If you divide solo content and group content equally, players tend to choose the path of least resistance and you're stuck with a game in which there's little incentive to group.
Some of the arguments I'm hearing are ridiculous. "If you need to group in an mmo, you don't have any friends in real life!" or "You can still group to kill all those solo mobs!"
Its really not that complicated. If players don't need each other to progress, community will not develop.
Everquest was great because as you gained levels, it required you to seek out others to effectively progress. By the time you were 60, killing level 60+ mobs took a raid of players.
It was more than just the group content in EQ though; it was the sense of impending danger anywhere you went. It was that feeling like, "Wow, this world is harsh and scary. Sure wish I had a friend because I really don't want to die again this far from the city." Going through intense and exciting or otherwise emotional experiences with people builds bonds not unlike strangers stuck in the wilderness who survive some traumatic experience together like a natural disaster. Everquest just made for a very real experience, and it brought people together.
What I dont get is, if the MMO has any form of party, or guild system...then can't people just turn any form of solo content into group content?
Heck even without a group function this statement is still true by just meeting up in game. So the argument most people use saying "Oh this game doesnt have grouping, or is solo only" when there is clearly a party function simply are lazy to form their own group, make friends, or even just follow a random person and help them to get their grouping fix.
Or is a prize/shinies for grouping the agenda for group only advocates, while eliminating the option for solo play? Making a game skewed mostly for grouping is really a final step towards lobby play "Waiting for more players" while sitting around town to go out to quest would be incredibly boring, and force interactions with alot of internet d-bags.
Thinking about it, I can only come to the conclusion that the people who post "This game has no groups, community, etc." are unable/unwilling to find a group, or friends to play with.
Its the same issue I've had in every single game with other players like "Oh man no one is running this dungeon this game sucks". When all they are doing is looking for a group instead of trying to build one.
One of my biggest beefs with most gamers, is that they always want "someone" else to organize, and lead a group when they are equally capable...be it the game systems itself or other players...and if someone else doesnt make their fun for them they begin the complaint train.
As for improving grouping in game, simple solution, reward leaders. If they do that, more leaders will step up for their troubles. If you have lead in games before then you too know its alot of just work, not fun, with equal return when compared to the party/raid players who simply afk or playing the game elsewhere while you find a group for them.
Originally posted by supertouchmeIf you divide solo content and group content equally, players tend to choose the path of least resistance and you're stuck with a game in which there's little incentive to group.Some of the arguments I'm hearing are ridiculous. "If you need to group in an mmo, you don't have any friends in real life!" or "You can still group to kill all those solo mobs!"
Ok, how about this argument. Why do you need an incentive to group? I thought you liked grouping. So do it. And chat, and talk about cake recipes and compare your lolcat pictures and do everything you can do in a chat room in a game.
What is stopping you? Why must you restrict others from enjoying the game so you can do what you can already do just by MAKING THAT CHOICE?
How about THAT argument?
Originally posted by DistopiaPretty much every game today can be played solo with any class, why would anyone need to whine to have that?
And pretty much every one of them has an end game with raids that cater to those players that need their hands held.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
Its really not that complicated. If players don't need each other to progress, community will not develop.
Everquest was great because as you gained levels, it required you to seek out others to effectively progress. By the time you were 60, killing level 60+ mobs took a raid of players.
It was more than just the group content in EQ though; it was the sense of impending danger anywhere you went. It was that feeling like, "Wow, this world is harsh and scary. Sure wish I had a friend because I really don't want to die again this far from the city." Going through intense and exciting or otherwise emotional experiences with people builds bonds not unlike strangers stuck in the wilderness who survive some traumatic experience together like a natural disaster. Everquest just made for a very real experience, and it brought people together.
What about SWG which had a great in-game community? Doesn't it pretty much prove your opening statement wrong?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
If you divide solo content and group content equally, players tend to choose the path of least resistance and you're stuck with a game in which there's little incentive to group.
Some of the arguments I'm hearing are ridiculous. "If you need to group in an mmo, you don't have any friends in real life!" or "You can still group to kill all those solo mobs!"
The incentive to group, is socializing and building friendships, not to beat the game faster that is the problem.
If people are unable to do this and base their gameplay solely on their selfish need to be the best and fastest to reach a certain progression point, that is on them. It is not the games fault or duty to give you teammates.
Everyone wants to be the "hero" which is a solo idea. People have to put their selfish needs a side and work on being part of a heroic team to enjoy the benefits of being on a team.
I have never played a game where soloing was so much more advantageous then grouping that grouping was just absurd and out of the question.
Even in GW2, random people would run up and do "dynamic" quests together, even if they weren't grouped and communicating, there was still group activity happening. I would join random invites if going into an area I didn't know because an extra body is always good to have. It was my choice to accept or go it alone, regardless of what was ahead.
All it takes is one person to invite others to the group and ta da, chance to meet new people.
I stand behind my belief that people that need the game to force people into their adventure, need to look in the mirror. Why don't you have friends already, why aren't you in a guild, why aren't you inviting and communicating with others? I don't believe this nonsense that every single person ignored everyone else.
Take this forum for example, there appears to be plenty of people that want to group and be part of a community and team. Are all these people sitting on the forums and none in game?
I don't believe there needs to be "solo" or "group" content. There needs to be a scale of difficulty, pretty much like there always is.
Solo = can kill some rats alone. Group = can kill the rat king together sooner and faster then progressing far enough to do it solo. There will always be difficult mobs that require teamwork of varying degrees. Sometimes you just need extra bodies, sometimes you need full on communication and coordination.
EQ is used as the example all games have to follow to be good. I soloed plenty in EQ, but working with others meant I could progress faster then I would alone, be it literally by gaining XP faster or just by being able to fight harder mobs sooner even if they didn't give faster XP. All games allow this.
Originally posted by Shadowguy64 For the record, I usually solo when leveling. I prefer to play the game instead of standing around looking for a groups.
This is generally me. I'm not actively avoiding groups, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time sitting around waiting for a group to come into existence either.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If you divide solo content and group content equally, players tend to choose the path of least resistance and you're stuck with a game in which there's little incentive to group.
You're right here, yet not about people not grouping, but they do bypass the harder content. Again I'll use TOR as an example. Every world had group areas for group questing/leveling. YEt they were frequently bypassed (even by groups). The heroic areas were always empty, or close to it. Yet plenty of groups were going through the main content. It always boggled me a bit to see that.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Ecoces if you need a game to promote mechanics that FORCE people to group with you ... you are the problem. I have run with groups constantly in EQ2, WoW, Guild Wars 2, Rift and countless other "solo MMORPGs". see thats the beauty of MMORPGs right now, people have options, they can either solo or they can group IF THEY WANT. recently in guild wars 2 my guild took 2 groups and started over, just running from event to event leveling up some new players from another guild game. it was amazing and fun but if someone wanted to go and do their own thing they could by themselves. forced grouping to do anything in a game is bad game design, sorry but someone has to say it. sure there should be some content that can only be done as a group however designing the whole game NOW around the concept of "you must group or get left behind" is destined to fail. so to all those out there saying they can't find groups or the community feeling and games need to force grouping. its most likely YOUR attitude that's keeping people from interacting and grouping with you.
MMOs today favor playing solo for the most part. It is almost counterproductive to group and far better to solo most of the content. I have been playing MMOs since 1999 when I started with EQ...grouping never felt forced, and believe it or not, even as a cleric I solo'd s fair amount from 1-50. Im the same person now as back then. I rarely group up in todays MMOs and loved to group up with EQ back in the day. Don't think the problem lies with the gamers my friend....might want to check the fast-food inspired game design devs are shoving down peoples throats ever since wow came on the scene.
Its really not that complicated. If players don't need each other to progress, community will not develop.
Everquest was great because as you gained levels, it required you to seek out others to effectively progress. By the time you were 60, killing level 60+ mobs took a raid of players.
It was more than just the group content in EQ though; it was the sense of impending danger anywhere you went. It was that feeling like, "Wow, this world is harsh and scary. Sure wish I had a friend because I really don't want to die again this far from the city." Going through intense and exciting or otherwise emotional experiences with people builds bonds not unlike strangers stuck in the wilderness who survive some traumatic experience together like a natural disaster. Everquest just made for a very real experience, and it brought people together.
At level 60, were you in a guild or did you just PUG your way through? Were those "raids" PUG groups or people you knew and trusted?
I only made it to 50 in EQ, but I was in a guild almost the entire time and always had someone to play with or could solo if I wanted (but stuck to grouping most of the time because it was more fun).
No one forced me to join a guild or group, it was up to me. I wasn't stuck in the wilderness with a small group, I had hundreds of people around me in game. I could pick and choose who was worth my time.
Also, if 60 was the max at the time, a single mob could essentially be "raid" material, even if just some giant stupid rat. So by it's nature it takes a lot of people to kill.
What game allows you to solo all content at max level and receive the same rewards as a raid?
EQN will not have people soloing dragons, this has been said already. The path to the dragon will probably require teamwork on some level as well.
Maybe surface level is solo land and by Tier 1-2, you need a few friends, 3 you need a group or more, 4 you need a raid...
if you need a game to promote mechanics that FORCE people to group with you ... you are the problem. I have run with groups constantly in EQ2, WoW, Guild Wars 2, Rift and countless other "solo MMORPGs".
see thats the beauty of MMORPGs right now, people have options, they can either solo or they can group IF THEY WANT. recently in guild wars 2 my guild took 2 groups and started over, just running from event to event leveling up some new players from another guild game. it was amazing and fun but if someone wanted to go and do their own thing they could by themselves.
forced grouping to do anything in a game is bad game design, sorry but someone has to say it. sure there should be some content that can only be done as a group however designing the whole game NOW around the concept of "you must group or get left behind" is destined to fail.
so to all those out there saying they can't find groups or the community feeling and games need to force grouping. its most likely YOUR attitude that's keeping people from interacting and grouping with you.
Thank god!!! Finally someone who understand where the problem lies. I've been saying this ever since the bashing on GW2 started and how "solo" the game supposed to be.
+1 to you Sir! I couldn't said it better.
Sure there's will always be some times where you want to group and people around couldn't care less and don't even answer you when you try to talk to them, but it happen in every themepark MMO I've played. Some just more often than others but that's when you want to start searching for a good guild to join.
MMOs today favor playing solo for the most part. It is almost counterproductive to group and far better to solo most of the content. I have been playing MMOs since 1999 when I started with EQ...grouping never felt forced, and believe it or not, even as a cleric I solo'd s fair amount from 1-50. Im the same person now as back then. I rarely group up in todays MMOs and loved to group up with EQ back in the day. Don't think the problem lies with the gamers my friend....might want to check the fast-food inspired game design devs are shoving down peoples throats ever since wow came on the scene.
You might want to look in the mirror. You said you didn't change, then why don't you group?
Again this comes back to people only wanting what is best for themselves and not looking at the whole picture (community) that so many think is gone. It is gone because everyone wants to be the "hero" and not part of a team.
I sure couldn't of soloed a dungeon without a raid full of guild mates in WoW anymore then I could take down Lockjaw solo early in my EQ days. Sure I could of leveled up past that mean old critter, but that wouldn't of been as fun as grouping with others lower in level and taking him down.
Difficulty is the factor that makes soloing or grouping effective. If your only mission is to reach max level instantly by the fastest means possible (GW2 it was crafting at launch) then people will do that.
If your goal is to have a good time, enjoy the entire game, and not speed through, grouping is still a viable option in any MMO out.
There is a fundamental problem with this "forced group" mentality that people seem to be blaming on games offering everyone multiple avenues of playing. If you choose to go the fast, solo friendly route, that is your choice.
Many of us still take the longer road and have a lot more fun apparently along the way.
Luckily it sounds like EQN will cater more to my style and less to those in a rush to get max level, best gear, best build, etc. Speed might actually be your downfall as you may miss chances to unlock classes and obtain quests/items along the way. Those looking to need 20 people to handle a rat won't be happy I'm afraid.
I'll be having a great time with friends, family, guild mates, etc. Send me a /tell, I'll let you join my group...
Solo content isn't conducive to grouping and forming the kind of social dynamic that makes mmos unique. It's just not. The idea is to join others in conquering something that can't be done alone and depending on others for survival -- you know, that "interdependence" EQ Next devs have talked about. Forming a group just to kill a bunch of solo mobs isn't fun.
Why hasn't anyone mentioned the possibility of having both? Let's look at games in the near future coming out that share certain similarities, Wildstar and EQN.
We KNOW that in Wildstar they offer an experience while leveling devoid of major grouping content other than dungeons. They do have that whole "path" system that caters to Social Play, Achievers, Explorers and Soloers that also open opportunities for grouping via intermingling. For an end-game they have a whole slew of group content that encourages socializing, like instead of beating a raid dungeon, capturing a raid boss (assumed to be harder) for use for your guild. They also seem to be catering to the extreme (not hardcore) level of "raider" by only offering up super large group content closer to 40 by offered information.
In EQN they have systems that offer you to be able to do anything (read: group or solo) at any time, but with little information available regarding large scale group content. They have LARGE SCALE solo opportunities in a Minecraft (Explore, Gather, Build your character, expand your options) style world, the very epitome of single player with a multi-player side arc. Yet they are pushing for extreme community gathering events in the form of Rally Call, one can only imagine a large portion of the player base will camp out in this area and form relationships and guilds for the purpose of completing a certain event related to pressing progression in the story. I would say more if there was more to say.
My point is, the options are there in really any game if you are looking to fill a certain void in what you crave as far as MMORPG games goes. I understand there is a lack of "structure" in a lot of what people look for, going back to EQ - yeah it was better to solo if you could. Enchanters, Necros, SKs, Magicians and Shaman to name a few could kite even super tough named mobs and gather EXP at a faster rate than ANY group could hope to. The game for most people though, was group centric. Point being that people could search for, and accomplish challenging solo content or establish ultra-tough raid/dungeon content (Well, not GW2) groups.
The problem primarily being that such systems are rarely supported. EQ never intended for players to solo mobs en masse, they intended for you to have to make a group for any content that was Yellow and Above, or face a battle that would require rest. Another problem being that solo content is typically related to grinding, an unfortunately intended way of increasing wealth. Some people enjoy it, no knocks there.
And group systems are overly supported. A side effect of this, developers post EQ feel the need to find a way to eject the content they do not focus on as group content, as solo content. Leveling in EQ was group content, Leveling in FFXI was group content. Leveling in WoW is solo content. Leveling in RIFT is solo content. In no game will you find the words, "Raid" and "Solo" used in the same context. So we push everything forward with the term "Social" when the OP clearly recognizes that every game EVER with any modicum of multi-player is social. Even Dark Souls somehow manages to build a social community with zero chat.
POINT: So ask yourself this, are you searching for a game that wants you to solo, or a game that wants you to group? Why not a game that supports both systems equally? Has that never been ok or something? Why do you as a player not dedicate yourself to those systems as equally or devout as you can and just enjoy the structure of the game itself? Or will nothing ever be enough?
ME PERSONALLY: I enjoy content that is challenging or structured. I do not enjoy content that is just thrown at you. Give me a story-line to follow that ends in a great finale? I'm in. Give me a story-line to follow that has no direction? I'm out. Give me group content that is challenging with a crappy/fluff reward? I'll take it. Give me group content that is easy with epic loot? I'm out.
It's all about what the individual player values ultimately, but we all already knew that. Maybe you should try and find a perfect "GAME" for you and expect to increase your social commitment to the players playing it because you already have something in common from the get go. In long, I agree whole-heartedly with the op, the problem is YOU.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
Why hasn't anyone mentioned the possibility of having both? Let's look at games in the near future coming out that share certain similarities, Wildstar and EQN.
I have. Both are needed to have a well rounded game. All the games I've played since the mid 90s offer both.
It's just that as games have become "easier" and soloing has become a viable option, many can't find the balance between being part of a community and making connections to racing to the end to earn that golden carrot.
I grouped and was part of guilds in both WoW and GW2. Both I soloed a great deal in and in both I had great team oriented adventures.
Seems that many have no self control and when given the option, they take the easiest route possible and then blame their personal choice issues on the game or on other gamers for doing the same thing they are.
EQ seems to be the only major MMO that is used as an example of "forced grouping" or how hard content made people come together. I knew plenty of people that soloed (druids quad kiting giants sure didn't have a group) and they did just fine.
Seems people's personal opinions and maybe cloudy memories make them jump to conclusions on how things were or should be for every other person.
I could care less if 99% of the gaming population wants to solo, that isn't going to make me do so. I'll always find like minded people to spend time with. If people decide to mindlessly solo alone, that's on them. I'll work with others and have a lot more fun in the process.
Originally posted by supertouchme Solo content isn't conducive to grouping and forming the kind of social dynamic that makes mmos unique. It's just not. The idea is to join others in conquering something that can't be done alone and depending on others for survival -- you know, that "interdependence" EQ Next devs have talked about. Forming a group just to kill a bunch of solo mobs isn't fun.
Your point isn't worthwhile. It's just not.
It isn't other people's problem you can't seem to figure out YOU need to join people, not expect to force them to join YOU. It's just not.
Your argument for denying MMO companies the soloers money because you can't be bothered with finding groups isn't valid. It's just not.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
We know optimists and pessimist just aren't mutually comprehensible.
Is this the mmorpg Abortion debate?
Or is that still the never-ending hardcore / casual war?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I doubt SOE cares much about this debate as long as we aren't demanding interdependence return, and with it community we long for. As Long we're completely dependent on the devs for our next fix. Too many dealers in a community game.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
EQ original did it right for a good portion of content. You could actually do certain really challenging group encounters with a single character. The main difference was the amount of time it took.
So what they did is basically make a single player take 10 to 15 minutes to kill 2 tough group mobs with effort. These mobs also had to be a certain flavor that best benefited the class of the single player to really work well.
Groups could get through the same mob in about 2 minutes which meant that they would have a 1/6 chance to get something or nothing they wanted every 10 minutes versus a chance for a single player to get a possible drop of something or nothing, but more exp for the single kill.
Over all Ultima Online was still the best system I have encountered for fostering grouping. Much of it was to have numbers in case of PK attack, but in EQ Next there will be dynamic world where anything can happen and having friends will no doubt be a benefit if you want to not die often. Not saying it's the only way, but obviously there is strength in numbers. I hope that EQ Next is similar to UO but with more interestingly intelligent ai that does indeed strike back or initiate attacks basically raiding the players.
Originally posted by VelocinoxWell, I am here to tell you it actually means Massively Multiplayer Online, which means there are a massive amount of players online simultaneously. It doesn't imply ANYTHING about being cooperative.Try standing on your own two feet and stop expecting everyone else in the game to carry you to the fun.
The OP has a great point. But what Vel says covers it best. MMO has no "G" for group in it. Just means a ton of people online playing. Any other definition is just flawed.
Great post OP, very good points! I know that sometimes I just want to get a little play time in and then have to go do something and if I had grouped up it would have meant me being late or having to disappoint people when I had to leave.
If you divide solo content and group content equally, players tend to choose the path of least resistance and you're stuck with a game in which there's little incentive to group.
You're right here, yet not about people not grouping, but they do bypass the harder content. Again I'll use TOR as an example. Every world had group areas for group questing/leveling. YEt they were frequently bypassed (even by groups). The heroic areas were always empty, or close to it. Yet plenty of groups were going through the main content. It always boggled me a bit to see that.
did you ever try to get a group together and do the heroic areas? i did and it was a lot of fun. it was extremely hard though i actually had to type in guild chat "hey anyone want to do the heroic area on X planet?" TWICE!
thats the thing i see on this post, tons of those in the "group only" camp apparently don't see "group looking for tank", "group looking for healer", "group looking for CC", "group looking for tank and healer" and think no one wants to do t hem. take the initiative and start a group for those areas and i bet you will see people join you.
it always amazes me how people just expect groups to be waiting for them. I remember playing SWTOR and wanted to finish up a group quest, I shouted "LFG for X quest" ... heard nothing at all. i then saw a few others shout for it but again not one single grouping. so i said screw it and shouted "forming group for X quest PST"
I literally got bombarded with 10 tells almost immediately. this guy said hes been shouting for a group for 2 days for this quest and I thought maybe if you had taken the initiative you would have gotten it done sooner.
Comments
If you divide solo content and group content equally, players tend to choose the path of least resistance and you're stuck with a game in which there's little incentive to group.
Some of the arguments I'm hearing are ridiculous. "If you need to group in an mmo, you don't have any friends in real life!" or "You can still group to kill all those solo mobs!"
Its really not that complicated. If players don't need each other to progress, community will not develop.
Everquest was great because as you gained levels, it required you to seek out others to effectively progress. By the time you were 60, killing level 60+ mobs took a raid of players.
It was more than just the group content in EQ though; it was the sense of impending danger anywhere you went. It was that feeling like, "Wow, this world is harsh and scary. Sure wish I had a friend because I really don't want to die again this far from the city." Going through intense and exciting or otherwise emotional experiences with people builds bonds not unlike strangers stuck in the wilderness who survive some traumatic experience together like a natural disaster. Everquest just made for a very real experience, and it brought people together.
What I dont get is, if the MMO has any form of party, or guild system...then can't people just turn any form of solo content into group content?
Heck even without a group function this statement is still true by just meeting up in game. So the argument most people use saying "Oh this game doesnt have grouping, or is solo only" when there is clearly a party function simply are lazy to form their own group, make friends, or even just follow a random person and help them to get their grouping fix.
Or is a prize/shinies for grouping the agenda for group only advocates, while eliminating the option for solo play? Making a game skewed mostly for grouping is really a final step towards lobby play "Waiting for more players" while sitting around town to go out to quest would be incredibly boring, and force interactions with alot of internet d-bags.
Thinking about it, I can only come to the conclusion that the people who post "This game has no groups, community, etc." are unable/unwilling to find a group, or friends to play with.
Its the same issue I've had in every single game with other players like "Oh man no one is running this dungeon this game sucks". When all they are doing is looking for a group instead of trying to build one.
One of my biggest beefs with most gamers, is that they always want "someone" else to organize, and lead a group when they are equally capable...be it the game systems itself or other players...and if someone else doesnt make their fun for them they begin the complaint train.
As for improving grouping in game, simple solution, reward leaders. If they do that, more leaders will step up for their troubles. If you have lead in games before then you too know its alot of just work, not fun, with equal return when compared to the party/raid players who simply afk or playing the game elsewhere while you find a group for them.
What is stopping you? Why must you restrict others from enjoying the game so you can do what you can already do just by MAKING THAT CHOICE?
How about THAT argument?
And pretty much every one of them has an end game with raids that cater to those players that need their hands held.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
What about SWG which had a great in-game community? Doesn't it pretty much prove your opening statement wrong?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The incentive to group, is socializing and building friendships, not to beat the game faster that is the problem.
If people are unable to do this and base their gameplay solely on their selfish need to be the best and fastest to reach a certain progression point, that is on them. It is not the games fault or duty to give you teammates.
Everyone wants to be the "hero" which is a solo idea. People have to put their selfish needs a side and work on being part of a heroic team to enjoy the benefits of being on a team.
I have never played a game where soloing was so much more advantageous then grouping that grouping was just absurd and out of the question.
Even in GW2, random people would run up and do "dynamic" quests together, even if they weren't grouped and communicating, there was still group activity happening. I would join random invites if going into an area I didn't know because an extra body is always good to have. It was my choice to accept or go it alone, regardless of what was ahead.
All it takes is one person to invite others to the group and ta da, chance to meet new people.
I stand behind my belief that people that need the game to force people into their adventure, need to look in the mirror. Why don't you have friends already, why aren't you in a guild, why aren't you inviting and communicating with others? I don't believe this nonsense that every single person ignored everyone else.
Take this forum for example, there appears to be plenty of people that want to group and be part of a community and team. Are all these people sitting on the forums and none in game?
I don't believe there needs to be "solo" or "group" content. There needs to be a scale of difficulty, pretty much like there always is.
Solo = can kill some rats alone. Group = can kill the rat king together sooner and faster then progressing far enough to do it solo. There will always be difficult mobs that require teamwork of varying degrees. Sometimes you just need extra bodies, sometimes you need full on communication and coordination.
EQ is used as the example all games have to follow to be good. I soloed plenty in EQ, but working with others meant I could progress faster then I would alone, be it literally by gaining XP faster or just by being able to fight harder mobs sooner even if they didn't give faster XP. All games allow this.
This is generally me. I'm not actively avoiding groups, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time sitting around waiting for a group to come into existence either.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You're right here, yet not about people not grouping, but they do bypass the harder content. Again I'll use TOR as an example. Every world had group areas for group questing/leveling. YEt they were frequently bypassed (even by groups). The heroic areas were always empty, or close to it. Yet plenty of groups were going through the main content. It always boggled me a bit to see that.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
MMOs today favor playing solo for the most part. It is almost counterproductive to group and far better to solo most of the content. I have been playing MMOs since 1999 when I started with EQ...grouping never felt forced, and believe it or not, even as a cleric I solo'd s fair amount from 1-50. Im the same person now as back then. I rarely group up in todays MMOs and loved to group up with EQ back in the day. Don't think the problem lies with the gamers my friend....might want to check the fast-food inspired game design devs are shoving down peoples throats ever since wow came on the scene.
At level 60, were you in a guild or did you just PUG your way through? Were those "raids" PUG groups or people you knew and trusted?
I only made it to 50 in EQ, but I was in a guild almost the entire time and always had someone to play with or could solo if I wanted (but stuck to grouping most of the time because it was more fun).
No one forced me to join a guild or group, it was up to me. I wasn't stuck in the wilderness with a small group, I had hundreds of people around me in game. I could pick and choose who was worth my time.
Also, if 60 was the max at the time, a single mob could essentially be "raid" material, even if just some giant stupid rat. So by it's nature it takes a lot of people to kill.
What game allows you to solo all content at max level and receive the same rewards as a raid?
EQN will not have people soloing dragons, this has been said already. The path to the dragon will probably require teamwork on some level as well.
Maybe surface level is solo land and by Tier 1-2, you need a few friends, 3 you need a group or more, 4 you need a raid...
Thank god!!! Finally someone who understand where the problem lies. I've been saying this ever since the bashing on GW2 started and how "solo" the game supposed to be.
+1 to you Sir! I couldn't said it better.
Sure there's will always be some times where you want to group and people around couldn't care less and don't even answer you when you try to talk to them, but it happen in every themepark MMO I've played. Some just more often than others but that's when you want to start searching for a good guild to join.
You might want to look in the mirror. You said you didn't change, then why don't you group?
Again this comes back to people only wanting what is best for themselves and not looking at the whole picture (community) that so many think is gone. It is gone because everyone wants to be the "hero" and not part of a team.
I sure couldn't of soloed a dungeon without a raid full of guild mates in WoW anymore then I could take down Lockjaw solo early in my EQ days. Sure I could of leveled up past that mean old critter, but that wouldn't of been as fun as grouping with others lower in level and taking him down.
Difficulty is the factor that makes soloing or grouping effective. If your only mission is to reach max level instantly by the fastest means possible (GW2 it was crafting at launch) then people will do that.
If your goal is to have a good time, enjoy the entire game, and not speed through, grouping is still a viable option in any MMO out.
There is a fundamental problem with this "forced group" mentality that people seem to be blaming on games offering everyone multiple avenues of playing. If you choose to go the fast, solo friendly route, that is your choice.
Many of us still take the longer road and have a lot more fun apparently along the way.
Luckily it sounds like EQN will cater more to my style and less to those in a rush to get max level, best gear, best build, etc. Speed might actually be your downfall as you may miss chances to unlock classes and obtain quests/items along the way. Those looking to need 20 people to handle a rat won't be happy I'm afraid.
I'll be having a great time with friends, family, guild mates, etc. Send me a /tell, I'll let you join my group...
Why hasn't anyone mentioned the possibility of having both? Let's look at games in the near future coming out that share certain similarities, Wildstar and EQN.
We KNOW that in Wildstar they offer an experience while leveling devoid of major grouping content other than dungeons. They do have that whole "path" system that caters to Social Play, Achievers, Explorers and Soloers that also open opportunities for grouping via intermingling. For an end-game they have a whole slew of group content that encourages socializing, like instead of beating a raid dungeon, capturing a raid boss (assumed to be harder) for use for your guild. They also seem to be catering to the extreme (not hardcore) level of "raider" by only offering up super large group content closer to 40 by offered information.
In EQN they have systems that offer you to be able to do anything (read: group or solo) at any time, but with little information available regarding large scale group content. They have LARGE SCALE solo opportunities in a Minecraft (Explore, Gather, Build your character, expand your options) style world, the very epitome of single player with a multi-player side arc. Yet they are pushing for extreme community gathering events in the form of Rally Call, one can only imagine a large portion of the player base will camp out in this area and form relationships and guilds for the purpose of completing a certain event related to pressing progression in the story. I would say more if there was more to say.
My point is, the options are there in really any game if you are looking to fill a certain void in what you crave as far as MMORPG games goes. I understand there is a lack of "structure" in a lot of what people look for, going back to EQ - yeah it was better to solo if you could. Enchanters, Necros, SKs, Magicians and Shaman to name a few could kite even super tough named mobs and gather EXP at a faster rate than ANY group could hope to. The game for most people though, was group centric. Point being that people could search for, and accomplish challenging solo content or establish ultra-tough raid/dungeon content (Well, not GW2) groups.
The problem primarily being that such systems are rarely supported. EQ never intended for players to solo mobs en masse, they intended for you to have to make a group for any content that was Yellow and Above, or face a battle that would require rest. Another problem being that solo content is typically related to grinding, an unfortunately intended way of increasing wealth. Some people enjoy it, no knocks there.
And group systems are overly supported. A side effect of this, developers post EQ feel the need to find a way to eject the content they do not focus on as group content, as solo content. Leveling in EQ was group content, Leveling in FFXI was group content. Leveling in WoW is solo content. Leveling in RIFT is solo content. In no game will you find the words, "Raid" and "Solo" used in the same context. So we push everything forward with the term "Social" when the OP clearly recognizes that every game EVER with any modicum of multi-player is social. Even Dark Souls somehow manages to build a social community with zero chat.
POINT: So ask yourself this, are you searching for a game that wants you to solo, or a game that wants you to group? Why not a game that supports both systems equally? Has that never been ok or something? Why do you as a player not dedicate yourself to those systems as equally or devout as you can and just enjoy the structure of the game itself? Or will nothing ever be enough?
ME PERSONALLY: I enjoy content that is challenging or structured. I do not enjoy content that is just thrown at you. Give me a story-line to follow that ends in a great finale? I'm in. Give me a story-line to follow that has no direction? I'm out. Give me group content that is challenging with a crappy/fluff reward? I'll take it. Give me group content that is easy with epic loot? I'm out.
It's all about what the individual player values ultimately, but we all already knew that. Maybe you should try and find a perfect "GAME" for you and expect to increase your social commitment to the players playing it because you already have something in common from the get go. In long, I agree whole-heartedly with the op, the problem is YOU.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
I have. Both are needed to have a well rounded game. All the games I've played since the mid 90s offer both.
It's just that as games have become "easier" and soloing has become a viable option, many can't find the balance between being part of a community and making connections to racing to the end to earn that golden carrot.
I grouped and was part of guilds in both WoW and GW2. Both I soloed a great deal in and in both I had great team oriented adventures.
Seems that many have no self control and when given the option, they take the easiest route possible and then blame their personal choice issues on the game or on other gamers for doing the same thing they are.
EQ seems to be the only major MMO that is used as an example of "forced grouping" or how hard content made people come together. I knew plenty of people that soloed (druids quad kiting giants sure didn't have a group) and they did just fine.
Seems people's personal opinions and maybe cloudy memories make them jump to conclusions on how things were or should be for every other person.
I could care less if 99% of the gaming population wants to solo, that isn't going to make me do so. I'll always find like minded people to spend time with. If people decide to mindlessly solo alone, that's on them. I'll work with others and have a lot more fun in the process.
Your point isn't worthwhile. It's just not.
It isn't other people's problem you can't seem to figure out YOU need to join people, not expect to force them to join YOU. It's just not.
Your argument for denying MMO companies the soloers money because you can't be bothered with finding groups isn't valid. It's just not.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
We know optimists and pessimist just aren't mutually comprehensible.
Is this the mmorpg Abortion debate?
Or is that still the never-ending hardcore / casual war?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I doubt SOE cares much about this debate as long as we aren't demanding interdependence return, and with it community we long for. As Long we're completely dependent on the devs for our next fix. Too many dealers in a community game.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
EQ original did it right for a good portion of content. You could actually do certain really challenging group encounters with a single character. The main difference was the amount of time it took.
So what they did is basically make a single player take 10 to 15 minutes to kill 2 tough group mobs with effort. These mobs also had to be a certain flavor that best benefited the class of the single player to really work well.
Groups could get through the same mob in about 2 minutes which meant that they would have a 1/6 chance to get something or nothing they wanted every 10 minutes versus a chance for a single player to get a possible drop of something or nothing, but more exp for the single kill.
Over all Ultima Online was still the best system I have encountered for fostering grouping. Much of it was to have numbers in case of PK attack, but in EQ Next there will be dynamic world where anything can happen and having friends will no doubt be a benefit if you want to not die often. Not saying it's the only way, but obviously there is strength in numbers. I hope that EQ Next is similar to UO but with more interestingly intelligent ai that does indeed strike back or initiate attacks basically raiding the players.
The OP has a great point. But what Vel says covers it best. MMO has no "G" for group in it. Just means a ton of people online playing. Any other definition is just flawed.
That is the biggest load of garbage I have seen on these forums since I joined in 2008!!!
I still have friends from FFXI that I talk to to this day 6 years AFTER we quit XI!
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore)
Now Playing: N/A
Worst MMO: FFXIV
Favorite MMO: FFXI
did you ever try to get a group together and do the heroic areas? i did and it was a lot of fun. it was extremely hard though i actually had to type in guild chat "hey anyone want to do the heroic area on X planet?" TWICE!
thats the thing i see on this post, tons of those in the "group only" camp apparently don't see "group looking for tank", "group looking for healer", "group looking for CC", "group looking for tank and healer" and think no one wants to do t hem. take the initiative and start a group for those areas and i bet you will see people join you.
it always amazes me how people just expect groups to be waiting for them. I remember playing SWTOR and wanted to finish up a group quest, I shouted "LFG for X quest" ... heard nothing at all. i then saw a few others shout for it but again not one single grouping. so i said screw it and shouted "forming group for X quest PST"
I literally got bombarded with 10 tells almost immediately. this guy said hes been shouting for a group for 2 days for this quest and I thought maybe if you had taken the initiative you would have gotten it done sooner.