So.. I stand by what I said.. Good Ideas, Viable Ideas, are not Born in voids, they are not made from pontifications, or abstract hypotheticals, they are built off other ideas that worked, and then revised, improved upon, and correcting what went wrong or was missing from the original idea.
That's incontestably true in the overwhelming majority of situations. Still, hypotheses can play a role in that process. Not so much pontification.
Fair point.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
You don't have to sell me on the negative effects of vertical progression and power gaps, I hate them! I'm a massive fan horizontal progression and wished it existed in mmos properly.
I'm still a little bit confused about the point you're trying to make, so forgive me if I've got it wrong.
I believe you are saying that one of the negative effects of vertical progression is that it encourages developers to design their worlds in a linear fashion, and also encourages linear themepark design because the linear telling of a story fits in with the linear nature of vertical progression?
Am I close?
Well, it's not the vertical progression itself. It's the Power Gaps. Because the players are jumping ahead in Power so fast, everything else has to too. And that's what causes the problems.
In effect, the Power Gaps are pulling the game apart, stretching the game/world into too many sectioned off portions.
- Content designated to fairly small groups of Power separation (level groups). - Players separating from "friends" by the amounts of time they can play. (Falling behind.) - Guilds losing members that can't stay within range of other members. - Lack of Socialness as a result of not maintaining associations with known players. - Lack of Trust as a result of THAT. - Leading to tendencies to play Solo. - Economy that's equally divided, so it doesn't function as an economy at all. - Content that becomes meaningless as you progress past it. - Content ahead of you that you can't use. - Leaving players with only a small part of the game that they can play at any one time. - Same for gear, as above. - Directions and controls, paint by numbers "world." - etc., etc.
Something else to be considered that I've been saying for years that I could never get people here to comprehend..... I think people here are more simple than we think but hay, they have good grammar and spelling but cant think beyond a rock.
First noticed this in playing Rift with a friend...... we played like 5 nights in a row until he had to take a night off, ONE NIGHT !
We were absolutely unable to play together at all for two reasons. Leveling was so fast I gained well over 10 levels without even trying.
Quest hub to quest hub, I had no choice but to go back and play the exact same content. Infact the programming programming was strange he couldn't do my stuff + 10 levels.
WHY ?
The game was small !!!!!!!!!!......Every game made since is small. leveling to quickly, making it impossible to play with others.
Vanilla WoW, like it or not, you were always able to play with others +/- 5 levels, you also spent hours the same level, later level all day making friends along the way.
That's not a game problem.
After five nights of play you would have known leveling in the game was fast paced. Yet you chose to continue leveling at that rate when your friend was absent. knowingly creating a large level disparity between the two of you.
If you want to level along with someone in a game where levels are gained quickly you only play together to prevent that gap from happening.
It isn't impossible. You just have to do it in accordance with how the game you're playing works now, not how another game worked over a decade ago.
This proves the rock problem I spoke of. You expect to do "work arounds" instead of making a game an mmorpg. Face it, the game was built for solo on-line play. Something else you have to face. your not an mmorpg player but and game online player.
Rifts were based on hop in and kill the rift solo with others around you. And two quest per hub then move on to the next...... This game sticks with me because it may be the first on-line game made.
Trying to dispute this with you would be worthless because your an on-line gamer and I'm not.
A little story, After several attempts to play together like we did so many times in the past like other mmorpgs, we decided it was impossible to play together, we each decided to play on our own.
One afternoon I had a few hours to play. Then noticed someone following me around helping me kill stuff and wouldn't go away (strange but not uncommon).
Eventually he asked "lets play together". I tried to explain the game was not built for duo's and couldn't get my point across.... He hounded me for what ever reason and I gave in.
Now in a group I asked what quest does he have ?.... I've already done them so he couldn't give them. nor could he do my quest because they were to high for his level (but only two levels)....... We were at a stand still as I expected.... he didn't know how to respond "so he asked me for Gold ! "..... I had to log off to get away from him.
Your an online gamer, we have nothing in common. I guess I'm typing this because I wanted to tell the story
This is kinda funny.
Because, in games like DDO, which are Quest Hub games, which tend to get a lot of hate for some reason that I do not understand, but anyway, grouping is encouraged, it is an integral aspect of the game to do the content with other people as a group.
Also, in DDO some of their modules/adventure packs involve Explorer Zones and the Dungeons themselves.
In some of their expansion packs, the Dungeons were set into Explorer Zones, which were also group content.
So people would form a group to travel through the explore a zone (which had it's own POI's, named Mobs, Vista, etc) to a dungeon entrance location, do the dungeon, then return to the explorer zone (Not the City), and head off to another Dungeon to go do that, and keep on playing together as a group.
I don't understand why people fuss and heap hate upon these Dungeon Hub games, when they are the games that promote grouping the most, and then cry that more open world games don't get people to group.
I guess some people will never be happy.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I don't understand why people fuss and heap hate upon these Dungeon Hub games, when they are the games that promote grouping the most, and then cry that more open world games don't get people to group.
I guess some people will never be happy.
It's just a reflexive response, partly spawned by herd mentality I suspect, as it is a blanket critique trotted out no matter how well suited it may be to any particular game.
If I recall correctly many of the missions in DDO actually take place in one particular city, essentially making it natural to act as a quest hub.
On rails (linear) and off-the-rails (non-linear) is a separate thing to whether the game is sandbox or themepark.
So, whether EQ was linear or not doesn't have any effect on whether it is a themepark or not.
It's not separate at all. It's integral. I can't determine if you're trolling. I think you might be trying to stir a discusion. When things are on rails they're a script. Like a movie. There's very little player independence. You think on your own minimally. You follow the rails and complete objectives, all of it designed explicitly to produced enjoyment. This is what makes it a themepark. There's no actual danger or trials or stresses or independence. It's like reading a book or watching a movie or playing something that's designed for an exact result. It's like when Smedly said he wanted MMORPG characters to be iconic heroes. He was speaking in themepark language. He wnated an exact result that's guaranteed. Sandbox MMORPGs aren't about guarantees.
I think you're using the conventional barebones definition for sandbox--as in, you're thinking of a sandbox where people can make sand castles. My definition is individual agency--off the rails. A sandbox is you're on your own more often, using your own wits and creativity. The fun comes from doing it yourself, finding it yourself. That's more what Everquest was like. You're dropped into a world and rarely are you told where to go next or what to build, you have to instead talk to other players and explore to determine what your opportunities are. Your fate is your own. Even the items were more sandbox-like. In the ealry days they didn't have a class designation, you had to figure out what worked with your playstyle. They weren't designed to eliminate gear holes either, so it really was on you. Do you wnat hp? Ac? Resists? What effects are most important to you? It was up to you. And there was no map yet in-game, so you had to rely a lot more on your own eyes. This all of course changed with time as the game became more and more linear in its design--I think some of that is because of WoW, but really most mainstream players don't want to think much on their own.
So there you have it. My definition of sandbox has always included being off the rails. HOWEVER, I acknowledge every game is going to have some kind of assistance built in behimd the scenes. Some to some amount every game is going to have rails. But it's not equal. There's a continuum from weak to strong. Strong rails lead to a more cinematic experience with more guarnated results. Weak rails lead to a more individual experience that's less tangible. In this way, even "themepark" MMORPGs can have sandbox elements. Same for "sandbox" MMORPGs sometimes having themepark elements. But don't let this be confusing. It doesn't have to be.
Understood this way, sandbox MMORPGs merely need to have more rails to appeal to the mainstream and be successful. That's the only thing that prevents a lot of sandbox MMORPGs from being popular. The focus is on the sand castles. It's so stupid to restrict the definition to that, and it's exactly why there's so much confusion.
I don't understand why people fuss and heap hate upon these Dungeon Hub games, when they are the games that promote grouping the most, and then cry that more open world games don't get people to group.
I guess some people will never be happy.
It's just a reflexive response, partly spawned by herd mentality I suspect, as it is a blanket critique trotted out no matter how well suited it may be to any particular game.
If I recall correctly many of the missions in DDO actually take place in one particular city, essentially making it natural to act as a quest hub.
Originally it was 1 starter 'town' Korthos.
Then you moved off to the Main City "Stormreach" that was split into 2 Main Zones (Harbor & Market Place), the Market Place had at least 4 separate zones called "Houses" attached to it, (IE: House Deneith, or House Kundarak, Etc)
And keep in mind they kept adding to the 'Main City' with various Adventure packs and updates, by the time I left, they had well over a dozen different Annexed areas off Stormreach.
Then in their First Expansion, Against the Demon Queen, they added in a whole dual world thing, where you started with Eberron World and moved to Forgotten Realms World.
Kinda cool all things said and done. I kinda drifted off with that expansion.. they have added a lot more since I left, I just don't know the details.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
But.. again in all this about difficulty, grouping, and all that jazz.
DDo was a quest hub game. So grouping was the core part of the game play, it was built around the idea that people would group up and run dungeons.
So it had the grouping element that everyone seems to want.
Since the Content was all instanced, they had a full list of difficulties you could run on, from Easy to Rape Reaper.
So it had a choose your own difficulty, you could make it as hard or as easy as you liked.
It had a slew of situational gear, so there was no BiS gear or item. Everything was based on what you were about to face.
And mobs had common sense strengths and weaknesses, IE: a Fire Imp was immune to fire damage, but took extra damage from cold.
So this game had pretty much everything everyone here is asking for.. I wonder why it was not more popular.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
You don't have to sell me on the negative effects of vertical progression and power gaps, I hate them! I'm a massive fan horizontal progression and wished it existed in mmos properly.
I'm still a little bit confused about the point you're trying to make, so forgive me if I've got it wrong.
I believe you are saying that one of the negative effects of vertical progression is that it encourages developers to design their worlds in a linear fashion, and also encourages linear themepark design because the linear telling of a story fits in with the linear nature of vertical progression?
Am I close?
Well, it's not the vertical progression itself. It's the Power Gaps. Because the players are jumping ahead in Power so fast, everything else has to too. And that's what causes the problems.
In effect, the Power Gaps are pulling the game apart, stretching the game/world into too many sectioned off portions.
- Content designated to fairly small groups of Power separation (level groups). - Players separating from "friends" by the amounts of time they can play. (Falling behind.) - Guilds losing members that can't stay within range of other members. - Lack of Socialness as a result of not maintaining associations with known players. - Lack of Trust as a result of THAT. - Leading to tendencies to play Solo. - Economy that's equally divided, so it doesn't function as an economy at all. - Content that becomes meaningless as you progress past it. - Content ahead of you that you can't use. - Leaving players with only a small part of the game that they can play at any one time. - Same for gear, as above. - Directions and controls, paint by numbers "world." - etc., etc.
Something else to be considered that I've been saying for years that I could never get people here to comprehend..... I think people here are more simple than we think but hay, they have good grammar and spelling but cant think beyond a rock.
First noticed this in playing Rift with a friend...... we played like 5 nights in a row until he had to take a night off, ONE NIGHT !
We were absolutely unable to play together at all for two reasons. Leveling was so fast I gained well over 10 levels without even trying.
Quest hub to quest hub, I had no choice but to go back and play the exact same content. Infact the programming programming was strange he couldn't do my stuff + 10 levels.
WHY ?
The game was small !!!!!!!!!!......Every game made since is small. leveling to quickly, making it impossible to play with others.
Vanilla WoW, like it or not, you were always able to play with others +/- 5 levels, you also spent hours the same level, later level all day making friends along the way.
That's not a game problem.
After five nights of play you would have known leveling in the game was fast paced. Yet you chose to continue leveling at that rate when your friend was absent. knowingly creating a large level disparity between the two of you.
If you want to level along with someone in a game where levels are gained quickly you only play together to prevent that gap from happening.
It isn't impossible. You just have to do it in accordance with how the game you're playing works now, not how another game worked over a decade ago.
This proves the rock problem I spoke of. You expect to do "work arounds" instead of making a game an mmorpg. Face it, the game was built for solo on-line play. Something else you have to face. your not an mmorpg player but and game online player.
Rifts were based on hop in and kill the rift solo with others around you. And two quest per hub then move on to the next...... This game sticks with me because it may be the first on-line game made.
Trying to dispute this with you would be worthless because your an on-line gamer and I'm not.
A little story, After several attempts to play together like we did so many times in the past like other mmorpgs, we decided it was impossible to play together, we each decided to play on our own.
One afternoon I had a few hours to play. Then noticed someone following me around helping me kill stuff and wouldn't go away (strange but not uncommon).
Eventually he asked "lets play together". I tried to explain the game was not built for duo's and couldn't get my point across.... He hounded me for what ever reason and I gave in.
Now in a group I asked what quest does he have ?.... I've already done them so he couldn't give them. nor could he do my quest because they were to high for his level (but only two levels)....... We were at a stand still as I expected.... he didn't know how to respond "so he asked me for Gold ! "..... I had to log off to get away from him.
Your an online gamer, we have nothing in common. I guess I'm typing this because I wanted to tell the story
Some people actually spend most of their in game time doing dungeons, raids, and pvp.
As much as you like to twist it as a solo game it is not.
And as much as you like to twist how easy everything it is, it isn't. I posted a video of someone soloing raid, that difficulty is like playing dark soul doing no damage run. There is also Mad King Tower in GW2, and mini games in GW2 which I never manage to complete.
You don't have to sell me on the negative effects of vertical progression and power gaps, I hate them! I'm a massive fan horizontal progression and wished it existed in mmos properly.
I'm still a little bit confused about the point you're trying to make, so forgive me if I've got it wrong.
I believe you are saying that one of the negative effects of vertical progression is that it encourages developers to design their worlds in a linear fashion, and also encourages linear themepark design because the linear telling of a story fits in with the linear nature of vertical progression?
Am I close?
Well, it's not the vertical progression itself. It's the Power Gaps. Because the players are jumping ahead in Power so fast, everything else has to too. And that's what causes the problems.
In effect, the Power Gaps are pulling the game apart, stretching the game/world into too many sectioned off portions.
- Content designated to fairly small groups of Power separation (level groups). - Players separating from "friends" by the amounts of time they can play. (Falling behind.) - Guilds losing members that can't stay within range of other members. - Lack of Socialness as a result of not maintaining associations with known players. - Lack of Trust as a result of THAT. - Leading to tendencies to play Solo. - Economy that's equally divided, so it doesn't function as an economy at all. - Content that becomes meaningless as you progress past it. - Content ahead of you that you can't use. - Leaving players with only a small part of the game that they can play at any one time. - Same for gear, as above. - Directions and controls, paint by numbers "world." - etc., etc.
Something else to be considered that I've been saying for years that I could never get people here to comprehend..... I think people here are more simple than we think but hay, they have good grammar and spelling but cant think beyond a rock.
First noticed this in playing Rift with a friend...... we played like 5 nights in a row until he had to take a night off, ONE NIGHT !
We were absolutely unable to play together at all for two reasons. Leveling was so fast I gained well over 10 levels without even trying.
Quest hub to quest hub, I had no choice but to go back and play the exact same content. Infact the programming programming was strange he couldn't do my stuff + 10 levels.
WHY ?
The game was small !!!!!!!!!!......Every game made since is small. leveling to quickly, making it impossible to play with others.
Vanilla WoW, like it or not, you were always able to play with others +/- 5 levels, you also spent hours the same level, later level all day making friends along the way.
That's not a game problem.
After five nights of play you would have known leveling in the game was fast paced. Yet you chose to continue leveling at that rate when your friend was absent. knowingly creating a large level disparity between the two of you.
If you want to level along with someone in a game where levels are gained quickly you only play together to prevent that gap from happening.
It isn't impossible. You just have to do it in accordance with how the game you're playing works now, not how another game worked over a decade ago.
This proves the rock problem I spoke of. You expect to do "work arounds" instead of making a game an mmorpg. Face it, the game was built for solo on-line play. Something else you have to face. your not an mmorpg player but and game online player.
Rifts were based on hop in and kill the rift solo with others around you. And two quest per hub then move on to the next...... This game sticks with me because it may be the first on-line game made.
Trying to dispute this with you would be worthless because your an on-line gamer and I'm not.
A little story, After several attempts to play together like we did so many times in the past like other mmorpgs, we decided it was impossible to play together, we each decided to play on our own.
One afternoon I had a few hours to play. Then noticed someone following me around helping me kill stuff and wouldn't go away (strange but not uncommon).
Eventually he asked "lets play together". I tried to explain the game was not built for duo's and couldn't get my point across.... He hounded me for what ever reason and I gave in.
Now in a group I asked what quest does he have ?.... I've already done them so he couldn't give them. nor could he do my quest because they were to high for his level (but only two levels)....... We were at a stand still as I expected.... he didn't know how to respond "so he asked me for Gold ! "..... I had to log off to get away from him.
Your an online gamer, we have nothing in common. I guess I'm typing this because I wanted to tell the story
Some people actually spend most of their in game time doing dungeons, raids, and pvp.
As much as you like to twist it as a solo game it is not.
And as much as you like to twist how easy everything it is, it isn't. I posted a video of someone soloing raid, that difficulty is like playing dark soul doing no damage run. There is also Mad King Tower in GW2, and mini games in GW2 which I never manage to complete.
It's like the idea that MMOs have easy things and hard things in them these days never enters his mind. The games are either easy or hard in that black and white world.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
If you have a world map, then make noticeable part of it, not only difficut, but suicidal. Bascially, if you "go deeper into a huge forest" you eventually are likely run out of luck, and face doom, that doesn't scale with your level or whatever.
That way, you CAN and might want to press on further, but you do so at your own risk, and ideally, you should be able to rely on your skills, and not the game killing you on purpose. Your environment simply ends up getting out of control if you press your skill and luck beyond what is good, simple as that.
Also, there is here an opportunity for making the game mechanics deeper, and thus more rewarding with regard to immersion-into-the-game-world. Instead of simply surviving, or getting "points", you actually have a fun time surviving, or maybe cleverly doing the best you can to stay alive, even though, you may simply run out of luck because the game isn't artificially designed to make you survive.
If you have a world map, then make noticeable part of it, not only difficut, but suicidal. Bascially, if you "go deeper into a huge forest" you eventually are likely run out of luck, and face doom, that doesn't scale with your level or whatever.
That way, you CAN and might want to press on further, but you do so at your own risk, and ideally, you should be able to rely on your skills, and not the game killing you on purpose. Your environment simply ends up getting out of control if you press your skill and luck beyond what is good, simple as that.
Also, there is here an opportunity for making the game mechanics deeper, and thus more rewarding with regard to immersion-into-the-game-world. Instead of simply surviving, or getting "points", you actually have a fun time surviving, or maybe cleverly doing the best you can to stay alive, even though, you may simply run out of luck because the game isn't artificially designed to make you survive.
There is also Mad King Tower in GW2, and mini games in GW2 which I never manage to complete.
Mad King Clock Tower.. now that was one really annoying Jump Puzzle.. right up there with the Wintersday one.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
But.. again in all this about difficulty, grouping, and all that jazz.
DDo was a quest hub game. So grouping was the core part of the game play, it was built around the idea that people would group up and run dungeons.
So it had the grouping element that everyone seems to want.
Since the Content was all instanced, they had a full list of difficulties you could run on, from Easy to Rape Reaper.
So it had a choose your own difficulty, you could make it as hard or as easy as you liked.
It had a slew of situational gear, so there was no BiS gear or item. Everything was based on what you were about to face.
And mobs had common sense strengths and weaknesses, IE: a Fire Imp was immune to fire damage, but took extra damage from cold.
So this game had pretty much everything everyone here is asking for.. I wonder why it was not more popular.
I think it's because it's a hub like you said and not an open world. But again, like you said because it is a hub it is more conducive to group play.
I suppose players need to decide what they want to prioritize. If they want grouping to be the number one feature, a hub based game may actually suit them better. If they want freedom, an open world (that's not on rails) could work. Currently, I don't think there's a MMO that offers both.
I don't play DDO because the character models are ugly even though I love DnD. Yes I'm vain. And I'm kinda done with 3.5 edition rules. I'm more of a roleplayer than a gamer so a completely open world attracts me.
Perhaps in time a truly genius developer will find the answer.
But.. again in all this about difficulty, grouping, and all that jazz.
DDo was a quest hub game. So grouping was the core part of the game play, it was built around the idea that people would group up and run dungeons.
So it had the grouping element that everyone seems to want.
Since the Content was all instanced, they had a full list of difficulties you could run on, from Easy to Rape Reaper.
So it had a choose your own difficulty, you could make it as hard or as easy as you liked.
It had a slew of situational gear, so there was no BiS gear or item. Everything was based on what you were about to face.
And mobs had common sense strengths and weaknesses, IE: a Fire Imp was immune to fire damage, but took extra damage from cold.
So this game had pretty much everything everyone here is asking for.. I wonder why it was not more popular.
I think it's because it's a hub like you said and not an open world. But again, like you said because it is a hub it is more conducive to group play.
I suppose players need to decide what they want to prioritize. If they want grouping to be the number one feature, a hub based game may actually suit them better. If they want freedom, an open world (that's not on rails) could work. Currently, I don't think there's a MMO that offers both.
I don't play DDO because the character models are ugly even though I love DnD. Yes I'm vain. And I'm kinda done with 3.5 edition rules. I'm more of a roleplayer than a gamer so a completely open world attracts me.
Perhaps in time a truly genius developer will find the answer.
I will totally give you the graphics are dated.... very dated.
Even the new content looks like it was made 10 years ago.. which.. while it fits the rest of the game.. the whole game looks and feels like it is stuck in 2008.
So yah, I totally respect where you are coming from.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
if I think about games or even mmo's before 2005, they had challenging game play in their own way . Be it level grinding, gearing progression or dungeon content, it existed. What happened, poeple thought it was too hard and WoW came to be.
For this genre to not have another moment like that, I feel developers have to be confindent in what they are creating and allow that audence accepted it as a good game or not.
So instead of just saying make things harfer, I say believe in the idea and stick to the scope of that idea and shouldn';t fail.
Look at ealy mmos they had no real direction in the 3rd platform but they made it work through creative concepts and flush out ideals.
We can already name a few games that have buckled under the weight of competing with WoW, and it can't be done, so devs need to pretend it doesn't exist. Focus on their market share and stick to the scope.
I don't think developers are blind to this. Various AAA creators have singled it out as a major issue for them. For example, the creator(s) for Wildstar mentioned this. But this isn't the only example. I think the makers of FireFall Online also brought it up. And of course Wizardry Online and others. None of these are still around, but these're probably the worst examples I could use. Unfortunately, or not, the best examples are going to be Indie or amataur MMO's. There's a reason for this. Most AAA MMo's are mainstream because they need a large audience of players to fund the AAA development. Mainstream players tend to desire the changes, especially QOL, in modern MMO's.
Therer'e tons of indie and amateur MMO's. Tons. Really just look on Steam and you'll find quite a number of them. I've looked for a long time and keep finding new ones. Some of them you have to google. I play Wurm Online and it's indie. Amateur MMO's are a lot smaller, things like Haven and Hearth, Daimonin, Shores of Hazeron and Eternal Lands. There're also MUDs, and this extends the list a lot. There're easily hundreds.
I don't want to fail to mention emulated MMO's, or just old MMO's. There're a lot of them. One of the things emulated MMO's have going for them is they were AAA when they were live, so they tend to be high quality. And since it's emulated, players can play for free, making it even more appealing. Many players choose to stick with older MMO's not because of nostalgia but because of gameplay. The main difference between the two is nostalgia tends to be about music, places and friends. Every old MMO will produce feeelings of nostalgia, but not all of them will produce gameplay preferences. This is why the rose colored glasses analogy is used so frequently. It's a famous straw man argument because it can be applied to every case.
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Comments
Because, in games like DDO, which are Quest Hub games, which tend to get a lot of hate for some reason that I do not understand, but anyway, grouping is encouraged, it is an integral aspect of the game to do the content with other people as a group.
Also, in DDO some of their modules/adventure packs involve Explorer Zones and the Dungeons themselves.
In some of their expansion packs, the Dungeons were set into Explorer Zones, which were also group content.
So people would form a group to travel through the explore a zone (which had it's own POI's, named Mobs, Vista, etc) to a dungeon entrance location, do the dungeon, then return to the explorer zone (Not the City), and head off to another Dungeon to go do that, and keep on playing together as a group.
I don't understand why people fuss and heap hate upon these Dungeon Hub games, when they are the games that promote grouping the most, and then cry that more open world games don't get people to group.
I guess some people will never be happy.
If I recall correctly many of the missions in DDO actually take place in one particular city, essentially making it natural to act as a quest hub.
Then you moved off to the Main City "Stormreach" that was split into 2 Main Zones (Harbor & Market Place), the Market Place had at least 4 separate zones called "Houses" attached to it, (IE: House Deneith, or House Kundarak, Etc)
And keep in mind they kept adding to the 'Main City' with various Adventure packs and updates, by the time I left, they had well over a dozen different Annexed areas off Stormreach.
Then in their First Expansion, Against the Demon Queen, they added in a whole dual world thing, where you started with Eberron World and moved to Forgotten Realms World.
Kinda cool all things said and done. I kinda drifted off with that expansion.. they have added a lot more since I left, I just don't know the details.
DDo was a quest hub game. So grouping was the core part of the game play, it was built around the idea that people would group up and run dungeons.
So it had the grouping element that everyone seems to want.
Since the Content was all instanced, they had a full list of difficulties you could run on, from Easy to Rape Reaper.
So it had a choose your own difficulty, you could make it as hard or as easy as you liked.
It had a slew of situational gear, so there was no BiS gear or item. Everything was based on what you were about to face.
And mobs had common sense strengths and weaknesses, IE: a Fire Imp was immune to fire damage, but took extra damage from cold.
So this game had pretty much everything everyone here is asking for.. I wonder why it was not more popular.
As much as you like to twist it as a solo game it is not.
And as much as you like to twist how easy everything it is, it isn't. I posted a video of someone soloing raid, that difficulty is like playing dark soul doing no damage run. There is also Mad King Tower in GW2, and mini games in GW2 which I never manage to complete.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
If you have a world map, then make noticeable part of it, not only difficut, but suicidal.
Bascially, if you "go deeper into a huge forest" you eventually are likely run out of luck, and face doom, that doesn't scale with your level or whatever.
That way, you CAN and might want to press on further, but you do so at your own risk, and ideally, you should be able to rely on your skills, and not the game killing you on purpose. Your environment simply ends up getting out of control if you press your skill and luck beyond what is good, simple as that.
Also, there is here an opportunity for making the game mechanics deeper, and thus more rewarding with regard to immersion-into-the-game-world. Instead of simply surviving, or getting "points", you actually have a fun time surviving, or maybe cleverly doing the best you can to stay alive, even though, you may simply run out of luck because the game isn't artificially designed to make you survive.
Once upon a time....
I suppose players need to decide what they want to prioritize. If they want grouping to be the number one feature, a hub based game may actually suit them better. If they want freedom, an open world (that's not on rails) could work. Currently, I don't think there's a MMO that offers both.
I don't play DDO because the character models are ugly even though I love DnD. Yes I'm vain. And I'm kinda done with 3.5 edition rules. I'm more of a roleplayer than a gamer so a completely open world attracts me.
Perhaps in time a truly genius developer will find the answer.
Even the new content looks like it was made 10 years ago.. which.. while it fits the rest of the game.. the whole game looks and feels like it is stuck in 2008.
So yah, I totally respect where you are coming from.
Forced grouping, grind, and time sinks aren't difficulty. They're just inconveniences.
The Tyranny of Convenience