reading the things you guys come up with to bash people who enjoy something other than soloing.
It's interesting that you should say that, as one of the common views among the people who like to solo is that they are perfectly fine with others being able to group and they have nothing against grouping with their friends and guildmates. They are also perfectly fine with people who group having their own path to gear and xp. Is it that you really don't understand - despite the thousands of replies in the scores of threads (most of which were started by the OP) - that the issue isn't with grouping but with people who are basically saying "I can't/won't find people who will play with me so here's my latest contrivance to either force you to play with me or make your playstyle less enjoyable for you so that you really won't have much fun unless you play with me?"
Do you really not follow that?
When people make comments like "Groupers just don't belong in todays MMORPGs", no I do not follow that.
Comments
Well sorry to burt your bubble but many people find grouping fun. Even if it's only to chat with someone while you grind off mobs its still better than nothing. Aside from that i agree that there needs to be far more group content (5-10 dungeons over 50-60 levels (in most games) is no where near enough to keep a grouper happy).
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
Well sorry to burt your bubble but many people find grouping fun. Even if it's only to chat with someone while you grind off mobs its still better than nothing. Aside from that i agree that there needs to be far more group content (5-10 dungeons over 50-60 levels (in most games) is no where near enough to keep a grouper happy).
I think he's right... grouping with him would never be fun.. All of the whining, crying, tantrums, etc. Not fun at all.
Zorndorf's accurate explanation of the factors certainly holds more weight then Ihmotepp's "MMORPGs should be this way" opinion.
Time and again, I've described the ideal group/solo balance as one where solo is completely viable, but grouping is a bit faster at achieving goals. If we're talking about average (player skill) soloers and average groupers, then saying groupers should advance 2x or more as fast as soloers is just insane. The amount of time/effort expended is not that different, so the reward shouldn't be either.
A relatively close reward balance, with grouping barely edging an advantage, is optimal.
But this refers to the majority of "normal" MMORPGs, and what makes the most business sense. I could just as easily see another Tribes or Enemy Territory or Planetside type of MMORPG, where grouping is the only thing you do. But as fun as these games could potentially be, they're inherently going to be less popular than games which allow soloing. That's the nature of the industry.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you could guarantee it would be soloed, yup. Absolutely.
Huzzah, an accord!
There was a quest like this in WoW; only available to Hunters. We had to solo 4 elite mobs using a variety of different skills and tactics available to the class. Interference of any form caused the elites to immediately despawn.
Need more challenging solo content is all.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Sounds good, alright.
I think MMOs should have three paths of gear progression (since that is what most people regard as end game) - solo PvE, group PvE, and PvP. I'm not really a fan of raiding, but you could add it in as a fourth path.
Soloers are right to complain that MMOs tend to force grouping at end game. Just as groupers are right to complain that leveling favours soloers.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
If you could guarantee it would be soloed, yup. Absolutely.
Huzzah, an accord!
There was a quest like this in WoW; only available to Hunters. We had to solo 4 elite mobs using a variety of different skills and tactics available to the class. Interference of any form caused the elites to immediately despawn.
Need more challenging solo content is all.
Indeed. There are ways to do it, they just prefer to focus mainly on raiding, or so far at least. I think that will change though, as mmo's become more solofriendly they need to add challenging solo content sooner or later.
Well, honestly, I think most players don't want to be challenged. Challenge means you might fail. A lot of people are afraid of failing.
WoW is being made easier and easier to play.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Well, honestly, I think most players don't want to be challenged. Challenge means you might fail. A lot of people are afraid of failing.
Sad, isn't it?
They're not happy with that though.... they want everyone to have to be forced to group. You must conform, or go away.
Umm. Actually the OP is recommending that you "conform" and group or go play the on the solo server which is like a Single player RPG with a Massive Multiplayer Chat root.
Attempting to mix the radically different play styles has never worked. Solo players feel slighted that they can't achieve the same rewards of group players and then the developers cave to the crying and then the group players feel slighted because their rewards have been devalued due to the ease they are gained by solo players that don't need to build and organize a group.
Personally I think the rewards should be earned based on the effort and risk the players undertake. So solo players get small rewards due to the small amount of effort and a challenged. Groups of 6 players would get Large rewards for challenging group content since it requires more effort and challenge.
They're not happy with that though.... they want everyone to have to be forced to group. You must conform, or go away.
Umm. Actually the OP is recommending that you "conform" and group or go play the on the solo server which is like a Single player RPG with a Massive Multiplayer Chat root.
Attempting to mix the radically different play styles has never worked. Solo players feel slighted that they can't achieve the same rewards of group players and then the developers cave to the crying and then the group players feel slighted because their rewards have been devalued due to the ease they are gained by solo players that don't need to build and organize a group.
Personally I think the rewards should be earned based on the effort and risk the players undertake. So solo players get small rewards due to the small amount of effort and a challenged. Groups of 6 players would get Large rewards for challenging group content since it requires more effort and challenge.
It is simply ridiculous to assume that because there is a group that there is inherently more risk and/or challenge. All that you guarantee is more time putting up with other idiots in the game.
OP: It took a very long time to get to the last paragraph and most of the that post was redundant
like i care.
Anyway its a good idea but could split the population hardcore into a 5:2 relationship, as long as the world can support that low of a population to make grouping possible, than it seems like a good idea.
the only challenge people in favor of forced grouping seem to have, is finding, and maintaining a group.... how is that suppose to be fun? how is that a challenge worth doing? don't get me wrong, i enjoy grouping, but generally only with people i know, i only do pugs if they are having issues someplace i'm soloing, and need help. i'll be specific though, they ask for help first. i can't stand people who invite for a group, without talking to me. i've been killed cause i'm soloing a hard mob, and that damn invite screen pops up.
to the original poster, i like the idea of having servers with certain rulesets. i mean, we do it for pvp already. having a server with difficulty settings, isn't a bad idea at all. i'd kind of like the option to play harder servers. i know turbine made LOTRO easier a little after moria came out, and i find it way to easy now. and LOTRO wasn't exactly difficulty to begin with. but you said you don't want to be allowed to group, that you don't want to ask to group, that grouping for grouping sake isn't fun.... why are you playing a mmo honestly? you seem more anti-social then those of us, that like to solo regularly? maybe you'd be happier with a RTS? they always have large groups, and it's pretty much mandatory to finish any level. plus you get to control everyone, without having to ask for anything.....
I always enjoy reading the group vs solo threads. People get so angry when fighting for their own opinion. The Multiplayer aspect of the MMO insures this disagreement over play style. The Massively large demographic of the MMO will ensure that you have thousands of different opinons on what is fun or not fun, what should be in a game or not in a game. It is a never ending argument. One without a true right answer. That is why we get the answer in the form of making games that make the most money.
Segregation of servers goes against the MMO part of the game. It is multiplayer for a reason and needs to stay that way. Forcing players to play only one way decreases the amount of subs a game will get. The best is for more options within the same sever, not less. Most games still get this wrong though IMHO. They try to cater to the casual mentality. That goes for both solo and group play. If you read many of the posts in this thread alone, you see how many agree that both are not difficult to complete.
The answer is in the design of the games and quests. To meld all play styles into one system. That means options for all.
An option for the theme park games could be like DDO, but without all the instances. You could offer multiple quest options for each play style. A normal solo, expert solo, normal group and expert group. Each would use the same quest but increase the requirements to complete them. Once you choose which one you want to run, the requirements are shown to you. This would require the dev's to create a questing area that contains all the options.
Normal solo would require you to enter a quest area and take out a few mobs or find x and bring it back as usual. The expert solo would force you to kill and find the same item, but send you in deeper to fight tougher mobs and figure out a dev created solution. Group normal would do all of the above plus enter a dungeon. Expert group would do everything as well as having to clear the dungeon and boss.
This would be very difficult for dev's and expensive, so I wouldn't expect it anytime soon. But having multiple options with better rewards for a more difficult option in the same game would be a more healthy game with larger subs.
I am at work, so I have to cut this short.
How many people long for that "past, simpler, and better world," I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?
R.A.Salvatore
I don't know that I really agree with that. I don't think the reward should be ARTIFICIALLY increased, but a group of people ought to be inherently able to take on harder content than a soloer, thus giving them more XP, more gold, more gear as a direct consequence of their gameplay, not because the game artificially piles more stuff on them because they're grouping. It should be gameplay that determines how much XP you get, not how much time you sit on your ass waiting to create a group.
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
It's interesting to see pros and cons for the solo vs. group argument, however opinions do little to lend themselves to a solution.
Every group encounter has solo elements, and therefor, anything that holds true for a solo encounter will by definition be present in a group senario. However, a solo encounter offers no weak links other than the individual challenged. It's the ultimate test of competitence.
The answer lies within the mathmatical functions 'union' and 'inter'.
If group content requires only 1 of x participants to accomplish a task within a larger goal, in order to complete the goal, then your average competitence of participants will always be inferior to an equivalently tailored solo encounter.
If group content requires x out of x participants to accomplish a task within a larger goal, in order to complete the goal, then this group content will always be exponentially more demanding than an equivalently designed solo encounter. The more you increase the required number of participants, while maintaining an equally demanding solo play within the whole, you by definition multiply the challenge by folds.
A previous poster alluded to the epic hunter chain in WoW and the beauty that it was. Absolutely. But you failed to mention much of the background involved with this particular quest. What it did right was require a hunter to be fully compitent at their class- kiting, melee, when to burst and when to CC etc... however there isn't a hunter I knew who did this quest who didn't have preperation that didn't involve buffs from other players, consumables from other players, and other players clearing the way to prevent griefing or despawns. This 'solo' quest was very much a group endevour. To its credit, the quest was of great design. It required the fullness of individual play.
Since the previous poster referrenced WoW, I will echo his tableau of metaphors and claim that Sunwell, for those who experienced it, was beyond anything any epic hunter quest chain could have ever been. By the nature of things, group content, when properly tailored, will always, no discussion involved, be more demanding than an equally tailored solo encounter. It has to do with our mathmatical functions.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
I don't know that I really agree with that. I don't think the reward should be ARTIFICIALLY increased, but a group of people ought to be inherently able to take on harder content than a soloer, thus giving them more XP, more gold, more gear as a direct consequence of their gameplay, not because the game artificially piles more stuff on them because they're grouping. It should be gameplay that determines how much XP you get, not how much time you sit on your ass waiting to create a group.
I was talking just about rate of advancement, not the specifics of how that rate was achieved. The specifics aren't really that important. I've had fun in games where you kill "elites" (WOW) and games where you just kill normal stuff faster (COH). And in basically all MMORPGs out there they're adding a grouping bonus to your XP to offset the fact that group XP is usually divided evenly amongst party members (so the reward is artificially increased.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Sorry OP,but i am tired and only read the first paragraph
.
Yes you hit it on the nose,you cannot have both,if the bar is set to solo,then grouping fun is lost.If you set the bar challenging for group play,then it cannot be soloed.
FFXI is the game that did it right,but we may not see this type of game ever again,sadly to say.It still allowed solo play through the use of the Beastmaster system,where by you tame pets to fight for you.It also had a Dragoon class that could slowly solo and a Summoner class that could also slowly solo.Eventually the game had more and more solo abilities,because after 75 levels players amassed many skills to utilize many different techniques.This pretty much meant you could solo but you had to earn the right to solo,by unlocking several jobs and leveling them up and lots of farming to be able to equip yourself to solo.
It also utilized a well thought out system utilizing level gaps and xp chains.Also by not having any easy healing pot methods,meant skill management in using MP.It also kept you from auto killing over and over,it made the game more realistic.I cannot imagine in real life anyone being able to fight non stop,even for a game i find that scenario ridiculous.
One other HUGE factor as grouping vs SOLO,is the fact you LIMIT game mechanics.You can no longer have player to player combo attacks,NOTHING in the game can be designed for player to player interaction,witch is the whole purpose of a MMO game.FFXI did have it's flaws by allowing outside healing and buffs,but they made sure to set the time limit very short,so you couldn't buff and walk away[if over buffed],they made sure you had to waste your time if you wanted to exploit the game.
So perhaps the biggest flaw is that a solo game LIMITS how many mechanics you can do in a game,and that is never a good thing,why would we want a game that is limited?just to meet the needs of those who want to solo?Those type of games are in the F2P genre,they have no mechanics,they are pretty much one dimensional games,that fit perfectly to a solo player.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It is simply ridiculous to assume that because there is a group that there is inherently more risk and/or challenge. All that you guarantee is more time putting up with other idiots in the game.
You may not like grouping, you may not respect the playstyle, you may deem it a waste of time but that doesn't change the fact that its is more challenging.
1. Group Content is certainly more of a challenge hence the simple fact that it requires more than a single person to complete. If it wasn't more challenging than a solo player could complete it.
2. The Logisitics required to form a group is more complex than just playing by yourself unless you have multiple personalities or some other mental disorder.
3. Coordinating the activities of a group of players that have to work together to achive a goal is more challenging and has higher risk of failure due to mistakes made by any member of the group.
if spending time with other players in a game bothers you then perhaps you should look up the definiiton of Mulitplayer. It sounds like you would be much happier playing a nice RPG.
It is simply ridiculous to assume that because there is a group that there is inherently more risk and/or challenge. All that you guarantee is more time putting up with other idiots in the game.
You may not like grouping, you may not respect the playstyle, you may deem it a waste of time but that doesn't change the fact that its is more challenging.
1. Group Content is certainly more of a challenge hence the simple fact that it requires more than a single person to complete. If it wasn't more challenging than a solo player could complete it.
2. The Logisitics required to form a group is more complex than just playing by yourself unless you have multiple personalities or some other mental disorder.
3. Coordinating the activities of a group of players that have to work together to achive a goal is more challenging and has higher risk of failure due to mistakes made by any member of the group.
if spending time with other players in a game bothers you then perhaps you should look up the definiiton of Mulitplayer. It sounds like you would be much happier playing a nice RPG.
1. You and I have a different opinion on what is considered challenging gameplay. The mob that has to be killed may be too strong for an individual to kill, but is the individual challenge inside that group any higher? The fact that you need a group to get something done does not increase the individual's challenge, it just means you need more people. Yes the mob is harder, no the challenge is not automaticly also harder because of this. A good example is the standard tank&spank bosses, they are so easy you have trouble staying awake, yet they require a full raid to kill, hardly challenging content in my eyes.
2. Agreed, it takes more time to get a group together than it is to just go in solo. Do you consider making a team a challenge though? I know I don't., but okay takes some effort.
3. Yes coordinating a full team would indeed be far more c hallenging than soloing when encounters require it and yes the risk is higher because of the moron-factor. However I consider it a gameplay choise that should be with the player and not enforced on you.
Basicly all you are proving is that grouping takes some extra effort, but that does not automaticly make the encounters more challenging.
I love grouping with friends, it can be great fun and well worth the time gathering up groups like that, but still I solo most of my time in mmo's since endgame is mostly doing the same thing over and over to get some nice goodies. It is fun for a while, but gets boring fast. While leveling up I usually can't team up with friends because of the lvl differences Luckily I love soloing as much as grouping. In a group oriented game I would be forced to pug and maybe you love pugging, however I hate it because too often they are terrible, no fun and a waste of time. The few good pugs don't make up for the bad ones for me.
I think you should reconsider your definition of multiplayer because there is a difference between teambased and multiplayer.
Wow, just wow... elitist much?
LoL, he's probably right. Groupers just don't belong in todays MMORPGs. If you had separate servers there'd probably only be like 5 people on the grouping server. The only reason players group in modern MMORPGs is phat loot.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
To a degree, that's true. There is nothing "massively multiplayer" about intelligence, co-operation, and skill.
The big money is in slack-minded, selfish, sociopaths.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Yeah and the 5 on the server would probably be all the anti-group extremists from this thread who would roll alts on there just to flame the groupers.
It really is entertaining reading the things you guys come up with to bash people who enjoy something other than soloing.
Yeah and the 5 on the server would probably be all the anti-group extremists from this thread who would roll alts on there just to flame the groupers.
It really is entertaining reading the things you guys come up with to bash people who enjoy something other than soloing.
It's interesting that you should say that, as one of the common views among the people who like to solo is that they are perfectly fine with others being able to group and they have nothing against grouping with their friends and guildmates. They are also perfectly fine with people who group having their own path to gear and xp. Is it that you really don't understand - despite the thousands of replies in the scores of threads (most of which were started by the OP) - that the issue isn't with grouping but with people who are basically saying "I can't/won't find people who will play with me so here's my latest contrivance to either force you to play with me or make your playstyle less enjoyable for you so that you really won't have much fun unless you play with me?"
Do you really not follow that?
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Yeah and the 5 on the server would probably be all the anti-group extremists from this thread who would roll alts on there just to flame the groupers.
It really is entertaining reading the things you guys come up with to bash people who enjoy something other than soloing.
It's interesting that you should say that, as one of the common views among the people who like to solo is that they are perfectly fine with others being able to group and they have nothing against grouping with their friends and guildmates. They are also perfectly fine with people who group having their own path to gear and xp. Is it that you really don't understand - despite the thousands of replies in the scores of threads (most of which were started by the OP) - that the issue isn't with grouping but with people who are basically saying "I can't/won't find people who will play with me so here's my latest contrivance to either force you to play with me or make your playstyle less enjoyable for you so that you really won't have much fun unless you play with me?"
Do you really not follow that?
When people make comments like "Groupers just don't belong in todays MMORPGs", no I do not follow that.