Originally posted by Vidir

Originally posted by ladyattis

I pose this question in light of my own conclusions about the majority of 'modern' MMOs, where the entire set of 'content' that one can play is fashioned to be from the perspective of a single player as opposed to multiple players. Whether we're talking about Tabula Rasa or talking about Vanguard, or Everquest 2 or even World of Warcraft. Each one of these MMOs can be effectively played solo with no need to even have the chat window open save for to bicker with others if one so chooses. This observation makes me wonder where MMO developers went wrong, by that I mean that the entire point of MMOs is the MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER aspect of the 'genre' (I use this loosely), where you're stuck with strangers and suppose to cooperate in some function to win out over extraordinary odds. Yet, this doesn't pan out like it anymore. I doubt it has anything to do with the playerbases getting older otherwise people would become total shut-ins in real life, so I'm puzzled by this development. Is it because it makes development easier for the companies? Or is it because they're trying to appeal to the largest segments of the market? I have my own ideas on it, but I rather see what you all have to say.

-- Brede

Neither  Vanguard or EQ2 does support solo playing. Those games alow you to level your character but you will not find any decent loot in those games if you play solo.

Solo content is essential to have, but so is group content and that group content has to be suitably challenging and rewarding enough to make the overhead of forming a group worthwhile. 

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

 

Originally posted by edmonal

No you aren't being abusive, however your post does sound pretty arrogant. You have a specific play style and that's fine, but you have no right to dictate how people play a game.  I prefer grouping, but really I have no problem with people wanting to solo in MMOs.

I'm not dictating how people should play a game, but a multiplayer game should be exactly that, not a single player game with other people logged in. I wouldn't buy Unreal Tournament expecting to be able to win the game alone, so why is it acceptable to sell a multiplayer game with 90% solo play? And then ask people to pay every month for it? I'm not going to pay every month so I can keep playing Grand Theft Auto...

 

The fun of multiplayer games has always been working with other players to achieve a goal. In Unreal it might be to capture a flag, in MMO's its to overcome powerful creatures and tough dungeons. If you can do that alone, you're just playing Oblivion Online.

That is one reason to play an MMO, there are others. Being in a dynamic world where you can play the lone wolf is another, making friends and socializing is another, crafting gear for other players is yet another...there are many reasons to play these games and they aren't narrowly defined by a specific type of game play. You are dictating how people should play, and you're offering a very narrow version of what a MMO is.

With recent successes in mmos the driving force now is money. Developers are catering more and more to solo content because it incorperates a broader spectrum of subscribers. And subscriptions sadly are what matter the most. This leads to content that encourages repetitive hooks in its gameplay.

MMO success has lead to talks of "marketing stratigies"  and  "subscriber retention" games aren't being designed with fun and innovation because that doesn't keep the cash rolling in. As long as developers can keep gamers paying to chase carrots then solo play repetitivness and gear loop raiding is here to stay.

Forced grouping = Nazi

My playstyle = Teamplayer

It's all about personal preferences and a game should, imo, cater to as many of them as possible.

last time I played WoW being in the sub BC level noone looks for group and everyone just solos. I find solo content mind-numbingly boring so the only choice left to me was to quit really. Its just far too easy to solo in WoW and going back to what someone else said- everyone just wants to do their own quests. -like they're just living in their own quest-world and interaction is only desired when its needed and done for as little as possible.

I did put a suggestion on the forums whereby people who helped others do quests they had already done could get a reward somehow to incent grouping, but don't think anyone listens.

Originally posted by ladyattis

I pose this question in light of my own conclusions about the majority of 'modern' MMOs, where the entire set of 'content' that one can play is fashioned to be from the perspective of a single player as opposed to multiple players. Whether we're talking about Tabula Rasa or talking about Vanguard, or Everquest 2 or even World of Warcraft. Each one of these MMOs can be effectively played solo with no need to even have the chat window open save for to bicker with others if one so chooses. This observation makes me wonder where MMO developers went wrong, by that I mean that the entire point of MMOs is the MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER aspect of the 'genre' (I use this loosely), where you're stuck with strangers and suppose to cooperate in some function to win out over extraordinary odds. Yet, this doesn't pan out like it anymore. I doubt it has anything to do with the playerbases getting older otherwise people would become total shut-ins in real life, so I'm puzzled by this development. Is it because it makes development easier for the companies? Or is it because they're trying to appeal to the largest segments of the market? I have my own ideas on it, but I rather see what you all have to say.

-- Brede

Why is anything "wrong" with this? If lots of people want it (and by the popularity of solo-able as a feature, i would say lots do want it), why is it a problem for developers to give it to them?

And solo-content usually only relates to the questing/combat aspect of the MMO. May be people don't want to group when they level but want to interact with other people on AH or BG?

In any case, there is nothing "wrong" as long as people like it.

the idea is to cater to everyone. people that either want to play socially or people that want to solo. though it's not easy to solo in WoW when you hit end-game and you want all the nice gear.

First, multiplayers is not a synonym of teams.   It means the game is played by many peoples on a server (duh !). I don't think peoples want hardcore game like the original EQ where everything was so hard that you had to constantly play in team.

Who got the time today to LFG for hours to have something done in a game?  Games are supposed to be fun, having to wait for a group is boring.   When i play, i want to feel i'm accomplishing something wether i have 30 minutes or 2 hours.

All MMO's should have solo and team content.   This way you cather for a large audience, hardcore and causual.  Releasing a game where you cant accomplish anything by yourself would remove all the casual crowd, i dont think any game developpers can afford to loose that much potential customers.

Are mmo's becoming massively singplayer ?  I think you asked the wrong question. 

As I have said before, I don't group much due to physical difficulties with playing and the fact that my characters are never the best with reactions, put me in a stress situation and I'm likely to fumble.  If I solo, I only hurt myself.  I find it sad that there's content in LoTRO that I'll probably never see, but that's the way it is.  Meanwhile I can craft, trade with other players, have conversations in game and, occaisionally, group in a fun situation.  All things that make Multiplayer games a heck of a lot more fun than single player games.

"That is one reason to play an MMO, there are others. Being in a dynamic world where you can play the lone wolf is another, making friends and socializing is another, crafting gear for other players is yet another...there are many reasons to play these games and they aren't narrowly defined by a specific type of game play. You are dictating how people should play, and you're offering a very narrow version of what a MMO is."

" I find it sad that there's content in LoTRO that I'll probably never see, but that's the way it is.  Meanwhile I can craft, trade with other players, have conversations in game and, occaisionally, group in a fun situation.  All things that make Multiplayer games a heck of a lot more fun than single player games."

It sounds to me like you both want to play an interactive IRC, not a multiplayer game. You can play a 'lone wolf' in most MMOs, in original EverQuest that would have been a Necromancer or Druid, both which were great at soloing. You make friends and socialize by default when you're playing a multiplayer game, you can't ignore your team-mates or nothing gets done. Crafting is just an amusing side product of MMO's, offering the ability to make better equipment to help you in the actual game.

Just because MMO's offer these side things, don't be fooled into thinking thats what the game is there for. MMO's have been and should be focused primarily on multiplayer action, not soloing and tending to those who want to stay at level 1, chat to friends and make pretty objects while roleplaying marriage.

Have you both tried A Tale in the Desert? That might suit you more.

I play for the exploration of worlds and the adventure that comes with it.

You simply cannot find many single player RPG games with the content of an MMO. I solo most of my time or group with real life close friends. I do not enjoy catering to other peoples agendas or habits and refuse to be told by someone how to play, which is common in groups.

I love the size and freedom an MMO world provides and enjoy the many hours I can spend exploring and encountering new things. I get distracted in games very easy and fly off on tangents to do many things at once. I never follow set routes or even quest lines and I enjoy finding things out for myself. A high percentage of players on any game are playing for gain, be that loot, gold, new powers or progression. They want to find the shortest route to level 1000 and don't often care about what's around them or how superb the sun rise is over the Wetlands. these are the common people you find and end up grouping with, and these are the people I don't want to group with, not just cos I don't like them but because that is not my play style. I play these games for the journey through the worlds not for the last level.

I'm glad developers are catering for solo play and I encourage that and hope it continues.

V

i try to only group with friends or if i have to with someone to do something mainly due to my friends being offline. most u cant trust they will ninja your crap or just leave besides playing with your friends is better. if i had to run kara i rather wait for friends then pug it. and solo sometimes is fun (sometimes) when u need to level really quick or just want a break from groups or the people in your guild u need both for mmos

in a way I think there should be more merely multiplayer games, other than fps' that give players cooperative tasks. That would bring a few more ideas to the scene before taking them to a massively multiplayer game.

---

Originally posted by UsualSuspect
Just because MMO's offer these side things, don't be fooled into thinking thats what the game is there for. MMO's have been and should be focused primarily on multiplayer action, not soloing and tending to those who want to stay at level 1, chat to friends and make pretty objects while roleplaying marriage.

---

Who are you to tell people what they can and cannot enjoy? People who want to roleplay marriage are free to do so, even if it's a bit odd. Personally I think all this fanaticism with dungeons and grouping is insane. People are assholes, and I don't want my progress to be dependent on the whim of some prick who has no interest in my well being. Even after finding a good guild, there will always be somebody who is willing to be a jerk if it's easier for him.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think people should solo all the time (and I certainly wouldn't want to) but I think we should have our content split in such a way that you don't *HAVE* to do either. You can solo all the way to the end, or you can group all the way to the end, or you can mix it up and do both. This way people feel free to do whatever they want and aren't pigeon-holed into whatever the developers decide is the flavor of the month.

That means people who like crafting should be rewarded for doing so, and people who like exploring should feel rewarded as well. Every time an MMO leaves out a group of players, the industry is again cheated out of a number of people who might have picked up an MMO and gotten hooked, but didn't see the point. There are still millions and millions of people out there who don't play, and might be willing to if they were only shown that they CAN do what they want to do and be successful at it.

In summary, don't pretend you are the ultimate source of "what MMOs are for." MMOs are for people to play a game and have fun, and to do it in a place where they can communicate and interact with other people. By pretending that crafting or roleplaying are "lesser" forms of gameplay, you are just as bad as the person who suggests everything should be soloable, and the person who suggests the best gear in the game should only be made by crafters.

First off I have to agree that games are becoming in general much more solo friendly, which really began especailly with the success of WoW and than ran into other MMO's.  For example look at Everquest 2 at launch, not nearly as solo friendly as it is now after countless changes.  And for an MMO to come out that is much less solo friendly and focuses again on groups its going to take a brave developer and one that pushes out a polished game that will probably have to find a niche audience, as it appears people are partial to solo play.

In my personal opinion I feel that having solo play is not that big of a deal, but as people have mentioned the major problem is linear (rushed) questing that puts peoples mind in a one track path and people not stopping to try new areas, take a look around - always going for the best gear and the fastest xp.

Of all the games out there now I have played or play I feel like Vanguard is one of the better or best (imo) for grouping.  For some reason (maybe because of the size of the world... how it's laid out .. or the fact that there isnt a ton of end game content waiting for me) I have taken my time in leveling up in Vanguard.  I have been playing since launch and my highest lv character is a 38 warrior - It should be mentioned also that I have taken many long breaks from the game (well breaks from mmos in general - a month or more).

But either way I have truly been enjoying Vanguard and especially once I got into the 20's and even more as I got further I used soloing as a means of xping when I had limited time or when it was difficult to find a group.  But I still spend a majority of my time grouping and have found the closest social experience to eq in quite some time.  The fighting is much more frantic than eq (alot more buttons to push) which sadly seems to take away from social intereact ion in groups - not to mention some camping but not as much.  But b oth of tehse things make the game funner in alot of ways as well.

I guess what i'm saying is solo play is likely here to stay in atleast most mainstream mmo's, but they have the ability to make grouping an intregal part of the game as well and I feel Vanguard has done a rather solid job with that - Now I just hope updates get going a bit faster and maybe populations rise a bit, because I would absolutely love to see even fuller servers and experience an expansion sometime down the road.

Kalade

Originally posted by Aethios

You can solo all the way to the end, or you can group all the way to the end, or you can mix it up and do both. This way people feel free to do whatever they want and aren't pigeon-holed into whatever the developers decide is the flavor of the month.

I think people prefer the idea of being 'uber' and not needing the help, that their toon is so strong that they can defeat everything in their path. But how does that fit into the idea of a multiplayer game? Like I've said before, if something is advertised as a multiplayer game, I fully expect to be joining up with other players to tackle the content. That isn't happening anymore.

---

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

---

Originally posted by Aethios

You can solo all the way to the end, or you can group all the way to the end, or you can mix it up and do both. This way people feel free to do whatever they want and aren't pigeon-holed into whatever the developers decide is the flavor of the month.

---

A good idea in principle, but we all know that people will go the solo route every time. Take a look at EQ2, people are soloing all the way to maximum level since Kunark. I've been playing there for the last month and even though I ask for groups, I've never got into one.
I think people prefer the idea of being 'uber' and not needing the help, that their toon is so strong that they can defeat everything in their path. But how does that fit into the idea of a multiplayer game? Like I've said before, if something is advertised as a multiplayer game, I fully expect to be joining up with other players to tackle the content. That isn't happening anymore.

---

Perhaps, then, the problem lies with the multiplayer content rather than the single-player content. You are quick to jump all over soloing, but isn't it true that more people would group if the grouping rewards are better? What if they are the same rewards, but the grouping players get them much faster? Of course, the preferred system would be that both soloing and grouping can contribute collectively, so that neither ends up being time wasted, but that's a discussion for another day.

My point is, people are choosing to solo not because they don't like to group, but because it's much more difficult to group than to solo. It's hard to get a half dozen people together in one place, at the right level, and of the right classes. If they were given more tools and options to group, perhaps the grouping environment would be more conducive and people more willing to actually participate in the content.

There is nothing wrong if I can solo in the game, there is nothing wrong if I can group in the game.  There is nothing wrong if there are quests, there is nothing wrong if mobs are around for me to grind.  There is nothing wrong if there is crafting, if there is ... 

There is something wrong if I must solo, or if I must group to get anything done.  There is something wrong if there are must do quests, or that I must grind to get to certain effects (say a skill or a level).  There is something wrong if I must this or that ...

Having options are good, especially if there are equally viable and desirable alternative.

I see the trend as the exact opposite of the OP.  These days, the gameplay of MMOs are basically centered around one's role within the "group," and further in terms of "guild."  In other words, players play parts of collectives that are specialized for maximum efficacy when working in tandem with others.  It's what I like to call "geek football," where we all just "play positions" on a team.

Given that the games stress coordination so much these days, it's no wonder why so many devs are creating low level quests that can be played solo.  Because otherwise, there would be simply nothing else to do in these games today if you aren't button mashing and twinking out in tandem with other twinks.

Gone are the days of playing MMOs as they originally were: a personal journey, played collectively.  We didn't need "artificial" designations like groups back in UO.  Characters weren't designed to be "tanks" or "DOTs" or "DPS."  Characters were designed to be unique as the people who played them, because grouping wasn't emphasized as much as rich personal expression in character development was.  If you fought together, you simply fought together, and didn't need the whole /join thing we do today.  And if you think about it, the way "grouping" has become a staple in design is actually taking us a step back from massive online, and resembles peer-to-peer gaming.

We have shards with thousands of players.  Why do we need to limit our "groups" to the eight or ten from some arbitrary group limit just because the developers say so?

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

 

Originally posted by Aethios

You can solo all the way to the end, or you can group all the way to the end, or you can mix it up and do both. This way people feel free to do whatever they want and aren't pigeon-holed into whatever the developers decide is the flavor of the month.

A good idea in principle, but we all know that people will go the solo route every time. Take a look at EQ2, people are soloing all the way to maximum level since Kunark. I've been playing there for the last month and even though I ask for groups, I've never got into one.

 

I think people prefer the idea of being 'uber' and not needing the help, that their toon is so strong that they can defeat everything in their path. But how does that fit into the idea of a multiplayer game? Like I've said before, if something is advertised as a multiplayer game, I fully expect to be joining up with other players to tackle the content. That isn't happening anymore.

Take a look at CoX.  People almost automatically recruit people LFG, as the game is scaled in such a way that large group means more fun and badder bad asses.

So it depends on games, and it might also depend on the reputation of the player in question.  Sometimes during late nights, most of the players still online are the night owls, who are more used to soloing, or who are less able to group due to fatigue, RL issues, and thus more incline to solo and AFK a lot.