You and Cephus seem to have missed the point of this statement. I'm not talking abotu electronic chess sets, I'm talking about a board with white and black chess pieces and you playing both sides. The only challenge is your own ability, you can't surprise yourself with a move, you can't plot an attack ten moves in advance because you know what that attack is so defend appropriately.
That's the thing with a pure solo game, the only challenge is your own ability. The developers could make it tough and you might have trouble with it, but at the end of the day, the developers have to design solo content so each class and 99% of people can eventually get through it.
With a group based game the challenges can be much larger, requiring multiple people for protection, extra or faster healing, multiple mobs to defend against simultaneously, or whatever else the developers minds can come up with.
How is that at all analogous to an MMO? You don't play both sides in an MMO, you don't alternately play your character, then switch to playing the monsters. Therefore your suggested chess example is ridiculous on it's face.
The fact is, the only thing that matters in these games at the end of the day is how many people are paying to play. That's all developers care about. If they can get more people paying by making the game solo-friendly, that's what they're going to do. That's the reality of business. The fact that you neither understand nor care about that reality is sad.
How is that at all analogous to an MMO? You don't play both sides in an MMO, you don't alternately play your character, then switch to playing the monsters. Therefore your suggested chess example is ridiculous on it's face.
The fact is, the only thing that matters in these games at the end of the day is how many people are paying to play. That's all developers care about. If they can get more people paying by making the game solo-friendly, that's what they're going to do. That's the reality of business. The fact that you neither understand nor care about that reality is sad.
Um. I'm 99.99% sure that we have actually agreed on this point in the past. Yes, developers are all about the money now, I did disagree that it's always been that way because when home computers were in their infancy games and their programmers were very different. But now, it's all about the money and that means they'll target the majority rather than the people who actually want to play these games.
The chess thing was about difficulty level. Of course you don't play the monsters in an MMO (unless you're PvP'ing in LOTRO), but the difficulty is the same as your ability. Both sides are therefore equal in power level. You can't have a mob in a solo-centric game that can kill you in two or three hits because you're supposed to be able to solo that mob, whereas that would be a perfectly viable mob in a group-based game.
The power of your attacker equals the power of the defender in a solo game, otherwise you wouldn't be able to win. They might do some clever effects or your character might have powers to disguise the fact that the two levels are the same, but simple fact is, solo-centric games are always going to be as difficult as the power level of your character.
That explained: Where is the difficulty in a solo-centric game? The only way you could make a more powerful mob in a solo-centric game is by following a set series of key presses. Mob Special Attack 1: Dodge left. Mob Specal Attack 2: Jump back. Mob Special Attack 3: Slide forward. Mob stunned for 5 seconds: Attack, attack, attack. Go back to 1. And now you really are just playing God of War Online.
I do have a question for you, as I've never been sure. What is your take on MMO's? All I've heard from you is that developers want cash and thus solo-friendly games are going to win. But is that a good thing or a bad thing to you? Would you prefer a mix of solo/group, solo-centric, group-centric? Do you think it's right that developers are focused on money only? Open your heart to us, Cephus...
That really isn't the case. A game has to be designed with group content otherwise people won't group. Just putting the mechanic in place doesn't make it a 'group friendly' game, it needs the challenges and difficulty that only a group could tackle. Ever played a game of chess on your own? Same principle. If you can win by playing alone then why play with other people? Is playing chess alone a pointless exercise? Absolutely. And that's how pro-groupers see solo based gameplay in an MMO. It might challenge your own ability by trying to find new ways to attack or defend, but at the end of the day, the difficulty is matched by your own ability.
I don't really know what to say to this.
I play chess alone all the time. I have two electronic chess sets.
You and Cephus seem to have missed the point of this statement. I'm not talking abotu electronic chess sets, I'm talking about a board with white and black chess pieces and you playing both sides. The only challenge is your own ability, you can't surprise yourself with a move, you can't plot an attack ten moves in advance because you know what that attack is so defend appropriately.
That's the thing with a pure solo game, the only challenge is your own ability. The developers could make it tough and you might have trouble with it, but at the end of the day, the developers have to design solo content so each class and 99% of people can eventually get through it.
With a group based game the challenges can be much larger, requiring multiple people for protection, extra or faster healing, multiple mobs to defend against simultaneously, or whatever else the developers minds can come up with.
Well, that does make more sense!
but once again, I don't see why there needs to be just "group content" or "solo content". I spent years in Lineage 2 soloing and there was alwasy group content to do as well.
Did I group? yes. Did I mostly solo? Yes. Because I could and I enjoy it. When the time came I would group. Were they people who mostly grouped? yup. There were people who preferred to group and they could.
Were there classes who had a difficult time soloing? yes. I personally have no problems with this if the point of the class is a group class. Provided of course that the group content takes advantage of them.
As long as devs put in group content, group quest chains, and because people seem to be playing for rewards these days as opposed to having the experience, decent rewards or easier gotten rewards then I don't see the issue as those who like grouping can do so.
then leave the areas (Like in L2) for the people who like to solo.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
but once again, I don't see why there needs to be just "group content" or "solo content". I spent years in Lineage 2 soloing and there was alwasy group content to do as well.
Did I group? yes. Did I mostly solo? Yes. Because I could and I enjoy it. When the time came I would group. Were they people who mostly grouped? yup. There were people who preferred to group and they could.
Were there classes who had a difficult time soloing? yes. I personally have no problems with this if the point of the class is a group class. Provided of course that the group content takes advantage of them.
As long as devs put in group content, group quest chains, and because people seem to be playing for rewards these days as opposed to having the experience, decent rewards or easier gotten rewards then I don't see the issue as those who like grouping can do so.
then leave the areas (Like in L2) for the people who like to solo.
Was just thinking, I don't have a strong opinion either way about grouping oriented or solo oriented MMOs. I would think naturally, the market would try to cater to both.
I was just thinking thought that the main reason I have not stuck with MMOs was do to lack of active grouping. Anyone else in that boat that has thought more about the that?
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
Its doesnt make much sense to me why someone would want to solo in a PVE MMORPG all of the time.
I can definitely understand why in a PVP game though since its funner and more challenging to defeat real people rather than the computer.
How is that possible? you have the brain power to realize a great many things, I wouldn't think you'd have a tough grasp on something as minor as "personal taste". Maybe playing mmorpg's aren't the thing that you do differently than most but I have to think there is something in your life that you just like to do your way no matter how strange it may seem to others.
Now the truth of the matter is I wonder if there are really alot of people who want to solo "all of the time". My prefered style of play is solo, I tend to not have groups of friends who I start to engage the minute I log on *shrugs* but that doesn't mean I play solo all the time, and I often group for reasons other than getting some kind of loot.
As a player who prefers to solo I kind of sneer a bit at folks who whine about not having access to things that were traditionally group based things, contrary to popular opinion we don't all want to see group dynamics wiped out some of us just have no desire to run that particular race.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Its doesnt make much sense to me why someone would want to solo in a PVE MMORPG all of the time.
I can definitely understand why in a PVP game though since its funner and more challenging to defeat real people rather than the computer.
How is that possible? you have the brain power to realize a great many things, I wouldn't think you'd have a tough grasp on something as minor as "personal taste".
Well I think what he has outlined really hones in one how he views these games.
Thing is, not everyone is looking for "challenge" or "heart pumping action" or many other descriptions of game play that they might like.
there are people out there that view these games more as immersive storylines. Whether it's their story or something a writer has come up with.
This is not to say there aren't challenging pve encounters. But in general, mobs are made to be beaten. The thing is, Sid is looking for that mob to be a challenge, something to overcome by his skill. But others are looking at is as a more story based encounter: "I was strolling through the woods when I happened upon an ogre. Though he took me by surprise, I quickly vanquished it and continued on my way to the temple of Thrones where I will lay down my claim to the 'Eye of Cups' as is my right as prince blah blah blah..."
The encounter with the Ogre is only important because it represented a possible danger. But because our hero is "a hero" no such monster will deter him from his quest.
Same reason why I still play through goblin town in LOTRO on a lvl 65 Guardian.
Very few of the mobs will offer a huge challenge until I get down below in the hall of the Goblin King. But I don't go there for "challenge". I go there because my character has a need to clear out that filthy den of blah blah blah..."
Now I'm not saying that every encounter is a storied encounter in my mind as I do enjoy some challenge. I've solo attacked many a named mini-boss in moria with some mixed results. Especially this big tall fellow in the first hall who took me to task around lvl 60.
Point being is that I don't think Sid approaches these games in that way and therefore it hasn't occurred to him that there are other reasons to play other than testing one's self.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. But it would explain his post and his stance.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Truth is EVERY single base has been covered,there is FFXI/Wow/Eq2 that offers both grouping and soloing,so there should be no complaints.The facts are grouping offers MORE to combat,more is better for some,and others don't like to think beyond 2 hotbar icons.Choice is still there by wh ytake away one from the other,even ina group setting,you can still play out as a soloist,do your own thing,and god knows i have seen this MANY times.
If you just don't like interacting with others,should other people have to pay for your inabilities?
Now the real truth....
The REAL truth is that these complainers are not really complaining about soloing,they are complaining that they have no gaming skills,they want the games to be sooooo easy,a 4 year old could play it.They need these simplsitic games to feed a downned ego,they need soemthing easy to feel they are accomplishing something.
That is their TRUE definition of SOLO=EASY.
You want to solo go for it,go play Beastmaster/Ninja/Dancer/RedMAge/Summoner in FFXI,it is there waiting,go play Necormancer or ShadowKnight in EQ2 it is there,nobody is stopping you,but be prepared for some effort and skill,if one is afraid of either one,then you shouldn't be complaining about the topic,you need other help,like maturing ,things in life are not always handed to you on a silver platter.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I do have a question for you, as I've never been sure. What is your take on MMO's? All I've heard from you is that developers want cash and thus solo-friendly games are going to win. But is that a good thing or a bad thing to you? Would you prefer a mix of solo/group, solo-centric, group-centric? Do you think it's right that developers are focused on money only? Open your heart to us, Cephus...
It doesn't matter if it's a good thing or a bad thing, it's a true thing. Like it or not, that's the situation and sitting around whining about how awful it is won't change a thing. I realize that developers are in it for the money and always have been, therefore, whether I like that fact or not, I have to deal with it or just stop playing. My opinion has no bearing on reality. It is what it is.
I do have a question for you, as I've never been sure. What is your take on MMO's? All I've heard from you is that developers want cash and thus solo-friendly games are going to win. But is that a good thing or a bad thing to you? Would you prefer a mix of solo/group, solo-centric, group-centric? Do you think it's right that developers are focused on money only? Open your heart to us, Cephus...
It doesn't matter if it's a good thing or a bad thing, it's a true thing. Like it or not, that's the situation and sitting around whining about how awful it is won't change a thing. I realize that developers are in it for the money and always have been, therefore, whether I like that fact or not, I have to deal with it or just stop playing. My opinion has no bearing on reality. It is what it is.
With an answer like that you should be a politician.
I do have a question for you, as I've never been sure. What is your take on MMO's? All I've heard from you is that developers want cash and thus solo-friendly games are going to win. But is that a good thing or a bad thing to you? Would you prefer a mix of solo/group, solo-centric, group-centric? Do you think it's right that developers are focused on money only? Open your heart to us, Cephus...
It doesn't matter if it's a good thing or a bad thing, it's a true thing. Like it or not, that's the situation and sitting around whining about how awful it is won't change a thing. I realize that developers are in it for the money and always have been, therefore, whether I like that fact or not, I have to deal with it or just stop playing. My opinion has no bearing on reality. It is what it is.
With an answer like that you should be a politician.
I'm just being honest. I realized a long, long time ago that what I think means jack squat in the real world, especially when it comes to major issues. I either accept what is or I move on. Fighting against reality is a pointless gesture, it results in nothing but frustration and it doesn't change a damn thing.
What I want or don't want in a game is irrelevant. Games are what they are. I either choose to play them or I do not. At present, I do not.
99% of players are idiots. Why on earth would I want to group with them? Like most things in life most people would rather be solo than deal with all the jerks and morans out there.
Personally I think that WoW would make an excellent B2P game. You buy it, play as much as you want, when you want, and at the end of the day, everyone is happier. People who like to solo have the freedom to do so without a monthly fee. Groupers can log in and group their way up and no fee. Off topic but hey this thing is 93 pages. What is one off topic post.
Where do I fit in? Well I cut my MMO teeth on EQ so yeah, I like grouping. Why? Because of the people. I have many fond memories of myself and two friends just grinding ice giants for money and chatting. We weren't getting anything out of it really (no loot or achievements but it was fun). I miss that about MMO's today. In EQ, you could find a random bunch of people have kill things for hours. It was boring but you usually talked and have a few laughs. You got to know people more. You grouped not only because you had to but because you wanted to.
99% of players are idiots. Why on earth would I want to group with them? Like most things in life most people would rather be solo than deal with all the jerks and morans out there.
Ouch.
I playd eq for a very very long time and groupd daily with strangers and 90% of them was ok, you did meet some jerks but it was actualy very rare.
Wow can't be compeard since its a fast paced game where interaction is quit hard. Ur on the move all the time, offcourse they are jerks they don't have time to be friendly.
Pvp games hold much of the same but thats another reason, its a competive gameplay and we all know we get a bit childish when we compete even at older ages. atleast i do
im gods gift to this earth and everyone should reqognice and respect me :P
i'll say what i've said before, I personally think WoW did it best. Theres group play and solo play, but you won't get nearly as good quality gear just by soloing. I would never play a game that forced me to group 24/7, on the other hand i'd never play an mmo that was just solo play. Of course i'm a casual player (i guess? 2 hours a day) sometimes I don't have an hour to wait to join a group i'll probably leave 40 mins into it.
Yeah WoW is definately the best, especially if you happen to be playing in countries other than the US.
WoW did it in the worst possible way.
i love when people make statements with no examples of why they think that way.
i'll say what i've said before, I personally think WoW did it best. Theres group play and solo play, but you won't get nearly as good quality gear just by soloing. I would never play a game that forced me to group 24/7, on the other hand i'd never play an mmo that was just solo play. Of course i'm a casual player (i guess? 2 hours a day) sometimes I don't have an hour to wait to join a group i'll probably leave 40 mins into it.
Yeah WoW is definately the best, especially if you happen to be playing in countries other than the US.
WoW did it in the worst possible way.
i love when people make statements with no examples of why they think that way.
I agree. I think WoW did it in the best possible way. I get xp for crafting, grouping and soloing. I group whenever I want, all day if I want, and it only takes about 15 minutes max to get a group, or solo all day if I want. Other games you would wait hours to get a group. I get great rewards when grouped or when solo. When grouping we can set the challenge high and go after mobs/dungeons that are difficult for our level or low and just coast through depending on the level of challenge that we want, same with solo.
I couldn't ask for anything more. Easy group, great challenge, great rewards, easy solo. Everything in one game. I just wish they had housing.
Venge Sunsoar
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I think WoW made a great game for solo'ers and but went downhill for endgame- if they'd kept that solo-centric design throughout instead of bait & switching it with raiding for endgame perhaps all of the players that preferred to solo would stay in WoW and the rest of us would have have at least a few games where people crying for solo content don't taint the direction of every MMO.
Let's cut to the chase, shall we? Group play and social interraction in MMOs is a thing of the past. Modern MMOs are all about questing and solo-friendly gameplay. Developers do not care if people interract, at least until they get to the end of the game and start raiding.
Rift is the latest game to buck to this trend. I've followed Rift avidly since the main forums popped up in April 2010 and never once have I believed it would be a world dominated by leading players around by the hand and on their own. I haven't so much been mislead as I've not been explained the truth about the game. Maybe it changed, maybe this was it all along. There is a clip of an interview that Russ Brown gave at Gamescom that is doing the rounds. It has Russ saying how opposed Rift are to quest helpers and then we have the beta with nothing but quest helpers. That may not strictly be denying fans group play but it aids the solo questers so much that it is significant.
I get the distinct feeling that the current fanbase for MMOs is far too heavily populated with people who don't want to group and I have to ask why that is. On the Rift forums there is currently a number of topics asking for auto grouping to be enabled in Rifts. Let's be truthful and say that they're currently a mass solo expereince, for want of a better definition. So why is there so many replies to this suggestion that say stuff along the lines of 'I don't want to be forced to group'? Why are you playing an MMO people? Why aren't you playing Dragon Age solo? Don't tell me it's because you like to see people around you, because if it is then why don't you wnat to interract with them?
I got an email from a friend this morning and he commented on this trend of people who say they don't like the solo quest-driven expereince are just told they're burned out on MMOs. It's not he, himself, that is saying this, it's what he sees and he's right. I'm not burnt out on MMOs though. I love MMOs and I want to play them. But I don't want to solo, well not all the time anyway. I want to interract with people. I want to meet new people and level alongside them. I want my wits to be tested in how I work with this new guy that I have never met before.
They're MMORPGs; Massively Multiplayer Online RPGs. what is so damn Massively Multiplayer about solo questing your way to level 50? Does Massively Multiplayer now define a game where lots of people do solo quests? You may as well just call it an ORPG; an Online RPG, if Massively just means lots of people.
Bring back the social aspect to MMOs. It is sadly missed. And grow some balls developers, make something interesting and new.
This does not yet apply to ArenaNet. Too many MMOs have burnt me that I'm not going to go so far as procaliming GW2 the holy grail of MMOs, but they are having the drive and guts to change questing. Can they implement social gameplay in a way that other developers are unable, or unwilling, to do?
I'd like to reply to Holifeet's post, as it was thoughtful and well-written.
I come from a long background of pnp DnD'ing. I mention this because this was always a group activity which I loved and still love when I get the opportunity. And yet, with video games, I am firmly in the solo category.
You asked "Why not play Dragon Age?". Well, I have, and it was fun. One difference about solo rpgs is that they are not persistant worlds like MMO ones. They tend to change as you make your way through the main plot, after which most if not all the challenging content is done. Often this takes 40 hours of play or less. This certainly would not do for an MMO to have such little content. Single rpgs are like books. You read em thru once, twice, and then you shelve em for a while.
You mentioned seeing other people in the world. No developer can fill a game with NPC's that act like live people. Actions aside, just knowing those are real people makes the MMO world seem more real, more alive.
MMO's have other features as well that single games do not, like an auction house. If I am in search of specific magic items, in a srpg, I have to be lucky enough to have them drop for me. In an MMO, those items only need drop for someone who would place them on the AH. And then the reverse is true, I may find something that I can sell to another player.
Even though I choose to mainly solo in an MMO, I might want to group from time to time. Or, I might be running by some other player struggling and jump in to help him for a minute. After the fight, a friendly wave, and then I'm off again. Just another example of the kind of experience you cannot get from an srpg.
There are other points I could make like this, (I'm sure you could find many within this thread). Individually they might be minor considerations, but taken in total, they add up to something substantial.
Finally, I think the biggest issue for me not wanting to group is not a case of being anti-social, but rather anti-convenient. When I sit down for a nice session of pnp gaming, all the players present are like-minded and are there to play. When I join an online group, often someone goes afk for some reason or another, or has the rest of the group waiting to start the quest for 15 minutes or more while they do god knows what. And if real life compels me to take 10 or 15 minutes out, I HATE holding up the group like that. I think it's unfair and rude.
There's also the truly anti-social people within the group, those who are there not because they want to enjoy a group experience, but because there is no other method for them to get that quest done (or get the loot it offers).
There's also a question of style, of pacing. Some like to rush through the quest. Some may have never done it before and want to soak it in. Whichever way the group winds up doing it is not the preferred way for someone.
So, I would be happy to group 99% of the time if every time I was ready to group, the rest of the players were instantly there and ready to go. The group only takes breaks when I want to. The group moves through the quest at the exact pace I am comfortable with. Is that fair or reasonable? Of course not. I'd have to be an ass-hat of immense proportions to expect that.
To summarize, it's not that I dislike grouping. It's that I LOATHE when I am required to, because my options are to have assholish expectations or suffer all the pauses, delays, waits, pacing decisions, etc. Keep in mind that wanting to avoid such delays is often not a question of impatience, but of necessity. If I know a quest takes about 45 minutes and I have an hour to play, my choices are to solo the quest or risk not being able to finish it due to delays beyond my control. That translates into either do the quest or do something else.
I hope this gives you some insight as to why some people like to play MMOs and yet rarely/never group.
I'd like to reply to Holifeet's post, as it was thoughtful and well-written.
I come from a long background of pnp DnD'ing. I mention this because this was always a group activity which I loved and still love when I get the opportunity. And yet, with video games, I am firmly in the solo category.
You asked "Why not play Dragon Age?". Well, I have, and it was fun. One difference about solo rpgs is that they are not persistant worlds like MMO ones. They tend to change as you make your way through the main plot, after which most if not all the challenging content is done. Often this takes 40 hours of play or less. This certainly would not do for an MMO to have such little content. Single rpgs are like books. You read em thru once, twice, and then you shelve em for a while.
For me, if they could make a single-player game that has the same characteristics as an MMO, a persistent, ever-changing, ever-growing world that takes me not just days or weeks, but years to explore, I'd probably stop playing MMOs. However, that hasn't happened. A good single-player game comes along once in a blue moon and, as you can see from my SIG, I've played them all. I'm now waiting until a new one comes out, then I'll probably go play that for a while until I complete it, then come back to MMOs for something to do until the next one comes along.
If MMOs were more like PnP RPGs, I'd probably think about them a little differently. Unfortunately, they're often just a bunch of immature twits running around swinging their epeens around, racing to end-game and I'm not remotely interested in that. I'd prefer good AI over having real people most of the time. Certainly there are exceptions, I usually have a small group of friends in a MMO, people who rise above the muck and mire, but even with them, I rarely ever group because they almost always have dramatically different playstyles than I do.
Finally, I think the biggest issue for me not wanting to group is not a case of being anti-social, but rather anti-convenient. When I sit down for a nice session of pnp gaming, all the players present are like-minded and are there to play. When I join an online group, often someone goes afk for some reason or another, or has the rest of the group waiting to start the quest for 15 minutes or more while they do god knows what. And if real life compels me to take 10 or 15 minutes out, I HATE holding up the group like that. I think it's unfair and rude.
It's a good post. And I wanted to "second' the above.
I can't tell you how many times I've joined a pug only to have someone constantly having us wait, or they are still shopping in town, etc.
I don't find it acceptable. Period. If I join a group I'm there in 3 minutes or however long it takes for me to get there from hitting "accept" on the invite. If I need stuff I say so, get the stuff and head there as quick as humanly possible.
I also have to agree with Cephus. As soon as a single player game that has the breadth of a world like an mmo comes along I probably wont' do mmo's anymore or at least to the same level as I play them now. One of the reasons that Oblvion is still my main game.
well, with mods at least.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It's a good post. And I wanted to "second' the above.
I can't tell you how many times I've joined a pug only to have someone constantly having us wait, or they are still shopping in town, etc.
I don't find it acceptable. Period. If I join a group I'm there in 3 minutes or however long it takes for me to get there from hitting "accept" on the invite. If I need stuff I say so, get the stuff and head there as quick as humanly possible.
I also have to agree with Cephus. As soon as a single player game that has the breadth of a world like an mmo comes along I probably wont' do mmo's anymore or at least to the same level as I play them now. One of the reasons that Oblvion is still my main game.
well, with mods at least.
Exactly. I can't tell you how many times I've sat around for an hour or more waiting for people to show up for a group. If you're going to put yourself on the LFG list, get your ass to the group and play! Far too many times, we sit there waiting and waiting and waiting until someone is done with their dungeon or selling things in town or buying things or trading things or bio-breaking or whatever.
If you want to group, GROUP! If you're not willing to do that, get your name off the damn list. You're just wasting my time.
I don't know what to say really. I feel as if I am appealing for a lost cause and it all comes down to hearsay and worry.
There are a number of reasons why groups are hard to get together, not that I can honestly say I've had super abundant times when people take an hour to arrive or they're still out shopping. One of the big reasons for this is an over abundance of solo content. When people can get what they want from soloing they often feel less obliged to find groups or listen to the wildfire spread belief that groups don't get together, or that they split too fast. There's even that age old adage that 99% of the playing population are idiots. It's just not true. I can count on my two hands the number of times I ever had grouping problems in the memorable past of MMO gaming.
The more people that give grouping a chance, then the more people that are available for it. Throwing in the excuse that you might have to go for 5 minutes is just that, an excuse, in my mind. Do you tell your mates you can't go to the pub, or the cinema because you might have to leave? No, you make time for it. There should be plenty of groups that don't take 3 hours to complete. You can join up for an hour and kill Ice Giants and someone else takes your place.
I come from EQ, and no there's no rose tinted glasses here. I would love a new game that isn't EQ, but they've just moved on so far that I never will see another that matches my desires. EQ worked and it was group play abundant. It worked because the group stuff wasn't always based around questing.
Quest driven games promote soloing and damage grouping. Questing damages grouping because it is more often than not the case that the group is following a set of quests that take time and effort. If your cleric has to leave then you wnat to find a new one, but finding someone at the same stage is the hassle. You might have to go back and re do stuff or clerics may not want to join because they're further ahead and don't wnat to re do stuff themselves.
These are problems that developers need to address, but there is no hard and fast way to do so. Rift's way seems to be making the dungeon short and quick. That becomes the only group content and it's dull, but it does mean that people have time to finish things. I could probably stomach this sort of things if there was a variety of dungeons, different ways to explore each and more dungeons that one every ten levels.
Why not have large dungeons that people can just nip in and out of and find their own things to do? Bring back the old idea of camps if you must, because I never saw the harm in them. You're cleric has to leave? Just get a new one and he has no objectives needing to be met. Have a system whereby you can summon him direct to you by all means, that doesn't bother me. I just want to promote grouping.
I don't disagree with people wanting to solo. I want to solo from time to time, but I don't want to do it all the time. Grouping is not problematic until people make it problematic. There are far too many excuses and fears floating about that need to be consigned to the bin.
Saying it's because of the over-abundance of solo content is an over-simplification if not an outright fabricatoin. EQ was primarily a grouping game, not forced but definately favoured and long wait times for groups, often stretching into hours was the number one complaint of that game.
Venge Sunsoar
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
Who says it has to make sense to you? If you don't like to do it, don't do it. Stop criticizing people who do.
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 at all analogous to an MMO? You don't play both sides in an MMO, you don't alternately play your character, then switch to playing the monsters. Therefore your suggested chess example is ridiculous on it's face.
The fact is, the only thing that matters in these games at the end of the day is how many people are paying to play. That's all developers care about. If they can get more people paying by making the game solo-friendly, that's what they're going to do. That's the reality of business. The fact that you neither understand nor care about that reality is sad.
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
Um. I'm 99.99% sure that we have actually agreed on this point in the past. Yes, developers are all about the money now, I did disagree that it's always been that way because when home computers were in their infancy games and their programmers were very different. But now, it's all about the money and that means they'll target the majority rather than the people who actually want to play these games.
The chess thing was about difficulty level. Of course you don't play the monsters in an MMO (unless you're PvP'ing in LOTRO), but the difficulty is the same as your ability. Both sides are therefore equal in power level. You can't have a mob in a solo-centric game that can kill you in two or three hits because you're supposed to be able to solo that mob, whereas that would be a perfectly viable mob in a group-based game.
The power of your attacker equals the power of the defender in a solo game, otherwise you wouldn't be able to win. They might do some clever effects or your character might have powers to disguise the fact that the two levels are the same, but simple fact is, solo-centric games are always going to be as difficult as the power level of your character.
That explained: Where is the difficulty in a solo-centric game? The only way you could make a more powerful mob in a solo-centric game is by following a set series of key presses. Mob Special Attack 1: Dodge left. Mob Specal Attack 2: Jump back. Mob Special Attack 3: Slide forward. Mob stunned for 5 seconds: Attack, attack, attack. Go back to 1. And now you really are just playing God of War Online.
I do have a question for you, as I've never been sure. What is your take on MMO's? All I've heard from you is that developers want cash and thus solo-friendly games are going to win. But is that a good thing or a bad thing to you? Would you prefer a mix of solo/group, solo-centric, group-centric? Do you think it's right that developers are focused on money only? Open your heart to us, Cephus...
Well, that does make more sense!
but once again, I don't see why there needs to be just "group content" or "solo content". I spent years in Lineage 2 soloing and there was alwasy group content to do as well.
Did I group? yes. Did I mostly solo? Yes. Because I could and I enjoy it. When the time came I would group. Were they people who mostly grouped? yup. There were people who preferred to group and they could.
Were there classes who had a difficult time soloing? yes. I personally have no problems with this if the point of the class is a group class. Provided of course that the group content takes advantage of them.
As long as devs put in group content, group quest chains, and because people seem to be playing for rewards these days as opposed to having the experience, decent rewards or easier gotten rewards then I don't see the issue as those who like grouping can do so.
then leave the areas (Like in L2) for the people who like to solo.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
+1
hmmm. This thread still?
Was just thinking, I don't have a strong opinion either way about grouping oriented or solo oriented MMOs. I would think naturally, the market would try to cater to both.
I was just thinking thought that the main reason I have not stuck with MMOs was do to lack of active grouping. Anyone else in that boat that has thought more about the that?
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
How is that possible? you have the brain power to realize a great many things, I wouldn't think you'd have a tough grasp on something as minor as "personal taste". Maybe playing mmorpg's aren't the thing that you do differently than most but I have to think there is something in your life that you just like to do your way no matter how strange it may seem to others.
Now the truth of the matter is I wonder if there are really alot of people who want to solo "all of the time". My prefered style of play is solo, I tend to not have groups of friends who I start to engage the minute I log on *shrugs* but that doesn't mean I play solo all the time, and I often group for reasons other than getting some kind of loot.
As a player who prefers to solo I kind of sneer a bit at folks who whine about not having access to things that were traditionally group based things, contrary to popular opinion we don't all want to see group dynamics wiped out some of us just have no desire to run that particular race.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Well I think what he has outlined really hones in one how he views these games.
Thing is, not everyone is looking for "challenge" or "heart pumping action" or many other descriptions of game play that they might like.
there are people out there that view these games more as immersive storylines. Whether it's their story or something a writer has come up with.
This is not to say there aren't challenging pve encounters. But in general, mobs are made to be beaten. The thing is, Sid is looking for that mob to be a challenge, something to overcome by his skill. But others are looking at is as a more story based encounter: "I was strolling through the woods when I happened upon an ogre. Though he took me by surprise, I quickly vanquished it and continued on my way to the temple of Thrones where I will lay down my claim to the 'Eye of Cups' as is my right as prince blah blah blah..."
The encounter with the Ogre is only important because it represented a possible danger. But because our hero is "a hero" no such monster will deter him from his quest.
Same reason why I still play through goblin town in LOTRO on a lvl 65 Guardian.
Very few of the mobs will offer a huge challenge until I get down below in the hall of the Goblin King. But I don't go there for "challenge". I go there because my character has a need to clear out that filthy den of blah blah blah..."
Now I'm not saying that every encounter is a storied encounter in my mind as I do enjoy some challenge. I've solo attacked many a named mini-boss in moria with some mixed results. Especially this big tall fellow in the first hall who took me to task around lvl 60.
Point being is that I don't think Sid approaches these games in that way and therefore it hasn't occurred to him that there are other reasons to play other than testing one's self.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. But it would explain his post and his stance.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Truth is EVERY single base has been covered,there is FFXI/Wow/Eq2 that offers both grouping and soloing,so there should be no complaints.The facts are grouping offers MORE to combat,more is better for some,and others don't like to think beyond 2 hotbar icons.Choice is still there by wh ytake away one from the other,even ina group setting,you can still play out as a soloist,do your own thing,and god knows i have seen this MANY times.
If you just don't like interacting with others,should other people have to pay for your inabilities?
Now the real truth....
The REAL truth is that these complainers are not really complaining about soloing,they are complaining that they have no gaming skills,they want the games to be sooooo easy,a 4 year old could play it.They need these simplsitic games to feed a downned ego,they need soemthing easy to feel they are accomplishing something.
That is their TRUE definition of SOLO=EASY.
You want to solo go for it,go play Beastmaster/Ninja/Dancer/RedMAge/Summoner in FFXI,it is there waiting,go play Necormancer or ShadowKnight in EQ2 it is there,nobody is stopping you,but be prepared for some effort and skill,if one is afraid of either one,then you shouldn't be complaining about the topic,you need other help,like maturing ,things in life are not always handed to you on a silver platter.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It doesn't matter if it's a good thing or a bad thing, it's a true thing. Like it or not, that's the situation and sitting around whining about how awful it is won't change a thing. I realize that developers are in it for the money and always have been, therefore, whether I like that fact or not, I have to deal with it or just stop playing. My opinion has no bearing on reality. It is what it is.
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
With an answer like that you should be a politician.
I'm just being honest. I realized a long, long time ago that what I think means jack squat in the real world, especially when it comes to major issues. I either accept what is or I move on. Fighting against reality is a pointless gesture, it results in nothing but frustration and it doesn't change a damn thing.
What I want or don't want in a game is irrelevant. Games are what they are. I either choose to play them or I do not. At present, I do not.
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
99% of players are idiots. Why on earth would I want to group with them? Like most things in life most people would rather be solo than deal with all the jerks and morans out there.
Personally I think that WoW would make an excellent B2P game. You buy it, play as much as you want, when you want, and at the end of the day, everyone is happier. People who like to solo have the freedom to do so without a monthly fee. Groupers can log in and group their way up and no fee. Off topic but hey this thing is 93 pages. What is one off topic post.
Where do I fit in? Well I cut my MMO teeth on EQ so yeah, I like grouping. Why? Because of the people. I have many fond memories of myself and two friends just grinding ice giants for money and chatting. We weren't getting anything out of it really (no loot or achievements but it was fun). I miss that about MMO's today. In EQ, you could find a random bunch of people have kill things for hours. It was boring but you usually talked and have a few laughs. You got to know people more. You grouped not only because you had to but because you wanted to.
Ouch.
I playd eq for a very very long time and groupd daily with strangers and 90% of them was ok, you did meet some jerks but it was actualy very rare.
Wow can't be compeard since its a fast paced game where interaction is quit hard. Ur on the move all the time, offcourse they are jerks they don't have time to be friendly.
Pvp games hold much of the same but thats another reason, its a competive gameplay and we all know we get a bit childish when we compete even at older ages. atleast i do
im gods gift to this earth and everyone should reqognice and respect me :P
I agree. I think WoW did it in the best possible way. I get xp for crafting, grouping and soloing. I group whenever I want, all day if I want, and it only takes about 15 minutes max to get a group, or solo all day if I want. Other games you would wait hours to get a group. I get great rewards when grouped or when solo. When grouping we can set the challenge high and go after mobs/dungeons that are difficult for our level or low and just coast through depending on the level of challenge that we want, same with solo.
I couldn't ask for anything more. Easy group, great challenge, great rewards, easy solo. Everything in one game. I just wish they had housing.
Venge Sunsoar
I think WoW made a great game for solo'ers and but went downhill for endgame- if they'd kept that solo-centric design throughout instead of bait & switching it with raiding for endgame perhaps all of the players that preferred to solo would stay in WoW and the rest of us would have have at least a few games where people crying for solo content don't taint the direction of every MMO.
Let's cut to the chase, shall we? Group play and social interraction in MMOs is a thing of the past. Modern MMOs are all about questing and solo-friendly gameplay. Developers do not care if people interract, at least until they get to the end of the game and start raiding.
Rift is the latest game to buck to this trend. I've followed Rift avidly since the main forums popped up in April 2010 and never once have I believed it would be a world dominated by leading players around by the hand and on their own. I haven't so much been mislead as I've not been explained the truth about the game. Maybe it changed, maybe this was it all along. There is a clip of an interview that Russ Brown gave at Gamescom that is doing the rounds. It has Russ saying how opposed Rift are to quest helpers and then we have the beta with nothing but quest helpers. That may not strictly be denying fans group play but it aids the solo questers so much that it is significant.
I get the distinct feeling that the current fanbase for MMOs is far too heavily populated with people who don't want to group and I have to ask why that is. On the Rift forums there is currently a number of topics asking for auto grouping to be enabled in Rifts. Let's be truthful and say that they're currently a mass solo expereince, for want of a better definition. So why is there so many replies to this suggestion that say stuff along the lines of 'I don't want to be forced to group'? Why are you playing an MMO people? Why aren't you playing Dragon Age solo? Don't tell me it's because you like to see people around you, because if it is then why don't you wnat to interract with them?
I got an email from a friend this morning and he commented on this trend of people who say they don't like the solo quest-driven expereince are just told they're burned out on MMOs. It's not he, himself, that is saying this, it's what he sees and he's right. I'm not burnt out on MMOs though. I love MMOs and I want to play them. But I don't want to solo, well not all the time anyway. I want to interract with people. I want to meet new people and level alongside them. I want my wits to be tested in how I work with this new guy that I have never met before.
They're MMORPGs; Massively Multiplayer Online RPGs. what is so damn Massively Multiplayer about solo questing your way to level 50? Does Massively Multiplayer now define a game where lots of people do solo quests? You may as well just call it an ORPG; an Online RPG, if Massively just means lots of people.
Bring back the social aspect to MMOs. It is sadly missed. And grow some balls developers, make something interesting and new.
This does not yet apply to ArenaNet. Too many MMOs have burnt me that I'm not going to go so far as procaliming GW2 the holy grail of MMOs, but they are having the drive and guts to change questing. Can they implement social gameplay in a way that other developers are unable, or unwilling, to do?
.
I'd like to reply to Holifeet's post, as it was thoughtful and well-written.
I come from a long background of pnp DnD'ing. I mention this because this was always a group activity which I loved and still love when I get the opportunity. And yet, with video games, I am firmly in the solo category.
You asked "Why not play Dragon Age?". Well, I have, and it was fun. One difference about solo rpgs is that they are not persistant worlds like MMO ones. They tend to change as you make your way through the main plot, after which most if not all the challenging content is done. Often this takes 40 hours of play or less. This certainly would not do for an MMO to have such little content. Single rpgs are like books. You read em thru once, twice, and then you shelve em for a while.
You mentioned seeing other people in the world. No developer can fill a game with NPC's that act like live people. Actions aside, just knowing those are real people makes the MMO world seem more real, more alive.
MMO's have other features as well that single games do not, like an auction house. If I am in search of specific magic items, in a srpg, I have to be lucky enough to have them drop for me. In an MMO, those items only need drop for someone who would place them on the AH. And then the reverse is true, I may find something that I can sell to another player.
Even though I choose to mainly solo in an MMO, I might want to group from time to time. Or, I might be running by some other player struggling and jump in to help him for a minute. After the fight, a friendly wave, and then I'm off again. Just another example of the kind of experience you cannot get from an srpg.
There are other points I could make like this, (I'm sure you could find many within this thread). Individually they might be minor considerations, but taken in total, they add up to something substantial.
Finally, I think the biggest issue for me not wanting to group is not a case of being anti-social, but rather anti-convenient. When I sit down for a nice session of pnp gaming, all the players present are like-minded and are there to play. When I join an online group, often someone goes afk for some reason or another, or has the rest of the group waiting to start the quest for 15 minutes or more while they do god knows what. And if real life compels me to take 10 or 15 minutes out, I HATE holding up the group like that. I think it's unfair and rude.
There's also the truly anti-social people within the group, those who are there not because they want to enjoy a group experience, but because there is no other method for them to get that quest done (or get the loot it offers).
There's also a question of style, of pacing. Some like to rush through the quest. Some may have never done it before and want to soak it in. Whichever way the group winds up doing it is not the preferred way for someone.
So, I would be happy to group 99% of the time if every time I was ready to group, the rest of the players were instantly there and ready to go. The group only takes breaks when I want to. The group moves through the quest at the exact pace I am comfortable with. Is that fair or reasonable? Of course not. I'd have to be an ass-hat of immense proportions to expect that.
To summarize, it's not that I dislike grouping. It's that I LOATHE when I am required to, because my options are to have assholish expectations or suffer all the pauses, delays, waits, pacing decisions, etc. Keep in mind that wanting to avoid such delays is often not a question of impatience, but of necessity. If I know a quest takes about 45 minutes and I have an hour to play, my choices are to solo the quest or risk not being able to finish it due to delays beyond my control. That translates into either do the quest or do something else.
I hope this gives you some insight as to why some people like to play MMOs and yet rarely/never group.
For me, if they could make a single-player game that has the same characteristics as an MMO, a persistent, ever-changing, ever-growing world that takes me not just days or weeks, but years to explore, I'd probably stop playing MMOs. However, that hasn't happened. A good single-player game comes along once in a blue moon and, as you can see from my SIG, I've played them all. I'm now waiting until a new one comes out, then I'll probably go play that for a while until I complete it, then come back to MMOs for something to do until the next one comes along.
If MMOs were more like PnP RPGs, I'd probably think about them a little differently. Unfortunately, they're often just a bunch of immature twits running around swinging their epeens around, racing to end-game and I'm not remotely interested in that. I'd prefer good AI over having real people most of the time. Certainly there are exceptions, I usually have a small group of friends in a MMO, people who rise above the muck and mire, but even with them, I rarely ever group because they almost always have dramatically different playstyles than I do.
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 a good post. And I wanted to "second' the above.
I can't tell you how many times I've joined a pug only to have someone constantly having us wait, or they are still shopping in town, etc.
I don't find it acceptable. Period. If I join a group I'm there in 3 minutes or however long it takes for me to get there from hitting "accept" on the invite. If I need stuff I say so, get the stuff and head there as quick as humanly possible.
I also have to agree with Cephus. As soon as a single player game that has the breadth of a world like an mmo comes along I probably wont' do mmo's anymore or at least to the same level as I play them now. One of the reasons that Oblvion is still my main game.
well, with mods at least.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Exactly. I can't tell you how many times I've sat around for an hour or more waiting for people to show up for a group. If you're going to put yourself on the LFG list, get your ass to the group and play! Far too many times, we sit there waiting and waiting and waiting until someone is done with their dungeon or selling things in town or buying things or trading things or bio-breaking or whatever.
If you want to group, GROUP! If you're not willing to do that, get your name off the damn list. You're just wasting my time.
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 don't know what to say really. I feel as if I am appealing for a lost cause and it all comes down to hearsay and worry.
There are a number of reasons why groups are hard to get together, not that I can honestly say I've had super abundant times when people take an hour to arrive or they're still out shopping. One of the big reasons for this is an over abundance of solo content. When people can get what they want from soloing they often feel less obliged to find groups or listen to the wildfire spread belief that groups don't get together, or that they split too fast. There's even that age old adage that 99% of the playing population are idiots. It's just not true. I can count on my two hands the number of times I ever had grouping problems in the memorable past of MMO gaming.
The more people that give grouping a chance, then the more people that are available for it. Throwing in the excuse that you might have to go for 5 minutes is just that, an excuse, in my mind. Do you tell your mates you can't go to the pub, or the cinema because you might have to leave? No, you make time for it. There should be plenty of groups that don't take 3 hours to complete. You can join up for an hour and kill Ice Giants and someone else takes your place.
I come from EQ, and no there's no rose tinted glasses here. I would love a new game that isn't EQ, but they've just moved on so far that I never will see another that matches my desires. EQ worked and it was group play abundant. It worked because the group stuff wasn't always based around questing.
Quest driven games promote soloing and damage grouping. Questing damages grouping because it is more often than not the case that the group is following a set of quests that take time and effort. If your cleric has to leave then you wnat to find a new one, but finding someone at the same stage is the hassle. You might have to go back and re do stuff or clerics may not want to join because they're further ahead and don't wnat to re do stuff themselves.
These are problems that developers need to address, but there is no hard and fast way to do so. Rift's way seems to be making the dungeon short and quick. That becomes the only group content and it's dull, but it does mean that people have time to finish things. I could probably stomach this sort of things if there was a variety of dungeons, different ways to explore each and more dungeons that one every ten levels.
Why not have large dungeons that people can just nip in and out of and find their own things to do? Bring back the old idea of camps if you must, because I never saw the harm in them. You're cleric has to leave? Just get a new one and he has no objectives needing to be met. Have a system whereby you can summon him direct to you by all means, that doesn't bother me. I just want to promote grouping.
I don't disagree with people wanting to solo. I want to solo from time to time, but I don't want to do it all the time. Grouping is not problematic until people make it problematic. There are far too many excuses and fears floating about that need to be consigned to the bin.
.
Saying it's because of the over-abundance of solo content is an over-simplification if not an outright fabricatoin. EQ was primarily a grouping game, not forced but definately favoured and long wait times for groups, often stretching into hours was the number one complaint of that game.
Venge Sunsoar