Howdy, Stranger!

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

Do you think forced-grouping could work if...

1810121314

Comments

  • holdenhamletholdenhamlet Member EpicPosts: 3,772
    edited November 2015
    You can solo in forced grouping games too.  Beastmaster for example was a totally solo job when ffxi was a completely forced grouping game.  But just like WoW is built to be played mostly solo, ffxi was originally built to be played mostly in a group.

    You and your friends would probably have a better time in a forced grouping game that was built around grouping since you're always in a group.  But yeah you can group in a forced soloing game just like you can solo in a forced grouping game... if you want.  But why would you want to?

    You're missing out on what the game is built for (soloing and occasional grouping in WoW or grouping and occasional solo in old ffxi).

    Most people in this thread are responding to the word "forced" more than what we're actually suggesting, which is a game focused on grouping instead of soloing.
    Please, don't make me laugh. You mention a specific class that can barely solo. Sorry, but the exception doesn't make a rule.

    And no, me and my friends would NOT have a better time in a "forced" grouping game, because we also enjoy soloing on other characters. The difference is we don't have to be forced to also group. We also group because it's FUN and it's OUR choice.

    Forced is exactly what it is: you have no choice. I don't want to log onto a damned "beastmaster" to solo when I feel like soloing, I want to do it on my favorite character. Same thing for grouping.

    You're clutching at straws...
    Or, they could introduce a modern MMO that catered to groups and you guys could log onto that when you wanted to group.  All of the content would be catered for grouping (not just dungeons).

    When you wanted to solo you could log onto WoW.

    Or you guys could just stay on WoW and play it's half-assed small amount of group content.  Doesn't hurt me any, but for other people like me that actually enjoy entire games based around grouping, it would be cool for a new game focused on grouping to be made.

    You would in no way be "forced" to buy it.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775

    Or, they could introduce a modern MMO that catered to groups and you guys could log onto that when you wanted to group.  All of the content would be catered for grouping (not just dungeons).

    When you wanted to solo you could log onto WoW.

    You would in no way be "forced" to buy it.
    If such a game has a market.

    I agree there is no "forced" anything. Everyone is free not to play a game. But people forget devs are free to make whatever game too. They don't have to cater to those who want all grouping games.

    (To be fair, there are tons of all grouping pvp games like World of Tanks).
  • holdenhamletholdenhamlet Member EpicPosts: 3,772

    Or, they could introduce a modern MMO that catered to groups and you guys could log onto that when you wanted to group.  All of the content would be catered for grouping (not just dungeons).

    When you wanted to solo you could log onto WoW.

    You would in no way be "forced" to buy it.
    If such a game has a market.

    I agree there is no "forced" anything. Everyone is free not to play a game. But people forget devs are free to make whatever game too. They don't have to cater to those who want all grouping games.

    (To be fair, there are tons of all grouping pvp games like World of Tanks).
    It's true, but I think there's a substantial market for it.  All forced grouping MMOs were successful (unlike all forced soloing games).

    FFXI had a steady 500k subs for like 5 years, and this was in the heat of WoW first being released.

    Yeah that's not WoW numbers but I'm sure there's a lot of studios that wouldn't mind 7.5 million in revenue a month for 5 years straight.  It's certainly much more than most forced soloing games get.


  • moosecatlolmoosecatlol Member RarePosts: 1,530

    Or, they could introduce a modern MMO that catered to groups and you guys could log onto that when you wanted to group.  All of the content would be catered for grouping (not just dungeons).

    When you wanted to solo you could log onto WoW.

    You would in no way be "forced" to buy it.
    If such a game has a market.

    I agree there is no "forced" anything. Everyone is free not to play a game. But people forget devs are free to make whatever game too. They don't have to cater to those who want all grouping games.

    (To be fair, there are tons of all grouping pvp games like World of Tanks).
    It's true, but I think there's a substantial market for it.  All forced grouping MMOs were successful ~

    City of Heroes. Despite it having one of the first lfg tools, (which was simply a modified /who system that allowed you to add extra information.) I often found myself waiting around for a few hours to find something to do. Probably because I stuck to my guns with Empathy instead of hopping aboard the Pain Domination train. When you look back at it CoH barely lasted 8 years. That being said you could also say that 8 years is a success, and to that I would point out that Warhammer Online lasted 5 years. Do the extra 3 years make a difference?

    I still liked CoH, however not being able to do anything on your own kinda sucked.

    Moreover DFO competes with WoW, and that's definitely a "solo" game.
  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Dullahan said:
    Nope. Its just about chasing the almighty dollar. People have been emulating the game that made megabucks for a decade, and I can tell you people did not change that much between '98 and '04. There also hasn't been a new game resembling those of the first gen in over a decade.

    Meanwhile, the games that have changed with the modern player are losing players faster than ever, so there goes that theory.
    Yes, it wasn't people changing.  People didn't change much at any point in MMORPGs' history.

    The only thing that changed was MMORPGs: they shifted to better reflect what people actually wanted out of a MMORPG (which meant being a lot more videogame-RPG-like, and less empty-sandbox-like.)  As a result, even "failed MMORPGs" nowadays have substantially larger audiences than the most successful early MMORPGs.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • holdenhamletholdenhamlet Member EpicPosts: 3,772
    You can solo in forced grouping games too.  Beastmaster for example was a totally solo job when ffxi was a completely forced grouping game.  But just like WoW is built to be played mostly solo, ffxi was originally built to be played mostly in a group.

    You and your friends would probably have a better time in a forced grouping game that was built around grouping since you're always in a group.  But yeah you can group in a forced soloing game just like you can solo in a forced grouping game... if you want.  But why would you want to?

    You're missing out on what the game is built for (soloing and occasional grouping in WoW or grouping and occasional solo in old ffxi).

    Most people in this thread are responding to the word "forced" more than what we're actually suggesting, which is a game focused on grouping instead of soloing.
    Please, don't make me laugh. You mention a specific class that can barely solo. Sorry, but the exception doesn't make a rule.

    And no, me and my friends would NOT have a better time in a "forced" grouping game, because we also enjoy soloing on other characters. The difference is we don't have to be forced to also group. We also group because it's FUN and it's OUR choice.

    Forced is exactly what it is: you have no choice. I don't want to log onto a damned "beastmaster" to solo when I feel like soloing, I want to do it on my favorite character. Same thing for grouping.

    You're clutching at straws...
    Or, they could introduce a modern MMO that catered to groups and you guys could log onto that when you wanted to group.  All of the content would be catered for grouping (not just dungeons).

    When you wanted to solo you could log onto WoW.

    Or you guys could just stay on WoW and play it's half-assed small amount of group content.  Doesn't hurt me any, but for other people like me that actually enjoy entire games based around grouping, it would be cool for a new game focused on grouping to be made.

    You would in no way be "forced" to buy it.
    The question remains, why do you guys need to be forced, when optional grouping works just fine. What's the difference between a game when you are forced to group, and a game where grouping is optional but efficient and where you can group non-stop if that's your choice ?

    I still think Sean got the answer to that question:

    SEANMCAD said:
    I think 'forced' in a game is a bad idea.

    basically if you have to 'force' people to group then there is something wrong with your group design and the answer is not to force people to do it but rather find ways to make it more appealing...or as more likely the case...somehow fix the toxic community which is usually not possible.

    'forced grouping' to me sounds like 'I am mean to people that that is why I dont have friends, they should make it a requirement for me to have more people to tick off'

    And yourself pointed the main problem of forced grouping games:
    "You would in no way be "forced" to buy it."
    And guess what, that's what happens. Nowadays, players know better than to accept being forced into a single playstyle. That's why those games who make attempts at "old school forced grouping" fail.
    "The question remains, why do you guys need to be forced, when optional grouping works just fine."

    It works just fine for you.  You're happy with WoW.  I'm not (and I'm not alone).

    To make a game that's solo-centric, you need to spend a lot of resources towards it.  I'd much rather play a game where those resources went towards group content and gameplay.

    You're wrong though- there have been no attempts to make an "old school forced grouping" MMO in the past decade.  And any attempts at making a forced grouping game have not failed, ever.

    The opposite is true for forced-soloing games (or what you would call "optional grouping" games).  Most of them have failed.
  • HorusraHorusra Member EpicPosts: 4,411
    EQ2 failed till it added solo stuff. DDO added better solo ability to make it.  
  • HorusraHorusra Member EpicPosts: 4,411
    edited November 2015
    Grouping fails to group/solo games due to simple facts.  Off hours people can not find groups people leave game.  If the spread of players gets to heavy on one level/content area then new people can not find groups and leave.  Hoping that people will constantly reroll or "run" people through content enough to keep new people is fallacy.  With all the new games and ease of game hopping you can not risk someone logging in and unable to play.
  • TalulaRoseTalulaRose Member RarePosts: 1,247
    No such thing as forced grouping.

    If you don't like/want to group to play a game where it is required you have the choice to find a game that suits your likes/wants.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775


    FFXI had a steady 500k subs for like 5 years, and this was in the heat of WoW first being released.


    FFXI is a bad example .. since 500k sub is really nothing to write home about these days. Sure, it is not nothing but also not huge success. 

    WoT, LoL, and all the team e-sport games are better examples. 
  • holdenhamletholdenhamlet Member EpicPosts: 3,772
    Horusra said:
    Grouping fails to group/solo games due to simple facts.  Off hours people can not find groups people leave game.  If the spread of players gets to heavy on one level/content area then new people can not find groups and leave.  Hoping that people will constantly reroll or "run" people through content enough to keep new people is fallacy.  With all the new games and ease of game hopping you can not risk someone logging in and unable to play.
    FFXI made it for years before they made it solo-friendly.  The way they ensured people would be running early areas was by having subjobs giving boosts to your main job if you level it up to half-max, so people were often leveling their subjobs in the early areas.  You did everything on one character.


  • holdenhamletholdenhamlet Member EpicPosts: 3,772

    And any attempts at making a forced grouping game have not failed, ever.

    The opposite is true for forced-soloing games (or what you would call "optional grouping" games).  Most of them have failed.

    Do I need to list WoW clones that have failed (i.e. not lived up to expectations)?

    I can't list forced-grouping games that have failed because there aren't any.  Can you name one?
  • holdenhamletholdenhamlet Member EpicPosts: 3,772


    FFXI had a steady 500k subs for like 5 years, and this was in the heat of WoW first being released.


    FFXI is a bad example .. since 500k sub is really nothing to write home about these days. Sure, it is not nothing but also not huge success. 

    WoT, LoL, and all the team e-sport games are better examples. 
    It's hard to compare since most games are f2p nowadays.  Also a forced grouping MMORPG hasn't been made in over a decade, so it's impossible to say how one would do nowadays.

    MOBAs are forced grouping games, though, you're right about that, and they're doing well.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Wizardry said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    I think 'forced' in a game is a bad idea.

    basically if you have to 'force' people to group then there is something wrong with your group design and the answer is not to force people to do it but rather find ways to make it more appealing...or as more likely the case...somehow fix the toxic community which is usually not possible.

    'forced grouping' to me sounds like 'I am mean to people that that is why I dont have friends, they should make it a requirement for me to have more people to tick off'
    NOBODY means forced, there has  never been a FORCED grouping game ever.

    I am sure Eve players will tell you "join a Corp",most games will say "join a guild",every single game has a NEED for grouping but it is never forced.

    Without mentioning the term forced,grouping would obviously have a benefit,it only makes sense,so just because it benefits you as a player it doesn't make it FORCED,it just makes it an intelligent decision to want to group.

    I don't know why people constantly make excuses why they shouldn't group,yet they have joined a MMO to game,,makes no sense what so ever.
    then there is desperate need to change the wording on this subject. oh and by the way I have first hand witnessed this happen

    Group Leader: 'ok good lets all head that way then'
    we run into a solo player grinding some mobs
    Group Leader: 'let me ask if he wants to join'
    a few mins pass
    Group Leader: 'you know I dont get solo players I think games should force grouping more'

    what the hell!

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775


    FFXI had a steady 500k subs for like 5 years, and this was in the heat of WoW first being released.


    FFXI is a bad example .. since 500k sub is really nothing to write home about these days. Sure, it is not nothing but also not huge success. 

    WoT, LoL, and all the team e-sport games are better examples. 
    It's hard to compare since most games are f2p nowadays.  Also a forced grouping MMORPG hasn't been made in over a decade, so it's impossible to say how one would do nowadays.

    MOBAs are forced grouping games, though, you're right about that, and they're doing well.
    Well, may be there is no forced grouping pve games .. but there are tons of optional grouping pve games, and you can use those to gauge whether players like to group.

    My take is that people do like convenient grouping (i.e. hit a button ... group .. and don't talk). Just look at Diablo 3 ... lots of players group in that game. 
  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Do I need to list WoW clones that have failed (i.e. not lived up to expectations)?

    I can't list forced-grouping games that have failed because there aren't any.  Can you name one?
    By one unreasonable definition of failure ("not lived up to expectations"), sure.

    By most reasonable definitions (profitable; more profitable than forced-grouping games; popularity) there is a long list of games that've performed better than early forced-grouping MMORPGs.

    Meanwhile over the years several games like Vanguard attempted to rekindle the oldschool feeling, and generally fell flat.  That style of forced-grouping doesn't work at all.

    The style which might work would be a game where grouping was as effortless as it is in League of Legends (so effortless you probably didn't consider LoL's gameplay "grouping" until I mentioned it.)

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Axehilt said:
    Do I need to list WoW clones that have failed (i.e. not lived up to expectations)?

    I can't list forced-grouping games that have failed because there aren't any.  Can you name one?
    By one unreasonable definition of failure ("not lived up to expectations"), sure.

    By most reasonable definitions (profitable; more profitable than forced-grouping games; popularity) there is a long list of games that've performed better than early forced-grouping MMORPGs.

    Meanwhile over the years several games like Vanguard attempted to rekindle the oldschool feeling, and generally fell flat.  That style of forced-grouping doesn't work at all.

    The style which might work would be a game where grouping was as effortless as it is in League of Legends (so effortless you probably didn't consider LoL's gameplay "grouping" until I mentioned it.)
    yeah plus 'living up to expectations' assumes the one with expectations is without fault

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • observerobserver Member RarePosts: 3,685
    Forced grouping has many problems...

    Chain quests, when party members are on different parts of the quests. (was a huge problem in LOTRO)
    Time Zones, where people are forced to schedule just for some quests/dungeons/raids/etc.
    Level populations, where some mmos have top-heavy max lvl characters leaving older zones barren.
    Noobs & Veterans, where veterans aren't willing to waste more time helping out noobs to gear up, etc.

    As i said earlier, the content is what matters.  This question needs to be more specific as to which content should be forced, or which content should be solo.  Instanced or open-world?  Quests or raids?  Need more specifics.
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536

    And any attempts at making a forced grouping game have not failed, ever.

    The opposite is true for forced-soloing games (or what you would call "optional grouping" games).  Most of them have failed.

    Do I need to list WoW clones that have failed (i.e. not lived up to expectations)?

    I can't list forced-grouping games that have failed because there aren't any.  Can you name one?
    Aaaand checkmate.

    Meme response only confirmed it.


  • ShadanwolfShadanwolf Member UncommonPosts: 2,392
    I'm mainly a solo player.Forced grouping means I would never play the game.
  • CecropiaCecropia Member RarePosts: 3,985
    I'm mainly a solo player.Forced grouping means I would never play the game.
    No biggie. You've got endless choices out there to satisfy your tastes. 

    "Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb

  • AntiquatedAntiquated Member RarePosts: 1,415
    edited November 2015
    And any attempts at making a forced grouping game have not failed, ever.

    The opposite is true for forced-soloing games (or what you would call "optional grouping" games).  Most of them have failed.

    Moving goalposts. "Failure" is never defined, but appears to be verrrrry flexible, as spin requires.

    If < 600k subs is your "failure bar", then every forced-grouping game, ever, has failed. While many forced-soloing games succeeded wildly.

    If I need the goalpost criteria to move in order to be "right," well, just push them around.
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    And any attempts at making a forced grouping game have not failed, ever.

    The opposite is true for forced-soloing games (or what you would call "optional grouping" games).  Most of them have failed.

    Moving goalposts. "Failure" is never defined, but appears to be verrrrry flexible, as spin requires.
    Mkay, then tell us a few examples of any "forced" grouping games in the last, say, decade.

    I await your response from this movie theater with forced seating.


  • AntiquatedAntiquated Member RarePosts: 1,415
    Dullahan said:
    And any attempts at making a forced grouping game have not failed, ever.

    The opposite is true for forced-soloing games (or what you would call "optional grouping" games).  Most of them have failed.

    Moving goalposts. "Failure" is never defined, but appears to be verrrrry flexible, as spin requires.
    Mkay, then tell us a few examples of any "forced" grouping games in the last, say, decade.

    I await your response from this movie theater with forced seating.
    Whooo, you moved them again! Good for you, you're learning how to master this!
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    Dullahan said:
    And any attempts at making a forced grouping game have not failed, ever.

    The opposite is true for forced-soloing games (or what you would call "optional grouping" games).  Most of them have failed.

    Moving goalposts. "Failure" is never defined, but appears to be verrrrry flexible, as spin requires.
    Mkay, then tell us a few examples of any "forced" grouping games in the last, say, decade.

    I await your response from this movie theater with forced seating.
    Whooo, you moved them again! Good for you, you're learning how to master this!
    Nice, using references to a fallacy to perpetrate another fallacy. I don't have anything on you!

    I literally dumped concrete around the goalposts, sport.


Sign In or Register to comment.