Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Why do people think you have to stay with an mmo?

24

Comments

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483

    It shouldn't be the only way one is allowed to play, but soloing should not be the most efficient, lowest-risk, highest-reward type of gameplay in a massively multiplayer game.  If that game is built around truly being multiplayer, players should be highly rewarded for taking the time to put together a team of individuals competent in their roles.

     

    You took his point too far.  It isn't that soloing should not be allowed, it's that it should never be the more attractive option unless you just hate interacting with others and refuse to do so.  Grouping, and playing multiplayer, should always be what a game is built and balanced around (and not just in instanced content, but the open world).  Otherwise, as others have said, you're building a singleplayer game that can simply be played in a shared world.

     

    It's very indicative of the type of gameplay devs are catering to when they make solo play the most efficient method of progressing and implement quests ala ESO, where the player is the "one true hero of the realm."  That is just silly.  And it isn't even that developers are catering to those who play often and hardcore and just want to solo.  It's an easy-bake solution to casual players not feeling like they can make progress if they can't login and immediately start blowing through groups of mobs/content.

    image
  • vandal5627vandal5627 Member UncommonPosts: 777
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
    Originally posted by kakasaki
    Originally posted by Aeonblades
    Originally posted by kakasaki
    Originally posted by Aeonblades
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Aeonblades

    Well the point of buying an MMO is to have long term enjoyment and socialize. You can't really enjoy something long term and socialize if you are hopping games every few months.

     

    There is no "the point" of buying an MMO for everyone. That is the point for you. Not for me.

    I play MMOs for short term content enjoyment.

    Then you would be happier in a single player RPG, and players like this are destroying a genre for purely selfish reasons.

    And who nominated you grand high poobah of what is destroying the genre? Hell, who even decided that the genre is being destroyed? The self aggrandizing on this web site is laughable.

    Already been edited to protect people who get upset easily. If you want to argue, find someone else. And I nominated myself, because I'm entitled to my opinion about the genre and it's problems even if you don't agree.

    I was just asking questions regarding your posts. Seems you are the one getting upset. So now you are equivocating. In one breath you state you don't care how other people play but in another you are complaining about someones play style and accuse him of destroying your enjoyment, the genre and being selfish. So, which is it? I just don't understand your stance.

    It shouldn't be the only way one is allowed to play, but soloing should not be the most efficient, lowest-risk, highest-reward type of gameplay in a massively multiplayer game.  If that game is built around truly being multiplayer, players should be highly rewarded for taking the time to put together a team of individuals competent in their roles.

     

    You took his point too far.  It isn't that soloing should not be allowed, it's that it should never be the more attractive option unless you just hate interacting with others and refuse to do so.  Grouping, and playing multiplayer, should always be what a game is built and balanced around (and not just in instanced content, but the open world).  Otherwise, as others have said, you're building a singleplayer game that can simply be played in a shared world.

     

    It's very indicative of the type of gameplay devs are catering to when they make solo play the most efficient method of progressing and implement quests ala ESO, where the player is the "one true hero of the realm."  That is just silly.  And it isn't even that developers are catering to those who play often and hardcore and just want to solo.  It's an easy-bake solution to casual players not feeling like they can make progress if they can't login and immediately start blowing through groups of mobs/content.

    Devs are just going where the money is at.  :)

  • kakasakikakasaki Member UncommonPosts: 1,205
    Originally posted by Aeonblades
    Originally posted by kakasaki
    Originally posted by Aeonblades
    Originally posted by kakasaki
    Originally posted by Foobarx
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Foobarx

    The whole point of playing an MMO is for the community... it's meant to be played for the long haul... to interact with the community... much akin to the real world, only in a virtual world setting.

    Nah ... that may be your point. Not mine.

    I don't play MMOs for the community. I don't play them for the long haul. I don't play them for the virtual world. Works for me, and all the players who treat MMOs as lobby games.

     

    You like single player games... we get that.  You state it over and over again, and yet, you play MMOs... because you know they're mostly single player games... today.  You would have hated MMOs back in the day...  totally not your cup of tea.

    Not true at all. You could (and many did) play solo since the dawn of MMO games. Was it "harder" to do so? Maybe but many of us saw it as a challenge. That doesn't mean we would not occasionally do group/guild content. But many played most of their time solo. 

    See, this is a prime example of someone who thinks his preferred play style is the only allowed way to play an MMO. My question to you sir would be: Why do you care how other people choose to play?

    Personally, I think everyone should play how they enjoy a game. I stated that in another thread earlier. But when their preferred method of play starts interfering with and actively hurting another style of play, it's time to change for the developer and or the player to change games or strategies.

    By that definition we could turn it around and say your style of play is hurting the "soloers" style of play. Silly concept I know but pray tell how does a solo player interfere or hurt your style of play?

    Dumbing down of the community, dumbing down of game mechanics, dumbing down of pretty much every aspect of an MMO to make it more solo friendly.

    How does being a solo player "dumb down" the community? Are you talking about maturity level, intelligence, participation??? I think you seem to think correlation means causation. The dumbing down of game mechanics has little to so with solo vs. group and more to do with pandering to a wider audience. You can have solo games with very complex game mechanics just as you can have group-centric games with dumbed-down mechanics. My opinion (and yes my opinion only) the dumbing down has more to do with the average gamers attention span/aversion to challenge more than solo play. But I do agree with your opinion that the genre is being dumbed down to the detriment of those of us who enjoy a challenge. 

    A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...

  • thecapitainethecapitaine Member UncommonPosts: 408

    Yeah this "whole point" argument doesn't wash with me.  Community is certain a strong draw for MMOs but it's limiting to see them solely as social hubs with some virtual world gaming attached to them.  I would argue that technology has essentially outmoded at least a few of the aspects of MMOs that made them unique.  While there may have been people who played MMOs strictly to meet and group up with strangers, I believe most players today want to find a group of friends or close associates to spend time playing with-- something most of today's MMOs handle quite elegantly.

     

    Likewise, I don't think the prevailing attitude is the same sort of unfailing loyalty to a single game as there was once before.  The most obvious reason to me-- I can hardly think of a more boring thing than to play the same game week-in and week-out over the course of a decade.   The only way to make that remotely palatable for me is to take long breaks regularly or to find something compelling outside of the ordinary gameplay itself-- ie Eve's political shenanigans, close friends to chat with, brand new content that mixes things up dramatically. 

     

    What I see time and again on these forums, though, suggests that it's not all negative, though.  The lowered bar of entry in the post-F2P world means that people may be quicker to return to a game they may have left since there's no real cost associated with returning.

  • kakasakikakasaki Member UncommonPosts: 1,205
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie

    It shouldn't be the only way one is allowed to play, but soloing should not be the most efficient, lowest-risk, highest-reward type of gameplay in a massively multiplayer game.  If that game is built around truly being multiplayer, players should be highly rewarded for taking the time to put together a team of individuals competent in their roles.

     

    You took his point too far.  It isn't that soloing should not be allowed, it's that it should never be the more attractive option unless you just hate interacting with others and refuse to do so.  Grouping, and playing multiplayer, should always be what a game is built and balanced around (and not just in instanced content, but the open world).  Otherwise, as others have said, you're building a singleplayer game that can simply be played in a shared world.

     

    It's very indicative of the type of gameplay devs are catering to when they make solo play the most efficient method of progressing and implement quests ala ESO, where the player is the "one true hero of the realm."  That is just silly.  And it isn't even that developers are catering to those who play often and hardcore and just want to solo.  It's an easy-bake solution to casual players not feeling like they can make progress if they can't login and immediately start blowing through groups of mobs/content.

    Well see, now you hit the proverbial nail of the issue.  That's my opinion as well but this has very little to do with solo vs. group and more with catering to the instant gratification/I'm special mentality of so many of today's players. But, I realize this is my opinion and that it seems to be in the minority so I make peace with it and try to find enjoyment on today's games for what they are.

     

     

    A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Aeonblades
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Aeonblades

    Well the point of buying an MMO is to have long term enjoyment and socialize. You can't really enjoy something long term and socialize if you are hopping games every few months.

     

    There is no "the point" of buying an MMO for everyone. That is the point for you. Not for me.

    I play MMOs for short term content enjoyment.

    Then you would be happier in a single player RPG.

    Not when i want to play a Star Trek TNG era RPG ... STO is the only choice, so I play it like a SP RPG.

     

    This is where a logical fallacy is committed.  We've seen you post that so many players want to play the games like you do.  As such, developers are catering to you and your fellow soloers.  But, if that were true, and there was a huge market for a singleplayer Star Trek TNG era RPG, then why isn't there a singleplayer Star Trek TNG era RPG game being made?  Why hasn't there ever been one made (to my knowledge)?

    Why isn't ESO a singleplayer game with simply the ability to allow a player or two into your gameworld, if you so choose, being made instead of a traditional MMO shared gameworld?

    They aren't making these MMOs solo-friendly to appeal to those who hate playing with others and just wanna solo with a chatroom.  They're making them to cater to casual players, to players who don't want to spend more than a month or two playing the same game still progressing to level cap.  Its simply a side-effect that players who want to play MMOs like singleplayer games are getting the chance to do just that.  That, while making companies money in the short run, devolves the genre and makes it much, much harder for more ambitious projects to be undertaken.  Projects such as EVE Online simply don't happen in today's landscape, if the game, its playerbase, and its niche were not already well-established.  The casual player, what has become the staple of who makes a return on the investors money in the shortest amount of time, has dictated the direction of every new MMO on the market.  This has relegated those who like interacting and playing in the same gameworld for extended periods of time to completing VR content, raids, raids, and more raids (or endgame PvP).

    It's become all about making progress come easy and noticeable from the moment you login, and that's become the type of playstyle the majority of the content has been created and balanced around.

     

    EDIT - @kakasaki, I'm slowly making peace with it myself.  My peace is mostly coming from subscribing recently to EVE Online.  I know I more than likely won't ever make it to the level players who have been playing for years will, but that doesn't bother me.  It's a deep ride through almost neverending content with plenty of other players to interact and chat with.  That's enough for me right now. :)

    image
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,657

    I'm not sure where some people get off telling others what and how to play. I play whatever I'm interested in playing at the time.

    Very early on I did play fewer online games and I missed out on some experience. I played Lineage, which required a lot of dedication and focus, and I missed out on UO, AO, and DAoC. I played Guild Wars and LotRO after that and missed out on SWG and early WoW.

    Now I play what I want for however long I enjoy it. When it stagnates I play a new game, or return to an old game and enjoy that. I used to believe in game communities but those change and evolve over time. It's not that they're gone, but even when you stick to a game, the community isn't static. It's not always there for you and has no loyalty or commitment to individual gamers. Once I learned that lesson I stopped having loyalty and commitment to a specific game or guild community. It was a very liberating experience.

    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • silvermembersilvermember Member UncommonPosts: 526

    I agree OP. I don't mind if some other people want to commit themselves to an MMO, but I do mind when they try to project their stupid taste onto me.

    I play MMO mostly because they offer a good ratio of cost vs time spent. I don't like buying new games every month, so MMO offer a good cheap entertainment.

  • nbtscannbtscan Member UncommonPosts: 862

    Single player games are easy to put down.  They're purchased with the expectation that you'll eventually beat them and be done with them.

    MMOs actually have an investment involved with them, whether it's monetarily, time, connections with the people you meet, or any combination of those things.  It's a bit harder to put down a MMO when you have that sort of attachment to it.

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,029

    I think it has to do with previous games where there were only a few games and the goals took longer to meet. People stayed in the games longer and of course the expansions kept them in the game.

    In truth, I don't see why, from a player's perspective, one needs to stay in a game for years if they get what they want out of it in lesser time.

    Obviously the game developers want you in the game longer as they need to make a living, put money toward future development, etc.

    For "me" I would prefer one mmo and just not leave it. I don't require more than one as I enjoy being in "one world".

    I just haven't found a game since Lineage 2 (or early LOTRO) that really appeals to me.

    There are a few coming out that are more toward my taste so we'll see.

    I've been enjoying ESO and will play it for a while. But it's not exactly what I've been looking for.




  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,657
    Originally posted by kakasaki

    Well see, now you hit the proverbial nail of the issue.  That's my opinion as well but this has very little to do with solo vs. group and more with catering to the instant gratification/I'm special mentality of so many of today's players. But, I realize this is my opinion and that it seems to be in the minority so I make peace with it and try to find enjoyment on today's games for what they are.

    That's really all you can do. I realize I'll likely never get another experience like Lineage again. It was such an open experience. I thought about playing on a private server recently but a little voice inside said, "You can't go back. It wouldn't be the same." So I picked up Wildstar and am enjoying it for whatever it offers for as long as it's fun. I also have my old games too. It's not perfect, but it's not bad either.

    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • TheQuietGamerTheQuietGamer Member Posts: 317
    Originally posted by Jemcrystal

    I played Skyrim (non-mmo) about 6 mos and left never to return.  Loved it!   No one is shocked that I'm no longer playing.  Why aren't people angry?  What makes people think just because a game is an mmo you must stay with it forever or the game is trash?  Skyrim wasn't trash but it didn't hold the majority of us for long.  Are we anxious corporate will not make enough money in a short term mmo?  Do we believe quality goes up over time like an aged wine?  What I'm getting at is we seem to keep looking for some fault with our mmo wondering why it will not hold our fascination for years.  That's asking to much of any dev team.  We should move on and try new things.  Let another corporation step up to the plate and make money.  Am I right?

    I agree.  

    I think my most played mmo has probably been wow; and that I played solidly for 3 months during vanilla and another 3 months during TBC.  I think that is the most time I have spent playing any mmo.  There are other mmo's such as SWTOR that I will jump into quite regularly, but usually for a few hours here or there with long breaks in between.  

    I treat mmo's like single-player games; I play them until I become bored or just lose interest and then I move on; I am not remotely fussed about doing some max level gear grind.   

  • CrusadesCrusades Member Posts: 480
    Mmorpgs have community, culture, history, server celebrities, diversity, mixed and often strange or interesting personalities, markets, government .... they have a unique list of characteristics that other genres don't have. I loved Skyrim as well, but it will never have all the characteristics of a mmorpg.com. It doesn't work vice versa either, but it's all in what you're looking for.
  • centkincentkin Member RarePosts: 1,461

    It is a question of sunk costs.  You put all that time and effort into getting where you are.  When you switch, you lose everything -- the effort, the friends -- everything that you have put into your character.

     

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Member CommonPosts: 3,675
    Originally posted by Aeonblades
    Originally posted by kakasaki
    Originally posted by Foobarx
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Foobarx

    The whole point of playing an MMO is for the community... it's meant to be played for the long haul... to interact with the community... much akin to the real world, only in a virtual world setting.

    Nah ... that may be your point. Not mine.

    I don't play MMOs for the community. I don't play them for the long haul. I don't play them for the virtual world. Works for me, and all the players who treat MMOs as lobby games.

     

    You like single player games... we get that.  You state it over and over again, and yet, you play MMOs... because you know they're mostly single player games... today.  You would have hated MMOs back in the day...  totally not your cup of tea.

    Not true at all. You could (and many did) play solo since the dawn of MMO games. Was it "harder" to do so? Maybe but many of us saw it as a challenge. That doesn't mean we would not occasionally do group/guild content. But many played most of their time solo. 

    See, this is a prime example of someone who thinks his preferred play style is the only allowed way to play an MMO. My question to you sir would be: Why do you care how other people choose to play?

    Personally, I think everyone should play how they enjoy a game. I stated that in another thread earlier. But when their preferred method of play starts interfering with and actively hurting another style of play, it's time to change for the developer and or the player to change games or strategies.

    Developers are going to cater to the group that gives them the most money and today, that's the soloers.  When the overwhelming majority of people playing MMOs are groupers, be sure to let us all know but at the moment, that's just not the case.

    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

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
     

    This is where a logical fallacy is committed.  We've seen you post that so many players want to play the games like you do.  As such, developers are catering to you and your fellow soloers.  But, if that were true, and there was a huge market for a singleplayer Star Trek TNG era RPG, then why isn't there a singleplayer Star Trek TNG era RPG game being made?  Why hasn't there ever been one made (to my knowledge)?

    There is one ... STO .. it can be played as a SP Star Trek RPG. Making it both a SP RPG, and a MP one, you kill two birds in one stone.

    This is not unlike D3 where you can play solo (which lots of people do), and online.

    Marvel Heroes is another good example. You can play it as a solo Diablo-ish marvel super hero game, or an MP one.

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by centkin

    It is a question of sunk costs.  You put all that time and effort into getting where you are.  When you switch, you lose everything -- the effort, the friends -- everything that you have put into your character.

     

    The solution is obvious ... don't put so much into a single game.

    And also, playing is not an investment, playing is having fun.

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Member CommonPosts: 3,675
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie

    It shouldn't be the only way one is allowed to play, but soloing should not be the most efficient, lowest-risk, highest-reward type of gameplay in a massively multiplayer game.  If that game is built around truly being multiplayer, players should be highly rewarded for taking the time to put together a team of individuals competent in their roles.

    Why not?  If that's what the majority of players in a game want, why shouldn't it be the best way to play the game? You are just asserting that MMOs ought to be built around grouping, but that's an outmoded concept, something that the genre moved away from a decade ago and has continued to distance itself from.  As in most businesses, the majority always wins and always gets catered to because that's where the money is.  MMOs haven't been about grouping for years.

     

    You took his point too far.  It isn't that soloing should not be allowed, it's that it should never be the more attractive option unless you just hate interacting with others and refuse to do so.  Grouping, and playing multiplayer, should always be what a game is built and balanced around (and not just in instanced content, but the open world).  Otherwise, as others have said, you're building a singleplayer game that can simply be played in a shared world.

    Says who?  That's the thing that always confuses me, how people can claim that they own the genre and get to determine what it means.  The market determines what's done in any particular genre.  At one point in time, the market dictated grouping and socializing in MMOs.  Today, the market dictates soloing in MMOs.  People need to keep up with the way the world works today, not how they wish it worked.

     

    It's very indicative of the type of gameplay devs are catering to when they make solo play the most efficient method of progressing and implement quests ala ESO, where the player is the "one true hero of the realm."  That is just silly.  And it isn't even that developers are catering to those who play often and hardcore and just want to solo.  It's an easy-bake solution to casual players not feeling like they can make progress if they can't login and immediately start blowing through groups of mobs/content.

    Sure, that's what most people playing these games and paying for these games wants.  Why is that so hard for you to understand?

    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

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by vandal5627
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Aeonblades

    Well the point of buying an MMO is to have long term enjoyment and socialize. You can't really enjoy something long term and socialize if you are hopping games every few months.

     

    There is no "the point" of buying an MMO for everyone. That is the point for you. Not for me.

    I play MMOs for short term content enjoyment.

    This.....people buy MMOs for their own reason.  Not what anyone else thinks you should buy an MMO for.

    Yeh .. and this applies to probably all gaming, and all entertainment.

    It is a fallacy to assume everyone use the same entertainment for the same reasons, or the same way.

     

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    The problem was never people do not want to group. It was that grouping took too long. People didn't log on MMOs going, "if I have to talk to someone else, I'm quitting!" They logged on and said, "if I have to sit around for 30 minutes trying to put a group together to make meaningful progress, I'm quitting!" So, developers saw this and came up with the easiest solution possible to fix it. Give those players the ability to progress through the game entirely through solo play. Casual players rejoiced, and much money was made. So, the next MMO took it a step further. And further. Until we get ESO. And grouping actually slows your progress down.

    My argument simply supposes players don't log onto a massively multiplayer game thinking, "boy, I hope I don't have to interact or otherwise acknowledge another player!" And instead supposed that they log in and say, "what's the most efficient use of my time? Oh, this quest I got that's tailored to me adventuring solo. Okay, let's do that!"

    My suggestions are that Devs focus on making group content open and permeate it throughout the gameworld, while looking for and improving new ways to bring players together for that content in the most efficient and least time-consuming manner as possible to help facilitate the progress of the casual player through grouping and interaction.

    You seem to think it's the interaction part, and not the increased logistical time consumption that scares away players from a multiplayer game. I can't see that being the case.

    image
  • RobokappRobokapp Member RarePosts: 6,077
    Originally posted by Jemcrystal

     We should move on and try new things.  Let another corporation step up to the plate and make money.  Am I right?

    I dissagree.

     

    Loss of progression,

    Loss of community ties.

     

    those are my reasons.

    image

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
    The problem was never people do not want to group. It was that grouping took too long. People didn't log on MMOs going, "if I have to talk to someone else, I'm quitting!" They logged on and said, "if I have to sit around for 30 minutes trying to put a group together to make meaningful progress, I'm quitting!" So, developers saw this and came up with the easiest solution possible to fix it. Give those players the ability to progress through the game entirely through solo play. Casual players rejoiced, and much money was made. So, the next MMO took it a step further. And further. Until we get ESO. And grouping actually slows your progress down.

    My argument simply supposes players don't log onto a massively multiplayer game thinking, "boy, I hope I don't have to interact or otherwise acknowledge another player!" And instead supposed that they log in and say, "what's the most efficient use of my time? Oh, this quest I got that's tailored to me adventuring solo. Okay, let's do that!"

    My suggestions are that Devs focus on making group content open and permeate it throughout the gameworld, while looking for and improving new ways to bring players together for that content in the most efficient and least time-consuming manner as possible to help facilitate the progress of the casual player through grouping and interaction.

    You seem to think it's the interaction part, and not the increased logistical time consumption that scares away players from a multiplayer game. I can't see that being the case.

    Those are related.

    Either a player is playing the game (killing stuff, and yes, can be corporating) or he is not. Chatting is viewed as not. I highly doubt you can ever make game mechanics that will encourage chatting because people will always prefer other to jump in and do the right thing without talking.

    It is not just the logistic. People want their group-mates to know that fight. How often do people want to explain to others what to do?

    The only interactions you can "baked" into the mechanics are synergies in combat.  Like tanks will know to taunt, and dps will know what to target.

     

  • DihoruDihoru Member Posts: 2,731
    People who aren't happy with their mmo life want you to be as unhappy as them... kinda like marriage life really, if they are unhappy they would pop popcorn if yours took a dive.

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
    The problem was never people do not want to group. It was that grouping took too long. People didn't log on MMOs going, "if I have to talk to someone else, I'm quitting!" They logged on and said, "if I have to sit around for 30 minutes trying to put a group together to make meaningful progress, I'm quitting!" So, developers saw this and came up with the easiest solution possible to fix it. Give those players the ability to progress through the game entirely through solo play. Casual players rejoiced, and much money was made. So, the next MMO took it a step further. And further. Until we get ESO. And grouping actually slows your progress down.

    My argument simply supposes players don't log onto a massively multiplayer game thinking, "boy, I hope I don't have to interact or otherwise acknowledge another player!" And instead supposed that they log in and say, "what's the most efficient use of my time? Oh, this quest I got that's tailored to me adventuring solo. Okay, let's do that!"

    My suggestions are that Devs focus on making group content open and permeate it throughout the gameworld, while looking for and improving new ways to bring players together for that content in the most efficient and least time-consuming manner as possible to help facilitate the progress of the casual player through grouping and interaction.

    You seem to think it's the interaction part, and not the increased logistical time consumption that scares away players from a multiplayer game. I can't see that being the case.

    Those are related.

    Either a player is playing the game (killing stuff, and yes, can be corporating) or he is not. Chatting is viewed as not. I highly doubt you can ever make game mechanics that will encourage chatting because people will always prefer other to jump in and do the right thing without talking.

    It is not just the logistic. People want their group-mates to know that fight. How often do people want to explain to others what to do?

    The only interactions you can "baked" into the mechanics are synergies in combat.  Like tanks will know to taunt, and dps will know what to target.

     

    Ahh, then I see precisely where we disagree, I think.

     

    I'm of the opinion that you can implement MMO design that encourages communication without considering it to be "not playing the game."  Most high-tier content and, certainly, PvP require good communication to be done effectively.

     

    And finding groupmates that know how to fight becomes less of a problem as the logistical issue is diminished.  If your tank is doing so awfully you wish to replace him, a system that locates and brings you together with another player tank efficiently diminishes the amount of time that original tank has wasted you in the end.  That type of system can also actually encourage competent play, if players know they will lose such groups consistently if they are unable to do their jobs effectively and/or are asshats.  We don't need a system that tells players, "Hey, they need YOU, so act however you want because dealing with you is more worth the effort than replacing you."  We need a system that tells players, "Hey, they need your role.  However, if you neglect to be cooperative and/or useful, they can and will find another player in your role.  Then you'll be in need of them."

     

    It wouldn't be easy.  It wouldn't be simple.  It would take a lot of trial and error, critical thinking, testing, and effort on the developers part.  Which may be why so many of them say, "Ahh, screw it.  Let 'em solo and we'll throw some instanced dungeons in there, maybe a LFD interface," and call it a day.  I just find that to be an incredibly easy band-aid fix that doesn't address the real problem.  I can accept that you enjoy soloing and, as such, this solution pleases you.  And I don't believe you any less a gamer than I am for enjoying it.  By all means, play those MMOs that look to solo content as the solution.  I just cannot accept that there isn't another way to solve the aforementioned problem.

    image
  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 7,033
    Thats probably why so many stay with Wow....It sint that they are having so much fun, but that they hate to give up their high level characters and start over somewhere else.
Sign In or Register to comment.