| 311 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
10/25/10 4:41:14 PM#81
It boggles my mind that people insist on soloing through a genre that by its very nature is muliplayer cooperative. Honestly, if you're just going to solo, why not play something like Oblivion? It'll give you a far better solo experience than a MMORPG can ever hope to achieve. <3 |
|
|
Asheram
 Elite Member
Joined: 3/24/10
What happens when you get 5 stars do you get a cookie? ;) |
10/25/10 4:46:33 PM#82
Originally posted by dreamscaper It boggles my mind that people that play multiplayer games insist on not knowing the nature of people that everyone will not have the same opinions,tastes,motivations or playstyles as their own. |
|
10/25/10 4:48:07 PM#83
Asheram, your sig. It's big. |
|
|
10/25/10 4:48:46 PM#84
Originally posted by Rockgod99 Why not? In the end it only helps the game retain subs, even with that though I wouldn't say I have a problem with the way most games handle endgame it's just a part of the game I don't get to see. |
|
|
MimiEZ
 Novice Member
Joined: 9/17/10
You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself. -Ricky Nelson |
10/25/10 5:10:19 PM#85
Originally posted by dreamscaper
MMO doesn't equal cooperation, in just equals other people around. Some people, like me, like to work in groups, work alone, or just join a crowd listening to what is going on, then jumping in when something interesting is going on. People seem to think solo means not socializing, no it just means being able to be done on its own. I think MMO's need more soloable endgame, however, they shouldn't be solo dungeons. Adding some soloable content shouldn't equal not being able to workin groups. Some things they could do: -More intricate crafting, crafting has always been a social solo thing. -Add more bosses in the world that can be soloable. -Add more minigames. Racing, hunting, etc...Allows people still compete with eachother, yet not requiring a group. These minigames can be timed events (like Stranglethorn fishing extraveganza in wow) or a do whenever you want thing (like an early "quest" in Lego Universe has you race, it then ranks you with others who do that, you can then do it again whenever you want). -Further customization options at top levels. One thing people were super excited about in wow was Path of the Titans, which would allow someone at top level to further be able to custimize your character outside of gear choice. The only problem I see with adding more solo content for a companies perspective is: Is it worth it? I guess many companies don't think it is at this point.
|
|
10/25/10 5:11:38 PM#86
Originally posted by Asheram
It has nothing to do at all with any of that. Do you also play puzzle games for their immersive story? <3 |
|
|
10/25/10 5:13:19 PM#87
Originally posted by donkeys Everyone has an end-game. The only question is at what point do you reach it. Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. |
|
|
10/25/10 5:31:24 PM#88
I find it a bit silly that people think MMO gamers lump easily into discrete groups of "soloer", "grouper", "pvper" and perhaps "raider". In reality, many players enjoy more than one of these groups and some enjoy all of them. I think a good game allows players to have fun things to do solo, in a group, pvping, and perhaps raiding (raiding is a bit questionable to me, only because it isn't actually that popular in games), without requiring that they devote their life to the game. This means having content that is solo-friendly, group-friendly, and pvp-friendly. Some overlap between these can exist of course (GW2 has a group-friendly and solo-friendly overlap, for instance). This also means that either gear shouldn't be hard to get at all, or there shouldn't be a lot of different kinds of gear for each activity (pvp and pve gear in WoW makes doing both have way too much grindy hassle). The vast majority of people that like to do things solo also enjoy doing things in groups. People should remember that. Having solo-friendly stuff just means you don't HAVE to get a group to have fun, which is good because preparing to have fun is not fun. |
|
|
10/25/10 5:31:31 PM#89
Originally posted by dreamscaper Really?
Because I played an MMO in 1994 called Neverwinter Nights on AOL that was hardly multiplayer cooperative. That being, the greatest amount of content was certainly soloable. I played another in 1997 called Ultima Online, and I hardly remember standing at the Brit Bank hollering out "LFG Destard! Need healer and tank!!!" I didnt play Meridian 59 long enough to get to end game, but i don't recall it being multiplayer cooperative (though i could be wrong with this). If memory serves, these are considered the first three graphical MMOs.. Can these games have group oriented content? of course, but they hardly demand it by their very nature.
/shrug |
|
|
10/25/10 5:32:53 PM#90
Originally posted by Gutlard Yeah, exactly. It's not asking the company to reinvent their wheel -- it's asking them to avoid cutting their wheel in half after players have sunk 200 hours into the game. |
|
|
10/25/10 5:33:13 PM#91
Originally posted by dreamscaper What boggles my mind is that you actually think that a MMO should force evey player to play in a group at all times. That there should be no content for solo play at all. Or the fact that there is a big difference in game design from Oblivion and a MMO. To me the issue is content options. Not all group or all solo. There should be a large amount of content for both play styles. Many MMO's today have a large amount of solo while leveling. Some grouping while leveling. But all group at end game for dev created content. Personally I don't care about the raid gear while soloing. If I want the gear I will raid. But I understand that there are thousands if not millions that don't have the RL time to run raids. These players are social. The do join guilds and run group quests. But they also would like a solo option for progression. Just content to do when you want for rewards that are better than basic level cap gear, but no where near the raid gear. Some kind of carrot for other than raid content. So I would like to see raids, groups, small groups and solo content for end game. Not all one way or the other. “How many people long for that "past, simpler, and better world," I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?” |
|
|
Asheram
Elite Member
Joined: 3/24/10
What happens when you get 5 stars do you get a cookie? ;) |
10/25/10 5:33:20 PM#92
Originally posted by dreamscaper It has everything to do with that otherwise you wouldnt care why other people play the game the way they do and what if I do play puzzle games for their immersive story why does it matter to you so much that it leaves your mind boggled? MMORPG's have both solo and group content so by its very nature it is multiplayer with co-operative opportunities. |
|
10/25/10 5:46:29 PM#93
Tough question. Problem if you do allow it there will be a lot of complaints from those who raid.They are not just satisfied that they can raid and have a chance at the good loot but that others should not get it any other way. They will make a lot of noise. I group a lot am an old EQer but I solo too these days so I can see it from both sides of the spectrum.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
|
10/25/10 5:54:40 PM#94
In a roleplaying game (You know, the "RPG" part of MMORPG), I'd like to have choices. Grouping and solo'ing. I want both. I mean, come on. It's not like we walk around in groups all day in real life. Just to give an example. I'm time-stressed a lot of times, just wanting to log in and do stuff, rather than waste time finding a group for a certain task (And possibly to see that group fail due to drama). Other times I embrace it. Now, loot-wise, I don't see how the both should be on-par with one another. Well, other than any solo'ing for gear should take considerably longer than, say, raiding for it? I don't know.
Lastly, anyone seeing how an MMO should only be about grouping is just silly. It's the social interaction that really counts, and in all MMO's that can be done without forming a group. "Skill has not cool downed!" |
|
|
10/25/10 5:57:13 PM#95
Endgame soloers should have an endgame and at least in WoW, they do have an endgame. It's called daily quests. Do I think that soloers should have some sort of an alternate path to gear like the kind that players get from 5-mans and raids? No chance.
Outside of that, MMORPGs aren't really games I believe are meant to be played entirely solo, and as a result, a solo endgame is usually what the players make of it. Depending on the game, there are various reasons for a soloer to keep playing his or her max level toon given anything from obtaining all master level spells in EQ2 to making money with WoW dailies to decorating a house in UO or SWG. |
|
|
10/25/10 6:02:32 PM#96
I actually believe ArenaNet is working on it and doing it well. The Mists - End game RvRvR (solo friendly) Group based Arenas - Group based PvP End Game Raids - Group based PVE End Game Personal Story - Solo Based PVE End Game The more solo content the better, after all people might want to play alone from time to time. |
|
|
10/25/10 6:10:13 PM#97
Originally posted by Rivalen From everything I've read, they have zero raids. There will be group-based dungeons, and there will be solo/group PvE opne world dynamic events. No raiding in the traditional sense, and frankly good riddance -- it's a ridiculously time-consuming content to make and only services a small percentage of the population. |
|
|
10/25/10 6:11:13 PM#98
Originally posted by Rockgod99 Solo players should have their own endgame. People who want to work with others, min/max their gear and damage, and take the time too strategize should have their own endgame. Of course, there will always be people who want everything handed to them with little to know idea how they even are supposed to play their class, or know their role. I often wonder if it would be a nice idea to make endgame content a purchaseable kit (like content on LOTRO) so that at least people who take things a bit less casually can have their own endgame. That way that shitty excuse for paying the same sub a month doesn't make them feel entitled to get handed everything. |
|
|
10/25/10 6:15:32 PM#99
Originally posted by Drachasor I guess i should have been more precise. GW2 Group Based PVE End Game: - Group based instanced dungeons - Open World Public Boss Fights
I actually read that there might be other group content tied to the personal stories but let's wait and see. Some kind of Guild Instanced Story would be preety nice. |
|
|
10/25/10 6:17:07 PM#100
If daily quests are remotely good end-game content, then we need end-game content like we need a hole in the head. Daily quests are an extremely stupid grind, barely more interesting than just grinding mobs. Honestly, WoW's endgame leaves a lot to be desired. The game dissolves into a very repetitive grind in general, but Daily Quests are definitely the worst "end-game" grind in the game.
Why not? There's really no good reason not to provide for this, and have appropriately challenging content if you happen to be soloing (though going with GW2's system of dynamically scaling content is probably the way to go).
You could say the same basic thing about group content. There's no particularly reason why someone who is having trouble finding a group should be punished in the game. Frankly, it is a BAD system. Holy Trinity combat makes the whole grouping problem much worse, since it requires that groups have particular compositions (which would lead to grouping problems even if the population played in the exact right ratio...which it doesn't). Forcing grouping for fun/meaningful content is a terrible thing to do, especially when you have systems that make grouping difficult in one form or another. Amusing, WoW attempts to solve this with the Group Finder, and ends up making grouping a terrible experience and hence have yet another mechanic that hurts the community. |
|
.jpg){kind=avatar}
