Originally posted by Gamesmith

Originally posted by Dewm

Impatent you are, bad MMO the devs will make for you, yes...

 

Reson number 41 why Devs make crappy games. all you kids want it now *waaa* want it now! gotta level faster and faster.

Ever think of just sittin back and enjoying the game? just because you arn't in the heat of combat doesn't mean you can have fun (And if that is the case MMO's are NOT the game for you)

I play'd FFXI for 2 years, most people would say that was the most group orented game out there, and even more would say it had/has some of the longest wait times for groups.

I don't know how many times I would spend 4 hours waiting for a group, the people that we did have would just sit around and craft, or just chat. or kill lower level mobs even if it wasn't awsome XP.

But this whole WoW-expectation that you have, that if you don't level cap in 4 months and have the most leet gear in 7 months that you suck, is just garbage.

learn to enjoy the game, if more people would just take there time and enjoy the game the Devs would make better games they would say, "hey alot of people are just sitting around chatting while waiting for a group, why don't we make group finding easier, and a better chat system"

And "wow everyone likes crafting and they are doing it alot, lets spend more time making a awsome crafting system"

But instead we get impatent little kids like you who just came off of WoWs assembly line and are like "OMG I havn't level yet today, I need to!!!!! and heaven forbid if you have to spend more then 2 minutes walking to where you level"

Gosh people like you make me sick...

Waiting 4 hours for a group is not fun. What enjoyment is there to be had grinding mobs that give you nothing of value? Soloing in a group based game is always boring. That was the reason why I quit FFXI. I spent an entire weekend LFG for Qufim and I had started playing at NA launch. Being completely unable to advance or enjoy the game as intended because I can't find someone to play with is a huge turnoff. When/if you finally manage to find a group, typically 15-30 minutes in the healer leaves and you're back to LFG. I quit the game after that weekend and never looked back.

Forced grouping for advancement is a poor design choice for exactly this reason. Being able to play solo when you can't find a group is necessary. Both playstyles should be a valid choice in any MMO.

 

I find this extreamly hard to beleive, unless you where a complete d1ck to everyone. I normaly spend anywhere from 10 minutes -3 hours LFG, and the average group would/could last from 1-6 hours.

and I enjoy'd that part where you are like "What enjoyment is there to be had grinding mobs that give you nothing of value?"  HAHAHA dude, in what game EVER do you get somthign of value? unless you are playing games in Vegas. I lol at you.

99.99% of people play MMO's/games to have a good time and to waist time. not to "get somthing of value" So I really don't have any clue what you are talking about.

And serously...if you need to be "fighting" in your little world 24/7 I would recomend you look into playing some FPS games, or at least a single player RPG. clearly MMO's are not for you.

Originally posted by Dewm

Originally posted by Gamesmith

Originally posted by Dewm

Impatent you are, bad MMO the devs will make for you, yes...

 

Reson number 41 why Devs make crappy games. all you kids want it now *waaa* want it now! gotta level faster and faster.

Ever think of just sittin back and enjoying the game? just because you arn't in the heat of combat doesn't mean you can have fun (And if that is the case MMO's are NOT the game for you)

I play'd FFXI for 2 years, most people would say that was the most group orented game out there, and even more would say it had/has some of the longest wait times for groups.

I don't know how many times I would spend 4 hours waiting for a group, the people that we did have would just sit around and craft, or just chat. or kill lower level mobs even if it wasn't awsome XP.

But this whole WoW-expectation that you have, that if you don't level cap in 4 months and have the most leet gear in 7 months that you suck, is just garbage.

learn to enjoy the game, if more people would just take there time and enjoy the game the Devs would make better games they would say, "hey alot of people are just sitting around chatting while waiting for a group, why don't we make group finding easier, and a better chat system"

And "wow everyone likes crafting and they are doing it alot, lets spend more time making a awsome crafting system"

But instead we get impatent little kids like you who just came off of WoWs assembly line and are like "OMG I havn't level yet today, I need to!!!!! and heaven forbid if you have to spend more then 2 minutes walking to where you level"

Gosh people like you make me sick...

Waiting 4 hours for a group is not fun. What enjoyment is there to be had grinding mobs that give you nothing of value? Soloing in a group based game is always boring. That was the reason why I quit FFXI. I spent an entire weekend LFG for Qufim and I had started playing at NA launch. Being completely unable to advance or enjoy the game as intended because I can't find someone to play with is a huge turnoff. When/if you finally manage to find a group, typically 15-30 minutes in the healer leaves and you're back to LFG. I quit the game after that weekend and never looked back.

Forced grouping for advancement is a poor design choice for exactly this reason. Being able to play solo when you can't find a group is necessary. Both playstyles should be a valid choice in any MMO.

 

 

I find this extreamly hard to beleive, unless you where a complete d1ck to everyone. I normaly spend anywhere from 10 minutes -3 hours LFG, and the average group would/could last from 1-6 hours.

and I enjoy'd that part where you are like "What enjoyment is there to be had grinding mobs that give you nothing of value?"  HAHAHA dude, in what game EVER do you get somthign of value? unless you are playing games in Vegas. I lol at you.

99.99% of people play MMO's/games to have a good time and to waist time. not to "get somthing of value" So I really don't have any clue what you are talking about.

And serously...if you need to be "fighting" in your little world 24/7 I would recomend you look into playing some FPS games, or at least a single player RPG. clearly MMO's are not for you.

After two posts, your level of maturity (and your actual opinions) have been weighed, measured, and found lacking.  :-) Constructive conversations are definately not your strong point.  You are here to argue and mock.   Further discussion with you has been deemed worthless and will not commence.

Please report for termination.  Thank you and have a good day.

P.S. The computer is your friend. 

Originally posted by someforumguy

I think that the old holy trinity class system (tank, healer, dps) makes grouping more difficult yes, because of the waiting for a keyclass like you described.

But another problem in getting a group going, is that 9 out of 10 players dont want to start a group but only join one. Its easier to tag along and critizise the groupleader.

 

Fun, too! ;)

Another problem with grouping is high cost of wiping. WoW has repair costs, which can get quite high (yes, I know you can farm gold to cover them, but farming gold isn't fun, and I'm trying to play a game). People are worried about causing wipes, or having someone else cause them. Grouping would be more accessible without high wipe costs. Failure and a corpse run is sufficient penalty to encourage competent play (and you can put incompetent players on your ignore list).

Originally posted by robert4818

Originally posted by Dewm

Originally posted by Gamesmith

Originally posted by Dewm

Impatent <----> came off of WoWs assembly line and are like "OMG I havn't level yet today, I need to!!!!! and heaven forbid if you have to spend more then 2 minutes walking to where you level"

Gosh people like you make me sick...

Waiting<---->Both playstyles should be a valid choice in any MMO.

 

 

I find <---->recomend you look into playing some FPS games, or at least a single player RPG. clearly MMO's are not for you.

 

After two posts, your level of maturity (and your actual opinions) have been weighed, measured, and found lacking.  :-) Constructive conversations are definately not your strong point.  You are here to argue and mock.   Further discussion with you has been deemed worthless and will not commence.

Please report for termination.  Thank you and have a good day.

P.S. The computer is your friend. 

If thats the best you can do, then have a good day.
 

Originally posted by pojung

A fresh light being shed on the solo vs. group dilemna. As humans, we are social creatures, but revert to solo'ing through the law of entropy. That's a simplistic view of why people solo.  In almost all games you start off soloing, so maybe you should ask why people revert to grouping. It's a classic push-pull senario.

This issue becomes apparent with how the games themselves are designed. In a properly designed game, the 'holy trinity' to echo this threads' nomenclature (tank/dps/heal) is well balanced. Games these days don't go about doing it correctly however. Most games go about designing classes first, content second. This is the flaw. Design a template for content, set what baseline requirements you will use across the board, then design the classes to fill the roles you've planned out. When you've planned out rolls, for the most part that is classes, though the idea of making content first is interesting (and also what I am doing with my game design for the most part).

 

1. The 'holy trinity' is a solid concept, and provides aspects of gameplay that appeal to different personalities. To be properly balanced, each component of this concept must be balanced both in a solo capacity and a group capacity to fill the health pool:ability pool ratio identically. This is to say that regardless of my role (tank/dps/heal), I should complete a string of events (a large sample size) with the exact health % and ability % remaining. You've missed skill in your formula. More skilled players, assuming their teammates skill is equal, will have more health or ability remaining in your formula. The same thing also needs to be applied using control and utility, but those are topics worthy of a sub-discussion.

2. If the game designates content to be a 4man or 5man or 6man group requirement, then the class/spec options need to echo this balance. Assuming all classes and specs are properly balanced (that is to say, 1 has been properly accomplished) and each provides a unique and interesting gameplay, given a sufficiently large sample size, your playerbase will fill each class/spec equally. This is simple statistics.  It may be simple statistics, but it is simply not true.  Take the original EQ for example.  There were approximately four times as many warriors as their were shadowknights, yet in most instances the shadowknights were a superior class.

So let's say your game revolves around a 4man group. In this group, you require 1 tank 2 dps 1 heal. This means that your class/spec options should reflect 25% tank 50% dps 25% heal options. So let's assume your game has 6 classes with 3 specs each. Your properly designed game will have 4.5 specs that are tank viable across your 6 classes, 9 specs that are dps viable across your 6 classes, and 4.5 specs that are healing viable across your 6 classes.

Specs are actually just a bastardization of capped skill based and classed based game systems.  Your example would be better served just saying "18 classes".

 

We can enter now into the next rule that designers seemingly fail to grasp as well. But first, we can apply a small caveat to the assumptions and proposed solutions present: what about your flavor of the month class/specs? The answer to this is twofold:  95% of the flavor of the month classes/builds are created to take advantage of design inbalance.

   a.) what about them? a small variance in ratios amongst a significantly large playerbase will be empirically irrevelent and not felt by the individual player. You haven't played very many MMORPG's.

   b.) that's what constant class balancing is for. dev's should and need to tweak all classes/specs that they offer to ensure that all are kept within confidence intervals while promoting an under-represented class/spec to ensure that all options on the board are equally technically viable and equally 'fun' to play.  No, constant class balancing is not 'for' anything.  It is a reaction to two things. The first being a release of unbalanced classes.  The second being additional content added to the game.

3. Hybrids. In a world of purebreds, hybrids are always meant to feel the brunt of being 'forced' into being a certain role, because the others in a group are mechanically inable to do said role. Hybrids are no longer hybrids at this point, but under-priveledge purebreds.  Let's look at an example.  Warrior Cleric Paladin.  Ideally you would like a Warrior (tank) and Cleric (Healer).  You cannot find a cleric, so you accept a Paladin to be the healer.  Likewise another group may have a cleric, but no warrior, so they accept a paladin to be their tank.  Yes, they're underpowered in the roll they peform for that specific group, but they are not 'under privilaged' because they were able to get into two groups, whereas the warrior and cleric could only find one.  Game developpers need to do 1 of 2 things with hybrids:  They need to make content for all three parties (the warrior-cleric, the warrior-paladin and the warrior-priest).  If they do not make the contact where each of the three combinations excel, then they marginalize at least one of the classes.

   a.) Make all considerations with 1 and 2 complete. In doing so, make every class a hybrid, or make no class a hybrid. By having micro-options within the classes proper, but ignoring to make macro-options amongst the class base, you effectively negate your development of hybrid classes within a group environment.

   b.) Complete 1 and 2, but holding off on finishing all classes. Properly distribute options amongst say, 4 of the 6 classes with the proper ratios based on your group concept, then finish off the final 2 classes as hybrids keeping the ratios solid within those 2 classes as well. In this manner, you have ratio conservation across all the classes, as well as across the purebreds and the hybrids. This approach does not always force the hand of the hybrid, but social conditions will always still apply.

4. Numbers. In games where group play is a major function of development, some games get carried away with the 'selection' that is offered. 'Less is more' applies here. The more you split the playing field into seperate pieces (classes/specs), the more you dilute the product that you're trying to push. Let's say I have a 3man group mechanic in a game. And I have a 3 class system- each has 1 spec only. 1 class tanks, 1 heals, 1 dps'es. When looking to make a group, it is immediately apparent to a solo-player-seeking-group who is a potential groupmate. Try that with 20 options, and now you add frustration and time. Again, 'less is more'.

 

The OP has a very solid argument that carries much weight. But the issue that games have, whether it's the whole sandbox vs. themepark discussion, the whole pvp vs. pve discussion, or the one we have at hand, is development. Here are outlined simple concepts that all big titles fail to incorporate, and I would venture to claim most everyone has experienced heartache that could have been prevented had this 4 step system been used during development. It isn't about wether solo play or group play is more fun or effective, it's about how seemless I can transition between the two when the urge is present.

Wow I'm impressed.  Finally a bit of a different Group Vs Solo thread.

I mostly Solo in games.  Not necessarily because I like to though.  I would rather group.  However after a long day of work and school I'm tired, and want to relax.  I don't want to be a cruch to anyone, nor do I want to be anyone's crutch.  On these days I solo, usuallly.

On weekends I have more time and would rather group however grouping is a pain.  Yes I get more xp and yes I get more rewards but it is frustrating looking for the right people, waiting for everyone, then spending the next while figuring out how we work with each other.  Now I'm having fun an hour later.  That hour was not entertaining and wasted my time and money on something I'm paying to be entertained for.

It doesn't matter how much better the rewards are for grouping.  You can make the group have 10x more xp and infinitely better rewards, the rewards are not the main deterrent to grouping.  The main deterrent to grouping is the hassle in starting the thing.  This is where CoH excelled I thought.  Grouping was really really easy to do, there was virtually no downtime in waiting getting the thing organized.  Whether you believe it was a grood grouping game or not doesn't matter, it was really easy to group, so most people did.

This thread has gone two ways which I like and none of them are about which is better group vs solo.

1. Classes/skills - whatever you want to call it.  Which is better for grouping.  Classes fill pre-defined needs which makes helps people making groups target what they need.  However waiting for that need to be filled is often irritating.  Skills can fill a wide variety of needs in a group but you also (IMO) increase the chances of uselessness.  This is an issue that will have to be debated for a long time.

2.  Increasing rewards vs reducing hassle to form groups - IMO as I stated before it doens't matter really how good the rewards are.  Remove the hassle and I would group much much more.

Venge Sunsoar

@grimfall:

That's a simplistic view of why people solo. In almost all games you start off soloing, so maybe you should ask why people revert to grouping.

   -Which came first- the chicken or the egg? Your point is valid in terms of where you start (zone into a world, alone) but the cycle starts and becomes repititious.

When you've planned out rolls, for the most part that is classes, though the idea of making content first is interesting (and also what I am doing with my game design for the most part).

   -Rolls? Not to be a spelling nazi- but I interpret your statement as 'roles'. Content (what players do inside of a world) and classes/specs (the 'tool', or, how players interact with the world) should be considered simultaneously, not with one as an afterthought. I realize how my initial statement reads- my point being that if you look at any class-based MMO, if you divvy up the total number of specs available, then divvy up how content is organized by group, you will notice that the ratios don't match. This is clearly a design flaw by developpers that is only too easy to not overlook.

You've missed skill in your formula. More skilled players, assuming their teammates skill is equal, will have more health or ability remaining in your formula.

   -No, skill is irrelivent. As a developper I *cannot* factor the human element into design. I can offer options to players that will be easy to pickup, but hard to master, and thus, require skill to perfect, but I cannot do anything but guess at how an avatar will be played. Thus, I must ignore skill as a variant, and assume that *all things being equal*, I have balance despite difference.

It may be simple statistics, but it is simply not true. Take the original EQ for example. There were approximately four times as many warriors as their were shadowknights, yet in most instances the shadowknights were a superior class.

   -It is, quite simply, true. Statistics don't lie when properly interpretted. If you assume a signicantly large playerbase, you will have all variance approach 0. Where number changes take place is when the community recognizes one option being statistically superior to another, or, in your example, aestetically (meaning, more pleasing) than another. As a developper, again, I can employ ideas to each class that make them equally appealing.

Specs are actually just a bastardization of capped skill based and classed based game systems. Your example would be better served just saying "18 classes".

   -Splitting hairs on this. 18 classes or 6 classes with 3 specs each result in 18 options of play.

95% of the flavor of the month classes/builds are created to take advantage of design inbalance.

   -Reference my 3rd response on this post.

You haven't played very many MMORPG's.

   -I don't browse these forums to partake in flame wars. Your statement is assumptive, and incorrect.

No, constant class balancing is not 'for' anything. It is a reaction to two things. The first being a release of unbalanced classes. The second being additional content added to the game.

   -Class balancing is for correcting unseen imbalance- player or environment. I'm offerring a seperate usage for the term, provided, again, developpers remain inside of acceptable confidence intervals. This knowledge comes from a more old-school DM approach.

Let's look at an example. Warrior Cleric Paladin. Ideally you would like a Warrior (tank) and Cleric (Healer). You cannot find a cleric, so you accept a Paladin to be the healer. Likewise another group may have a cleric, but no warrior, so they accept a paladin to be their tank. Yes, they're underpowered in the roll they peform for that specific group, but they are not 'under privilaged' because they were able to get into two groups, whereas the warrior and cleric could only find one.

   -The argument *for* hybrids is the one you provided. And you're absolutely right. Being a hybrid gives more 'options' to the player, provided, and this is where I believe the hangup lies, that the player is open to using all available options. If an individual plays a hybrid in a particular manner, and groups consistently ask for another manner, the player ends up playing solo (or disgruntled in the group). I examine the negatives involved, and how to render them extinct. To examine the positives to being a hybrid would do nothing to better the senario of solo vs. group play. The positives are apparent and work. The negatives, obviously, do not.

They need to make content for all three parties (the warrior-cleric, the warrior-paladin and the warrior-priest). If they do not make the contact where each of the three combinations excel, then they marginalize at least one of the classes.

   -My post examines a more insightful development of classes. To make another post regarding insightful development of content might be in order. Another poster a couple posts following myself makes some very valid points on this topic. But you're right in your statement: solid content is such that demands something from everyone. The more demanded of each individual, the more rewarding the play experience.

Also, thank you for taking the time to read through my marathon of a post :)

Edit: Formatted for easier reading

Originally posted by robert4818

Originally posted by Dewm

Originally posted by robert4818

Most people are both.  In fact I would dare-say that most people would much rather group than play solo.  The reason for solo-friendly games is that most games make forming a group to be a pain.  The time it takes forming a group, holding a group together and everything else that comes with it, is time wasted that could be spent playing the game.  Once you get a group together, you may advance faster, but in the mean-time those that are soloing are still playing the game.

I've found myself in this situation many times.   I want a group to go do something, but I don't want to put up with that hassle.  So, I go and play solo.  I have fun, where instead I'd just be sitting around waiting for that "key person" to join the group.

If grouping was quick, easy, and painless you'd see ALOT more people playing in groups who would otherwise solo.  Also, if there was more group oriented content you'd see alot more people playing group. 

As it is, if you make a very solo game, that's not easy to group together, guess what.  People will solo.

For a game to be good for grouping you need a 50/50 split in content, both that will reach the top, and that combination of content should not just be Solo content, and harder variation for the group.

 

Impatent you are, bad MMO the devs will make for you, yes...

 

Reson number 41 why Devs make crappy games. all you kids want it now *waaa* want it now! gotta level faster and faster.

Ever think of just sittin back and enjoying the game? just because you arn't in the heat of combat doesn't mean you can have fun (And if that is the case MMO's are NOT the game for you)

I play'd FFXI for 2 years, most people would say that was the most group orented game out there, and even more would say it had/has some of the longest wait times for groups.

I don't know how many times I would spend 4 hours waiting for a group, the people that we did have would just sit around and craft, or just chat. or kill lower level mobs even if it wasn't awsome XP.

But this whole WoW-expectation that you have, that if you don't level cap in 4 months and have the most leet gear in 7 months that you suck, is just garbage.

learn to enjoy the game, if more people would just take there time and enjoy the game the Devs would make better games they would say, "hey alot of people are just sitting around chatting while waiting for a group, why don't we make group finding easier, and a better chat system"

And "wow everyone likes crafting and they are doing it alot, lets spend more time making a awsome crafting system"

But instead we get impatent little kids like you who just came off of WoWs assembly line and are like "OMG I havn't level yet today, I need to!!!!! and heaven forbid if you have to spend more then 2 minutes walking to where you level"

Gosh people like you make me sick...

 

How little you truly know.  I've been playing MMO's since pre-kunark  EQ.  I've played more than my fair share of MMO's, including a nice long period of time on FF11.  I do not enjoy waiting for groups.  I enjoy playing a game.  It's like telling me that I'm an idiot because I would much rather spend my time in a concert than waiting in line for the tickets.

My time is valuable to me, and I would much rather use it PLAYING THE GAME than waiting to get a  group together.   I don't mind waiting 20 min for a group, but wasting much more than that is just pointless to me. 

I will not address the rest of your rant (post is too generous a word) as it is off topic, and a buch of assumptions that show exactly how good of a person you truly are.

Without a group there is no game in an MMORPG IMO.

Of course you feel differently, and that's fine. There's no need for us all to be clones of one another.

This is why for me there is no such thing as forced grouping.

Without a group there's no game for me to play, so I'm not missing anything while I'm LFG.

I might agree with you if I got any enjoyment out of playing an MMORPG solo, but I don't.

Single player RPGs, sure, but I find MMORPGs completely devoid of solo content I find engaging.

If i was playing KOTOR or Fallout 3 and couldnt' play without a group, I'd be very frustrated and feel like you do.

But wanting to get to PLAYING TH E GAME by myself in WAR, LoTRO, WoW? What game? Quest grinding that doesn't change the game world in any way? Not interested.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Wow I'm impressed.  Finally a bit of a different Group Vs Solo thread.

I mostly Solo in games.  Not necessarily because I like to though.  I would rather group.  However after a long day of work and school I'm tired, and want to relax.  I don't want to be a cruch to anyone, nor do I want to be anyone's crutch.  On these days I solo, usuallly.

On weekends I have more time and would rather group however grouping is a pain.  Yes I get more xp and yes I get more rewards but it is frustrating looking for the right people, waiting for everyone, then spending the next while figuring out how we work with each other.  Now I'm having fun an hour later.  That hour was not entertaining and wasted my time and money on something I'm paying to be entertained for.

It doesn't matter how much better the rewards are for grouping.  You can make the group have 10x more xp and infinitely better rewards, the rewards are not the main deterrent to grouping.  The main deterrent to grouping is the hassle in starting the thing.  This is where CoH excelled I thought.  Grouping was really really easy to do, there was virtually no downtime in waiting getting the thing organized.  Whether you believe it was a grood grouping game or not doesn't matter, it was really easy to group, so most people did.

This thread has gone two ways which I like and none of them are about which is better group vs solo.

1. Classes/skills - whatever you want to call it.  Which is better for grouping.  Classes fill pre-defined needs which makes helps people making groups target what they need.  However waiting for that need to be filled is often irritating.  Skills can fill a wide variety of needs in a group but you also (IMO) increase the chances of uselessness.  This is an issue that will have to be debated for a long time.

2.  Increasing rewards vs reducing hassle to form groups - IMO as I stated before it doens't matter really how good the rewards are.  Remove the hassle and I would group much much more.

Venge Sunsoar

I think this points out why it is sometimes so difficult for people to communicate to each other in these discussions.

Your focus is ease of getting in a group. Once in said group, the content is irrelevant to you.

My focus is the content once you are in a group. The ease of getting in a group is important, but not nearly as much as the content once you are in a group.

I absolutely agree, it was easy to group in City of heroes, and i spent probably upwards of 80% of my time in CoH in a group.

However, the content IMO was lacking when it came to being fun and challenging for groups.

You are happy to settle for less challenging content for grouping more often.

I"m interested in challenging content more so that just being in a group for no particular reason.

For the class / skills debate, classes make for very challenging group content.

Skills can make it easy to group, but can take away the purpose of grouping, which for me is the cooperation.

Without the need for cooperation, expressed by the typical nuke, tank, healer, trinity, why even group?

If for example, we have a skill based game, and we can all be tank mages or whatever, then I can kill something with you, in other words we can attack it at the same time and do more damage, but do we really need to be grouped to do it? What for?

I don't need to see your stats, you don't need to see mine. I don't need to heal you, I can heal myself. You don't need me to tank for you, you can tank for yourself.

We can just be in the same place at the same time, and zerg whatever we come across and split the xp and loot.

Increasing the rewards for groups won't help and making group oriented content won't help either.
Making a shitload of niche games so everyone can go to there own corner of the industry only to find out that your game is boring as hell because your playing with nothing but your type and that changing your ATTITUDE or CHARACTER can make this huge problem of solo vs group obsolete...PRICELESS

I keep seeing all these "intellectuals" post in threads on this particular subject and completely distort why we are all having this problem in the first place. Everyone wants to dictate how a game should be played and everyone's time is more valuable then the next guys.

The OP said "If grouping was quick, easy, and painless you'd see A LOT more people playing in groups who would otherwise solo." which is very true. I went years wanting only to play with others whether we fail or succeed not so much anymore because playing with others is not fun these days.

Players won't come out and say it because it comes off as anti-social or something else the "intellectuals" will put a wiki on. Nobody wants to tolerate in a game what we have to tolerate in real life... The ass hats of society, the people with big opinions of how a avatar should be played, you know like some of the people on this thread with high post counts.

Personally, I've seen more destruction of this industry by people's opinions, like the big posters in this thread, acted out in game than anything else.

TLDR: Change your $%^$$%& attitudes and you'll have more people to group with.

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

IMO, costs will continue to come down as engines like the Hero Engine are more widely used and the developers of that engine see competition in the market place, but have already recouped their costs.

I'd like to think that was going to happen, but with players screaming for more and more graphical tricks, rather than better gameplay, costs will be artificially inflated.

If players were satisfied with WoW-quality graphics (as I am), we might well have several great MMOs now, as resources could be spent on other things.

 

That is the problem.  What is the number one complaint of CO?  It's a game that can be played on a huge variety of systems but people don't like it because of the graphics.  To me, gameplay > graphics.  Unfortunately, I'm in the vast minority on this issue.  That is why the costs associated with developing an MMORPG keep going through the roof.  There is an unnamed MMORPG from I believe Bethesda in the works and from what I heard it has a $200 million budget.  For that comany's sake, I hope it's the next WoW or that game will bankrupt the company.

 

I'd like a link because I think you've gotten your numbers confused.

I believe TAbula Rasa is one of the most, if not THE most expensive MMORPGs made to date at 100 Million USD.

I seriously doubt there is a Bethesda project in the works with a 200 mil budget.

Originally posted by Dewm

Originally posted by Gamesmith

Originally posted by Dewm

Impatent you are, bad MMO the devs will make for you, yes...

 

Reson number 41 why Devs make crappy games. all you kids want it now *waaa* want it now! gotta level faster and faster.

Ever think of just sittin back and enjoying the game? just because you arn't in the heat of combat doesn't mean you can have fun (And if that is the case MMO's are NOT the game for you)

I play'd FFXI for 2 years, most people would say that was the most group orented game out there, and even more would say it had/has some of the longest wait times for groups.

I don't know how many times I would spend 4 hours waiting for a group, the people that we did have would just sit around and craft, or just chat. or kill lower level mobs even if it wasn't awsome XP.

But this whole WoW-expectation that you have, that if you don't level cap in 4 months and have the most leet gear in 7 months that you suck, is just garbage.

learn to enjoy the game, if more people would just take there time and enjoy the game the Devs would make better games they would say, "hey alot of people are just sitting around chatting while waiting for a group, why don't we make group finding easier, and a better chat system"

And "wow everyone likes crafting and they are doing it alot, lets spend more time making a awsome crafting system"

But instead we get impatent little kids like you who just came off of WoWs assembly line and are like "OMG I havn't level yet today, I need to!!!!! and heaven forbid if you have to spend more then 2 minutes walking to where you level"

Gosh people like you make me sick...

Waiting 4 hours for a group is not fun. What enjoyment is there to be had grinding mobs that give you nothing of value? Soloing in a group based game is always boring. That was the reason why I quit FFXI. I spent an entire weekend LFG for Qufim and I had started playing at NA launch. Being completely unable to advance or enjoy the game as intended because I can't find someone to play with is a huge turnoff. When/if you finally manage to find a group, typically 15-30 minutes in the healer leaves and you're back to LFG. I quit the game after that weekend and never looked back.

Forced grouping for advancement is a poor design choice for exactly this reason. Being able to play solo when you can't find a group is necessary. Both playstyles should be a valid choice in any MMO.

 

 

I find this extreamly hard to beleive, unless you where a complete d1ck to everyone. I normaly spend anywhere from 10 minutes -3 hours LFG, and the average group would/could last from 1-6 hours.

and I enjoy'd that part where you are like "What enjoyment is there to be had grinding mobs that give you nothing of value?"  HAHAHA dude, in what game EVER do you get somthign of value? unless you are playing games in Vegas. I lol at you.

99.99% of people play MMO's/games to have a good time and to waist time. not to "get somthing of value" So I really don't have any clue what you are talking about.

And serously...if you need to be "fighting" in your little world 24/7 I would recomend you look into playing some FPS games, or at least a single player RPG. clearly MMO's are not for you.

Indeed you are right that "value" in game terms is nebulous in nature. It is individually defined by each player. Value for me is entertainment. In FFXI's case, grinding bland, retextured mobs from 1 to max level is not fun. Grinding mobs that do not advance my character, in a game where you can only advance through "fighting", is not fun. FFXI, when I played it, offered no non-combat advancement options. I would gladly create a tradesman alt for times when groups are hard to find, but that was never an option.

I shouldn't even be responding to this, I don't want to derail the thread. As hard as you find it to believe, it is possible to spend a long time LFG. Some days groups are easy to find and you get a group that sticks together for a long time. Other times, there aren't alot of people online in your level range and the people you can find are flakey. Yet another reason why I dislike group based MMOs. It's just impossible to predict if you'll be able to actually play on any given day. If I only have a couple hours to play, spending a majority of my playtime LFG is not something I'm willing to do. I spend money to play these games and I want to be able to play on my schedule.

Thanks for the recommendation anyway. Currently I am playing single player RPGs, FPS and other non-MMOs because todays crop is not for me.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by Gamesmith

Forced grouping for advancement is a poor design choice for exactly this reason. Being able to play solo when you can't find a group is necessary. Both playstyles should be a valid choice in any MMO.

I agree, but define "valid".

Valid meaning you can advance to "cap" through both solo and/or grouping. I believe strongly grouping should always yield faster advancement than soloing simply because MMOs are meant to be a social experience. Soloing needs to be available because it's simply impossible to expect players to find a group at all times of the day. If I can only play for 30 minutes, then soloing would be my only option for various reasons. How you balance this would need to be based upon each individual game.

Originally posted by bigbeardxl

Increasing the rewards for groups won't help and making group oriented content won't help either.
Making a shitload of niche games so everyone can go to there own corner of the industry only to find out that your game is boring as hell because your playing with nothing but your type and that changing your ATTITUDE or CHARACTER can make this huge problem of solo vs group obsolete...PRICELESS

I keep seeing all these "intellectuals" post in threads on this particular subject and completely distort why we are all having this problem in the first place. Everyone wants to dictate how a game should be played and everyone's time is more valuable then the next guys.

The OP said "If grouping was quick, easy, and painless you'd see A LOT more people playing in groups who would otherwise solo." which is very true. I went years wanting only to play with others whether we fail or succeed not so much anymore because playing with others is not fun these days.

Players won't come out and say it because it comes off as anti-social or something else the "intellectuals" will put a wiki on. Nobody wants to tolerate in a game what we have to tolerate in real life... The ass hats of society, the people with big opinions of how a avatar should be played, you know like some of the people on this thread with high post counts.

Personally, I've seen more destruction of this industry by people's opinions, like the big posters in this thread, acted out in game than anything else.

 

TLDR: Change your $%^$$%& attitudes and you'll have more people to group with.

Seems pretty pointless if you can find groups all day long but they aren't really necessary for anything.

I've never had trouble finding groups in solo friendly games. The problem is once you get a group together, there's no challenging content.

Like City of Heroes. I could group all day long, but so what? If I didn't group the dungeon just scaled so I could do it solo. Where's the challenge in that?

Originally posted by Gamesmith

Originally posted by Dewm

Originally posted by Gamesmith

Originally posted by Dewm

Impatent you are, bad MMO the devs will make for you, yes...

 

Reson number 41 why Devs make crappy games. all you kids want it now *waaa* want it now! gotta level faster and faster.

Ever think of just sittin back and enjoying the game? just because you arn't in the heat of combat doesn't mean you can have fun (And if that is the case MMO's are NOT the game for you)

I play'd FFXI for 2 years, most people would say that was the most group orented game out there, and even more would say it had/has some of the longest wait times for groups.

I don't know how many times I would spend 4 hours waiting for a group, the people that we did have would just sit around and craft, or just chat. or kill lower level mobs even if it wasn't awsome XP.

But this whole WoW-expectation that you have, that if you don't level cap in 4 months and have the most leet gear in 7 months that you suck, is just garbage.

learn to enjoy the game, if more people would just take there time and enjoy the game the Devs would make better games they would say, "hey alot of people are just sitting around chatting while waiting for a group, why don't we make group finding easier, and a better chat system"

And "wow everyone likes crafting and they are doing it alot, lets spend more time making a awsome crafting system"

But instead we get impatent little kids like you who just came off of WoWs assembly line and are like "OMG I havn't level yet today, I need to!!!!! and heaven forbid if you have to spend more then 2 minutes walking to where you level"

Gosh people like you make me sick...

Waiting 4 hours for a group is not fun. What enjoyment is there to be had grinding mobs that give you nothing of value? Soloing in a group based game is always boring. That was the reason why I quit FFXI. I spent an entire weekend LFG for Qufim and I had started playing at NA launch. Being completely unable to advance or enjoy the game as intended because I can't find someone to play with is a huge turnoff. When/if you finally manage to find a group, typically 15-30 minutes in the healer leaves and you're back to LFG. I quit the game after that weekend and never looked back.

Forced grouping for advancement is a poor design choice for exactly this reason. Being able to play solo when you can't find a group is necessary. Both playstyles should be a valid choice in any MMO.

 

 

I find this extreamly hard to beleive, unless you where a complete d1ck to everyone. I normaly spend anywhere from 10 minutes -3 hours LFG, and the average group would/could last from 1-6 hours.

and I enjoy'd that part where you are like "What enjoyment is there to be had grinding mobs that give you nothing of value?"  HAHAHA dude, in what game EVER do you get somthign of value? unless you are playing games in Vegas. I lol at you.

99.99% of people play MMO's/games to have a good time and to waist time. not to "get somthing of value" So I really don't have any clue what you are talking about.

And serously...if you need to be "fighting" in your little world 24/7 I would recomend you look into playing some FPS games, or at least a single player RPG. clearly MMO's are not for you.

Indeed you are right that "value" in game terms is nebulous in nature. It is individually defined by each player. Value for me is entertainment. In FFXI's case, grinding bland, retextured mobs from 1 to max level is not fun. Grinding mobs that do not advance my character, in a game where you can only advance through "fighting", is not fun. FFXI, when I played it, offered no non-combat advancement options. I would gladly create a tradesman alt for times when groups are hard to find, but that was never an option.

I shouldn't even be responding to this, I don't want to derail the thread. As hard as you find it to believe, it is possible to spend a long time LFG. Some days groups are easy to find and you get a group that sticks together for a long time. Other times, there aren't alot of people online in your level range and the people you can find are flakey. Yet another reason why I dislike group based MMOs. It's just impossible to predict if you'll be able to actually play on any given day. If I only have a couple hours to play, spending a majority of my playtime LFG is not something I'm willing to do. I spend money to play these games and I want to be able to play on my schedule.

Thanks for the recommendation anyway. Currently I am playing single player RPGs, FPS and other non-MMOs because todays crop is not for me.

 

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by Gamesmith

Forced grouping for advancement is a poor design choice for exactly this reason. Being able to play solo when you can't find a group is necessary. Both playstyles should be a valid choice in any MMO.

 

I agree, but define "valid".

 

Valid meaning you can advance to "cap" through both solo and/or grouping. I believe strongly grouping should always yield faster advancement than soloing simply because MMOs are meant to be a social experience. Soloing needs to be available because it's simply impossible to expect players to find a group at all times of the day. If I can only play for 30 minutes, then soloing would be my only option for various reasons. How you balance this would need to be based upon each individual game.

 

And that's the real crux of the biscuit.

What we're really debating in all these solo vs group threads.

There isn't any games out there that "force" you to group. You could solo in EQ or DAoC, it just took longer.

There aren't any games out there that prevent you from grouping. You can group in pre-raid WoW all day long if you want to, even though it's pointless most of the time.

The solo friendly crowd is just saying, we like the game balanced like pre-raid WoW.

The groupers are just saying, we like the game balanced like EQ or maybe DAoC.

You can't balance the game like both of those at the same time.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

IMO, costs will continue to come down as engines like the Hero Engine are more widely used and the developers of that engine see competition in the market place, but have already recouped their costs.

I'd like to think that was going to happen, but with players screaming for more and more graphical tricks, rather than better gameplay, costs will be artificially inflated.

If players were satisfied with WoW-quality graphics (as I am), we might well have several great MMOs now, as resources could be spent on other things.

 

That is the problem.  What is the number one complaint of CO?  It's a game that can be played on a huge variety of systems but people don't like it because of the graphics.  To me, gameplay > graphics.  Unfortunately, I'm in the vast minority on this issue.  That is why the costs associated with developing an MMORPG keep going through the roof.  There is an unnamed MMORPG from I believe Bethesda in the works and from what I heard it has a $200 million budget.  For that comany's sake, I hope it's the next WoW or that game will bankrupt the company.

 

 

I'd like a link because I think you've gotten your numbers confused.

I believe TAbula Rasa is one of the most, if not THE most expensive MMORPGs made to date at 100 Million USD.

I seriously doubt there is a Bethesda project in the works with a 200 mil budget.

I'm sorry, that was $300 million.  http://news.spong.com/article/14190/Bethesda-On-Forthcoming-Elder-Scrolls-MMO

 and more recent material on the subject

http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/61590

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

IMO, costs will continue to come down as engines like the Hero Engine are more widely used and the developers of that engine see competition in the market place, but have already recouped their costs.

I'd like to think that was going to happen, but with players screaming for more and more graphical tricks, rather than better gameplay, costs will be artificially inflated.

If players were satisfied with WoW-quality graphics (as I am), we might well have several great MMOs now, as resources could be spent on other things.

 

That is the problem.  What is the number one complaint of CO?  It's a game that can be played on a huge variety of systems but people don't like it because of the graphics.  To me, gameplay > graphics.  Unfortunately, I'm in the vast minority on this issue.  That is why the costs associated with developing an MMORPG keep going through the roof.  There is an unnamed MMORPG from I believe Bethesda in the works and from what I heard it has a $200 million budget.  For that comany's sake, I hope it's the next WoW or that game will bankrupt the company.

 

 

I'd like a link because I think you've gotten your numbers confused.

I believe TAbula Rasa is one of the most, if not THE most expensive MMORPGs made to date at 100 Million USD.

I seriously doubt there is a Bethesda project in the works with a 200 mil budget.

 

I'm sorry, that was $300 million.  http://news.spong.com/article/14190/Bethesda-On-Forthcoming-Elder-Scrolls-MMO

 

"SPOnG caught up briefly with Bethesda’s Pete Hines late last week who told us the following about the recent $300 million cash injection - a chunk of which will be directed towards Bethesda’s new MMO group:"

The entire company is getting investment dollars of 300 mil, some of that is going to an MMO group. Not all of the 300 mill is going to the MMO group, not all of what IS going to the group is being spend on one MMO.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

IMO, costs will continue to come down as engines like the Hero Engine are more widely used and the developers of that engine see competition in the market place, but have already recouped their costs.

I'd like to think that was going to happen, but with players screaming for more and more graphical tricks, rather than better gameplay, costs will be artificially inflated.

If players were satisfied with WoW-quality graphics (as I am), we might well have several great MMOs now, as resources could be spent on other things.

 

That is the problem.  What is the number one complaint of CO?  It's a game that can be played on a huge variety of systems but people don't like it because of the graphics.  To me, gameplay > graphics.  Unfortunately, I'm in the vast minority on this issue.  That is why the costs associated with developing an MMORPG keep going through the roof.  There is an unnamed MMORPG from I believe Bethesda in the works and from what I heard it has a $200 million budget.  For that comany's sake, I hope it's the next WoW or that game will bankrupt the company.

 

 

I'd like a link because I think you've gotten your numbers confused.

I believe TAbula Rasa is one of the most, if not THE most expensive MMORPGs made to date at 100 Million USD.

I seriously doubt there is a Bethesda project in the works with a 200 mil budget.

 

I'm sorry, that was $300 million.  http://news.spong.com/article/14190/Bethesda-On-Forthcoming-Elder-Scrolls-MMO

 

"SPOnG caught up briefly with Bethesda’s Pete Hines late last week who told us the following about the recent $300 million cash injection - a chunk of which will be directed towards Bethesda’s new MMO group:"

 

The entire company is getting investment dollars of 300 mil, some of that is going to an MMO group. Not all of the 300 mill is going to the MMO group, not all of what IS going to the group is being spend on one MMO.

http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/61590

I can't find the article now, but Pete Hines did later confirm that nearly all of it was for the new MMO group and it's then "secret" mmorpg.

Originally posted by pojung

@grimfall:

That's a simplistic view of why people solo. In almost all games you start off soloing, so maybe you should ask why people revert to grouping.

   -Which came first- the chicken or the egg? Your point is valid in terms of where you start (zone into a world, alone) but the cycle starts and becomes repititious.

When you've planned out rolls, for the most part that is classes, though the idea of making content first is interesting (and also what I am doing with my game design for the most part).

   -Rolls? Not to be a spelling nazi- but I interpret your statement as 'roles'. Content (what players do inside of a world) and classes/specs (the 'tool', or, how players interact with the world) should be considered simultaneously, not with one as an afterthought. I realize how my initial statement reads- my point being that if you look at any class-based MMO, if you divvy up the total number of specs available, then divvy up how content is organized by group, you will notice that the ratios don't match. This is clearly a design flaw by developpers that is only too easy to not overlook.

You've missed skill in your formula. More skilled players, assuming their teammates skill is equal, will have more health or ability remaining in your formula.

   -No, skill is irrelivent. As a developper I *cannot* factor the human element into design. I can offer options to players that will be easy to pickup, but hard to master, and thus, require skill to perfect, but I cannot do anything but guess at how an avatar will be played. Thus, I must ignore skill as a variant, and assume that *all things being equal*, I have balance despite difference.

It may be simple statistics, but it is simply not true. Take the original EQ for example. There were approximately four times as many warriors as their were shadowknights, yet in most instances the shadowknights were a superior class.

   -It is, quite simply, true. Statistics don't lie when properly interpretted. If you assume a signicantly large playerbase, you will have all variance approach 0. Where number changes take place is when the community recognizes one option being statistically superior to another, or, in your example, aestetically (meaning, more pleasing) than another. As a developper, again, I can employ ideas to each class that make them equally appealing.

Specs are actually just a bastardization of capped skill based and classed based game systems. Your example would be better served just saying "18 classes".

   -Splitting hairs on this. 18 classes or 6 classes with 3 specs each result in 18 options of play.

95% of the flavor of the month classes/builds are created to take advantage of design inbalance.

   -Reference my 3rd response on this post.

You haven't played very many MMORPG's.

   -I don't browse these forums to partake in flame wars. Your statement is assumptive, and incorrect.

No, constant class balancing is not 'for' anything. It is a reaction to two things. The first being a release of unbalanced classes. The second being additional content added to the game.

   -Class balancing is for correcting unseen imbalance- player or environment. I'm offerring a seperate usage for the term, provided, again, developpers remain inside of acceptable confidence intervals. This knowledge comes from a more old-school DM approach.

Let's look at an example. Warrior Cleric Paladin. Ideally you would like a Warrior (tank) and Cleric (Healer). You cannot find a cleric, so you accept a Paladin to be the healer. Likewise another group may have a cleric, but no warrior, so they accept a paladin to be their tank. Yes, they're underpowered in the roll they peform for that specific group, but they are not 'under privilaged' because they were able to get into two groups, whereas the warrior and cleric could only find one.

   -The argument *for* hybrids is the one you provided. And you're absolutely right. Being a hybrid gives more 'options' to the player, provided, and this is where I believe the hangup lies, that the player is open to using all available options. If an individual plays a hybrid in a particular manner, and groups consistently ask for another manner, the player ends up playing solo (or disgruntled in the group). I examine the negatives involved, and how to render them extinct. To examine the positives to being a hybrid would do nothing to better the senario of solo vs. group play. The positives are apparent and work. The negatives, obviously, do not.

They need to make content for all three parties (the warrior-cleric, the warrior-paladin and the warrior-priest). If they do not make the contact where each of the three combinations excel, then they marginalize at least one of the classes.

   -My post examines a more insightful development of classes. To make another post regarding insightful development of content might be in order. Another poster a couple posts following myself makes some very valid points on this topic. But you're right in your statement: solid content is such that demands something from everyone. The more demanded of each individual, the more rewarding the play experience.

 

Also, thank you for taking the time to read through my marathon of a post :)

Edit: Formatted for easier reading

It's a good thing you're not being  a spelling Nazi. A very good thing.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by robert4818

Originally posted by Dewm

Originally posted by robert4818

Most people are both.  In fact I would dare-say that most people would much rather group than play solo.  The reason for solo-friendly games is that most games make forming a group to be a pain.  The time it takes forming a group, holding a group together and everything else that comes with it, is time wasted that could be spent playing the game.  Once you get a group together, you may advance faster, but in the mean-time those that are soloing are still playing the game.

I've found myself in this situation many times.   I want a group to go do something, but I don't want to put up with that hassle.  So, I go and play solo.  I have fun, where instead I'd just be sitting around waiting for that "key person" to join the group.

If grouping was quick, easy, and painless you'd see ALOT more people playing in groups who would otherwise solo.  Also, if there was more group oriented content you'd see alot more people playing group. 

As it is, if you make a very solo game, that's not easy to group together, guess what.  People will solo.

For a game to be good for grouping you need a 50/50 split in content, both that will reach the top, and that combination of content should not just be Solo content, and harder variation for the group.

 

Impatent you are, bad MMO the devs will make for you, yes...

 

Reson number 41 why Devs make crappy games. all you kids want it now *waaa* want it now! gotta level faster and faster.

Ever think of just sittin back and enjoying the game? just because you arn't in the heat of combat doesn't mean you can have fun (And if that is the case MMO's are NOT the game for you)

I play'd FFXI for 2 years, most people would say that was the most group orented game out there, and even more would say it had/has some of the longest wait times for groups.

I don't know how many times I would spend 4 hours waiting for a group, the people that we did have would just sit around and craft, or just chat. or kill lower level mobs even if it wasn't awsome XP.

But this whole WoW-expectation that you have, that if you don't level cap in 4 months and have the most leet gear in 7 months that you suck, is just garbage.

learn to enjoy the game, if more people would just take there time and enjoy the game the Devs would make better games they would say, "hey alot of people are just sitting around chatting while waiting for a group, why don't we make group finding easier, and a better chat system"

And "wow everyone likes crafting and they are doing it alot, lets spend more time making a awsome crafting system"

But instead we get impatent little kids like you who just came off of WoWs assembly line and are like "OMG I havn't level yet today, I need to!!!!! and heaven forbid if you have to spend more then 2 minutes walking to where you level"

Gosh people like you make me sick...

 

How little you truly know.  I've been playing MMO's since pre-kunark  EQ.  I've played more than my fair share of MMO's, including a nice long period of time on FF11.  I do not enjoy waiting for groups.  I enjoy playing a game.  It's like telling me that I'm an idiot because I would much rather spend my time in a concert than waiting in line for the tickets.

My time is valuable to me, and I would much rather use it PLAYING THE GAME than waiting to get a  group together.   I don't mind waiting 20 min for a group, but wasting much more than that is just pointless to me. 

I will not address the rest of your rant (post is too generous a word) as it is off topic, and a buch of assumptions that show exactly how good of a person you truly are.

 

Without a group there is no game in an MMORPG IMO.

Of course you feel differently, and that's fine. There's no need for us all to be clones of one another.

This is why for me there is no such thing as forced grouping.

Without a group there's no game for me to play, so I'm not missing anything while I'm LFG.

I might agree with you if I got any enjoyment out of playing an MMORPG solo, but I don't.

Single player RPGs, sure, but I find MMORPGs completely devoid of solo content I find engaging.

If i was playing KOTOR or Fallout 3 and couldnt' play without a group, I'd be very frustrated and feel like you do.

But wanting to get to PLAYING TH E GAME by myself in WAR, LoTRO, WoW? What game? Quest grinding that doesn't change the game world in any way? Not interested.

Well, my Egyptian Friend,

You are not indicative of the average player.  However, I do not disagree with your opinion.  Group content is severly lacking in this industry at this current point in time.  Take Champions online.  Right now that game is TOO solo friendly right now.  There is about I'd guess 2% of the content in the game that is geared towards groups.  The rest is solo quests.

It seems to me though, that your solution is to change all of the quests to Group quests.  With that I cannot agree.  However I would be 100% in favor of dramatically upping the amount content that required groups up to around 50% of the total. 

However, it needs to be seperate and distinct from the solo content.  Right now, its solo quest chains that end in group content climax, where there should be a seperate line of group content from start to finish.  Also, I do not think it should be the AOC route of "mirrored instances" but actual seperate quests, story lines, etc.

Good Group content is essential, but that alone will not encourage people to group.  You can have great group content with nobody willing to go through the hassle of playing it.

On the flip side of the coin, it doesn't matter how great the group content is, if the game is solo friendly, and grouping up is a pain, then you'll end up with alot of unused content.

You need both.  However, your focus seems to be only on the content side. 

My top 5 reasons for soloing

1. I have too much stuff going on in real life around me, like wife kids and dogs to take care of, wife needs attention and the dogs need to be let out or fed plus kids needs their fair share of attention as well. When I can't fully commit to a group without going afk every 10-15 minutes it's great i can still sit down and get some playtime in.

2. I need to do something in the game that is super boring for others. Like camping a mob for an intire night for something that I want or if I want to harvest nodes for crafting while adventuring, then grouping is really not an option. It would be great if I could find <insert player number here> to help me do this but that very rarely happens. I could of course let go of my goals of optaining these items or whatever it may be ..ingame titles or endless of other things and just group, group, group but i don't play so i can give player_005 a great experience in the game. I play for myself and my own goals. Sometimes or very often those goals is shared by others making it a great group effort. Sometimes it is just something that I want to do.

3. No groups to be found for quests or content I want/need to do. If that content can be two boxed or soloed I will do it myself if possible instead of spending a whole night trying to convince people to join me. I always try the group option first however. If it fails I will solo.

4. being fed up with groups that just aggravate me and need to cool off on my own.

5. Sometimes I just don't want to share my loot end of story. No rolling for items with others or take other people into consideration..just me me and me. After all I don't play games for others but my own satisfaction

I still see myself preferring groups most of the time. There are just times where grouping is not an option. Not everything is black or white. There is a whole lot of grey too

The question is group or not to group..
 
  I prefer to group I hate to solo.  So I choose classes that group well (like rouges and healer types) but in most the games i have played they are not solo classes either.   So I always look for a group, but when i don't find one I either switch to  a more soloable character or just don't play and drop the game after a time.

I love playing in RL groups nut I find it hassles to get them all online at once sometimes.

Being a a person who don't play games fulltime and casual player find groups tend to take up a big chunk of my time. So if I have a short time and want to relax I usely go to a game that is very solo friendly. For longer times I go to my currents game ATM, Which happen to be DDO. They have realized that sometimes you need group to do allot of the content so they added henchmen(NPC) that you can add to you group to fill it out.

Disliking PVP with a passion, Tho who have and those who don't usely determines the outcome. I rather be grouping with people then worrying about being jumped.

The overall idea is, Some games are made for grouping and solo is not an option at some level. Some games are made to be solo friendly.

Originally posted by robert4818

Most people are both.  In fact I would dare-say that most people would much rather group than play solo.  The reason for solo-friendly games is that most games make forming a group to be a pain.  The time it takes forming a group, holding a group together and everything else that comes with it, is time wasted that could be spent playing the game.  Once you get a group together, you may advance faster, but in the mean-time those that are soloing are still playing the game.

I've found myself in this situation many times.   I want a group to go do something, but I don't want to put up with that hassle.  So, I go and play solo.  I have fun, where instead I'd just be sitting around waiting for that "key person" to join the group.

If grouping was quick, easy, and painless you'd see ALOT more people playing in groups who would otherwise solo.  Also, if there was more group oriented content you'd see alot more people playing group. 

As it is, if you make a very solo game, that's not easy to group together, guess what.  People will solo.

For a game to be good for grouping you need a 50/50 split in content, both that will reach the top, and that combination of content should not just be Solo content, and harder variation for the group.

 I think you're generalizing.

There should be content both "end-game" and "leveling". Because, in my personal experience, it strongly depends on what mood I'm on.

And grouping is ALWAYS a pain. Always. (Unless of course you have friends you regularly play with)

Originally posted by pojung

@grimfall:

   -Which came first- the chicken or the egg? Your point is valid in terms of where you start (zone into a world, alone)

My point is there are people who don't like to group at all, ever.  The only time they group is to get gear to make soloing more fun.

   -Rolls? Not to be a spelling nazi- but I interpret your statement as 'roles'. Content (what players do inside of a world) and classes/specs (the 'tool', or, how players interact with the world) should be considered simultaneously, not with one as an afterthought. I realize how my initial statement reads- my point being that if you look at any class-based MMO, if you divvy up the total number of specs available, then divvy up how content is organized by group, you will notice that the ratios don't match. This is clearly a design flaw by developpers that is only too easy to not overlook.

It's fine to propose things.  For instance, the US president has proposed superior health care that will be systemically less expensive, without addressing the basic reasons that health care  is expensive.  You're doing the same.  "We're going to balance all content for every possible group'.  It's not realistic as soon as you have more than maybe five possible group makeups.

You've missed skill in your formula. More skilled players, assuming their teammates skill is equal, will have more health or ability remaining in your formula.

   -No, skill is irrelivent. As a developper I *cannot* factor the human element into design.

Now I am not trying to take this sentence out of context but it's extremely hard.  First of all, have you played games that have different difficulty levels?  That's an example of factoring skill into game design.  It's really amazing that you propose to balance all content for 1000's of different group make ups, but then throw your hands in the air in denial when it's suggested that you take different player's skill levels into account.  Seriously, are you joking?

 

I can offer options to players that will be easy to pickup, but hard to master, and thus, require skill to perfect, but I cannot do anything but guess at how an avatar will be played. Thus, I must ignore skill as a variant, and assume that *all things being equal*, I have balance despite difference.

This statement sounds exactly like what a game designer who has released an unbalanced pile of dung on the masses would say.  I mean, EXACTLY.  "How were we to know that players would use that spell like that?"  As soon as you start saying "all things being equal" you're fired.  Here in the real world, all things are not equal, and any game designer with a bit of foresight or experience playing games realizes this.  You're not firmly entrenched in the head in the sand school of game design.

It may be simple statistics, but it is simply not true. Take the original EQ for example. There were approximately four times as many warriors as their were shadowknights, yet in most instances the shadowknights were a superior class.

   -It is, quite simply, true. Statistics don't lie when properly interpretted. If you assume a signicantly large playerbase, you will have all variance approach 0.

You don't have any evidence of this.   In which game have player populations been equal across races and classes?  (Four spelling errors in that sentence).  Without infinite research you're not going to be able to determine what things will balance your player base.  You're talking about freezing your game for what two years? to balance so that each class is equally appealing to your target audience.  Guess what happens in those two years?  Your target audience changes. And then say you want to release a free expansion - two more years of testing.  Good luck with that.

Where number changes take place is when the community recognizes one option being statistically superior to another, or, in your example, aestetically (meaning, more pleasing) than another. As a developper, again, I can employ ideas to each class that make them equally appealing.

You won't have the control over it that you think you will.  As per above.

   -I don't browse these forums to partake in flame wars. Your statement is assumptive, and incorrect.

Your statement showed a general ignorance  as to why class balancing is done and why flavor of the months are created.  If you prefer I can say "You haven't played very many MMO's or you are displaying  a willful inability to internalize the evidence in front of you" if that makes you feel better.

   -Class balancing is for correcting unseen imbalance- player or environment. 

Do you mean to say  unforeseen?  Why would anyone balance things they can't see?  Unforeseen imbalance is due to lack of testing.

I'm offerring a seperate usage for the term, provided, again, developpers remain inside of acceptable confidence intervals. This knowledge comes from a more old-school DM approach.

Which game did you DM where you had pools of say 35 character classes to draw your confidence intervals from?  And what are your confidence intervals?  You're starting to come off as someone who throws terms around without understand their relevance or even their meaning.

   -The argument *for* hybrids is the one you provided. And you're absolutely right. Being a hybrid gives more 'options' to the player, provided, and this is where I believe the hangup lies, that the player is open to using all available options. If an individual plays a hybrid in a particular manner, and groups consistently ask for another manner, the player ends up playing solo (or disgruntled in the group). I examine the negatives involved, and how to render them extinct. To examine the positives to being a hybrid would do nothing to better the senario of solo vs. group play. The positives are apparent and work. The negatives, obviously, do not.

Yes, but you never actually offered any convincing evidence that hybrid classes have anything to do with solo play.  In EQ for example, the Wizard and the Ranger were excellent solo classes, and they were both damage dealers.  Whereas the paladins were generaly only able to solo in certain scenarios (against undead).  If you rank the reasons that people solo class imbalance would be at the very bottom of the list.  Time constraints and social constraints are probably the top two by far.  People who like to solo choose solo classes.  You've got the cause and effect totally reversed here.

   -My post examines a more insightful development of classes.

You're certainly a cocky SOB, I'll give you that.  Your post does have some insightful ideas, but those are outweighed by some naive misconceptions and impractical solutions.  You need to base your ideas in a more thorough understanding of game design (in the case of class balancing) and testing (in the case of proposing balancing all content against all possible group combinations) if you want your ideas to be considered seriously.

Also, thank you for taking the time to read through my marathon of a post :)

Thank you for responding.

@grimfall:

My point is there are people who don't like to group at all, ever. The only time they group is to get gear to make soloing more fun.

   - Correct. Talking about the pure solo'ist or the pure group'er is pointless. They will do their thing regardless. I can only attempt to make grouping or soloing more appealling to my 'swing' gamer.

It's fine to propose things. For instance, the US president has proposed superior health care that will be systemically less expensive, without addressing the basic reasons that health care is expensive. You're doing the same. "We're going to balance all content for every possible group'. It's not realistic as soon as you have more than maybe five possible group makeups.

   - I am struggling with your metaphor here and I am not sure I follow your last statement. I can't change the problem, but as a developper I can assist it. Grouping takes coordination and a willingness to lead on someone's behalf ('cost'?). I cannot change this facet of the social interaction. I can however offer more streamlined options by the grouper for the grouper in terms of class/spec breakdowns vs. group blessed trinity breakdowns (hopefully reducing the 'cost'). Hopefully my thought was clearly expressed and yours was correctly interpretted.

Now I am not trying to take this sentence out of context but it's extremely hard. First of all, have you played games that have different difficulty levels? That's an example of factoring skill into game design. It's really amazing that you propose to balance all content for 1000's of different group make ups, but then throw your hands in the air in denial when it's suggested that you take different player's skill levels into account. Seriously, are you joking?

   - Skill is the common denominator. Therefor, it cancels itself out. If you and I are *of equal skill*, then it is not a factor. I can try to impliment a system that will allow skill to shine, again with an easy to pick up but hard to master design. But if 2 or 3 or a group of players are *of equal skill*, it is not a factor. If I were to, instead, suggest that each class/spec had abilities or gear that allowed themselves to compromise their lack of skill, then I would be in denial. As far as balancing a game across classes/specs but also groupings of classes/specs, that's where spreadsheets and statistics come into heavy play. In the 'real world', it's not possible to get a perfect 100:100 ratio across the board for all sizes of groups and all forms of group makeups, but it is possible to establish a 5% acceptable limit that would keep 100, 1000 or 1000000 different breakdowns inside of a proposed 95:100 ratio.

This statement sounds exactly like what a game designer who has released an unbalanced pile of dung on the masses would say. I mean, EXACTLY. "How were we to know that players would use that spell like that?" As soon as you start saying "all things being equal" you're fired. Here in the real world, all things are not equal, and any game designer with a bit of foresight or experience playing games realizes this. You're not firmly entrenched in the head in the sand school of game design.

   - Nowhere did I suggest that development shouldn't be extensive or pre-tested. It's a question of properly balancing to allow skill to be the determining factor. As a designer I don't *want* to make a game that allows someone of lesser skill to beat someone of greater skill. I want to reward the individual who deserves it. American football- the rules are the same for both sides, yes? Who wins? The better team ('on any given sunday' applies). The same holds true for any game: the rules are set, so that, again *all things being equal* (skill, gear, who gets the jump on who yada yada), it ends in a draw. If someone gets first blood, or has better gear, or more skill, clearly these are all factors that will establish themselves as the winner.

You don't have any evidence of this. In which game have player populations been equal across races and classes? (Four spelling errors in that sentence). Without infinite research you're not going to be able to determine what things will balance your player base. You're talking about freezing your game for what two years? to balance so that each class is equally appealing to your target audience. Guess what happens in those two years? Your target audience changes. And then say you want to release a free expansion - two more years of testing. Good luck with that.

   - I have statistical knowledge. I'm not a lead game developper and therefor do not have access to any sort of behind-the-scenes, truth-about-our-numbers spreadsheet. Populations and interests will always be in flux, this is clear! I'm talking about the options. If I line up values of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and ask 1000 people to pick a number, you will notice each number being picked more or less equally. Increase your sample size, decrease your variance. Things that are harder to grasp are the ones that fall outside conventional number-crunching. Who enjoys what race, what playstyle etc. I understand the point you're getting at. Those are all aspects that need to be weighed and researched, absolutely. The research is readily available if you consider current 3rd party graphs on breakdowns across all games with 'insert class here' and 'insert race here' being your search modifiers/criteria. And these numbers vary over time, absolutely. Research is never complete, it's ongoing.

You won't have the control over it that you think you will. As per above.

   - Not entirely no. But if balance is my first priority, I doubt that (if I were a lead dev) I couldn't make sound, quick, effective adjustments to influence the balance where necessary. Will it be perfect? Never. Can it be close enough? Possible and doable.

Your statement showed a general ignorance as to why class balancing is done and why flavor of the months are created. If you prefer I can say "You haven't played very many MMO's or you are displaying a willful inability to internalize the evidence in front of you" if that makes you feel better.

   - I know why class balancing is done, and offered in my response how it could be further used. Such was my choice in using the term. Nowhere did I display lack of this knowledge, and nowhere did I improperly apply 'class' and 'balance' to any train of logic.

Do you mean to say unforeseen? Why would anyone balance things they can't see? Unforeseen imbalance is due to lack of testing.

   - Unforseen or unseen. Things that were not apparent that become so. Either through lack of testing, or exposed proof. We're splitting hairs on things for sure now :)

Which game did you DM where you had pools of say 35 character classes to draw your confidence intervals from? And what are your confidence intervals? You're starting to come off as someone who throws terms around without understand their relevance or even their meaning.

   - In another post I claim 'less is more'. 35 character classes, hell 20 classes, for me, is too much. I've always been a limiter by nature. Anyhow, my DM reference alludes to when a player hits an abnormal string of bad luck, or too much positive luck... there's a need to artificially 'push things along' to maintain balance... be it fudging a roll so their character misses instead of critically hits or vice versa. My usage of 'confidence interval' I loosely apply to being anything outside my targetted zone of a 100:100 ratio. My offer of a 5% allowance when balancing stats and abilities between classes is my 'acceptable boundary'.

Yes, but you never actually offered any convincing evidence that hybrid classes have anything to do with solo play. In EQ for example, the Wizard and the Ranger were excellent solo classes, and they were both damage dealers. Whereas the paladins were generaly only able to solo in certain scenarios (against undead). If you rank the reasons that people solo class imbalance would be at the very bottom of the list. Time constraints and social constraints are probably the top two by far. People who like to solo choose solo classes. You've got the cause and effect totally reversed here.

   - I am examining, again, from a character perspective of things. The content perspective would be another issue entirely. I examine that if you have a group of 4 purebreds and 1 hybrid, the hybrid will be forced into whatever purebred role is lacking. In the situation that I'm someone who enjoys grouping, but hates tanking (as an example), but the only groups I can find want me as a tank, I will either end up doing my own thing out of frustration or bend but be disgruntled. Again, to examine content or time or social implications would be seperate posts. I examined just the one angle involved, preferring to fully develop one angle, then another, then another if the need arise. (No rock unturned).

You're certainly a cocky SOB, I'll give you that. Your post does have some insightful ideas, but those are outweighed by some naive misconceptions and impractical solutions. You need to base your ideas in a more thorough understanding of game design (in the case of class balancing) and testing (in the case of proposing balancing all content against all possible group combinations) if you want your ideas to be considered seriously.

   - Again, I am not here for flamewars and do not promote namecalling. Confidence might come off as arrogance, but that I cannot control. My ideas are thought out and researched- heavily so. Both internally and with a group of heavy-number-crunching coworkers, if justification is needed. We span a wide range of MMOs with knowledge dating 8+ years back to mere months in MMO exposure. I'm not sure a better discussion pool could be readily had. Perhaps my thoughts aren't well conveyed through the forum medium? Perhaps there's a bias when writing/reading them?

Again, sorry for the mammoth. Enjoy!

I like doing whatever sounds fun at that time... Be it PvE/PvP/Solo/Group/Raid/Craft/Chat.