These "solo" mmorpgs today are failing hard, and are nothing more but online action games than any thing else, a company needs to try something different by focusing more on grouping and less on soloing, not getting rid of soloing all together, but maybe go the EQ route were there are more benefits to grouping than soloing.

mmorpgs today if you solo, you get more exp per mobs, no fighting over loot, a faster way to level, if you group up, there is a exp shared pentaty, fighting over loot, etc etc.

I dont like how mmorpgs are going these days, in SWTOR I can take on 6-7 mobs and kill almost everything in one to two hits, and really its not even SWTOR fault, its how most mmorpgs are today, how is that fun? This is how these "mmorpgs" of today are becoming boring. Trying to balance soloing and grouping in one game is proving too difficult for these companys today. One side will cry nerf, one side will cry buff. Generally the solo crowd wins and the mobs become easier.

What we need is a mmorpg whos focus is on grouping seeing as its an "RPG" and "Online". Did companys seem to forget that RPGS were almost always about partying even in single player rpgs.  So what we need is a mmorpg that focuses on grouping but gives soloing options, like a couple classes that excel at soloing, like EQ did with the beastlord and necromancer.

Anything forced is bad. But I think the key here is that grouping should be made as easy and convenient as possible. Grouping is more efficient in nearly every game out there, but usually its not worth the effort. Too much of a hassle.

I'll never play a game where my personal freedom is arbitrarily subsumed into the will of a group automatically.  Playing by committee is just about the last way I'd ever want to experience a game.  In short bursts, with defined objectives and a finite timespan, yes.  Otherwise, no thank you, comrade.

the answer is freedom.... force players to something will result only in fail... players want freedom to play the way they like

Your not forced thats why there are certain classes to fit your playstyle

DDO tried forced grouping.... and it failed pretty much as you have solo difficulty level and henchmens in the game now.

Also doing comparisons based on a Co-Op RPG (Which is what SWTOR is) is poor.  SWTOR is "heroic" according to BW and they don't do non-"heroic" things like server merges that their community is raging for many of the low pop servers.  Casuals are the major consumers in MMOs now, like it or hate it but thats that truth and is what companies will gear towrds.  Sure there might be some nitche MMOs that might be more focused on group play but that would be few and far.  GW2 was pretty smart by not forcing players to group in order to tackle content but more made it in their best intrest to work together, and Rift before that with Public grouping with Rifts.

Try guildwars 2 out, you can play the game solo but its alot better with other people. You dont get punished in anyway at all for having people around you but you get rewarded because if somone helps kill ur mob you still get the Xp and reward and so does the other person, It acualy promotes teamwork rather than disadvantaging people working together.

Wasn't that vanguards claim to fame.  Remind me again how did that do?  Tank and spank grouping is dead.

Originally posted by SoulOfRaziel

the answer is freedom.... force players to something will result only in fail... players want freedom to play the way they like

"Forced" grouping IS the way some players like. Those that dont are free to choose a game that better suits them.

The problem is that those who do dont have such freedom, because these games just aren't out there.

Originally posted by Venger

Wasn't that vanguards claim to fame.  Remind me again how did that do?  Tank and spank grouping is dead.

Vanguard crashed for completely unrelated reasons to this. If thats your argument, there are plenty of games that were perfectly soloable that have failed as well.

Originally posted by Venger

Wasn't that vanguards claim to fame.  Remind me again how did that do?  Tank and spank grouping is dead.

I played vanguard during release and no vanguard died for other reasons

1. Lack of Group content

2. You can still easily solo with any class

3. it had sooOOOOOO many bugs during release

4. It had a TON of performance issues

5. lack of end game content

Vanguard did not die due to grouping.

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by SoulOfRaziel

the answer is freedom.... force players to something will result only in fail... players want freedom to play the way they like

"Forced" grouping IS the way some players like. Those that dont are free to choose a game that better suits them.

The problem is that those who do dont have such freedom, because these games just aren't out there.

Agreed, and agreed. There are so many soloing mmorpgs out today its crazy. And none have been successful but thats a whole nother story.

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by SoulOfRaziel

the answer is freedom.... force players to something will result only in fail... players want freedom to play the way they like

"Forced" grouping IS the way some players like. Those that dont are free to choose a game that better suits them.

The problem is that those who do dont have such freedom, because these games just aren't out there.

 

Originally posted by Venger

Wasn't that vanguards claim to fame.  Remind me again how did that do?  Tank and spank grouping is dead.

Vanguard crashed for completely unrelated reasons to this. If thats your argument, there are plenty of games that were perfectly soloable that have failed as well.

The problem is, and no one has been able to solve it yet, that people want to be able to play there characters all the time.  In the original EQ unless you played one of a couple classes, after level 10 you were forced to group.   It was good because it created a stronger player community (probably only rivaled even today by EVE, which uses PVP ganking to force grouping), but you often did spend a lot of time trying to find a group if you didn't play a druid or necro.

The real problem was class balance, and not how the classes were powerful in comparison to eachother,but how many of each class there were.  For efficient exping, you need a slower and a cleric, so that had to be 32% of the player base, but in reality those classes made up about 15% of your player base, and the clerics probably only 7%.

There have been attempts to address this - make other classes better hearlers, make every class able to do every role, or multiple roles, but those games have also made every class able to solo well, so there was no forced grouping.

The way to design it in a level based game, I think, would be to do like Rift, where each class can play 2 roles (and half of the classes can tank, while the other half heal) and make it so you can solo content levels 1-10, then you need to find a buddy for 11 -20, and by 20+ make the PVE monsters require 3 to 5 people to defeat.

That still leaves the problem of not being able to PVE by yourself after level 10, though, which most people don't like.

It's simple, make a world where people WANT to group. A massive difference from being forced. If people want to group they won't solo.

If people feel like they are being forced to group they will hate the game. If a game encourages solo play people will get bored quickly. If a game makes a player want to group it will succeed.

Originally posted by grimfall

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by SoulOfRaziel

The problem is, and no one has been able to solve it yet, that people want to be able to play there characters all the time.  In the original EQ unless you played one of a couple classes, after level 10 you were forced to group.   It was good because it created a stronger player community (probably only rivaled even today by EVE, which uses PVP ganking to force grouping), but you often did spend a lot of time trying to find a group if you didn't play a druid or necro.

The real problem was class balance, and not how the classes were powerful in comparison to eachother,but how many of each class there were.  For efficient exping, you need a slower and a cleric, so that had to be 32% of the player base, but in reality those classes made up about 15% of your player base, and the clerics probably only 7%.

There have been attempts to address this - make other classes better hearlers, make every class able to do every role, or multiple roles, but those games have also made every class able to solo well, so there was no forced grouping.

The way to design it in a level based game, I think, would be to do like Rift, where each class can play 2 roles (and half of the classes can tank, while the other half heal) and make it so you can solo content levels 1-10, then you need to find a buddy for 11 -20, and by 20+ make the PVE monsters require 3 to 5 people to defeat.

That still leaves the problem of not being able to PVE by yourself after level 10, though, which most people don't like.

There is a solution. Make content that people dont need groups for. Content other than leveling. Leveling is really only one part of an MMORPG. Sure, maybe its the meat of the game, but that doesn't mean you need to have friends to enjoy the potatoes, carrots, and delicious butter rolls (I skipped lunch today ) of the game.

Developers tend not to put as much effort into keeping the player busy outside of killing monsters (or each other)

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by Venger

Wasn't that vanguards claim to fame.  Remind me again how did that do?  Tank and spank grouping is dead.

Vanguard crashed for completely unrelated reasons to this. If thats your argument, there are plenty of games that were perfectly soloable that have failed as well.

If I had a nickel, yes a single nickel, for every time I've heard (insert your point of view) had nothing to do with the down fall of (insert game) it was (insert this bug or that flaw).  I'd be pretty rich.

Static tank and spank grouping is dead.  Dynamic events that bring people together are the future.

Originally posted by nomatics856

These "solo" mmorpgs today are failing hard, and are nothing more but online action games than any thing else, a company needs to try something different by focusing more on grouping and less on soloing, not getting rid of soloing all together, but maybe go the EQ route were there are more benefits to grouping than soloing.

 

mmorpgs today if you solo, you get more exp per mobs, no fighting over loot, a faster way to level, if you group up, there is a exp shared pentaty, fighting over loot, etc etc.

 

I dont like how mmorpgs are going these days, in SWTOR I can take on 6-7 mobs and kill almost everything in one to two hits, and really its not even SWTOR fault, its how most mmorpgs are today, how is that fun? This is how these "mmorpgs" of today are becoming boring. Trying to balance soloing and grouping in one game is proving too difficult for these companys today. One side will cry nerf, one side will cry buff. Generally the solo crowd wins and the mobs become easier.

What we need is a mmorpg whos focus is on grouping seeing as its an "RPG" and "Online". Did companys seem to forget that RPGS were almost always about partying even in single player rpgs.  So what we need is a mmorpg that focuses on grouping but gives soloing options, like a couple classes that excel at soloing, like EQ did with the beastlord and necromancer.

I've played those games.Not interested in going back. I like how mmorpgs are going these days. So does the bulk of the market. Try one of the niche games and have fun.

Originally posted by nomatics856

These "solo" mmorpgs today are failing hard, and are nothing more but online action games than any thing else, a company needs to try something different by focusing more on grouping and less on soloing, not getting rid of soloing all together, but maybe go the EQ route were there are more benefits to grouping than soloing.

mmorpgs today if you solo, you get more exp per mobs, no fighting over loot, a faster way to level, if you group up, there is a exp shared pentaty, fighting over loot, etc etc.

I dont like how mmorpgs are going these days, in SWTOR I can take on 6-7 mobs and kill almost everything in one to two hits, and really its not even SWTOR fault, its how most mmorpgs are today, how is that fun? This is how these "mmorpgs" of today are becoming boring. Trying to balance soloing and grouping in one game is proving too difficult for these companys today. One side will cry nerf, one side will cry buff. Generally the solo crowd wins and the mobs become easier.

What we need is a mmorpg whos focus is on grouping seeing as its an "RPG" and "Online". Did companys seem to forget that RPGS were almost always about partying even in single player rpgs.  So what we need is a mmorpg that focuses on grouping but gives soloing options, like a couple classes that excel at soloing, like EQ did with the beastlord and necromancer.

The problem with forced grouping is that the way MMOs work 90% of the players are in the 10 last levels after a year of time. 

A MMO with forced grouping needs to solve this in a good way. Levels really are bad in games like that, and the gap between noob and vet needs to be a lot smaller. Also must there be reasons for player to play through all the content even if they are what we normally call "endgamers".

Can it be done? Sure but it is a lot of work unless you want a short lived game where no new players start after the first 6 months after launch.

I agree that group content is more fun than solocontent, a lot more fun but as I see it you either have to do like GW2 or make a completely new mechanic if you want to pull it off.

There is nothing worse than when you can't play because you can't get a group for one reason or the other.

Originally posted by Venger

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by Venger

Wasn't that vanguards claim to fame.  Remind me again how did that do?  Tank and spank grouping is dead.

Vanguard crashed for completely unrelated reasons to this. If thats your argument, there are plenty of games that were perfectly soloable that have failed as well.

If I had a nickel, yes a single nickel, for every time I've heard (insert your point of view) had nothing to do with the down fall of (insert game) it was (insert this bug or that flaw).  I'd be pretty rich.

Static tank and spank grouping is dead.  Dynamic events that bring people together are the future.

If I had a nickel for every time someone said "a duck is a bird" I'd be rich too. Funny how often the truth goes around.

There is absolutely no reason games can't have it both ways. The developers are not making these games for soloers, the players are doing that themselves.

But to force someone into something is not a good idea. All you need is for the players to realize that these games are inherently more fun when you have a good group. And while your at it, get rid of the players that feel theneed to blast to max level then complain about having nothing to do, they are another bane to this genre.

Originally posted by Slampig

There is absolutely no reason games can't have it both ways. The developers are not making these games for soloers, the players are doing that themselves.

But to force someone into something is not a good idea. All you need is for the players to realize that these games are inherently more fun when you have a good group. And while your at it, get rid of the players that feel theneed to blast to max level then complain about having nothing to do, they are another bane to this genre.

well said.

Options are rarely a bad idea and the more the better. But I don't like that they semms to penalize group players today. Not so many years you actually leveled faster in games when you were in a group and run dungeons and similar content. Today soloing is faster and often as rewarding, this sucks since they are encouraging players to solo instead of working together.