Howdy, Stranger!

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

Why Group Content doesn't work for the majority of the player base

1235717

Comments

  • gripnotgripnot Member UncommonPosts: 5
    The only time I like group content is during pvp. After all, I need enemy players to kill. I dislike all other group content (instances, raids, whatever).  A lot of times when raiding, complete strangers want to talk to me and expect me to reply. I'm not there to text message back and forth. I'm there to pretend to kill things. Leave me alone. 
  • jpnzjpnz Member Posts: 3,529
    Originally posted by Wizardry

    The point is ALWAYS missed when this discussion comes up.If it is a ROLE playing game you should expect a RPG and NOT a linear questing treadmill because that is NOT what a RP game stands for.Point being if you can't play a RP game then you should not be playing it,the genre should NOT change it's entire meaning to cater to people with no time.

    The argument of no time is the lamest argument anyone could come up with.It is like saying all the SPORTS leagues should quit having teams and go with 1 vs 1 players because people don't have time to form teams.You know what really happens,those who can play TEAM oriented sports do it and those that can't don't,it is really simple.

    It works that way everywhere in life,nothing should cater or change itself for you,it is up to each individual to find something that works for them,it is called choice.

    The problem is that right now ,there is literally ZERO choice,every single game is catering to the larger mass and changing what RP'ing stands  for just to make more profit.

    I find it unacceptable,it is like food companies changing what a food is ,adding in tons of chemicals to make a bigger profit.Someone drinks what they think is OJ then reads the label and all it is chemicals,sugar,glucose ,fructose,carageenan ect ect.

    Sure there are going to be businesses all around the world changing the very fabric of what an item or something should be,but it NEVER makes it right.

     

    RPG are 'linear questing'. Unless you want to ignore the past 20 years of RPG released on PCs (like BG1/2), it always had 'linear questing'.

    The 'Sports' analogy is weird and 'apples and oranges' so no idea what you are saying there.

    And what's this 'Zero choice' lie? There are still plenty of MMOs that forces you to group or even incentivize grouping.

    Heck, in WoW, the best gear is only obtainable BY grouping.

    Just.. /Facepalm

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • MaelwyddMaelwydd Member Posts: 1,123

    You are wrong OP. YOU have more responsibilities now not everyone else. Grouping is still viable for people who are STILL able to do so or who are able to do so.

    Personally I do not group often because for the most part I get frustrated at people being too slow or too dumb.

  • kresa3333kresa3333 Member UncommonPosts: 64

    ALl i can do is take a guess because who knows what the majority of mmo players up for.
    I think that the problem is simply lack of good group content, i think that must of the players would like to play in groups while playing mmo game it just needs to be done in a good way, which is pretty complicated , alot to think about.
    And stuff like time limit etc are minor issues because a well made group content wont need you to stick for hours.. i aint talking about the traditional group play of today , raids dungeons etc ... casual players focus less on the time consuming endgame content but it doesnt mean that if u bring casual group play in to consider they wont play it and enjoy more then being a lone wolf.
    There should be solo content as well but i think group content is more importent.
    Every mmo seem to offer the same boring leveling system with small twists and the same group endgame, i think this has to be changed not in a way that forces group play from the start but in a way that encourges it.
    The social aspect of mmo games manages to keep people playing the games just like any other feature and its importent to support it from the start, and no i dont think that playing single player game with a chat and many people around u is the right way to do that.
    But once a company nails it in terms of group play and social aspects i think they will make alot more profits then the tradition "AAA" mmo games that comming at least once a year.

  • jpnzjpnz Member Posts: 3,529
    Originally posted by allday88
     

    First if you keep smacking yourself in the face you may hurt yourself.

     

     You create a thread with zero facts and try to make it factual by repeating the same stuff over and over even after it's been proven you were wrong over and over by facts.  Sure maybe grouping doesn't work for you cause all your friends moved on with their life.  But the truth is there is a reason why most mmos implement some type of group finder.  That reason is most want to group, most want to run dungeons, raids, pvp ect ect.  They just want to do it on a casual basis.  There is a reason why the top selling console games are multiplier because players want to group up and play, there is a reason why games like madden and nhl introduced their online leagues and they have been extremely successful because players want to form a group and play together.  

     

    Again "most player" in no way is represented by your "personal experience". 

    This post is hilarious.

    If you wish to state the demographics of 30-50 olds with family loves to be killing dragons for 3 hours and ignore their family, you go ahead and do that.

    So let me get this straight, you deleted the quoted part where I caught someone lying about 'zero choices' and now you are putting words in my mouth. /Facepalm

    I would suggest re-reading the OP cause I seem to recall writing about 'GROUPING IN KARA' but hey, if you rather ad hominem attack me than go right ahead.

    Also, can I quote this post in my signature cause you seem to be implying 'Multiplayer Madden' is an MMO. I wouldn't agree but I think a poster called 'Nari' would! ROFL!

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • jpnzjpnz Member Posts: 3,529
    Originally posted by Maelwydd

    You are wrong OP. YOU have more responsibilities now not everyone else. Grouping is still viable for people who are STILL able to do so or who are able to do so.

    Personally I do not group often because for the most part I get frustrated at people being too slow or too dumb.

    The logic of the OP isn't exactly hard to follow.

    The average age of a gamer has increased and is now 31; with the majority in the 30-50 bracket.

    http://venturebeat.com/2014/04/29/gaming-advocacy-group-the-average-gamer-is-31-and-most-play-on-a-console/

    According to the US census, majority of 30-50 would have a child / children.

    Having a child is obviously going to increase the responsibilty of someone so that person would have less consecutive time to do whatever (exercise, read, play golf, play video games etc).

     

    Whether you personally don't fall into this logic is irrelevant. Maybe you are 50 but single. Maybe you are 40 with child but have a baby sitter / partner that lets you play MMOs for 3 hours or whatever.

    As a generalization, I see the changing age of MMO players as having a large impact on MMO game design.

    This wailing against 'lack of  forced groups in MMO!' is not really based in reality. Sorry, but real-life doesn't care you need to kill that internet dragon for 3 hours, cause your child screaming for food is more important.

    Maybe you are one of those people that don't agree with that statement and have different priorities. All I can say to that is 'I don't agree'.

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • MaelwyddMaelwydd Member Posts: 1,123

    While you got old new kids came along.

    The problem is simply that you are now trying to claim that because YOU no longer play the way YOU used to play that there are not people NOW playing the way you used to play.

    You think just because you no longer fit a certain demographic that the demographic is no longer valid. It is still valid but you now belong to another demographic.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    Look people it's pretty obvious and straight forward. The average mmorpg gamer is around 30. This is a higher average age then when the genre started

    The average person in that age group had kids. The average person on that age group had less time and more responsibilities.

    If Devs want to target that age group they will make design decisions that make it easier for that age group to play. Things like shorter time commitments to accomplish tasks.

    Devs are doing this and is reflected in such things as lfr and lfg.
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
    It shouldn't be a fast track to success.. Anyone who's played with incompetent players will tell you it isn't. A single, integral player not doing they're job wrecks the progress of the entire group. This has nothing to do with the tendency of casual players to not want to wait for other players to organize. Because that's where solo optimization began. It wasn't because players bought a multiplayer game expecting to never interact with other players.

    That'd make about as much sense as a guy buying Infamous and bitching because he can't invite his buddy into his gameworld.

    The issue is that with more folks involved, the potential for disastrous results increases. This isn't an MMO-specific trait. In every endeavor, the more folks involved, the higher the chance of an overall failure.

    I think your jadedness toward some posters who DO think grouping should be the holy grail has caused you to read more into my post than what was intended.

    Grouping should provide a higher threshold for progression. Not because I want it that way, but because the risk of an overall failure falls to each player, individually...

    Can you share examples of the dev-created content or player behavior that focuses on player competence?

    I ask because the devs have been removing the player skill factor over time, primarily because players don't want it part of the equation in their MMOs. If players actually wanted that in their MMORPG (they actually do want it in some other genres), the   Puzzle Pirates progression system would probably be the norm. The 'challenge' of PUGs and group play isn't challenge for most. It's annoyance and frustration. You're heading into Ihmotep territory .

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
    It shouldn't be a fast track to success.. Anyone who's played with incompetent players will tell you it isn't. A single, integral player not doing they're job wrecks the progress of the entire group. This has nothing to do with the tendency of casual players to not want to wait for other players to organize. Because that's where solo optimization began. It wasn't because players bought a multiplayer game expecting to never interact with other players.

    That'd make about as much sense as a guy buying Infamous and bitching because he can't invite his buddy into his gameworld.

    The issue is that with more folks involved, the potential for disastrous results increases. This isn't an MMO-specific trait. In every endeavor, the more folks involved, the higher the chance of an overall failure.

    I think your jadedness toward some posters who DO think grouping should be the holy grail has caused you to read more into my post than what was intended.

    Grouping should provide a higher threshold for progression. Not because I want it that way, but because the risk of an overall failure falls to each player, individually...

    Can you share examples of the dev-created content or player behavior that focuses on player competence?

    I ask because the devs have been removing the player skill factor over time, primarily because players don't want it part of the equation in their MMOs. If players actually wanted that in their MMORPG (they actually do want it in some other genres), the   Puzzle Pirates progression system would probably be the norm. The 'challenge' of PUGs and group play isn't challenge for most. It's annoyance and frustration. You're heading into Ihmotep territory .

    In the ESO example I cited, mobs are much more densely packed, and pack a much harder punch.  I, being a melee DPS, died once because I engaged a group of targets not currently being attacked by our tank.  My death was my fault.

     

    That's a very simple example.  However, as I said in that post, it was all occurring in a very small, scripted area designed specifically for a predefined number of players.  And the entire thing was a waste of time in the end, because the risk vs. reward continuum in ESO was (at that time at least) so incredibly skewed towards soloing as to make grouping a useless and even detrimental gameplay style.

     

    I'm not sure, with aiming and the telegraph system and active dodge and the move away from tab-targetting, where you're getting the idea that developers are moving away from incorporating player skill into MMOs.  I'd say DAoC's /follow tab-targetting system involved much less skill than Wildstar's telegraph and aim system (with dodge), ESO's aim/active dodge/active block/active interrupt system, or TERA's entire combat system.  Hell, if you'd like to include the "MMOs" that are MOBAs (I personally don't), I think the importance of player competence is higher than ever before.

     

    And if grouping with others in a massively multiplayer game is an annoyance and a frustration, don't do it.  By all means, check my posts: I never, ever said solo gameplay shouldn't be viable.  I was simply arguing about how some people seem to think organizing a group of players shouldn't provide any progressional benefits (or benefits so negligible that the time spent isn't worth the reward).  It's a ludicrous notion that screams, "But I don't want to play that way, so it's unfair if they get to enjoy things I can't!"  Many obviously think taking the time and effort to put together a group is such a hassle that they won't do it, period, dot.  So why the hell wouldn't a player who did put in the time and effort to create a group enjoy a higher potential for progression for their efforts?  I mean, honestly, that's kinda the way the world works.  The more you put into something, the more you get out of it.  Whether that's a hobby, entertainment, work, or whatever.  If you only got 30 minutes of free time, then you can't enjoy the Avengers movie.  Should we all write Marvel strongly worded letters on how, in addition to those movies, they should be making 20-minute shorts with Downey Jr. and company for those of us with "lives"?  Are we seriously suggesting that, just because we personally don't want to put in extra time/effort to do something, it shouldn't provide any sort of reward for those who do??

    image
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    You can put in just as much Time and often even more effort. Just not all at once. I do watch most of my movies in 30 minutes chunks. Just not in the the theatre.
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    You can put in just as much Time and often even more effort. Just not all at once. I do watch most of my movies in 30 minutes chunks. Just not in the the theatre.

    But therein lies my entire point.  When it comes to movies, you have no issue progressing through a movie slower than most folks due to lack of time constraints.  Someone who has the extra time and doesn't mind driving to the local theater enjoys the movie faster, on a larger screen, with a booming surround sound.

     

    This doesn't bother you, as you realize you put less continuous time and effort into watching the movie than Mr. Movie Buff who goes to the theater twice a week and and deals with the crowd for opening day tickets.

    image
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    And that is the point for the games. If your target market is largely made of people who for whatever reason can't devote a lot of time then you better design the game do they can play in smaller time chunks. Or you liar your target market.
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    Err liar = lose
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • RaellnRaelln Member Posts: 67
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    You can put in just as much Time and often even more effort. Just not all at once. I do watch most of my movies in 30 minutes chunks. Just not in the the theatre.

    But therein lies my entire point.  When it comes to movies, you have no issue progressing through a movie slower than most folks due to lack of time constraints.  Someone who has the extra time and doesn't mind driving to the local theater enjoys the movie faster, on a larger screen, with a booming surround sound.

     

    This doesn't bother you, as you realize you put less continuous time and effort into watching the movie than Mr. Movie Buff who goes to the theater twice a week and and deals with the crowd for opening day tickets.

    The guy that goes to the movie theatre and watches the movie in full got to potentially enjoy a better experience with the larger screen and surround sound. 

    This is different from and not comparable to content in a MMO where doing content that requires a group does not just provide the potential for a better experience than doing the same content solo - it also usually provides gear/progression/ability upgrades/some type of reward that scales that player's power above what the solo player is capable of acquiring at all. At that point, the player that will/can group will always be a better choice due to being more powerful than the player that tends to avoid groups due to whatever issue.

    If the benefit of doing things in groups was only efficiency - I'd have no problem with it at all. The problem is (and WoW is among the worst) is that the rewards that group content doles out make player characters incredibly more powerful than what is possible for those that want to be in a multiplayer environment but not bound to forced group content.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    Yes that's right. And that's why they were designed that way. To allow that market to engage in the content.
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Originally posted by Raelln
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    You can put in just as much Time and often even more effort. Just not all at once. I do watch most of my movies in 30 minutes chunks. Just not in the the theatre.

    But therein lies my entire point.  When it comes to movies, you have no issue progressing through a movie slower than most folks due to lack of time constraints.  Someone who has the extra time and doesn't mind driving to the local theater enjoys the movie faster, on a larger screen, with a booming surround sound.

     

    This doesn't bother you, as you realize you put less continuous time and effort into watching the movie than Mr. Movie Buff who goes to the theater twice a week and and deals with the crowd for opening day tickets.

    The guy that goes to the movie theatre and watches the movie in full got to potentially enjoy a better experience with the larger screen and surround sound. 

    This is different from and not comparable to content in a MMO where doing content that requires a group does not just provide the potential for a better experience than doing the same content solo - it also usually provides gear/progression/ability upgrades/some type of reward that scales that player's power above what the solo player is capable of acquiring at all. At that point, the player that will/can group will always be a better choice due to being more powerful than the player that tends to avoid groups due to whatever issue.

    If the benefit of doing things in groups was only efficiency - I'd have no problem with it at all. The problem is (and WoW is among the worst) is that the rewards that group content doles out make player characters incredibly more powerful than what is possible for those that want to be in a multiplayer environment but not bound to forced group content.

    That's an issue with the method by which players are awarded power in MMOs, not the gameplay style in which they play.  If we're talking about PvP (which I assume we are, as if it's strictly PvE power then it really doesn't cause you yourself to lose anything if Mr. Grouper attains more "gear power"), I'm a firm believer in attribute caps that can be reached without running raids.  PvP shouldn't come down to who has the better shinies.  However, PvP is (aside from duels) much more dependent upon player grouping and cooperation than PvE ever will be.  There is really no fix for this; it's the nature of the beast.  Unless you include strictly dueling in your MMO, PvP is a competitive and cooperative endeavor.

     

    If you have an issue with Mr. Grouper attaining more "gear power," the easy fix is to offer equal or the same rewards for solo play, only at the slower pace you should see between solo vs. grouping during the leveling process.  This fix focuses on removing the higher risk and time/effort you need to spend doing group content and scaling the reward pace to follow.

     

    I would argue sour grapes, however.  Despite a propensity to enjoy player interaction, I have never spent a large amount of time raiding.  So long as those who raid get their shinies (and those shinies don't enable them to facestomp me in PvP without exerting a skill/strategy higher than mine) I couldn't care less what raiding rewards they received.

    image
  • RaellnRaelln Member Posts: 67
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie

    That's an issue with the method by which players are awarded power in MMOs, not the gameplay style in which they play.  If we're talking about PvP (which I assume we are, as if it's strictly PvE power then it really doesn't cause you yourself to lose anything if Mr. Grouper attains more "gear power"), I'm a firm believer in attribute caps that can be reached without running raids.  PvP shouldn't come down to who has the better shinies.  However, PvP is (aside from duels) much more dependent upon player grouping and cooperation than PvE ever will be.  There is really no fix for this; it's the nature of the beast.  Unless you include strictly dueling in your MMO, PvP is a competitive and cooperative endeavor.

     

    Regarding PvP - meaningful PvP (at least to me) can only occur when all the other variables are eliminated except for player skill. In short - PvP should ignore gear (at least ranked matches), otherwise there are far too many variables interfering. I don't really care much about PvP at this point though. To me, PvP is just a side-game that is there for if I'm terribly bored and have a bunch of time.

    If you have an issue with Mr. Grouper attaining more "gear power," the easy fix is to offer equal or the same rewards for solo play, only at the slower pace you should see between solo vs. grouping during the leveling process.  This fix focuses on removing the higher risk and time/effort you need to spend doing group content and scaling the reward pace to follow.

     

    Mr. Grouper should never be able to attain "more power" - it should just be "obtain the same power, faster". I recognize there are frustrations involved with grouping and I have been there. I have raided much over the years and I have ran many, many, many dungeons - both in LFD/LFR and guild-based.

    I would rather see content scale to the number of players present and if the developers cannot make a particular encounter scale in that way - then remove it from the core story of the game and make it a side-line attraction encounter. In other words, if I want to kill that big story boss solo, then the content should scale down with bots to facilitate that. Most likely, I'd be going in to the content with a couple online friends (IE: co-op) - the content should scale.

    My issue is more with how most MMO encounters these days are fixed to require a minimum number of players or it's no dice. Even WoW's new shiny Flex mode won't go below 8 players.

    I would argue sour grapes, however.  Despite a propensity to enjoy player interaction, I have never spent a large amount of time raiding.  So long as those who raid get their shinies (and those shinies don't enable them to facestomp me in PvP without exerting a skill/strategy higher than mine) I couldn't care less what raiding rewards they received.

    I no longer raid in an organized fashion. I used to though and I understand that entire side of the game very well. Raiding 50+ hours a week will do that. These days, especially in a subscription based game, I want access to all the content that I'm paying for without needing to overcome an artificial roadblock of scheduling time with X, Y, or Z number of players.

    At the point I'm currently in, if I'm going to be paying a subscription to a game - then I certainly don't want to feel like I'm shooting myself in the foot because I am resistant to scheduling my day/week around to just consume virtual content in a video game.

    I schedule my life around family, kids and work - not video games. If this leaves me at a disadvantage in the game - I'll drop games like WoW and happily play games like GW2.

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Member Posts: 1,832

    The problem we have here is one that is endemic to these boards. The OP is attempting to generalize his own personal experience to that of "the majority". I like X so most people like X. My situation is X so most peoples situation is X. I guess there may be som subconcious hope that Dev's/Publishers will read such opinions and be swayed by them in terms of how they make games... even though consciously most of us realize how unlikely that is.

    The fact is that the MMO audience is a very wide and diverse group, we all like different things and we have different situations... and if it wants to grow, it's going to have to get even wider and more diverse because if you want to appeal to people not currently interested in your products, you are going to have to offer them a product that is different from what you currently are offering. This is all a good thing, it allows publishers and developers the opportunity to differentiate thier products from thier competition and that is important when the market is crowded with competition, as the MMO market is today, and getting more crowded every day.

    Has the average age bracket of the MMO audience changed over time? Probably, I don't really know the answer...and it's actualy not that important. That's because not every MMO targets the same age bracket equaly for it's main audience. Heck, we have MMO's targeted at 8 year olds....and that's awesome! They are even trying to make it a family experience where parents (or grandparents) play the game with thier kids as a family experience.

    As to the OP's contention that people with wives and (young) kids and responsable careers have less uniterrupted (or even interrupted) time to play MMO's.... well yes, that's pretty obvious. It gets less true, btw, as your kids and you get older. Don't forget, we've got a growing number of people who are RETIRED with adult kids who are out of the home and have families of thier own,  playing MMO's these days...and that number is only likely to increase.

    However, what's not true is that people with spouses and kids and responsable careers have NO uninterrupted time to devote to hobbies. Were that the case, then we'd see almost no one over 30 take a hunting or fishing or skiing trip. They wouldn't go golfing or play in sports leagues or go out to dinner or get together with thier freinds without the kids present. Clearly that is not the case, because people still do all these things. They may not do it as often but they do find a way to make time to do it....and clearly they still have an interest in doing that. Where there is an interest, there is eventualy going to be someone to fill that interest.... especialy if it's not being met. That's the simple law of supply and demand. Although sometimes supply lags behind demand because it first has to see that such demand exists before it becomes an acceptable risk financialy to create the supply.

    So an MMO that doesn't provide ANY group content of significance (as opposed to providing a mix)  has just excluded itself from the market of people who at least have an interest in doing that SOME of the time... which is perfectly fine, btw, as long as it conciously knows that it is doing that....and makes it clear in it's marketing and promotions that is what the product is all about.

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Originally posted by Raelln
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie

    That's an issue with the method by which players are awarded power in MMOs, not the gameplay style in which they play.  If we're talking about PvP (which I assume we are, as if it's strictly PvE power then it really doesn't cause you yourself to lose anything if Mr. Grouper attains more "gear power"), I'm a firm believer in attribute caps that can be reached without running raids.  PvP shouldn't come down to who has the better shinies.  However, PvP is (aside from duels) much more dependent upon player grouping and cooperation than PvE ever will be.  There is really no fix for this; it's the nature of the beast.  Unless you include strictly dueling in your MMO, PvP is a competitive and cooperative endeavor.

     

    Regarding PvP - meaningful PvP (at least to me) can only occur when all the other variables are eliminated except for player skill. In short - PvP should ignore gear (at least ranked matches), otherwise there are far too many variables interfering. I don't really care much about PvP at this point though. To me, PvP is just a side-game that is there for if I'm terribly bored and have a bunch of time.

    If you have an issue with Mr. Grouper attaining more "gear power," the easy fix is to offer equal or the same rewards for solo play, only at the slower pace you should see between solo vs. grouping during the leveling process.  This fix focuses on removing the higher risk and time/effort you need to spend doing group content and scaling the reward pace to follow.

     

    Mr. Grouper should never be able to attain "more power" - it should just be "obtain the same power, faster". I recognize there are frustrations involved with grouping and I have been there. I have raided much over the years and I have ran many, many, many dungeons - both in LFD/LFR and guild-based.

    I would rather see content scale to the number of players present and if the developers cannot make a particular encounter scale in that way - then remove it from the core story of the game and make it a side-line attraction encounter. In other words, if I want to kill that big story boss solo, then the content should scale down with bots to facilitate that. Most likely, I'd be going in to the content with a couple online friends (IE: co-op) - the content should scale.

    My issue is more with how most MMO encounters these days are fixed to require a minimum number of players or it's no dice. Even WoW's new shiny Flex mode won't go below 8 players.

    I would argue sour grapes, however.  Despite a propensity to enjoy player interaction, I have never spent a large amount of time raiding.  So long as those who raid get their shinies (and those shinies don't enable them to facestomp me in PvP without exerting a skill/strategy higher than mine) I couldn't care less what raiding rewards they received.

    I no longer raid in an organized fashion. I used to though and I understand that entire side of the game very well. Raiding 50+ hours a week will do that. These days, especially in a subscription based game, I want access to all the content that I'm paying for without needing to overcome an artificial roadblock of scheduling time with X, Y, or Z number of players.

    At the point I'm currently in, if I'm going to be paying a subscription to a game - then I certainly don't want to feel like I'm shooting myself in the foot because I am resistant to scheduling my day/week around to just consume virtual content in a video game.

    I schedule my life around family, kids and work - not video games. If this leaves me at a disadvantage in the game - I'll drop games like WoW and happily play games like GW2.

    Personally, I'd like to see different content for all types of gameplay.  If players want a large raid, there should be dungeons and encounters for this.  If they want to solo, there should be unique encounters and dungeons for this.  Small-group?  You got it, encounters for this, as well.  This goes beyond simple scaling- encounters utilize the advantages of each playstyle to create a unique flavor all its own.  Solo encounters can involve more scripted events centered around the player.  Raid encounters can provide a massive scale in which players feel like they're part of a large battle or fighting a large and extremely powerful "boss."  I understand this is a large order for an already expensive development cycle, but I do feel as if some things (i.e. fully voiced over NPCs) can be cut in order to attain such a varied level of content.

     

    The rewards for content could be just as you describe: equal, only faster or slower.  That isn't really a sticking point for me (as I mentioned before), but I can see the advantages, from a development and marketing standpoint, to using such a system.

     

    As the poster above me said, MMO players are a diverse group.  MMOs should strive to be as diverse as the players.  I feel as if simply scaling would lead to bemoaning to the tune of, "lazy developers didn't even bother to create enough content, they just spawn more or less mobs in the same encounter."  If you're going to do scaling, I say take it the step further and utilize the natural advantages each style gives you when creating encounters.

    image
  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Member Posts: 1,832

    @Raelln,

    I think the difference is simply the type of gameplay preference people have. Many soloers, like you, don't like to feel that they are missing out on large chunks of the game. Many groupers don't like the idea that qualitatevly the game offers them the same sort of experience and can gain the same achievements while working in a group that they could achieve solo.

    These preferences simply can't coexist well with one another. Developers have been hammering at that wall for years now......and none have really found the magic formula to satisfy both prefrences yet. It's not for lack of effort...because they really do want to try to sell thier product to the widest audience possible but inevitably every effort ends up a compromise that either one or both preferences ends up disatisfied. It's like sticking a cobra and a mongoose in a box together.... inevitably when you open the box, one of them won't be breathing anymore.

    Personaly, while I probably play more time solo then in a group and I want there to be alot of interesting things to do solo.... I want the time I spend playing cooperatively with others to be qualitatevly different and more rewarding. I don't want to be able to achieve the same things solo that I can in a group....that kinda kills the fun of it for me. I don't think that preference can coexist well with what you want. Contrary to what many would claim.... I don't want to force anyone to have to group....but I just don't want to play the same game that is designed to appeal to solo (only) players,  because that game simply wouldn't be fun for me. Period. Full Stop.

     

     

     

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
    It shouldn't be a fast track to success.. Anyone who's played with incompetent players will tell you it isn't. A single, integral player not doing they're job wrecks the progress of the entire group. This has nothing to do with the tendency of casual players to not want to wait for other players to organize. Because that's where solo optimization began. It wasn't because players bought a multiplayer game expecting to never interact with other players.

    That'd make about as much sense as a guy buying Infamous and bitching because he can't invite his buddy into his gameworld.

    The issue is that with more folks involved, the potential for disastrous results increases. This isn't an MMO-specific trait. In every endeavor, the more folks involved, the higher the chance of an overall failure.

    I think your jadedness toward some posters who DO think grouping should be the holy grail has caused you to read more into my post than what was intended.

    Grouping should provide a higher threshold for progression. Not because I want it that way, but because the risk of an overall failure falls to each player, individually...

    Can you share examples of the dev-created content or player behavior that focuses on player competence?

    I ask because the devs have been removing the player skill factor over time, primarily because players don't want it part of the equation in their MMOs. If players actually wanted that in their MMORPG (they actually do want it in some other genres), the   Puzzle Pirates progression system would probably be the norm. The 'challenge' of PUGs and group play isn't challenge for most. It's annoyance and frustration. You're heading into Ihmotep territory .

    I'm not sure, with aiming and the telegraph system and active dodge and the move away from tab-targetting, where you're getting the idea that developers are moving away from incorporating player skill into MMOs.  

    I was solely addressing your point regarding group content. Yes, there are more action RPGs and twitch gameplay. No one questions that. You brought up player skill, or lack thereof, is where the group experience has added challenge over single player. I was simply addressing the point you made. So, for your clarity on the matter:

    Can you share examples of the dev-created content or player behaviour that focuses on player competence in the group experience for the express purpose of making it more challenging than the solo experience?

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    The problem we have here is one that is endemic to these boards. The OP is attempting to generalize his own personal experience to that of "the majority". I like X so most people like X...

    ...with player behavior and feedback supporting the long history of devs shifting away from group content. 

     

     

    But, go on...

     

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • RaellnRaelln Member Posts: 67
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    @Raelln,

    I think the difference is simply the type of gameplay preference people have. Many soloers, like you, don't like to feel that they are missing out on large chunks of the game. Many groupers don't like the idea that qualitatevly the game offers them the same sort of experience and can gain the same achievements while working in a group that they could achieve solo.

    These preferences simply can't coexist well with one another. Developers have been hammering at that wall for years now......and none have really found the magic formula to satisfy both prefrences yet. It's not for lack of effort...because they really do want to try to sell thier product to the widest audience possible but inevitably every effort ends up a compromise that either one or both preferences ends up disatisfied. It's like sticking a cobra and a mongoose in a box together.... inevitably when you open the box, one of them won't be breathing anymore.

    Personaly, while I probably play more time solo then in a group and I want there to be alot of interesting things to do solo.... I want the time I spend playing cooperatively with others to be qualitatevly different and more rewarding. I don't want to be able to achieve the same things solo that I can in a group....that kinda kills the fun of it for me. I don't think that preference can coexist well with what you want. Contrary to what many would claim.... I don't want to force anyone to have to group....but I just don't want to play the same game that is designed to appeal to solo (only) players,  because that game simply wouldn't be fun for me. Period. Full Stop.

     

    Just to clarify - I'm not strictly a "soloer". I have no problem with group content - I just prefer to run with a small group of close friends. I suppose I'm more "co-op size" these days. 

    I don't want a game that is segmented into group sizes - this just forces a developer to split their development cycle over the different groups of players. I'd rather not have to watch my favorite game end up with a "soloer patch", then a "raid patch", then to be followed by a "small group patch". I'd rather all the content just be tuned in a fashion that I can decide how to experience it at the time.

    Are my friends online? cool - let's do it as a group. Awesome. We get more points or a larger number of items drop.

    Oh, no friends online right now? that's alright, I can either pick up some strangers or pay a couple in-game bots and still accomplish something.

    If someone wants to earn the maximum number of points or have the greatest chance at getting their gear drop - they can push the group size to the maximum.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by jpnz

     

    This limitation for us means 'bite sized content' which starts the whole 'lack of grouping' in modern MMOs. If you only have 20mins consecutively, you are not going to be able to group with other people.

    Very much so.

    That is why now I prefer games like D3 where you can play for 20 min. In fact, games that requires 2-3 hours sessions no longer interest me.

    I think MMO devs know this, and want the market with people like you. Otherwise, there won't be LFD/LFR.

Sign In or Register to comment.