Guys, look, no offence here, but... I don't think it's really possible to combine the two in a single game, unless it's WoW-like - with a long solo crawl to the bloody raiding.
Look, here's the gist. Lots o these games offer grouping options, while levelling. There are tons of dungeons in WoW, but does anyone ever run them these days, aside from a random cross-server PUG? Of course not, because the only convenience they bring is gear and you will quickly outgrow it. Cross-server PUGs can't build the server community, which is one of our main gripes. You're nobody to them and they're nobody to you. Aside from an occasional "gratz" or "gg" you do not interact with them on even the most basic of levels. They might as well be bots.
All we ask, is for grouping to be a viable option, whle levelling, instead of a chore. There is little to no point in joining a group in most modern games. "Do it for fun!" you say. And I would, if anyone bloody wanted to!
AAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH!
/rant
P.S. Equality, my bottocks. What about our rights, huh? No one is intersted in them anymore.
What rights do you think that you have? You pay your $15, you get to play the game. Don't like the game? Stop paying them $15 for it. The problem is, you're paying for something you don't want to play and then complaining about it. You have absolutely no right whatsoever to a game that you want to play. You only have the option to pick from among existing products and deciding which one, if any, you want to pay for. There aren't any games out there that I want to play either, I understand that not enough people want the kind of game I want to play. Therefore, I DON'T PLAY ANY!
I've explained this before, but here goes again. The idea of a "server community" is dead in the water today. At one point in time, these games appealed to a single type of audience. Therefore, the majority of players came to the game with the same kind of expectations and desires. Because everyone wanted the same thing, they shared a single type of community. That's just not the case today and it will never go back to being that again. Today, there are many different kinds of expectations, many different desires, instead of having one single-minded community, servers have dozens of them. You either need to seek out the type of community you want and make your friends there, or you need to give up. Expecting any random Tom, Dick or Harry that comes by to think like you do is absurd today.
Deal with the reality that actually exists, not the fantasy that you wish existed.
Guys, look, no offence here, but... I don't think it's really possible to combine the two in a single game, unless it's WoW-like - with a long solo crawl to the bloody raiding.
Look, here's the gist. Lots o these games offer grouping options, while levelling. There are tons of dungeons in WoW, but does anyone ever run them these days, aside from a random cross-server PUG? Of course not, because the only convenience they bring is gear and you will quickly outgrow it. Cross-server PUGs can't build the server community, which is one of our main gripes. You're nobody to them and they're nobody to you. Aside from an occasional "gratz" or "gg" you do not interact with them on even the most basic of levels. They might as well be bots.
All we ask, is for grouping to be a viable option, whle levelling, instead of a chore. There is little to no point in joining a group in most modern games. "Do it for fun!" you say. And I would, if anyone bloody wanted to!
AAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH!
/rant
P.S. Equality, my bottocks. What about our rights, huh? No one is intersted in them anymore.
What rights do you think that you have? You pay your $15, you get to play the game. Don't like the game? Stop paying them $15 for it. The problem is, you're paying for something you don't want to play and then complaining about it. You have absolutely no right whatsoever to a game that you want to play. You only have the option to pick from among existing products and deciding which one, if any, you want to pay for. There aren't any games out there that I want to play either, I understand that not enough people want the kind of game I want to play. Therefore, I DON'T PLAY ANY! I've explained this before, but here goes again. The idea of a "server community" is dead in the water today. At one point in time, these games appealed to a single type of audience. Therefore, the majority of players came to the game with the same kind of expectations and desires. Because everyone wanted the same thing, they shared a single type of community. That's just not the case today and it will never go back to being that again. Today, there are many different kinds of expectations, many different desires, instead of having one single-minded community, servers have dozens of them. You either need to seek out the type of community you want and make your friends there, or you need to give up. Expecting any random Tom, Dick or Harry that comes by to think like you do is absurd today. Deal with the reality that actually exists, not the fantasy that you wish existed.
May I quote my signature?
Currently: Nothing Previously: Oh so many
Don't you love irony?
Look, here's the thing. I would seek out those communities, but I don't think they exist anymore. Most groupers here are not morons, we don't want everyone to bend to our wants and needs, and why do we need to? There are multiple titles out there, that are already geared at you. What we want is at least some titles, geared at us. There's simply no room for us in your worlds and we are spread too far apart. A year ago I tried to assemble people like me, but it all fell through the cracks, because of my own inexperience and lots of confusing circumstances. I don't even know if there's hope yet.
I hate WoW because it made my plush hamster kill himself, created twin clones of Hitler, punched Superboy Prime in reality, stared my dog down, spoiled my grandmother, assimilated me into the Borg, then made me into a real boy, just to make me a woman again.
Sometimes group play is a major pain in the butt. You have some members of the group dropping out in the middle and a few with absolutely no clue.
I like a combination of solo and group play though. You get a lot more out of the game playing in a group while at the same time you appreciate solo play all the more.
You know the sad part? Those few times, that TPA grouped up to explore dungeons in Vanguard, without ever wanting loot, were among the most memorable MMO experiences for me.
...
That is what most solo players do not get. Some people just like to play the game for the sake of playing the game and find that grouping enhances that.
The endgame grind for uber gear and waiting for perfect parties are not necessarily what groupers look for so there is no reason for solo players to feel gimped if they do not want to join. Just there is so little opportunities to seamlessly group together and so many times it is the solo achievers that demand that grouping gives them extra rewards for the psychic trauma they must endure joining a party.
Solo player logs in, clicks quest giver and off he goes. Why can't group minded players get the same? Well thinking of it, we can, in battlegrounds.
Look, here's the thing. I would seek out those communities, but I don't think they exist anymore. Most groupers here are not morons, we don't want everyone to bend to our wants and needs, and why do we need to? There are multiple titles out there, that are already geared at you. What we want is at least some titles, geared at us. There's simply no room for us in your worlds and we are spread too far apart. A year ago I tried to assemble people like me, but it all fell through the cracks, because of my own inexperience and lots of confusing circumstances. I don't even know if there's hope yet.
The fact is, there *ARE* people here, in this very thread, who have advocated forcing people to group, just so they could find people to group with. You may not be one of them but they certainly do exist and they are vocal.
Unfortunately for you, all games on the market exist to make money. If there is no money in the kind of game you describe, why would anyone make it? If there were, someone would have made it by now. Nobody is going to designate a game to fail financially just so you can get the kind of game you want. If you could get 500k+ people who thought the way you do and went to a developer and promised to play the game for at least 2 years, I'm sure you might find one that would agree to develop a game for you, but I think we both know that's just not going to happen. There probably aren't enough people who want the kind of game you want on the planet to justify a game based on it. These games take years of development and many millions of dollars, you can't expect someone is going to make a game unless they think they can make their money back and make a profit on top of it. To expect otherwise is to have extremely unrealistic expectations.
I think the game currently under development that will appeal to the widest segment of potential MMO players will be Guild Wars 2. Their dynamic event system as described seems to be the answer for prayers on both sides of the solo vs. group dilemna.
Solo players will finally have an MMO where they can acheive at the highest level. Sure, they will have to participate in varying scales of PvE battles, including large scale ones on occasion, but they will be free to jump in or out without formally grouping up, and the rewards for their participation will be decided by the AI, not by a raid leader or guild master who may choose to exclude the solo player or non guildy from the rewards.
Groupers will have an MMO where players aren't afraid to pitch in and help each other, since everyone who does help in a meaningful way will be rewarded for doing so. Additionally, there will be 5 man dungeons that also reward players with the highest level gear, but will also give groupers exclusive access to gear that while similar in stats, is more stylish in appearance that the event gear. This would give groupers the recognition they seek for their endeavours, while at the same time allowing solo players to reach the plateau in terms of stats.
The way I see it, the only players such a system won't appeal to are those on the far edges of either spectrum, like soloers who don't want to encounter anybody in game while progressing their character, or groupers who want all players to be forced into formal grouping arrangements, and of course be in complete control of the dispersal of rewards obtained via said groups.
Look, here's the thing. I would seek out those communities, but I don't think they exist anymore. Most groupers here are not morons, we don't want everyone to bend to our wants and needs, and why do we need to? There are multiple titles out there, that are already geared at you. What we want is at least some titles, geared at us. There's simply no room for us in your worlds and we are spread too far apart. A year ago I tried to assemble people like me, but it all fell through the cracks, because of my own inexperience and lots of confusing circumstances. I don't even know if there's hope yet.
The fact is, there *ARE* people here, in this very thread, who have advocated forcing people to group, just so they could find people to group with. You may not be one of them but they certainly do exist and they are vocal.
Unfortunately for you, all games on the market exist to make money. If there is no money in the kind of game you describe, why would anyone make it? If there were, someone would have made it by now. Nobody is going to designate a game to fail financially just so you can get the kind of game you want. If you could get 500k+ people who thought the way you do and went to a developer and promised to play the game for at least 2 years, I'm sure you might find one that would agree to develop a game for you, but I think we both know that's just not going to happen. There probably aren't enough people who want the kind of game you want on the planet to justify a game based on it. These games take years of development and many millions of dollars, you can't expect someone is going to make a game unless they think they can make their money back and make a profit on top of it. To expect otherwise is to have extremely unrealistic expectations.
I do understand that. I don't have any expectations or entitlment issues. I guess, I would be happier the other way around, but hey, what can you do. I just hope that I can work something out.
About the GW2 thing... It won't please anyone, especially groupers. With no reason to group, other, than gear, people will group even less. Sad, but true.
I hate WoW because it made my plush hamster kill himself, created twin clones of Hitler, punched Superboy Prime in reality, stared my dog down, spoiled my grandmother, assimilated me into the Borg, then made me into a real boy, just to make me a woman again.
About the GW2 thing... It won't please anyone, especially groupers. With no reason to group, other, than gear, people will group even less. Sad, but true.
If the only thing that is going to please groupers is forcing everyone playing the game to group, then no, nothing is ever going to please groupers, but that kind of view is entirely unrealistic to begin with. People who want to group will group simply for the sake of grouping. If there are few people who want to do that, that's a consequence of holding a minority playstyle, not because of the game.
About the GW2 thing... It won't please anyone, especially groupers. With no reason to group, other, than gear, people will group even less. Sad, but true.
If the only thing that is going to please groupers is forcing everyone playing the game to group, then no, nothing is ever going to please groupers, but that kind of view is entirely unrealistic to begin with. People who want to group will group simply for the sake of grouping. If there are few people who want to do that, that's a consequence of holding a minority playstyle, not because of the game.
No, I'm not saying, that we have to force grouping. I say, that grouping has to have a point. Solo is a more convenient option, however you look at it, for many people, thu grouping needs an extra push. Yes, I will play for the sake of grouping, proided anyone wanted to.
I hate WoW because it made my plush hamster kill himself, created twin clones of Hitler, punched Superboy Prime in reality, stared my dog down, spoiled my grandmother, assimilated me into the Borg, then made me into a real boy, just to make me a woman again.
There probably aren't enough people who want the kind of game you want on the planet to justify a game based on it. These games take years of development and many millions of dollars, you can't expect someone is going to make a game unless they think they can make their money back and make a profit on top of it. To expect otherwise is to have extremely unrealistic expectations.
Just saying it doesn't make it true. Let's be honest, we have no idea how many people a group based game would pull in because the last one was EverQuest, which was around before PC's became common household items. We won't know until someone develops one, but saying it's going to fail because of.. what reason?.. is a bit silly. Look at games like the Call of Duty franchise - they're mostly bought for their multiplayer side and sell in the millions. What if that group based MMO was Call of Duty: Team Ops? Would that make no profit? Same multiplayer style but more team based and with thousands of people online at the same time.
An MMO doesn't have to be fantasy, there have been some great group based games that haven't been in that genre, such as Planetside which was an awesome MMOFPS.
To be honest neither playstyle should be forced. Rather, I would prefer to see players allowed to choose for themselves. The problem with forced grouping is the leveling curve. Most mmorpgs have a leveling curve if your within the curve you have no problems finding people to quest with. If your above or below this curve however finding people to group with becomes problematic. Likewise, the problem with making a game too solo friendly is that the content becomes trival to groups.
Better, to leave it up to the players. A group can handle higher level mobs than the players could indidually. So a group of 5 level 10s for example could handle say a lvl 15 mob whilst a single lvl 10 player has a life and death struggle with a lvl 10 mob. So people who group get to hunt the creatures earlier and more efficently togather than they would alone but it is still possible for the solo hunter to get the kills he requires, he just needs to accept that to solo that lvl 15 mob he needs to be at least lvl 15.
No, I'm not saying, that we have to force grouping. I say, that grouping has to have a point. Solo is a more convenient option, however you look at it, for many people, thu grouping needs an extra push. Yes, I will play for the sake of grouping, proided anyone wanted to.
I agree that grouping should have more of a purpose even an emphasis, pre-endgame. I enjoy both grouping and soloing however I find that soloing is far too easy (in every MMO I've played since EQ1) and that there's a sudden switch at the level cap where you pretty much must group to advance.
I think if soloing were much more difficult in the first place the switch at endgame wouldn't be as big a shock, and as for changing the necessity for grouping at endgame... I don't really have an answer.
I keep reading the term 'Forced Grouping' and have to think, that is not what I would advocate. I would like to see more reasons for grouping, a game that encouraged grouping by giving slightly better EXP/Items, however I think that perhaps this idea may be seen by the Staunch Soloists as 'Forced Grouping', because in order to get the slightly better Items and EXP they have to group, something they prefer to not do.
I would prefer to see more grouping encouraged, and less games hamstringing grouping (LFDung, Events, Public Quests)
I can see the arguments against grouping, the new father attending to duties (have one of these friends myself, top bloke, just AFK alot) and random people just dropping out after getting the gear tehy were after/having a tantrum if they didnt win the item and leaving, which is why a strong Guild can help to find people for grouping, but also insulates you from the rest of the server community.
I dont want to force my gameplay of preferring to group onto people who prefer to solo, however, at the moment, unless I manage to find likeminded people, what few there are left, I am forced to play the solo game, and it hurts. I levelled a Tank in WoW from 15 to 80 through LFD. Sure it was grouping, but it was empty, shallow, meaningless and depressing to witness the destruction of any semblence of community, and being bunched with people of questionable ability and intellect. There was the odd good occasion, when you found a group who would talk, but the rest of the time, I would have preferred NPC bots with AI, at least then stupid pulls and impatient arses wouldnt be risking my avatars life, add in some random scripted comunication and you have a much more enjoyable experience than the epidemic of laryngitis. I digress.
Encourage, not Forced grouping is what I would prefer. Give reasons for grouping other than 'because we like to group'
No, I'm not saying, that we have to force grouping. I say, that grouping has to have a point. Solo is a more convenient option, however you look at it, for many people, thu grouping needs an extra push. Yes, I will play for the sake of grouping, proided anyone wanted to.
It does have a point, the enjoyment of grouping. That's the same reason people play mixed doubles tennis. They enjoy it. They could easily just bat a tennis ball against a wall all day, the action is the same, but most people like playing with a partner, for the simple joy of doing so. If grouping for the simple joy of grouping isn't enough, if you have to be bribed by extra rewards to do something you supposedly enjoy doing, something tells me you don't really enjoy it.
Just saying it doesn't make it true. Let's be honest, we have no idea how many people a group based game would pull in because the last one was EverQuest, which was around before PC's became common household items. We won't know until someone develops one, but saying it's going to fail because of.. what reason?.. is a bit silly. Look at games like the Call of Duty franchise - they're mostly bought for their multiplayer side and sell in the millions. What if that group based MMO was Call of Duty: Team Ops? Would that make no profit? Same multiplayer style but more team based and with thousands of people online at the same time.
An MMO doesn't have to be fantasy, there have been some great group based games that haven't been in that genre, such as Planetside which was an awesome MMOFPS.
No, but you have to convince the people with the money and so far, you haven't done it. The fact is, they perform significant market research before they commit to a game design. They've done the research, they know how many people want to play what kinds of games and they act accordingly.
COD isn't an MMO, it's an FPS, entirely different thing. If you made COD into an MMORPG, it would almost cetainly fail.
Go to Dungeon or cavern... party up.. you can go whereever u want in that dungeon and kill mob on ur own.. still share exp that is in same dungeon.
/endthread
How is that a solution at all? For many people, they have very limited play time, they don't want to waste it forming a group. Secondly, if everyone is just going to solo in the dungeon, why bother grouping at all? How is it fair to those that kill the hardest mobs to give up some of their XP to those who only kill the easy ones? Third, what if you specifically don't want to group because you find that most people in a particular game are obnoxious asshats that you want nothing to do with?
In my opinion, the issue is not really group vs solo. The issue is that the "group", as implimented in MMOs, is a highly artificial construct that creates its own problems.
There should be no groups at all in MMOs, but mechanics should be in place to either encourage players to coorperate with one another, or come into conflict with one another. This would depend on the circumstances, just like in real life.
No, but you have to convince the people with the money and so far, you haven't done it. The fact is, they perform significant market research before they commit to a game design. They've done the research, they know how many people want to play what kinds of games and they act accordingly.
COD isn't an MMO, it's an FPS, entirely different thing. If you made COD into an MMORPG, it would almost cetainly fail.
I don't think they do perform market research, if anything they just follow trends, hence why you get so many games in every genre similar to what came before it. Call of Duty came around because of it's Great Grandaddy, Castle Wolfenstein. If you compare the two, nothing much has changed. The graphics, the sound, the animations have all got better, but the gameplay is pretty much the same, albeit the new games are way more linear than their predecessors.
Same can be said for MMO's. First came MUD's, then graphical MMO's, EverQuest, World of Warcraft, Lord of the Rings Online. Again, nothing much has changed since the first, only the graphics, sounds and animation have got better, apart from a few minor tweaks the core gameplay is exactly the same.
The main change has been that everything has become simpler to appeal to a larger audience. So market research? No, I don't think so. Following trends? Most definitely.
And personally, I reckon an MMO version of COD with a similar design to Planetside would be freakin' awesome. Take some of the maps from the current Black Ops, such as Vietnam. Multiple teams attacking a large base from different directions, team leaders keeping in contact, helicopters, boats, troop transports.. all with cinematic style graphics and sound. How could that not be awesome?
In my opinion, the issue is not really group vs solo. The issue is that the "group", as implimented in MMOs, is a highly artificial construct that creates its own problems.
There should be no groups at all in MMOs, but mechanics should be in place to either encourage players to coorperate with one another, or come into conflict with one another. This would depend on the circumstances, just like in real life.
This is essentially what GW2 is doing. Seemless flow between "grouping" (e.g. working together) and soloing where grouping is not punished by the mechanics in any way and working together is encouraged. Looks like good stuff to me. Conflict is relegated to PvP areas.
Well the point of an MMO is to either play with someone, or kick someones ass, they add solo play so if you dont have friends that play with you, you can go it alone until you make some, or so you can get some stuff done while they are not on. An mmo with both has potential, an mmo with 1 of the 2 wont likely make it.
This is essentially what GW2 is doing. Seemless flow between "grouping" (e.g. working together) and soloing where grouping is not punished by the mechanics in any way and working together is encouraged. Looks like good stuff to me. Conflict is relegated to PvP areas.
If it works the same way as Public Quests in Warhammer Online then it's not going to appeal to me. I always felt disjointed from the action when doing those quests, there was no cohesion between the people involved, we all just did our own thing until we either won or lost. Speaking for myself, I like to group so I can be a part of a team and interact with the people involved - just being in the same area doing the same thing doesn't feel even remotely the same.
This is essentially what GW2 is doing. Seemless flow between "grouping" (e.g. working together) and soloing where grouping is not punished by the mechanics in any way and working together is encouraged. Looks like good stuff to me. Conflict is relegated to PvP areas.
If it works the same way as Public Quests in Warhammer Online then it's not going to appeal to me. I always felt disjointed from the action when doing those quests, there was no cohesion between the people involved, we all just did our own thing until we either won or lost. Speaking for myself, I like to group so I can be a part of a team and interact with the people involved - just being in the same area doing the same thing doesn't feel even remotely the same.
And that's from a pro-grouper.
For me, in the pro-soloing crowd, it doesn't work either. When soloing, I do not want my success or failure to be dependent upon others. In a situation like the one described, I could do absolutely no wrong and still fail. For the times I do choose to group, I like to do so out of desire and hate to do so out of necessity or, as in the example, forced mechanics.
No, but you have to convince the people with the money and so far, you haven't done it. The fact is, they perform significant market research before they commit to a game design. They've done the research, they know how many people want to play what kinds of games and they act accordingly.
COD isn't an MMO, it's an FPS, entirely different thing. If you made COD into an MMORPG, it would almost cetainly fail.
I don't think they do perform market research, if anything they just follow trends, hence why you get so many games in every genre similar to what came before it. Call of Duty came around because of it's Great Grandaddy, Castle Wolfenstein. If you compare the two, nothing much has changed. The graphics, the sound, the animations have all got better, but the gameplay is pretty much the same, albeit the new games are way more linear than their predecessors.
Same can be said for MMO's. First came MUD's, then graphical MMO's, EverQuest, World of Warcraft, Lord of the Rings Online. Again, nothing much has changed since the first, only the graphics, sounds and animation have got better, apart from a few minor tweaks the core gameplay is exactly the same.
The main change has been that everything has become simpler to appeal to a larger audience. So market research? No, I don't think so. Following trends? Most definitely.
And personally, I reckon an MMO version of COD with a similar design to Planetside would be freakin' awesome. Take some of the maps from the current Black Ops, such as Vietnam. Multiple teams attacking a large base from different directions, team leaders keeping in contact, helicopters, boats, troop transports.. all with cinematic style graphics and sound. How could that not be awesome?
That *IS* market research in action. The developers found out what the largest player pool wanted and made those games and those games have far exceeded the games that came before them. Perhaps tens or maybe a hundred thousand or so played Castle Wolfenstein. How many millions play Call of Duty? It's much, much more successful than Wolfenstein ever dreamed of being. MMOs are far more successful than MUDs ever were. They are the way they are because they have been made more accessible to the general public instead of catering solely to a tiny minority of people.
I don't think you have any clue what market research is, to be honest. It's about making a product that appeals to the widest possible audience, not that caters to a tiny demographic. If your particular playstyle is in the tiny minority, then why should you expect to ever have it catered to?
Comments
What rights do you think that you have? You pay your $15, you get to play the game. Don't like the game? Stop paying them $15 for it. The problem is, you're paying for something you don't want to play and then complaining about it. You have absolutely no right whatsoever to a game that you want to play. You only have the option to pick from among existing products and deciding which one, if any, you want to pay for. There aren't any games out there that I want to play either, I understand that not enough people want the kind of game I want to play. Therefore, I DON'T PLAY ANY!
I've explained this before, but here goes again. The idea of a "server community" is dead in the water today. At one point in time, these games appealed to a single type of audience. Therefore, the majority of players came to the game with the same kind of expectations and desires. Because everyone wanted the same thing, they shared a single type of community. That's just not the case today and it will never go back to being that again. Today, there are many different kinds of expectations, many different desires, instead of having one single-minded community, servers have dozens of them. You either need to seek out the type of community you want and make your friends there, or you need to give up. Expecting any random Tom, Dick or Harry that comes by to think like you do is absurd today.
Deal with the reality that actually exists, not the fantasy that you wish existed.
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
May I quote my signature?
Don't you love irony?Look, here's the thing. I would seek out those communities, but I don't think they exist anymore. Most groupers here are not morons, we don't want everyone to bend to our wants and needs, and why do we need to? There are multiple titles out there, that are already geared at you. What we want is at least some titles, geared at us. There's simply no room for us in your worlds and we are spread too far apart. A year ago I tried to assemble people like me, but it all fell through the cracks, because of my own inexperience and lots of confusing circumstances. I don't even know if there's hope yet.
I hate WoW because it made my plush hamster kill himself, created twin clones of Hitler, punched Superboy Prime in reality, stared my dog down, spoiled my grandmother, assimilated me into the Borg, then made me into a real boy, just to make me a woman again.
There is hope. Things will come back around. They always do.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I like a combination of solo and group play though. You get a lot more out of the game playing in a group while at the same time you appreciate solo play all the more.
That is what most solo players do not get. Some people just like to play the game for the sake of playing the game and find that grouping enhances that.
The endgame grind for uber gear and waiting for perfect parties are not necessarily what groupers look for so there is no reason for solo players to feel gimped if they do not want to join. Just there is so little opportunities to seamlessly group together and so many times it is the solo achievers that demand that grouping gives them extra rewards for the psychic trauma they must endure joining a party.
Solo player logs in, clicks quest giver and off he goes. Why can't group minded players get the same? Well thinking of it, we can, in battlegrounds.
The fact is, there *ARE* people here, in this very thread, who have advocated forcing people to group, just so they could find people to group with. You may not be one of them but they certainly do exist and they are vocal.
Unfortunately for you, all games on the market exist to make money. If there is no money in the kind of game you describe, why would anyone make it? If there were, someone would have made it by now. Nobody is going to designate a game to fail financially just so you can get the kind of game you want. If you could get 500k+ people who thought the way you do and went to a developer and promised to play the game for at least 2 years, I'm sure you might find one that would agree to develop a game for you, but I think we both know that's just not going to happen. There probably aren't enough people who want the kind of game you want on the planet to justify a game based on it. These games take years of development and many millions of dollars, you can't expect someone is going to make a game unless they think they can make their money back and make a profit on top of it. To expect otherwise is to have extremely unrealistic expectations.
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
I think the game currently under development that will appeal to the widest segment of potential MMO players will be Guild Wars 2. Their dynamic event system as described seems to be the answer for prayers on both sides of the solo vs. group dilemna.
Solo players will finally have an MMO where they can acheive at the highest level. Sure, they will have to participate in varying scales of PvE battles, including large scale ones on occasion, but they will be free to jump in or out without formally grouping up, and the rewards for their participation will be decided by the AI, not by a raid leader or guild master who may choose to exclude the solo player or non guildy from the rewards.
Groupers will have an MMO where players aren't afraid to pitch in and help each other, since everyone who does help in a meaningful way will be rewarded for doing so. Additionally, there will be 5 man dungeons that also reward players with the highest level gear, but will also give groupers exclusive access to gear that while similar in stats, is more stylish in appearance that the event gear. This would give groupers the recognition they seek for their endeavours, while at the same time allowing solo players to reach the plateau in terms of stats.
The way I see it, the only players such a system won't appeal to are those on the far edges of either spectrum, like soloers who don't want to encounter anybody in game while progressing their character, or groupers who want all players to be forced into formal grouping arrangements, and of course be in complete control of the dispersal of rewards obtained via said groups.
I do understand that. I don't have any expectations or entitlment issues. I guess, I would be happier the other way around, but hey, what can you do. I just hope that I can work something out.
About the GW2 thing... It won't please anyone, especially groupers. With no reason to group, other, than gear, people will group even less. Sad, but true.
I hate WoW because it made my plush hamster kill himself, created twin clones of Hitler, punched Superboy Prime in reality, stared my dog down, spoiled my grandmother, assimilated me into the Borg, then made me into a real boy, just to make me a woman again.
If the only thing that is going to please groupers is forcing everyone playing the game to group, then no, nothing is ever going to please groupers, but that kind of view is entirely unrealistic to begin with. People who want to group will group simply for the sake of grouping. If there are few people who want to do that, that's a consequence of holding a minority playstyle, not because of the 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
Simple solution.
Get a party system set up right.
Go to Dungeon or cavern... party up.. you can go whereever u want in that dungeon and kill mob on ur own.. still share exp that is in same dungeon.
/endthread
Kain_Dale
No, I'm not saying, that we have to force grouping. I say, that grouping has to have a point. Solo is a more convenient option, however you look at it, for many people, thu grouping needs an extra push. Yes, I will play for the sake of grouping, proided anyone wanted to.
I hate WoW because it made my plush hamster kill himself, created twin clones of Hitler, punched Superboy Prime in reality, stared my dog down, spoiled my grandmother, assimilated me into the Borg, then made me into a real boy, just to make me a woman again.
Just saying it doesn't make it true. Let's be honest, we have no idea how many people a group based game would pull in because the last one was EverQuest, which was around before PC's became common household items. We won't know until someone develops one, but saying it's going to fail because of.. what reason?.. is a bit silly. Look at games like the Call of Duty franchise - they're mostly bought for their multiplayer side and sell in the millions. What if that group based MMO was Call of Duty: Team Ops? Would that make no profit? Same multiplayer style but more team based and with thousands of people online at the same time.
An MMO doesn't have to be fantasy, there have been some great group based games that haven't been in that genre, such as Planetside which was an awesome MMOFPS.
To be honest neither playstyle should be forced. Rather, I would prefer to see players allowed to choose for themselves. The problem with forced grouping is the leveling curve. Most mmorpgs have a leveling curve if your within the curve you have no problems finding people to quest with. If your above or below this curve however finding people to group with becomes problematic. Likewise, the problem with making a game too solo friendly is that the content becomes trival to groups.
Better, to leave it up to the players. A group can handle higher level mobs than the players could indidually. So a group of 5 level 10s for example could handle say a lvl 15 mob whilst a single lvl 10 player has a life and death struggle with a lvl 10 mob. So people who group get to hunt the creatures earlier and more efficently togather than they would alone but it is still possible for the solo hunter to get the kills he requires, he just needs to accept that to solo that lvl 15 mob he needs to be at least lvl 15.
just my 2 cents
Gadareth
I agree that grouping should have more of a purpose even an emphasis, pre-endgame. I enjoy both grouping and soloing however I find that soloing is far too easy (in every MMO I've played since EQ1) and that there's a sudden switch at the level cap where you pretty much must group to advance.
I think if soloing were much more difficult in the first place the switch at endgame wouldn't be as big a shock, and as for changing the necessity for grouping at endgame... I don't really have an answer.
I keep reading the term 'Forced Grouping' and have to think, that is not what I would advocate. I would like to see more reasons for grouping, a game that encouraged grouping by giving slightly better EXP/Items, however I think that perhaps this idea may be seen by the Staunch Soloists as 'Forced Grouping', because in order to get the slightly better Items and EXP they have to group, something they prefer to not do.
I would prefer to see more grouping encouraged, and less games hamstringing grouping (LFDung, Events, Public Quests)
I can see the arguments against grouping, the new father attending to duties (have one of these friends myself, top bloke, just AFK alot) and random people just dropping out after getting the gear tehy were after/having a tantrum if they didnt win the item and leaving, which is why a strong Guild can help to find people for grouping, but also insulates you from the rest of the server community.
I dont want to force my gameplay of preferring to group onto people who prefer to solo, however, at the moment, unless I manage to find likeminded people, what few there are left, I am forced to play the solo game, and it hurts. I levelled a Tank in WoW from 15 to 80 through LFD. Sure it was grouping, but it was empty, shallow, meaningless and depressing to witness the destruction of any semblence of community, and being bunched with people of questionable ability and intellect. There was the odd good occasion, when you found a group who would talk, but the rest of the time, I would have preferred NPC bots with AI, at least then stupid pulls and impatient arses wouldnt be risking my avatars life, add in some random scripted comunication and you have a much more enjoyable experience than the epidemic of laryngitis. I digress.
Encourage, not Forced grouping is what I would prefer. Give reasons for grouping other than 'because we like to group'
It does have a point, the enjoyment of grouping. That's the same reason people play mixed doubles tennis. They enjoy it. They could easily just bat a tennis ball against a wall all day, the action is the same, but most people like playing with a partner, for the simple joy of doing so. If grouping for the simple joy of grouping isn't enough, if you have to be bribed by extra rewards to do something you supposedly enjoy doing, something tells me you don't really enjoy it.
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
No, but you have to convince the people with the money and so far, you haven't done it. The fact is, they perform significant market research before they commit to a game design. They've done the research, they know how many people want to play what kinds of games and they act accordingly.
COD isn't an MMO, it's an FPS, entirely different thing. If you made COD into an MMORPG, it would almost cetainly fail.
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
How is that a solution at all? For many people, they have very limited play time, they don't want to waste it forming a group. Secondly, if everyone is just going to solo in the dungeon, why bother grouping at all? How is it fair to those that kill the hardest mobs to give up some of their XP to those who only kill the easy ones? Third, what if you specifically don't want to group because you find that most people in a particular game are obnoxious asshats that you want nothing to do with?
Bad solution.
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
In my opinion, the issue is not really group vs solo. The issue is that the "group", as implimented in MMOs, is a highly artificial construct that creates its own problems.
There should be no groups at all in MMOs, but mechanics should be in place to either encourage players to coorperate with one another, or come into conflict with one another. This would depend on the circumstances, just like in real life.
I don't think they do perform market research, if anything they just follow trends, hence why you get so many games in every genre similar to what came before it. Call of Duty came around because of it's Great Grandaddy, Castle Wolfenstein. If you compare the two, nothing much has changed. The graphics, the sound, the animations have all got better, but the gameplay is pretty much the same, albeit the new games are way more linear than their predecessors.
Same can be said for MMO's. First came MUD's, then graphical MMO's, EverQuest, World of Warcraft, Lord of the Rings Online. Again, nothing much has changed since the first, only the graphics, sounds and animation have got better, apart from a few minor tweaks the core gameplay is exactly the same.
The main change has been that everything has become simpler to appeal to a larger audience. So market research? No, I don't think so. Following trends? Most definitely.
And personally, I reckon an MMO version of COD with a similar design to Planetside would be freakin' awesome. Take some of the maps from the current Black Ops, such as Vietnam. Multiple teams attacking a large base from different directions, team leaders keeping in contact, helicopters, boats, troop transports.. all with cinematic style graphics and sound. How could that not be awesome?
This is essentially what GW2 is doing. Seemless flow between "grouping" (e.g. working together) and soloing where grouping is not punished by the mechanics in any way and working together is encouraged. Looks like good stuff to me. Conflict is relegated to PvP areas.
Well the point of an MMO is to either play with someone, or kick someones ass, they add solo play so if you dont have friends that play with you, you can go it alone until you make some, or so you can get some stuff done while they are not on. An mmo with both has potential, an mmo with 1 of the 2 wont likely make it.
If it works the same way as Public Quests in Warhammer Online then it's not going to appeal to me. I always felt disjointed from the action when doing those quests, there was no cohesion between the people involved, we all just did our own thing until we either won or lost. Speaking for myself, I like to group so I can be a part of a team and interact with the people involved - just being in the same area doing the same thing doesn't feel even remotely the same.
And that's from a pro-grouper.
For me, in the pro-soloing crowd, it doesn't work either. When soloing, I do not want my success or failure to be dependent upon others. In a situation like the one described, I could do absolutely no wrong and still fail. For the times I do choose to group, I like to do so out of desire and hate to do so out of necessity or, as in the example, forced mechanics.
That *IS* market research in action. The developers found out what the largest player pool wanted and made those games and those games have far exceeded the games that came before them. Perhaps tens or maybe a hundred thousand or so played Castle Wolfenstein. How many millions play Call of Duty? It's much, much more successful than Wolfenstein ever dreamed of being. MMOs are far more successful than MUDs ever were. They are the way they are because they have been made more accessible to the general public instead of catering solely to a tiny minority of people.
I don't think you have any clue what market research is, to be honest. It's about making a product that appeals to the widest possible audience, not that caters to a tiny demographic. If your particular playstyle is in the tiny minority, then why should you expect to ever have it catered to?
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