Originally posted by Silvermink

In my experience, group only areas and group only quest chains are exactly what solo'ers call forced grouping. You can't have group only content without someone wanting to do it solo.

 

As for elite or group versions of solo content, it becomes very difficult to find people to voluntarily do content that is harder than can be done solo. Especially if the rewards aren't better (not just exp.)

IMO, I don't think it has much to do with whether the rewards are better.  DDO's loot was clearly better when you ran a group, esp. when you ran elite, but they still eventually had to cave to setting up solo versions of their instances.  CoX clearly has faster advancement when you're in a group.  LotRO's best gear is still in full fellowship and raid instances. 

CoX was probably, by a pretty good margin, the easiest game for me to get groups going.  Part of this, I suspect, is the reward; quick xp gain.  But I think there's alot more.

1.  Relatively short content:  15-20 minutes per mission

2.  Travel Powers:  You could get to any mission anywhere from anywhere in 10 minutes or less, or better yet, you could be teleported instantly

3.  Sidekick options:  bring everyone up to compatible combat level

Pretty sure I missed a few.

CoX probably has the biggest percentage of solo-able content of any MMO to date via scalability, yet lots of people forego that soloing opportunity to group.  And they don't have to entice people with uber-epeen goodies to do it.

Originally posted by Hyanmen

And by doing that, he will dictate everyone else's playstyle as well. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Hardly.  The only thing that dictates the availability of any particular playstyle is how many paying subscriptions they bring to the table.  The most profitable playstyles win.  Like it or not, soloing is far more popular than grouping.

Originally posted by Hyanmen

Just being able to solo won't do that, but when the tip changes towards soloers then everyone solos. If the tip scaled towards grouping, everyone groups. Having solo or grouping feature alone won't do anything, but how it's set up and which playstyle gets more attention from the devs.

Then apparently there are lots of people who DON'T WANT TO GROUP!  You sit around and say people have a right to choose their own playstyle, then you get mad when people do!  You're just upset that the majority of people make a choice that you don't like.

People who want to group are going to group regardless of how easy or hard it is to solo.  People who opt to solo are people who aren't choosing to group in the first place!

Why do so many people have to explain this simple concept to you?

Originally posted by Teiman

 Soloers have killed the genre. It was a coop system with roleplaying, now is singleplayer game with a monlty fee, but as a singleplayer games the "MMO" part make so the game must be generic and trivial, there can't be world changes, etc..  so most MMORPG games are boring and pointless games, most RPG games are better at RP.

The genre is dead, a beatifull thing is DEAD, and we have to thanks the soloers. 

Then go do something else and shut the hell up.  Why do you people feel the need to continually whine about things you acknowledge you don't even enjoy?  You people need lives.

Originally posted by Halpot

We've seen an abundance of these threads crop up recently, and they're all discussing the same thing. Please use this thread instead of making a new one.

Thank you. 

+10,000 internets for this sticky.

I suggest a few more for sticky consideration...

1. Casual vs. Hardcore
2. Sandbox vs. Theme Park
3. WoW ruined the MMORPG genre
4. WoW improved the MMORPG genre.

These stickies would reduce the massive amounts of clutter in the general forum significantly. Thank you Halpot.

on topic, I'm for both. WoW's system is great for causal gamers, EQ and FFXI are great for those who want more group specific. Not all MMORPGs need to conform to one system, one genre, one way.

We will end up with about ten extra stickies if we do all the popular threads. Yes many issues are repeated. That is the nature of a forum, not a problem.

Recently one group verses solo thread (which was not shut down) mysteriously stopped accepting new posts. Maybe the admins will wise up and that will happen here too. :)

Hiho people

Im looking for a f2p/b2p mmorpg that is more turned to solo play.

suggestions??

never mind

If I really wanted the solo game experience then I would just play a single player game which I do enjoy but when I play mmos, I'm there for the multiplayer experience. I see no reason why mmos should cater to soloers and I see no reason why mmos should cater to those who enjoy group play. There needs to be a happy medium between the two. I say mmos need to concentrate on small group content. No more should we see 35 man raids or even 12. I also think mmos should add some solo content to a certain degree. I mean, how horrible can it be to work together as a team to accomplish goals together. if some are that anti-social then why even bother ?

Originally posted by Lansid

Originally posted by Halpot

We've seen an abundance of these threads crop up recently, and they're all discussing the same thing. Please use this thread instead of making a new one.

Thank you. 

+10,000 internets for this sticky.

I suggest a few more for sticky consideration...

1. Casual vs. Hardcore
2. Sandbox vs. Theme Park
3. WoW ruined the MMORPG genre
4. WoW improved the MMORPG genre.

These stickies would reduce the massive amounts of clutter in the general forum significantly. Thank you Halpot.

on topic, I'm for both. WoW's system is great for causal gamers, EQ and FFXI are great for those who want more group specific. Not all MMORPGs need to conform to one system, one genre, one way.

You forgot: 

5.  PVE wussy carebears vs. manly PVP guys who are better gamers and get all the chicks

Originally posted by SaintViktor

If I really wanted the solo game experience then I would just play a single player game which I do enjoy but when I play mmos, I'm there for the multiplayer experience. I see no reason why mmos should cater to soloers and I see no reason why mmos should cater to those who enjoy group play. There needs to be a happy medium between the two. I say mmos need to concentrate on small group content. No more should we see 35 man raids or even 12. I also think mmos should add some solo content to a certain degree. I mean, how horrible can it be to work together as a team to accomplish goals together. if some are that anti-social then why even bother ?

Good, I'm glad to know why *YOU* are there.  You don't speak for anyone else.  The fact is, most people do solo at least part of the time, they are apparently playing MMOs for a different reason than you, but their reason is no less valid than yours.  MMOs exist to make money and in order to make money, they need to cater to the most popular gameplay mediums in the marketplace.  That doesn't mean they ought to *ONLY* cater to those, but if the majority of players are solers, the majority of content will be solo.  At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is how many people are plunking down their $15 a month so the developers can eat.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by SaintViktor

If I really wanted the solo game experience then I would just play a single player game which I do enjoy but when I play mmos, I'm there for the multiplayer experience. I see no reason why mmos should cater to soloers and I see no reason why mmos should cater to those who enjoy group play. There needs to be a happy medium between the two. I say mmos need to concentrate on small group content. No more should we see 35 man raids or even 12. I also think mmos should add some solo content to a certain degree. I mean, how horrible can it be to work together as a team to accomplish goals together. if some are that anti-social then why even bother ?

 

Good, I'm glad to know why *YOU* are there.  You don't speak for anyone else.  The fact is, most people do solo at least part of the time, they are apparently playing MMOs for a different reason than you, but their reason is no less valid than yours.  MMOs exist to make money and in order to make money, they need to cater to the most popular gameplay mediums in the marketplace.  That doesn't mean they ought to *ONLY* cater to those, but if the majority of players are solers, the majority of content will be solo.  At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is how many people are plunking down their $15 a month so the developers can eat.

I'm no proponent of forced grouping, and I agree that the solo content makes perfect business sense.  That's why I support the ability to solo, but at some point, player interaction really should be encouraged in some way.  From a business perspective, there's nothing wrong with a player having the ability to solo his or her way to the level cap, but players should not be able to expect to solo everything, getting into the same content and rewards that raiders and players who do the heroic content.  History has shown us players will almost always take the path of least resistance (why there's so few groups in MMORPGs these days), and if they can solo it without the percieved "inconvenience" of having to find other players to help them, they will do so.  Unless the game in question is EVE, Pre-CU SWG, Ryzom, or any other sandbox, there's little in the way of player interaction other than in groups of  some form whether it be groups of a husband and wife, brother and sister, best friends, guild groups, or full on PUGs.

Originally posted by SuperXero89

I'm no proponent of forced grouping, and I agree that the solo content makes perfect business sense.  That's why I support the ability to solo, but at some point, player interaction really should be encouraged in some way.  From a business perspective, there's nothing wrong with a player having the ability to solo his or her way to the level cap, but players should not be able to expect to solo everything, getting into the same content and rewards that raiders and players who do the heroic content.  History has shown us players will almost always take the path of least resistance (why there's so few groups in MMORPGs these days), and if they can solo it without the percieved "inconvenience" of having to find other players to help them, they will do so.  Unless the game in question is EVE, Pre-CU SWG, Ryzom, or any other sandbox, there's little in the way of player interaction other than in groups of  some form whether it be groups of a husband and wife, brother and sister, best friends, guild groups, or full on PUGs. 

A couple of things.  First, interaction is not limited to grouping by any means, the economy of most games is based on player interaction, you buy and sell things to other players and that runs the economy.  There are all kinds of ways to interact with other people without having to clump together and face common battles.  Secondly, lots of solo players like myself don't raid.  Ever.  therefore, raid gear is entirely irrelevant to us, I couldn't care less if I ever get it because I'll never use it.  However, all other aspects of the game should be available to anyone who plays the game, we're all paying the same subscription fee, we deserve equivalent treatment.  I don't buy that people will take the path of least resistance automatically, the reason there are so few groupers is because grouping in virtually all MMOs has been made such a pain in the ass by game mechanics and by the really rotten communities that most MMOs have.  When the only people you typically group with are self-centered assholes, why would you want to group with them?

Those who want to group can group, nobody is stopping them.  However, they accept the good and the bad that goes along with grouping as a consequence of their playstyle choice.  They picked it, they deal with it.  If they don't like it, they can make another choice.  I've always advocated changing the mechanics to make grouping technically easier and faster but that's not going to change human nature or bad communities.  When most games create self-centered idiots, it's no wonder that's what most games are filled with.

Originally posted by Cephus404

A couple of things.  First, interaction is not limited to grouping by any means, the economy of most games is based on player interaction, you buy and sell things to other players and that runs the economy.  There are all kinds of ways to interact with other people without having to clump together and face common battles.  Secondly, lots of solo players like myself don't raid.  Ever.  therefore, raid gear is entirely irrelevant to us, I couldn't care less if I ever get it because I'll never use it.  However, all other aspects of the game should be available to anyone who plays the game, we're all paying the same subscription fee, we deserve equivalent treatment.  I don't buy that people will take the path of least resistance automatically, the reason there are so few groupers is because grouping in virtually all MMOs has been made such a pain in the ass by game mechanics and by the really rotten communities that most MMOs have.  When the only people you typically group with are self-centered assholes, why would you want to group with them?

Those who want to group can group, nobody is stopping them.  However, they accept the good and the bad that goes along with grouping as a consequence of their playstyle choice.  They picked it, they deal with it.  If they don't like it, they can make another choice.  I've always advocated changing the mechanics to make grouping technically easier and faster but that's not going to change human nature or bad communities.  When most games create self-centered idiots, it's no wonder that's what most games are filled with.

But yet, this is contradictory. MMORPGs that nigh require grouping have the absolute best communities versus those that are solo-fests. The mechanics of 'forced grouping' are one of a few 'necessary evil's towards making a better community and thus, a better gameplay experience in that vein. MMORPGs that promote soloing allow the player to begin a more selfish, introspected playstyle, which does not translate well to a group, or social interaction, experience. These sorts of games are very much ridden with poor communities, because the *mechanics are the enabler*.

Simply look at postings by pro-soloers: what's the attitude? More often than not, it's 'i've got zero desire to compromise self for a collective'. This is applied to both game mechanics as well as interactions. They are one and the same in this regard. Not to say that pro-groupers don't incur wrath on behalf of solo'ers for their statements either, but where community is concerned, those interactions are a must.

People take the path of least resistance unless spurred by extenuating factors: an explicit desire to apply a higher degree to a challenge already present, etc. We don't do more than we need to do. 'It's always in the last place you look'... because once you're done, there's no need to go further. Efficiency in today's society takes precedence over effectiveness- and yes, there's a caveat between the two.

Equal does not mean identical. Dragons, in any universe, are mystical, magical creatures that flatten towns. To take them out in a solo environment does little for a game, much less its players. Players yearn for the accomplishment of the impossible. When you make the impossible possible, what else is there to accomplish? Give monsters more hp, and players more dps? Alert! Holding patterns! Certain content can and should remain in the hands of group-only players. Some things lose their perspective, and meaning, when 'identical' senarios are drafted to ensure an 'equal' play experience for the gamer. (Equally, content that is meaningful in a solo environment is completely worthless when a group tackles it, zerging it.)

What is needed, are routes of advancement that cater, individually, to each style. If you want to experience certain content, you must experience it inside of proper context. Now, you're incurring interaction between meta-mechanics of a game. Solo'ists looking to PUG to experience group content in proper context, and groupers who drop into a solo capacity to experience solo content in proper context.

Originally posted by pojung

But yet, this is contradictory. MMORPGs that nigh require grouping have the absolute best communities versus those that are solo-fests. The mechanics of 'forced grouping' are one of a few 'necessary evil's towards making a better community and thus, a better gameplay experience in that vein. MMORPGs that promote soloing allow the player to begin a more selfish, introspected playstyle, which does not translate well to a group, or social interaction, experience. These sorts of games are very much ridden with poor communities, because the *mechanics are the enabler*.

You're welcome to your opinion, that's not what I've found at all.  The problem with MMOs is that they all give rewards designed to help the individual, never the group.  There's no such thing as group XP, group gold, group gear or group weapons.  Every individual is working to improve their personal character, some do it on their own, some band together in little groups of people what use each other for individual reward.  Playing a co-dependent MMO isn't any better than being in a co-dependent relationship.  The idea that using other people to get something you cannot get on your own makes a better community is absurd.

Simply look at postings by pro-soloers: what's the attitude? More often than not, it's 'i've got zero desire to compromise self for a collective'. This is applied to both game mechanics as well as interactions. They are one and the same in this regard. Not to say that pro-groupers don't incur wrath on behalf of solo'ers for their statements either, but where community is concerned, those interactions are a must.

In fact, the pro-soloer attitude is usually: leave us alone and go do whatever you want.  I've never seen anyone argue that we ought to force groupers not to group, but the reverse is most certainly not true.  Groupers routinely argue that people ought to be forced to group whether they want to or not, that people who solo ought to get out of MMOs entirely, etc.  Without a doubt, groupers have been the most vocal assholes on MMORPG.com in just about every argument.

People take the path of least resistance unless spurred by extenuating factors: an explicit desire to apply a higher degree to a challenge already present, etc. We don't do more than we need to do. 'It's always in the last place you look'... because once you're done, there's no need to go further. Efficiency in today's society takes precedence over effectiveness- and yes, there's a caveat between the two.

So you're arguing against human nature then?  After all, *YOU* are not taking the path of least resistance, are you?  So that automatically makes you an expert on what everyone else does?

Equal does not mean identical. Dragons, in any universe, are mystical, magical creatures that flatten towns. To take them out in a solo environment does little for a game, much less its players. Players yearn for the accomplishment of the impossible. When you make the impossible possible, what else is there to accomplish? Give monsters more hp, and players more dps? Alert! Holding patterns! Certain content can and should remain in the hands of group-only players. Some things lose their perspective, and meaning, when 'identical' senarios are drafted to ensure an 'equal' play experience for the gamer. (Equally, content that is meaningful in a solo environment is completely worthless when a group tackles it, zerging it.)

Mythology is full of heroes who take on tremendous tasks on their own, that's why they're heroes.  Try again.

What is needed, are routes of advancement that cater, individually, to each style. If you want to experience certain content, you must experience it inside of proper context. Now, you're incurring interaction between meta-mechanics of a game. Solo'ists looking to PUG to experience group content in proper context, and groupers who drop into a solo capacity to experience solo content in proper context.

I'd have no problem giving different paths to advancement that are equivalent, yet cater to the strengths and weaknesses of the particular playstyle in question.  Neither should be inherently better than the other, both should allow access to the same rewards and similar content, etc.  If you want to argue for that, I'm on your side.  If you want to argue for artificial rewards built specifically to entice or bribe people to play one way instead of the other, you're on your own.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by SuperXero89

I'm no proponent of forced grouping, and I agree that the solo content makes perfect business sense.  That's why I support the ability to solo, but at some point, player interaction really should be encouraged in some way.  From a business perspective, there's nothing wrong with a player having the ability to solo his or her way to the level cap, but players should not be able to expect to solo everything, getting into the same content and rewards that raiders and players who do the heroic content.  History has shown us players will almost always take the path of least resistance (why there's so few groups in MMORPGs these days), and if they can solo it without the percieved "inconvenience" of having to find other players to help them, they will do so.  Unless the game in question is EVE, Pre-CU SWG, Ryzom, or any other sandbox, there's little in the way of player interaction other than in groups of  some form whether it be groups of a husband and wife, brother and sister, best friends, guild groups, or full on PUGs. 

A couple of things.  First, interaction is not limited to grouping by any means, the economy of most games is based on player interaction, you buy and sell things to other players and that runs the economy.  There are all kinds of ways to interact with other people without having to clump together and face common battles.  Secondly, lots of solo players like myself don't raid.  Ever.  therefore, raid gear is entirely irrelevant to us, I couldn't care less if I ever get it because I'll never use it.  However, all other aspects of the game should be available to anyone who plays the game, we're all paying the same subscription fee, we deserve equivalent treatment.  I don't buy that people will take the path of least resistance automatically, the reason there are so few groupers is because grouping in virtually all MMOs has been made such a pain in the ass by game mechanics and by the really rotten communities that most MMOs have.  When the only people you typically group with are self-centered assholes, why would you want to group with them?

Those who want to group can group, nobody is stopping them.  However, they accept the good and the bad that goes along with grouping as a consequence of their playstyle choice.  They picked it, they deal with it.  If they don't like it, they can make another choice.  I've always advocated changing the mechanics to make grouping technically easier and faster but that's not going to change human nature or bad communities.  When most games create self-centered idiots, it's no wonder that's what most games are filled with.

In theory, the economy is based off of player interaction, but in actual practice those days are long gone.   In the modern mainstream MMORPG, company created trading  zones such as EQ's bazaar or player ordained trade zones such as East Commonlands have fallen by the wayside in favor of auction houses where the only player "interaction" is when one guy puts up his magic breastplate for 1 copper less than the other guy.  What little selling that is done outside of the auction house consists in a lot of ways of selling raid loot, which many players have no use for or other odds and ends which aren't often found on the broker.  Such exchanges are brief and done so rarely that it hardly constitues worthy player interaction.

You say there are "all kinds of ways" to interact with people other than forming groups to whack on mobs, yet other than the economy example, you fail to list any of them.  I'm not talking about sandbox MMORPGs where yous it in a cantina to listen to some chick in a bikini play the Star Wars theme or a game like EVE where you do...well, whatever it is you do in that game.  I'm talking about modern day mainstream MMORPGs such as Warhammer, World of Warcraft, Everquest 2, Lord of the Rings Online, and so on.  All of the mainstream MMORPGs of today include a very central theme --- a focus on combat.  Sure, there's tradeskilling, but it's largely only done to improve an individual's abilities in a combat situation.  Guilds are formed and friends are made entirely on the basis of providing an easier experience within the game world, a game world which revolves around combat.

Next you say you never raid and so that gear has no meaning for you, which is understandable as I have a level 80 on EQ2, and spend my time leveling alts, helping my guild, or harvesting.   I've never cared for that style of play and probably never will.  I could care less about the raid gear as I'll never need it for any raids, and as such, I simply want the best gear I can get for my playstyle.  Seeing that my playstyle happens to be the kind that enjoys running heroic dungeons, I want the best gear I can get out of the heroic dungeons.  Once I've done that, I feel as if I've done all I can do on my character.  At first glance, we don't seem all that different in that regard, but I do believe there's a subtle difference between the two of us.  Interestingly enough, you say raid gear is irrelevant to you because you have no desire to ever see raid content then you say, "all other aspects of the game should be available to anyone who plays the game."  Now I can only take this to mean you feel like you are entitled to the same gear and achievements (both in-game and personal) that a player who enjoys heroic content should obtain, but not gear or content from a raid. This puzzles me.  Why is it ok to exclude soloers from the  raiding players who experience the content and reap the great rewards of the endgame raid zones, but not exclude soloers from content and gear available to players who put forth the time and effort into getting a group together to explore and defeat dungeon encounters?  It's nothing more than an additional style of play.  MMORPG players need to stop thinking in terms of two distinct playstyles of "hardcore and casual" and moreso into three which would be "soloer, heroic dungeon runner, and raider."  A hardcore player doesn't have to be a raider any more than a casual player who only plays 10 hours a week has to be a soloer.

Lastly, you may not believe the "path to least resistance" is a legitimate excuse for a lack of grouping, but you're speaking to an MMORPG player who has seen it first hand.  As an Everquest 2 player since launch, I can recall a time way back in November of 2004 where the game was litered with content that could only be conquered by a group.  Any solo content the game had was relegated to a handful of small areas in every zone which offered abysmal XP rates.   Groups were everywhere, camp spots were just as common as heroic dungeon runs, and any soloing was an absolute afterthought.  Years later, I come back to find my MMORPG of choice a vastly different game, and not all for the bad.  It's a lot easier to level up now, and groups rarely come (depending on server) along until you're at least in your 60s or 70s.  The entire direction of the game changed at some point to reflect more of a WoW-style MMORPG than an Everquest or Final Fantasy XI style game.  The reason is nearly every mob in every single overland area is now a solo con, and almost everything sans dungeon runs that required a group in the past, can now be done solo.  Players don't group anymore because they have no reason to group.  If they can walk up to a mob and kill it in 5 seconds, there's little reason to spend 10 minutes searching for a couple other players to come help him.  That said, it's not like there are zero groups these days.  The way EQ2 is set up, there are various quests and mobs which drop  highly desirable loot which absolutely requires a group to run a dungeon to obtain.  They don't group strickly for the fun of it.  They group because they want something, and that's the only way you're going to get players to group together.  In theory, any game with a group option supports grouping, but unless the game mechanics have methods in place where grouping is encouraged or required in some small way, players will rarely utilize it.  Quite frankly, it can be a pain in the behind to get a group running, but at least for me, when I do get a group going or when a full group invites me, I enjoy myself twice as much as I do when I'm soloing.  Maybe this is a lot of the reason why even on the servers which are more dead, as rare as they do come, I still get more groups from levels 1 - 59 while playing EQ2 than I do in a game like WoW gives me zero reason to ever form a group until I'm level 80.

EQ2 is, and I'm sure people will disagree, the perfect example of  a game with a marriage between group and solo content.  Countless players and many I know personally, rarely do anything within the game other than sit around the guild hall and craft all day or duo with their wife.  Others strickly quest with guild mates.  Some, like me, quest and run dungeons with anyone and everyone.  Some high level players in raid guilds or in family guilds join guild raids or pick up raids every night, and they all do this because they're doing what they enjoy.  
 

Your enjoyment of your solo content should not hinge on whether or not you can compete with a player who runs heroic dungeons because, as you say, you are a solo player.  Solo players should be content with their content just as group players should be content with their heroic content.  I've never once stated I believe I should be able to reap the same rewards as a hardcore raider just by running a dungeon, and you shouldn't advocate reaping the rewards for conquering a dungeon as a solo player.  

You preach that we should tolerate individuals with a different playstyle than our own, and I agree with that idea, but not with your delivery.  In your last paragraph you mention "Those who want to group can group, nobody is stopping them. However, they accept the good and the bad that goes along with grouping as a consequence of their playstyle choice. They picked it, they deal with it. If they don't like it, they can make another choice. "  I can't help but find this entirely hypocritical.  You want us to respect your playstyle, which I do, but you don't respect mine because you say if I don't like playing a game like WoW with no real groups until I'm at the level cap, I should simply seek to change my playstyle because my current playstyle kinda sucks.  I respect your ability to solo just as i respect a CoD's player to purchase a game in the CoD series simply to blow himself or herself up with grenades repeatedly.  It's different strokes for different folks, but your playstyle as you desire it, impeeds on my playstyle. You want equal rewards for everything no matter what style of play achieves it, yet you fail to reailze that if players have no incentive to group, no incentive to raid.  They won't group. They won't raid.  They will solo.  You will be happy.  I will not.  You will play.  I will not play.  Giving equal rewards for all playstyles is absolutely no way to achieve a balance in the varying styles of MMORPG gameplay as illustrated.  A game must strike a balance, giving players a reason to solo, a reason to group, and a reason to raid, in order to appeal to the largest portion of players out there.

You speak of soloers being the largest portion of the MMORPG playerbase, and I say that the term "soloer" is a relatively broad category.  Based off of my beliefs, many hardcore grouping advocates would possibly label me a soloer, but as you can see, our outlook on the MMORPG genre is quite different.  You make the statement saying the majority of players in the MMORPG genre support your style of play, which as proven, is entirely baseless, and by allowing players of any sort to obtain gear that was once hard to earn, requiring hours of teamwork and dedication, you may end up loosing more players than you gain.  Just ask SOE.  The SWG Jedi grind was removed with the NGE among vast amounts of other changes, and players revolted because all their hard work went down to toilet in favor of giving everyone instant and equal access to all the content. As a result, the game lost thousands of subscribers, and most likely will never reach the same level of popularity it once had.  No, equal access for everyone has been tried before and has never worked, and simply illustrates that not all soloers, or group players, or raiders think exactly alike.  There has to be content for everyone and a reason for doing said content over other content.  An MMORPG can never be cater to every MMORPG player out there, but it can only hope to have just enough aspects from all the various playstyles inside of it to keep the largest number of players subscribed.

Originally posted by SuperXero89

, I still get more groups from levels 1 - 59 while playing EQ2 than I do in a game like WoW gives me zero reason to ever form a group until I'm level 80.

 

Why wouldn't you want to overcome all the bosses, dungeons and the quests associated with them on your way to 80?  Is reaching max level your only goal?  When you played Fallout3, Dragon Age or Mass Effect, did you skip all the side quests and ONLY stick to the main story?  

Originally posted by Josher

Why wouldn't you want to overcome all the bosses, dungeons and the quests associated with them on your way to 80?  Is reaching max level your only goal?  When you played Fallout3, Dragon Age or Mass Effect, did you skip all the side quests and ONLY stick to the main story?  

 

What kind of end game do those single-player games provide?

MMOs don't work the same way as solo RPGs. You don't play to tell a story, so much. Certainly not when leveling alts.

Even LoTR - which should have been designed to simulate the trilogy's plot - doesn't have you destroy the One Ring.

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by SuperXero89

, I still get more groups from levels 1 - 59 while playing EQ2 than I do in a game like WoW gives me zero reason to ever form a group until I'm level 80.

 

Why wouldn't you want to overcome all the bosses, dungeons and the quests associated with them on your way to 80?  Is reaching max level your only goal?  When you played Fallout3, Dragon Age or Mass Effect, did you skip all the side quests and ONLY stick to the main story?  

 

In EQ2, it seems to me like the game is designed in such a way that gives players reasons to spend time in those dungeons on the way to 80 through quest updates for Heritage quests, other quests in general, and simply because group XP is a much more viable form of advancement through the lower levels than in WoW. 

In WoW, the dungeons give nice rewards, but there always seemed to be little reason to go into a dungeon other than for the dungeon rewards themselves as the XP was rather weak and the quests are relatively standard.  Also, given that WoW is around five years old now, if players don't have any reason to do them outside of pure character advancement, they're simply going to take the fastest route to 80.  When I play MMORPGs that have been out for awhile, my interest is certainly catching up with the crowd, as I like to play with people, but I'm certainly interested in deviating from the path a little bit by doing some of those dungeons.  Problem is, they're  so rarely done, at least on my server anyway.

Group play is for weak players! Lol! ^^v

As for me, I'm more of a solo player and I just join groups if they are required.