You can't get too attached to arguments or debates. They used to be means in which to test your ideas or better yourself. But nowadays, its all about winning, which usually means flames and fallacies.

All games should comply with both sides, and put in bonuses for teams but also a good bonus for solo efforts.

Originally posted by Goatgod76

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by Goatgod76 

This is why dev's don't listen to the MMO forum communities anymore. They are too interested in flaming one another and imposing their own will and ideas as the word than working together towards a common goal of effective argument and solutions to the problems found in the genre.

Devs don't listen to MMO forum communities because they are not representative of the average gamer. Never have been, never will be. Happy people game, unhappy people post.

Your post was opinion presented as "fact". That doesn't go down well here.

 

Jesus you people are amazing.

I guess I should post a disclaimer that states it is opinion  right at the beginning of the post so the forum police don't chastise you for it. Although I have done that before and they still knit pick with comments like "well it doesn't sound like opinion, but as if you are stating facts due to the structure of it. Where is the proof?", etc. Did I SAY it was fact anywhere in the post? I'm not posting what I think EVERYONE thinks, just myself through personal opinion and observation. I may be wrong in some areas, but tell me so and why in YOUR opinion instead of simply heading straight to the gallows for me is all I'm saying.

I'd be playing if their were a game worth playing, so I come here to see what is new or coming down the road, as well as to chat with other gamer's about all sort's of stuff. But anymore, the site is just full of trolls, flamers, and people who apparently like to play post PvP. I'm done with it. I'll respond to anyone who wants to have an adult conversation about the threads in question or my posts in a critical sense based on the content of it as far as gaming is concerned. I'd be happy to discuss it positive or negative. =)

 

But responding to posts due to these other ridiculous and unintended/unintentional  reasons is done. Sorry I dared say "T___ MMO", didn't know it was an offensive term...somehow.

how adult of you to spew like that.

I didn't read through all 18 pages of this thread.

But one problem is when someone tell me they want a good group content like Daoc of EQ, I don't know what they mean.  Since I never played both of this games.  And I'm sure many others too.

Originally posted by laokoko

I didn't read through all 18 pages of this thread.

But one problem is when someone tell me they want a good group content like Daoc of EQ, I don't know what they mean.  Since I never played both of this games.  And I'm sure many others too.

My views, below, remember, my views.

EQ is a game in which almost every mob can kill you unless you are a very soloable class, meaning a class with pets, or a very kiteable class.  With pet you need luck to survive.  With kiting you need patience.  I once soloed an even level mob for almost 2 minutes to kill him.  I never do it since.  2 min fight, 2 min resting with no screen to look at, as your screen is covered by your spell book when you med for mana.  No fun.

EQ is a game in which mobs usually come in pairs.  EQ is a game in which the good drops comes mostly from bosses deep inside instances, and instances are still common world, in which all teams see each other.  Any time a team gets wiped they run thru the instance to the exit, bringing an ever larger train of mobs following, killing everyone in the instance.

EQ is a game in which you can do practically nothing, but gain loots.  Loots comes from bosses.  There are no simple quests to get even a "green" loot.

EQ is a game in which level matters, and levelling is a huge evil task.  There are a few levels where xp requirement to get pass are doubled ... You need to grind endlessly, in a group, as you need to kill to get pathetically little xp, and you cannot kill anything solo worth 1 XP.

EQ is a game you must team.  Or you can forget about it.

DAoC is a game where you can barely solo, and with some classes you can comfortably solo, for xp.  I have been able to solo up to max level.  IF you group and grind some good instances, you can level up faster.  But solo to max is an option.

DAoC is a game where you focus on realm vs realm pvp, and you mostly RvR exclusively after max (50 at my times).  You can actually pvp all your way, after lvl 10.  In any case, you won't imagine soloing when you go RvR as a team of enemies will crush you like a bug.

DAoC is a game you must team up to RvR.  Yet its for fun, not for grinding, unlike EQ.

Hope this summarises it for you.

The really ironic thing about all the "we need more grouping" or "soloing is ruining mmo" bitching is that it's the screwed up grouping and reward mechanics that is causing more people to solo.

But of course no one really wants to fix the problem they just want to bitch.

---

Originally posted by Cephus404

---

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

If the vast majority of people are still soloing, I would say the compensation for grouping is not adequate in that game.
In EQ and DAoC I would say the vast majority grouped, because the compensation was adequate in those designs.

---

And that is EXACTLY your problem spelled out right there.  You want such absurd rewards for grouping that NO ONE will solo!  You are trying to bribe others to group, you're not interested in your own fun, you're interested in making everyone else do what you want to do!
The fact is, if you want to group, then you shouldn't require any compensation to group.  It should be something you do regardless of the negative aspects because that's how you have fun.  The fact that you want extra goodies for anyone who groups shows that you're not being honest about your argument.  You don't want compensation because you enjoy grouping you want compensation because you're trying to force the majority of players to do it.
At least TRY to be honest here.

---

Even in Everquest many people soloed, despite that being seen as 'forced grouping'. It wasn't really, all it did was make it that extra bit worthwhile putting in the effort to do groups.

By the way to the argument 'so many solo', I'm guessing we're referring to WoW and I really think the way it does things adds to that. It encourages group quests and then after that it basically tells the groupers to bog off and solo. (this is on the way up) In my view it should have incentive for people to repeat group quests in assisting others, or just having more regular group-grind quests.

Originally posted by spades07

 

Even in Everquest many people soloed, despite that being seen as 'forced grouping'. It wasn't really, all it did was make it that extra bit worthwhile putting in the effort to do groups.

I'm talking about people who want to make the world so deadly that you can't even go to the bathroom without a group.  It's really a means of forcing grouping, which is all these pro-groupers seem to be able to do.  The very existence of soloers at all somehow makes the game less fun for them.

Originally posted by Cephus404

I'm talking about people who want to make the world so deadly that you can't even go to the bathroom without a group.  It's really a means of forcing grouping, which is all these pro-groupers seem to be able to do.  The very existence of soloers at all somehow makes the game less fun for them.

So what?  The OP wants a game where the level of difficulty is such that solo adventuring is extremely dangerous at best, and down right impossible at the worst.  Why is this such a hard thing to understand?  OP likes this style of game, you don't.  Big deal.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by spades07

 

Even in Everquest many people soloed, despite that being seen as 'forced grouping'. It wasn't really, all it did was make it that extra bit worthwhile putting in the effort to do groups.

I'm talking about people who want to make the world so deadly that you can't even go to the bathroom without a group.  It's really a means of forcing grouping, which is all these pro-groupers seem to be able to do.  The very existence of soloers at all somehow makes the game less fun for them.

I don't like mega groups. I like to be able to group to quest content but in 3 to 7 people groups, not WoW like mega raids where the whole screen is a mess of knobs running and casting randomly. In non instance games soloing works because you can happen across someone else performing the quest but not be grouped with them. This is called Immersion and fails to exist in instanced quests.

Originally posted by rothbard

So what?  The OP wants a game where the level of difficulty is such that solo adventuring is extremely dangerous at best, and down right impossible at the worst.  Why is this such a hard thing to understand?  OP likes this style of game, you don't.  Big deal.

It has nothing to do with liking it or not, it has to do with it being financially viable.  For the millions of dollars it costs to fund these games, there has to be enough people who are willing to subscribe for enough years to make it worthwhile.  Since the majority of people solo and there are so many solo-friendly games out there, such a group-centric game would fail within a couple of months and nobody would ever make one again.

It's fine to want something, it's absurd to think that because you want it, all other concerns go out the window.

Originally posted by frumbert

I don't like mega groups. I like to be able to group to quest content but in 3 to 7 people groups, not WoW like mega raids where the whole screen is a mess of knobs running and casting randomly. In non instance games soloing works because you can happen across someone else performing the quest but not be grouped with them. This is called Immersion and fails to exist in instanced quests.

I don't like mega groups either.  I've got no problem with non-instanced quests too, but there are many other quests where instancing is absolutely necessary, especially where mass-camping takes place.  Standing in line waiting for your turn to kill the same boss that the 15 people ahead of you already killed isn't called immersion, it's called boredom.

Originally posted by frumbert

In non instance games soloing works because you can happen across someone else performing the quest but not be grouped with them. This is called Immersion and fails to exist in instanced quests.

So you come across someone doing the same quest as you, say to slay Big Bad Ogre #2465.  He kills it and then you wait for maybe a couple of minutes.  Miraculously the very same ogre reappears!  You proceed to slay it, at which point the cardboard target will await its time to spring back to life.   You head off to collect the very same reward as the other guy, from the very same NPC (who obviously must have very deep pockets since he keeps paying look-a-like adventures to slay the same ogre over and over again).   That's not immersion, that's groundhog day.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by frumbert

I don't like mega groups. I like to be able to group to quest content but in 3 to 7 people groups, not WoW like mega raids where the whole screen is a mess of knobs running and casting randomly. In non instance games soloing works because you can happen across someone else performing the quest but not be grouped with them. This is called Immersion and fails to exist in instanced quests.

I don't like mega groups either.  I've got no problem with non-instanced quests too, but there are many other quests where instancing is absolutely necessary, especially where mass-camping takes place.  Standing in line waiting for your turn to kill the same boss that the 15 people ahead of you already killed isn't called immersion, it's called boredom.

That is a huge problem as to why mmo's don't work.

I constantly see this back and forth between "sandbox" and "theme park" but in the end they are still play areas.

A game where everything is open, no loading screens, everybody passing everbody else is very much a theme park to mein that everyone is either waiting their turn to throw their ball and dunk the carnie or desiring to pvp over it and then thorw their ball and dunk the carney.

They are less about being fantasy worlds and more about being player worlds with a specific setting.

So solo or group, it really just boils down to what color is your play pen today.

For me part of the reason I enjoy soloing is that I can actually feel that I'm in a real world and that what I'm doing matters on some level. Otherwise it's Killerz, BonBon, Sovrath, Legholass, Mistral and Puck shooting the shit while they attack an instance or take on a quest.

There's less about story and immerrsion and it's just 6 people talking it up and grinding down an area.

That might be a good time for some, and even for me I can't say that it's not enjoyable, but it feels less like an adventure to me.

I sort of envy role players because at least they buy into the worlds they are put in and do what they can to be a part of them.

 Simple. Go play an RTS.

Originally posted by Cephus404

It has nothing to do with liking it or not, it has to do with it being financially viable.  For the millions of dollars it costs to fund these games, there has to be enough people who are willing to subscribe for enough years to make it worthwhile.  Since the majority of people solo and there are so many solo-friendly games out there, such a group-centric game would fail within a couple of months and nobody would ever make one again.

It's fine to want something, it's absurd to think that because you want it, all other concerns go out the window.

A) The majority of people solo.

B) There are tons of "solo-friendly" games in existence.

From these two premises, how on earth do you reach these conclusions?

C) A group-centric game would fail in a couple of months

D) No one would ever make a group-centric game again

It simply doesn't follow.  That there are lots of solo players and lots of games catering to that particular play style has nothing to do with grouping oriented players or their style of game.   The unstated assumption in your argument is that there are not enough people that would be willing to sub to a group oriented game.   But this is nothing more than an assertion on your part.  The fact that there are no current generation games that meet the OP's standard for group oriented proves nothing about their viability in the marketplace.  It just shows that no one has had the cahones to put their money where their mouth is, and bring one to market.  Has it been repeatedly tried and failed and I simply didn't notice? 

Originally posted by rothbard

A) The majority of people solo.

B) There are tons of "solo-friendly" games in existence.

From these two premises, how on earth do you reach these conclusions?

C) A group-centric game would fail in a couple of months

D) No one would ever make a group-centric game again

It simply doesn't follow.  That there are lots of solo players and lots of games catering to that particular play style has nothing to do with grouping oriented players or their style of game.   The unstated assumption in your argument is that there are not enough people that would be willing to sub to a group oriented game.   But this is nothing more than an assertion on your part.  The fact that there are no current generation games that meet the OP's standard for group oriented proves nothing about their viability in the marketplace.  It just shows that no one has had the cahones to put their money where their mouth is, and bring one to market.  Has it been repeatedly tried and failed and I simply didn't notice? 

It has to do with there not being enough groupers (and in this case it would have to be people who ONLY wanted to group because the game described by the OP effectively ruled out soloing) to make a game financially viable.  If there were, we'd have group-only games already on the market.  It has nothing to do with bringing one to the market, it has to do with people doing their due dilligence and pre-design research and finding that there isn't a significant market for such a game.

People don't put games out for the hell of it, they put them out to make money.

Originally posted by Sovrath

That is a huge problem as to why mmo's don't work.

I constantly see this back and forth between "sandbox" and "theme park" but in the end they are still play areas.

A game where everything is open, no loading screens, everybody passing everbody else is very much a theme park to mein that everyone is either waiting their turn to throw their ball and dunk the carnie or desiring to pvp over it and then thorw their ball and dunk the carney.

They are less about being fantasy worlds and more about being player worlds with a specific setting.

So solo or group, it really just boils down to what color is your play pen today.

For me part of the reason I enjoy soloing is that I can actually feel that I'm in a real world and that what I'm doing matters on some level. Otherwise it's Killerz, BonBon, Sovrath, Legholass, Mistral and Puck shooting the shit while they attack an instance or take on a quest.

There's less about story and immerrsion and it's just 6 people talking it up and grinding down an area.

That might be a good time for some, and even for me I can't say that it's not enjoyable, but it feels less like an adventure to me.

I sort of envy role players because at least they buy into the worlds they are put in and do what they can to be a part of them.

The problem is, a world like that isn't really financially viable either.  If you don't set goals, design quests and the like, most people won't stick around, they'll get bored and move on to something more structured.  For all we talk about freedom, MMOs are just not free.  You've got the progression ladder, you've got the gear-grind, you've got things that you're expected to do in order to actually "get anywhere" and without those, there isn't much to do.

The only way you can really get that feeling is to sit down around a table with friends and play a pnp roleplaying game.  It's not an experience you'll ever find online.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by rothbard

A) The majority of people solo.

B) There are tons of "solo-friendly" games in existence.

From these two premises, how on earth do you reach these conclusions?

C) A group-centric game would fail in a couple of months

D) No one would ever make a group-centric game again

It simply doesn't follow.  That there are lots of solo players and lots of games catering to that particular play style has nothing to do with grouping oriented players or their style of game.   The unstated assumption in your argument is that there are not enough people that would be willing to sub to a group oriented game.   But this is nothing more than an assertion on your part.  The fact that there are no current generation games that meet the OP's standard for group oriented proves nothing about their viability in the marketplace.  It just shows that no one has had the cahones to put their money where their mouth is, and bring one to market.  Has it been repeatedly tried and failed and I simply didn't notice? 

 

It has to do with there not being enough groupers (and in this case it would have to be people who ONLY wanted to group because the game described by the OP effectively ruled out soloing) to make a game financially viable.  If there were, we'd have group-only games already on the market.  It has nothing to do with bringing one to the market, it has to do with people doing their due dilligence and pre-design research and finding that there isn't a significant market for such a game.

People don't put games out for the hell of it, they put them out to make money.

People put out games because they want to.  Of course for most the primary motivation is monetary return, and there is nothing wrong with that.  You get no argument from me on that point.

It may very well be that game producers have decided that investing in a group-oriented game would not bring in the biggest return.  But even if that is so, it does not then follow that they are correct, or that there are not enough players to support a different style of game.  To claim so, is to maintain that the devs are infallible.   No one is omniscient and the future is always uncertain to some degree.   

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Sovrath

That is a huge problem as to why mmo's don't work.

I constantly see this back and forth between "sandbox" and "theme park" but in the end they are still play areas.

A game where everything is open, no loading screens, everybody passing everbody else is very much a theme park to mein that everyone is either waiting their turn to throw their ball and dunk the carnie or desiring to pvp over it and then thorw their ball and dunk the carney.

They are less about being fantasy worlds and more about being player worlds with a specific setting.

So solo or group, it really just boils down to what color is your play pen today.

For me part of the reason I enjoy soloing is that I can actually feel that I'm in a real world and that what I'm doing matters on some level. Otherwise it's Killerz, BonBon, Sovrath, Legholass, Mistral and Puck shooting the shit while they attack an instance or take on a quest.

There's less about story and immerrsion and it's just 6 people talking it up and grinding down an area.

That might be a good time for some, and even for me I can't say that it's not enjoyable, but it feels less like an adventure to me.

I sort of envy role players because at least they buy into the worlds they are put in and do what they can to be a part of them.

The problem is, a world like that isn't really financially viable either.  If you don't set goals, design quests and the like, most people won't stick around, they'll get bored and move on to something more structured.  For all we talk about freedom, MMOs are just not free.  You've got the progression ladder, you've got the gear-grind, you've got things that you're expected to do in order to actually "get anywhere" and without those, there isn't much to do.

The only way you can really get that feeling is to sit down around a table with friends and play a pnp roleplaying game.  It's not an experience you'll ever find online.

I completley agree with you.

Not everyone is made so that they can be dumped into a world and then told "ok go to it".

Which is why I really think there needs to be quests (and good quests, not just "go kill 10 bears) along with some sort of exploratory model.

but when it comes to the group vs solo thing, the group thing, regardless of quests or 'no quests" tends to devolve into people shooting the shit.

I remember once being in a group and some people were talking about some football game that was going on. This is not a bad thing. But it does take away from the game for me. I imagine it does the same for others as well.

I'm not advocating that everyone role play but I wonder how all the die hard "I must group" players would respond if part of grouping actually demanded role play?

My thought is that die hard groupers are really looking to be social and the medium they have chosen in an mmo.

Originally posted by Cephus404

For all we talk about freedom, MMOs are just not free.  You've got the progression ladder, you've got the gear-grind, you've got things that you're expected to do in order to actually "get anywhere" and without those, there isn't much to do.

The only way you can really get that feeling is to sit down around a table with friends and play a pnp roleplaying game.  It's not an experience you'll ever find online.

Why must we have a progression ladder, gear grinds, xp grinds, etc?  To say that you either have all these or you play pnp is a false choice.  While it may be that current games all feature these things to various degrees, that doesn't mean it must be that way.  Things change.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Sovrath

That is a huge problem as to why mmo's don't work.

I constantly see this back and forth between "sandbox" and "theme park" but in the end they are still play areas.

A game where everything is open, no loading screens, everybody passing everbody else is very much a theme park to mein that everyone is either waiting their turn to throw their ball and dunk the carnie or desiring to pvp over it and then thorw their ball and dunk the carney.

They are less about being fantasy worlds and more about being player worlds with a specific setting.

So solo or group, it really just boils down to what color is your play pen today.

For me part of the reason I enjoy soloing is that I can actually feel that I'm in a real world and that what I'm doing matters on some level. Otherwise it's Killerz, BonBon, Sovrath, Legholass, Mistral and Puck shooting the shit while they attack an instance or take on a quest.

There's less about story and immerrsion and it's just 6 people talking it up and grinding down an area.

That might be a good time for some, and even for me I can't say that it's not enjoyable, but it feels less like an adventure to me.

I sort of envy role players because at least they buy into the worlds they are put in and do what they can to be a part of them.

The problem is, a world like that isn't really financially viable either.  If you don't set goals, design quests and the like, most people won't stick around, they'll get bored and move on to something more structured.  For all we talk about freedom, MMOs are just not free.  You've got the progression ladder, you've got the gear-grind, you've got things that you're expected to do in order to actually "get anywhere" and without those, there isn't much to do.

The only way you can really get that feeling is to sit down around a table with friends and play a pnp roleplaying game.  It's not an experience you'll ever find online.

 

I completley agree with you.

Not everyone is made so that they can be dumped into a world and then told "ok go to it".

Which is why I really think there needs to be quests (and good quests, not just "go kill 10 bears) along with some sort of exploratory model.

but when it comes to the group vs solo thing, the group thing, regardless of quests or 'no quests" tends to devolve into people shooting the shit.

I remember once being in a group and some people were talking about some football game that was going on. This is not a bad thing. But it does take away from the game for me. I imagine it does the same for others as well.

I'm not advocating that everyone role play but I wonder how all the die hard "I must group" players would respond if part of grouping actually demanded role play?

My thought is that die hard groupers are really looking to be social and the medium they have chosen in an mmo.

there's an idea - group heavy format but non-RP chat subtracts points from your stats or from your xp gained.  That would sell, lol.  Groupers just want to have it all their way... most people I know who solo, also group.  Groupers don't solo and don't want others to solo because then they can't group.

Originally posted by elderotter

Groupers don't solo and don't want others to solo because then they can't group.

I don't think that's really it.  From what I get out of the OP and the ensuing conversation, it's that if the world is "soloable" then the incentive to group is nothing more than superficial.  The OP seems to be more interested in a game where due to the harshness of the environment, strength in numbers is the way to go.  I think it's the challenge or "danger" that the dedicated groupers are after, and maybe some of the "brothers in arms" feeling the may experience.  It's not good or bad, just a different preference than the players who prefer a solo experience.

Originally posted by rothbard

Why must we have a progression ladder, gear grinds, xp grinds, etc?  To say that you either have all these or you play pnp is a false choice.  While it may be that current games all feature these things to various degrees, that doesn't mean it must be that way.  Things change.

I agree, things can change.  However, at the moment they haven't changed and until then do...

Originally posted by Sovrath

Not everyone is made so that they can be dumped into a world and then told "ok go to it".

Which is why I really think there needs to be quests (and good quests, not just "go kill 10 bears) along with some sort of exploratory model.

but when it comes to the group vs solo thing, the group thing, regardless of quests or 'no quests" tends to devolve into people shooting the shit.

I remember once being in a group and some people were talking about some football game that was going on. This is not a bad thing. But it does take away from the game for me. I imagine it does the same for others as well.

I'm not advocating that everyone role play but I wonder how all the die hard "I must group" players would respond if part of grouping actually demanded role play?

My thought is that die hard groupers are really looking to be social and the medium they have chosen in an mmo.

The problem is, die-hard groupers aren't out trying to be social, they want to get a big group of people so they can get extra gold, XP and gear that they couldn't get otherwise.  Ultimately, they're using other people to get better stuff and the people they're grouping with, by and large, are doing exactly the same thing with them.

Most groups I'm ever in, nobody ever says a word.  It's kill target, move on, kill target, move on.  Get the XP, get the loot, get to the next target so you can rinse, lather, repeat over and over again.