| 175 posts found | |
|---|---|
Originally posted by Fyendiar Every game company does this because they know giving the same reward for different content would lead to people picking the easiest of the two paths and skipping the other. Just about every MMO out there has content for soloers, groupers, pvpers and raiders and offers different rewards for each, based on their designed difficulties. As I said before, I would be very interested to see a game designed with solo content that is more challenging than group content, but as far as I know, it doesnt exist. Murashu ~ Shuey |
|
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Translation: If you don't like to play solo games like me, then something is wrong with you. Seriously, if somone doesn't like to play a game solo like madeux does they are flawed? Everyone in the whole world must play video games like madeux likes them to be played or they are flawed? Get help. Fast.
If someone enjoys soloing are they flawed? Everyone in the whole world must play video gamesl like ihmotepp or else they should be put on their own server? Come on, this whole thing sounds like a tantrum. There is no reason that there can't be group content and content that is soloable/smal group minded. LOTRO has it, heck, Aion has it. And the rewards can both be viable but different. |
|
Originally posted by Murashu
It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of experience. I added the word "often" for a reason and that is because sometimes a group encounter is indeed made in a way that each member matters as much as the next, however those encounters are rare, extremely rare. Most often they pretend every member counts by making it so that a total moron can screw it up for the entire raid. Encounters like that don't reward skill, they punish moronic behaviour. If such an encounter is made for 20 players, it is easier to do with 15 average players than 19 skilled ones and 1 idiot. Your second remark however I agree with, it is much easier to balance an encounter for 20 people. You know why it is easier? Yes you gave some excellent reasons why and I agree with those, but I will give you one very important extra reason: in solo encounters the abilities of that class are far more important than in group encounters. It is easier to balance things out for a big group because the skills of the individual are less important and I use skill in the broadest meaning here, playerskills and characterskills. I agree that it is harder to do, it is much harder to make good challenging content for soloplayers than it is for teams, but does that mean we should stop asking for it? Does that mean it can't be done? Making an mmo is much harder than making Pong, yet somehow we managed to get there, didn't we? I have no problem with people asking for challenging solo content, I wouldnt mind seeing it myself. Im just against the blanket comments of solo requiring more skill or grouping takes less skill. Each one has its pros and cons. Have you ever solo'd a really really hard mob, then had someone come along to "help" with that same mob and you wipe? It happened a lot in EQ. Ive duo'd 5 man content in WoW then turned around and wiped with a full group on the same content. Grouping and soloing each have different skill sets and use different abilities so saying one is more difficult than the other is absurd unless the devs actually designed it to be easier.
I'm not saying that raiding is always easier than soloing or vice versa, in fact both are way too easy atm. Both can be very challenging and I hope future mmo's will make that happen. :) “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.” |
|
Originally posted by Ilvaldyr If you could guarantee it would be soloed, yup. Absolutely. |
|
Originally posted by Ihmotepp Well sorry to burt your bubble but many people find grouping fun. Even if it's only to chat with someone while you grind off mobs its still better than nothing. Aside from that i agree that there needs to be far more group content (5-10 dungeons over 50-60 levels (in most games) is no where near enough to keep a grouper happy). Originally posted by Cyborg99 |
|
Originally posted by Death1942 Well sorry to burt your bubble but many people find grouping fun. Even if it's only to chat with someone while you grind off mobs its still better than nothing. Aside from that i agree that there needs to be far more group content (5-10 dungeons over 50-60 levels (in most games) is no where near enough to keep a grouper happy). I think he's right... grouping with him would never be fun.. All of the whining, crying, tantrums, etc. Not fun at all. |
|
|
Zorndorf's accurate explanation of the factors certainly holds more weight then Ihmotepp's "MMORPGs should be this way" opinion. Time and again, I've described the ideal group/solo balance as one where solo is completely viable, but grouping is a bit faster at achieving goals. If we're talking about average (player skill) soloers and average groupers, then saying groupers should advance 2x or more as fast as soloers is just insane. The amount of time/effort expended is not that different, so the reward shouldn't be either. A relatively close reward balance, with grouping barely edging an advantage, is optimal. But this refers to the majority of "normal" MMORPGs, and what makes the most business sense. I could just as easily see another Tribes or Enemy Territory or Planetside type of MMORPG, where grouping is the only thing you do. But as fun as these games could potentially be, they're inherently going to be less popular than games which allow soloing. That's the nature of the industry. I may be sorta harsh on EVE, but damn is this a cool trailer (EVE Dominion). |
|
Originally posted by MMO_Doubter If you could guarantee it would be soloed, yup. Absolutely. Huzzah, an accord! There was a quest like this in WoW; only available to Hunters. We had to solo 4 elite mobs using a variety of different skills and tactics available to the class. Interference of any form caused the elites to immediately despawn. Need more challenging solo content is all.  |
|
Originally posted by Ilvaldyr Sounds good, alright. I think MMOs should have three paths of gear progression (since that is what most people regard as end game) - solo PvE, group PvE, and PvP. I'm not really a fan of raiding, but you could add it in as a fourth path. Soloers are right to complain that MMOs tend to force grouping at end game. Just as groupers are right to complain that leveling favours soloers. |
|
Originally posted by Ilvaldyr Huzzah, an accord! There was a quest like this in WoW; only available to Hunters. We had to solo 4 elite mobs using a variety of different skills and tactics available to the class. Interference of any form caused the elites to immediately despawn. Need more challenging solo content is all. Indeed. There are ways to do it, they just prefer to focus mainly on raiding, or so far at least. I think that will change though, as mmo's become more solofriendly they need to add challenging solo content sooner or later. :) “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.” |
|
Originally posted by Fyendiar Well, honestly, I think most players don't want to be challenged. Challenge means you might fail. A lot of people are afraid of failing.
WoW is being made easier and easier to play. |
|
Originally posted by MMO_Doubter Well, honestly, I think most players don't want to be challenged. Challenge means you might fail. A lot of people are afraid of failing. Sad, isn't it? |
|
Originally posted by madeux
They're not happy with that though.... they want everyone to have to be forced to group. You must conform, or go away.
Umm. Actually the OP is recommending that you "conform" and group or go play the on the solo server which is like a Single player RPG with a Massive Multiplayer Chat root.
Attempting to mix the radically different play styles has never worked. Solo players feel slighted that they can't achieve the same rewards of group players and then the developers cave to the crying and then the group players feel slighted because their rewards have been devalued due to the ease they are gained by solo players that don't need to build and organize a group.
Personally I think the rewards should be earned based on the effort and risk the players undertake. So solo players get small rewards due to the small amount of effort and a challenged. Groups of 6 players would get Large rewards for challenging group content since it requires more effort and challenge.
|
|
Originally posted by rutaq
Umm. Actually the OP is recommending that you "conform" and group or go play the on the solo server which is like a Single player RPG with a Massive Multiplayer Chat root.
Attempting to mix the radically different play styles has never worked. Solo players feel slighted that they can't achieve the same rewards of group players and then the developers cave to the crying and then the group players feel slighted because their rewards have been devalued due to the ease they are gained by solo players that don't need to build and organize a group.
Personally I think the rewards should be earned based on the effort and risk the players undertake. So solo players get small rewards due to the small amount of effort and a challenged. Groups of 6 players would get Large rewards for challenging group content since it requires more effort and challenge.
It is simply ridiculous to assume that because there is a group that there is inherently more risk and/or challenge. All that you guarantee is more time putting up with other idiots in the game. |
|
|
OP: It took a very long time to get to the last paragraph and most of the that post was redundant like i care.
Anyway its a good idea but could split the population hardcore into a 5:2 relationship, as long as the world can support that low of a population to make grouping possible, than it seems like a good idea.
|
|
|
the only challenge people in favor of forced grouping seem to have, is finding, and maintaining a group.... how is that suppose to be fun? how is that a challenge worth doing? don't get me wrong, i enjoy grouping, but generally only with people i know, i only do pugs if they are having issues someplace i'm soloing, and need help. i'll be specific though, they ask for help first. i can't stand people who invite for a group, without talking to me. i've been killed cause i'm soloing a hard mob, and that damn invite screen pops up. to the original poster, i like the idea of having servers with certain rulesets. i mean, we do it for pvp already. having a server with difficulty settings, isn't a bad idea at all. i'd kind of like the option to play harder servers. i know turbine made LOTRO easier a little after moria came out, and i find it way to easy now. and LOTRO wasn't exactly difficulty to begin with. but you said you don't want to be allowed to group, that you don't want to ask to group, that grouping for grouping sake isn't fun.... why are you playing a mmo honestly? you seem more anti-social then those of us, that like to solo regularly? maybe you'd be happier with a RTS? they always have large groups, and it's pretty much mandatory to finish any level. plus you get to control everyone, without having to ask for anything..... |
|
|
I always enjoy reading the group vs solo threads. People get so angry when fighting for their own opinion. The Multiplayer aspect of the MMO insures this disagreement over play style. The Massively large demographic of the MMO will ensure that you have thousands of different opinons on what is fun or not fun, what should be in a game or not in a game. It is a never ending argument. One without a true right answer. That is why we get the answer in the form of making games that make the most money. Segregation of servers goes against the MMO part of the game. It is multiplayer for a reason and needs to stay that way. Forcing players to play only one way decreases the amount of subs a game will get. The best is for more options within the same sever, not less. Most games still get this wrong though IMHO. They try to cater to the casual mentality. That goes for both solo and group play. If you read many of the posts in this thread alone, you see how many agree that both are not difficult to complete. The answer is in the design of the games and quests. To meld all play styles into one system. That means options for all. An option for the theme park games could be like DDO, but without all the instances. You could offer multiple quest options for each play style. A normal solo, expert solo, normal group and expert group. Each would use the same quest but increase the requirements to complete them. Once you choose which one you want to run, the requirements are shown to you. This would require the dev's to create a questing area that contains all the options. Normal solo would require you to enter a quest area and take out a few mobs or find x and bring it back as usual. The expert solo would force you to kill and find the same item, but send you in deeper to fight tougher mobs and figure out a dev created solution. Group normal would do all of the above plus enter a dungeon. Expert group would do everything as well as having to clear the dungeon and boss. This would be very difficult for dev's and expensive, so I wouldn't expect it anytime soon. But having multiple options with better rewards for a more difficult option in the same game would be a more healthy game with larger subs. I am at work, so I have to cut this short. |
|
Originally posted by Axehilt I don't know that I really agree with that. I don't think the reward should be ARTIFICIALLY increased, but a group of people ought to be inherently able to take on harder content than a soloer, thus giving them more XP, more gold, more gear as a direct consequence of their gameplay, not because the game artificially piles more stuff on them because they're grouping. It should be gameplay that determines how much XP you get, not how much time you sit on your ass waiting to create a group. Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR |
|
|
It's interesting to see pros and cons for the solo vs. group argument, however opinions do little to lend themselves to a solution. Every group encounter has solo elements, and therefor, anything that holds true for a solo encounter will by definition be present in a group senario. However, a solo encounter offers no weak links other than the individual challenged. It's the ultimate test of competitence. The answer lies within the mathmatical functions 'union' and 'inter'. If group content requires only 1 of x participants to accomplish a task within a larger goal, in order to complete the goal, then your average competitence of participants will always be inferior to an equivalently tailored solo encounter. If group content requires x out of x participants to accomplish a task within a larger goal, in order to complete the goal, then this group content will always be exponentially more demanding than an equivalently designed solo encounter. The more you increase the required number of participants, while maintaining an equally demanding solo play within the whole, you by definition multiply the challenge by folds. A previous poster alluded to the epic hunter chain in WoW and the beauty that it was. Absolutely. But you failed to mention much of the background involved with this particular quest. What it did right was require a hunter to be fully compitent at their class- kiting, melee, when to burst and when to CC etc... however there isn't a hunter I knew who did this quest who didn't have preperation that didn't involve buffs from other players, consumables from other players, and other players clearing the way to prevent griefing or despawns. This 'solo' quest was very much a group endevour. To its credit, the quest was of great design. It required the fullness of individual play. Since the previous poster referrenced WoW, I will echo his tableau of metaphors and claim that Sunwell, for those who experienced it, was beyond anything any epic hunter quest chain could have ever been. By the nature of things, group content, when properly tailored, will always, no discussion involved, be more demanding than an equally tailored solo encounter. It has to do with our mathmatical functions. |
|
Originally posted by Cephus404 I don't know that I really agree with that. I don't think the reward should be ARTIFICIALLY increased, but a group of people ought to be inherently able to take on harder content than a soloer, thus giving them more XP, more gold, more gear as a direct consequence of their gameplay, not because the game artificially piles more stuff on them because they're grouping. It should be gameplay that determines how much XP you get, not how much time you sit on your ass waiting to create a group.
I was talking just about rate of advancement, not the specifics of how that rate was achieved. The specifics aren't really that important. I've had fun in games where you kill "elites" (WOW) and games where you just kill normal stuff faster (COH). And in basically all MMORPGs out there they're adding a grouping bonus to your XP to offset the fact that group XP is usually divided evenly amongst party members (so the reward is artificially increased.) I may be sorta harsh on EVE, but damn is this a cool trailer (EVE Dominion). |
|
|
Sorry OP,but i am tired and only read the first paragraph :(. Yes you hit it on the nose,you cannot have both,if the bar is set to solo,then grouping fun is lost.If you set the bar challenging for group play,then it cannot be soloed. FFXI is the game that did it right,but we may not see this type of game ever again,sadly to say.It still allowed solo play through the use of the Beastmaster system,where by you tame pets to fight for you.It also had a Dragoon class that could slowly solo and a Summoner class that could also slowly solo.Eventually the game had more and more solo abilities,because after 75 levels players amassed many skills to utilize many different techniques.This pretty much meant you could solo but you had to earn the right to solo,by unlocking several jobs and leveling them up and lots of farming to be able to equip yourself to solo. It also utilized a well thought out system utilizing level gaps and xp chains.Also by not having any easy healing pot methods,meant skill management in using MP.It also kept you from auto killing over and over,it made the game more realistic.I cannot imagine in real life anyone being able to fight non stop,even for a game i find that scenario ridiculous. One other HUGE factor as grouping vs SOLO,is the fact you LIMIT game mechanics.You can no longer have player to player combo attacks,NOTHING in the game can be designed for player to player interaction,witch is the whole purpose of a MMO game.FFXI did have it's flaws by allowing outside healing and buffs,but they made sure to set the time limit very short,so you couldn't buff and walk away[if over buffed],they made sure you had to waste your time if you wanted to exploit the game. So perhaps the biggest flaw is that a solo game LIMITS how many mechanics you can do in a game,and that is never a good thing,why would we want a game that is limited?just to meet the needs of those who want to solo?Those type of games are in the F2P genre,they have no mechanics,they are pretty much one dimensional games,that fit perfectly to a solo player. |
|
Originally posted by madeux You may not like grouping, you may not respect the playstyle, you may deem it a waste of time but that doesn't change the fact that its is more challenging.
1. Group Content is certainly more of a challenge hence the simple fact that it requires more than a single person to complete. If it wasn't more challenging than a solo player could complete it. 2. The Logisitics required to form a group is more complex than just playing by yourself unless you have multiple personalities or some other mental disorder. 3. Coordinating the activities of a group of players that have to work together to achive a goal is more challenging and has higher risk of failure due to mistakes made by any member of the group.
if spending time with other players in a game bothers you then perhaps you should look up the definiiton of Mulitplayer. It sounds like you would be much happier playing a nice RPG.
|
|
Originally posted by rutaq You may not like grouping, you may not respect the playstyle, you may deem it a waste of time but that doesn't change the fact that its is more challenging.
1. Group Content is certainly more of a challenge hence the simple fact that it requires more than a single person to complete. If it wasn't more challenging than a solo player could complete it. 2. The Logisitics required to form a group is more complex than just playing by yourself unless you have multiple personalities or some other mental disorder. 3. Coordinating the activities of a group of players that have to work together to achive a goal is more challenging and has higher risk of failure due to mistakes made by any member of the group.
if spending time with other players in a game bothers you then perhaps you should look up the definiiton of Mulitplayer. It sounds like you would be much happier playing a nice RPG.
1. You and I have a different opinion on what is considered challenging gameplay. The mob that has to be killed may be too strong for an individual to kill, but is the individual challenge inside that group any higher? The fact that you need a group to get something done does not increase the individual's challenge, it just means you need more people. Yes the mob is harder, no the challenge is not automaticly also harder because of this. A good example is the standard tank&spank bosses, they are so easy you have trouble staying awake, yet they require a full raid to kill, hardly challenging content in my eyes. 2. Agreed, it takes more time to get a group together than it is to just go in solo. Do you consider making a team a challenge though? I know I don't., but okay takes some effort. 3. Yes coordinating a full team would indeed be far more c hallenging than soloing when encounters require it and yes the risk is higher because of the moron-factor. However I consider it a gameplay choise that should be with the player and not enforced on you. Basicly all you are proving is that grouping takes some extra effort, but that does not automaticly make the encounters more challenging. I love grouping with friends, it can be great fun and well worth the time gathering up groups like that, but still I solo most of my time in mmo's since endgame is mostly doing the same thing over and over to get some nice goodies. It is fun for a while, but gets boring fast. While leveling up I usually can't team up with friends because of the lvl differences Luckily I love soloing as much as grouping. In a group oriented game I would be forced to pug and maybe you love pugging, however I hate it because too often they are terrible, no fun and a waste of time. The few good pugs don't make up for the bad ones for me. I think you should reconsider your definition of multiplayer because there is a difference between teambased and multiplayer. “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.” |
|
Originally posted by Wizardry
Wow, just wow... elitist much? “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.” |
|
Originally posted by madeux
LoL, he's probably right. Groupers just don't belong in todays MMORPGs. If you had separate servers there'd probably only be like 5 people on the grouping server. The only reason players group in modern MMORPGs is phat loot.
|
|
.jpg){kind=avatar}
