Originally posted by UsualSuspect

Originally posted by Cephus404

Look, according to pro-groupers, people group because they want to.  Is that not true?  Is there some game mechanic that is going to stop a group of people from joining forces for the simple and pure pleasure of joining forces, just  because they can play the game alone?

Originally posted by DeVoDeVo

So, by your definition and wishes, all MMOs should be grouping only and if a person ever plays online they must group.  Think about that.  You would cause the demise of the majority of current MMOs.  What about the period when a game experiences a population drop?  Groups would be difficult to find thus the game would slowly die.

Both come under the same answer. It's all in the game design. As it stands MMO's have moved to largely solo games where you can play alone all the way to max level before needing to group. That's not how it should be and if you think it is then you're clearly in the wrong genre. The game mechanic stopping people from joining forces is the ease of gameplay, MMO's have become so solo orientated that they really don't give any other option but to solo. Like I said earlier, you don't invite a friend around to change a lightbulb, just like you don't group to kill 10 boars who die in 2 hits. In the case of some MMO's, The Secret World pops into my head, they actively block you from staying together as a group by throwing solo instances into normal quests.

In the past you had MMO's such as EverQuest, where the pendulum had swung the other way, where grouping was the main way of progressing. If you were good, went to the right areas, and targeted the right mobs, you could solo there too, but it was never easy. And yet that game survived right up to today, where these solo based games barely survive a year or two. The majority of current MMO's are killing themselves by building themselves as single player games online, the longest running games have all had some form of grouping at the forefront of their design.

Complete nonsense.  You could solo to cap in EQ, you could solo in UO.

The fact is that grouping in today's games is easier, faster and with less hassle than it has ever been.  Groups get made quick, and there is more incentive to group than to solo (better loot, better coin, faster xp).

The people that like to group are doing so.  The people that like to solo are doing so.  No it may not be practical to group for each and every component to the game, but no game has ever had that. ever.  So that isn't different. 

If you can't find a group that says more about you than the genre because it is easier to group than ever before.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by jtcgs

There would be no need to discuss this if developers would actually use the idea that was brought to light 3 years ago at a GDC...scalable content.

I forgot the developers name, but he did a slideshow showing HOW to do it so ALL CONTENT scaled to the player and to the group...no matter the size of the group. The mobs not only scaled in terms of "HP" or "DPS output" but also in terms of loot dropped, skills it had to use but also tactics. It was a simple list attached to the mob that, once created, the developers of the game wouldnt have to go back to it and continue to touch it up over the development cycle.

This idea allows 100% of the game to not only remain viable to 100% of the players throughout 100% of their playing, it also remains viable to all player types. Solo, small group, medium group, raid, large raid.

The very idea that parts of the game should be created with a segment of the playerbase in mind is old and outdated. Its foolish all-around to do that today.

Yet every time such is suggested, you get the pro-grouping  crowd screaming bloody murder.  They don't want scalable content, they want all content to be too hard for people to do solo under any circumstances so everyone is required, in order to play the game at all, to group up with others whether they want to or not.

Foolish yes, but hardly an uncommon sentiment.

This arguement still going on?

Look it's simple... some people want to play Golf (solo) others want to play Baseball (group). Others even like both when they are in the right mood, but they don't want one experience morphed into the other in the same game.

People who like Baseball (grouping) are specificaly choosing a game who's rules REQUIRE grouping/teamwork because it's a very large part of the experience that makes it enjoyable to THEM. If you changed the rules of baseball to make grouping/teamwork optional (like Golf) it would become fundementaly a different and less enjoyable game. No one is trying to force anyone to play anything, anymore then a bunch of baseball players would grab a bunch of golfers at gunpoint and force them to play baseball. That's the big misperception here. Most groupers don't want to force soloers to play a game they don't like.....we just want to be able to play a game that is DESIGNED around the rules that we like....which fundementaly involves teamwork at the games most basic level. What is so mysterious about that?

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

Both come under the same answer. It's all in the game design. As it stands MMO's have moved to largely solo games where you can play alone all the way to max level before needing to group. That's not how it should be and if you think it is then you're clearly in the wrong genre. The game mechanic stopping people from joining forces is the ease of gameplay, MMO's have become so solo orientated that they really don't give any other option but to solo. Like I said earlier, you don't invite a friend around to change a lightbulb, just like you don't group to kill 10 boars who die in 2 hits. In the case of some MMO's, The Secret World pops into my head, they actively block you from staying together as a group by throwing solo instances into normal quests.

In the past you had MMO's such as EverQuest, where the pendulum had swung the other way, where grouping was the main way of progressing. If you were good, went to the right areas, and targeted the right mobs, you could solo there too, but it was never easy. And yet that game survived right up to today, where these solo based games barely survive a year or two. The majority of current MMO's are killing themselves by building themselves as single player games online, the longest running games have all had some form of grouping at the forefront of their design.

That was then, this is now.  Try to live in the present.  The fact is, even when it's suggested that game mechanics be introduced that make grouping, for those who choose to group, more challenging and more rewarding as a group, groupers don't want it because it still allows soloing.  The fact remains that groupers do not want to be able to group, they want to force all of those around them to group.  It's not about freedom, it's about control.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

This arguement still going on?

Look it's simple... some people want to play Golf (solo) others want to play Baseball (group). Others even like both when they are in the right mood, but they don't want one experience morphed into the other in the same game.

People who like Baseball (grouping) are specificaly choosing a game who's rules REQUIRE grouping/teamwork because it's a very large part of the experience that makes it enjoyable to THEM. If you changed the rules of baseball to make grouping/teamwork optional (like Golf) it would become fundementaly a different and less enjoyable game. No one is trying to force anyone to play anything, anymore then a bunch of baseball players would grab a bunch of golfers at gunpoint and force them to play baseball. That's the big misperception here. Most groupers don't want to force soloers to play a game they don't like.....we just want to be able to play a game that is DESIGNED around the rules that we like....which fundementaly involves teamwork at the games most basic level. What is so mysterious about that?

Which is, of course, ridiculous.  You can play golf with a group of friends and you can go out and hit a baseball by yourself.  What groupers are trying to do is insist that MMOs are all about grouping when clearly, in the modern era, they are not.  In fact, if you look at the evidence, they have never been all about grouping.  Groupers are living in a fantasy world that says grouping is all that you're supposed to do in an MMO when the fact is, that's never been the case.

It's fine that you want to do that, but you're not going to achieve it arguing on an MMO forum.  The only way you're  going to do that is to convince a developer that there are enough dedicated groupers who *ONLY* want to group, to make a game with that in mind.  The fact that people who only want to group are such a niche audience that they can't support a successful game on their own doesn't seem to bother or interest them.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

This arguement still going on?

Look it's simple... some people want to play Golf (solo) others want to play Baseball (group). Others even like both when they are in the right mood, but they don't want one experience morphed into the other in the same game.

People who like Baseball (grouping) are specificaly choosing a game who's rules REQUIRE grouping/teamwork because it's a very large part of the experience that makes it enjoyable to THEM. If you changed the rules of baseball to make grouping/teamwork optional (like Golf) it would become fundementaly a different and less enjoyable game. No one is trying to force anyone to play anything, anymore then a bunch of baseball players would grab a bunch of golfers at gunpoint and force them to play baseball. That's the big misperception here. Most groupers don't want to force soloers to play a game they don't like.....we just want to be able to play a game that is DESIGNED around the rules that we like....which fundementaly involves teamwork at the games most basic level. What is so mysterious about that?

Which is, of course, ridiculous.  You can play golf with a group of friends and you can go out and hit a baseball by yourself.  What groupers are trying to do is insist that MMOs are all about grouping when clearly, in the modern era, they are not.  In fact, if you look at the evidence, they have never been all about grouping.  Groupers are living in a fantasy world that says grouping is all that you're supposed to do in an MMO when the fact is, that's never been the case.

It's fine that you want to do that, but you're not going to achieve it arguing on an MMO forum.  The only way you're  going to do that is to convince a developer that there are enough dedicated groupers who *ONLY* want to group, to make a game with that in mind.  The fact that people who only want to group are such a niche audience that they can't support a successful game on their own doesn't seem to bother or interest them.

Nice snipe, but not very accurate...there are TONS of GAMES that revolve around grouping, some more popular than WoW (90% of FPS games are group oriented) just not many MMO's an odd quirk...but whatever, there are a few here and there and more on the way.

[mod edit]

Bottom line there are different people in the world, with different tastes and there is more then enough room in the world (in the MMO sphere or outside of it) to accomodate a variety of differently designed and focused games to meet those tastes. If I really, really want to play baseball, some sort of pseudo-golf isn't going to cut it. That's not rocket science and it really shouldn't need 175 pages worth of discussion to figure out that mystery.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Nice snipe, but not very accurate...there are TONS of GAMES that revolve around grouping, some more popular than WoW (90% of FPS games are group oriented) just not many MMO's an odd quirk...but whatever, there are a few here and there and more on the way.

[mod edit]

Bottom line there are different people in the world, with different tastes and there is more then enough room in the world (in the MMO sphere or outside of it) to accomodate a variety of differently designed and focused games to meet those tastes. If I really, really want to play baseball, some sort of pseudo-golf isn't going to cut it. That's not rocket science and it really shouldn't need 175 pages worth of discussion to figure out that mystery.

If there are games out there that revolve around grouping, then by all means go play them!  Go ahead!  Nobody is stopping you!  But this has been 175 pages of people complaining that more games ought to be about grouping, that everyone ought to force people to group and that games where you can solo are bad.  The fact is, the games reflect the market.  They are what the people most likely to play them want to play.  If they do not reflect your interests, then maybe MMOs are no longer made for you and you ought to go find something else to do.  Nobody owes you a game that you like.  You have to choose from among the games that actually exist.  Take it or leave it.

Originally posted by Cephus404

That was then, this is now.  Try to live in the present.  The fact is, even when it's suggested that game mechanics be introduced that make grouping, for those who choose to group, more challenging and more rewarding as a group, groupers don't want it because it still allows soloing.  The fact remains that groupers do not want to be able to group, they want to force all of those around them to group.  It's not about freedom, it's about control.

Which of course is the complete opposite of soloers wanting to make all MMO's soloable through all content, including raids, making grouping pointless. The fact is that soloers want an easy ride and everything handed to them on a plate, they want all the best gear themselves, they want all content themselves, they don't want to be excluded from a single piece of the game because of their chosen playstyle. Soloers are inherently selfish, they don't like grouping because it doesn't make them the centre of attention.

And yes, I did stoop to your level in that response.

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

Originally posted by Cephus404

That was then, this is now.  Try to live in the present.  The fact is, even when it's suggested that game mechanics be introduced that make grouping, for those who choose to group, more challenging and more rewarding as a group, groupers don't want it because it still allows soloing.  The fact remains that groupers do not want to be able to group, they want to force all of those around them to group.  It's not about freedom, it's about control.

Which of course is the complete opposite of soloers wanting to make all MMO's soloable through all content, including raids, making grouping pointless. The fact is that soloers want an easy ride and everything handed to them on a plate, they want all the best gear themselves, they want all content themselves, they don't want to be excluded from a single piece of the game because of their chosen playstyle. Soloers are inherently selfish, they don't like grouping because it doesn't make them the centre of attention.

And yes, I did stoop to your level in that response.

Guess what?  These games are made to make money, therefore the majority wins.  If the majority wants to solo, as the majority absolutely does, then the majority of games will be about soloing.  That's how developers keep making money, investors keep making a profit and these games keep getting made.

I'm not sure why we have to keep explaining these things, you'd think business basics would sink in eventually.

the only real issue i see right now is every AAA mmo is trying to be all things to everyone... and fails to please anyone.

choose a direction, really gear your game to hit that market

solo friendly grinder... fine

casual friendly raider... fine

casual friendly PvP... fine

hardcore FFA.... fine

pick one path, make THE BEST GAME for that path you possibly can, and you will retain your subscription base. Instead what we see is "we cater to everyone come play!!!!!!!!!!!!" and 3 months later the game is in full salvation mode due to a mass exodus since its the same garbage everyone is doing and the same caliber.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Nice snipe, but not very accurate...there are TONS of GAMES that revolve around grouping, some more popular than WoW (90% of FPS games are group oriented) just not many MMO's an odd quirk...but whatever, there are a few here and there and more on the way.

[mod edit]

Bottom line there are different people in the world, with different tastes and there is more then enough room in the world (in the MMO sphere or outside of it) to accomodate a variety of differently designed and focused games to meet those tastes. If I really, really want to play baseball, some sort of pseudo-golf isn't going to cut it. That's not rocket science and it really shouldn't need 175 pages worth of discussion to figure out that mystery.

If there are games out there that revolve around grouping, then by all means go play them!  Go ahead!  Nobody is stopping you!  But this has been 175 pages of people complaining that more games ought to be about grouping, that everyone ought to force people to group and that games where you can solo are bad.  The fact is, the games reflect the market.  They are what the people most likely to play them want to play.  If they do not reflect your interests, then maybe MMOs are no longer made for you and you ought to go find something else to do.  Nobody owes you a game that you like.  You have to choose from among the games that actually exist.  Take it or leave it.

Odd, I thought this was 175 pages of solo'ers complaining that people occasionaly wanted to play games that didn't cater to thier play styles.

Mostly, I've seen groupers post here stating that  "I really wish there were more games like X availble for us to play." 

Discussion board and all that...point of discussion boards is to...well discuss, eh?

I've then seen soloers coming in and saying to the effect "That's not fair X would exclude our prefered play-style"....which was kinda the whole point of why groupers would like it, eh? 

"Why can't you simply play Y...that would make everyone happy?"

The obvious answer is.... because Y is not remotely like X and therfore not something we're interested in.....just like hitting a few baseballs by yourself is not remotely like playing in a real baseball game......and therefore not the experience that people interested in actualy playing baseball (as opposed to getting a few hits in a batting cage) are interested in.

It's kinda astounding to me that's such a difficult concept to comprehend.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

Originally posted by Cephus404

That was then, this is now.  Try to live in the present.  The fact is, even when it's suggested that game mechanics be introduced that make grouping, for those who choose to group, more challenging and more rewarding as a group, groupers don't want it because it still allows soloing.  The fact remains that groupers do not want to be able to group, they want to force all of those around them to group.  It's not about freedom, it's about control.

Which of course is the complete opposite of soloers wanting to make all MMO's soloable through all content, including raids, making grouping pointless. The fact is that soloers want an easy ride and everything handed to them on a plate, they want all the best gear themselves, they want all content themselves, they don't want to be excluded from a single piece of the game because of their chosen playstyle. Soloers are inherently selfish, they don't like grouping because it doesn't make them the centre of attention.

And yes, I did stoop to your level in that response.

Guess what?  These games are made to make money, therefore the majority wins.  If the majority wants to solo, as the majority absolutely does, then the majority of games will be about soloing.  That's how developers keep making money, investors keep making a profit and these games keep getting made.

I'm not sure why we have to keep explaining these things, you'd think business basics would sink in eventually.

Um....hello -> discussion boards.....point of discussion boards is to discuss, yes?

What are we supposed to discuss...the color of the sky?

On a game discussion board, you'd think a valid discussion would be "I wish there were more games like X", yes?

If this were an investment discussion board then the "X maximizes ROI" might make a more interesting discussion.....although I think the ROI on the last few "commonly accepted wisdom"  on what the majority wants in MMO's (including solo-centric) hasn't been exactly stellar from what I'm hearing from the investment world.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Um....hello -> discussion boards.....point of discussion boards is to discuss, yes?

What are we supposed to discuss...the color of the sky?

On a game discussion board, you'd think a valid discussion would be "I wish there were more games like X", yes?

Sure, if that's all that was done.  However, it often goes from "I wish X" to "Damn it, I deserve X!"  There is a reality that a lot of people either don't understand or don't care about, MMOs exist to make money for the companies that produce them, they exist to make a profit for investors.  Companies are only going to make games they are convinced have the best potential to make a significant return on investment.  People need to deal with that.  Instead, you have people who think there's some grand conspiracy, that grouping is magically the most popular form of gameplay out there and anyone who doesn't like it should be forced into it because clearly, once they are required to do it to play the game, they're sure to love it.

That's not how it works and no game is going to do that because it'll chase all the soloers, the majority of their players, away.  You are not going to see these niche ideas implemented into mainstream games by AAA companies.  You're just not.

That's one of the differences between adults and children.  Adults accept the reality, even if it isn't a reality they prefer, children just want the fantasy.

Originally posted by UsualSuspect


I wonder why multiplayer games such as Battlefield and Call of Duty are so popular then. And I'm talking of the multiplayer component, not the 3 hour solo campaign. You'd think it would chase the soloers away due to its niche design, yet they're the biggest franchises around. Huh.

Because that's a completely different genre, maybe?  That's like criticizing an MMO that doesn't let you jump by pointing to platformers.

Seriously, you're not actually making this argument, are you?

Seems like a lot of back and forth on the forced grouping thing still.  If you really want to see people flock to group content, just make that group content incredibly attractive.  Sure keep the solo content for when you only have an hour or two to play, or you simply can't schedule a groups going (you'll need to keep it anyway to be profitable).  

But always keep that amazing zone, that surreal adventure out there as the one everyone talks about and wants to play.  Sure, it's the one that has the difficult challenges, but build in little incentives and lures people to try just a little bit  as a group, then a little more....  That's the way to get people to group and stay grouped. Simply put, make the grouped content the best and most interesting in the game.

Originally posted by Ortwig

Seems like a lot of back and forth on the forced grouping thing still.  If you really want to see people flock to group content, just make that group content incredibly attractive.  Sure keep the solo content for when you only have an hour or two to play, or you simply can't schedule a groups going (you'll need to keep it anyway to be profitable).  

But always keep that amazing zone, that surreal adventure out there as the one everyone talks about and wants to play.  Sure, it's the one that has the difficult challenges, but build in little incentives and lures people to try just a little bit  as a group, then a little more....  That's the way to get people to group and stay grouped. Simply put, make the grouped content the best and most interesting in the game.

All you're describing is bribing people to play your way.  If you have to do that, then clearly, your playstyle is a failure.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Ortwig

Seems like a lot of back and forth on the forced grouping thing still.  If you really want to see people flock to group content, just make that group content incredibly attractive.  Sure keep the solo content for when you only have an hour or two to play, or you simply can't schedule a groups going (you'll need to keep it anyway to be profitable).  

But always keep that amazing zone, that surreal adventure out there as the one everyone talks about and wants to play.  Sure, it's the one that has the difficult challenges, but build in little incentives and lures people to try just a little bit  as a group, then a little more....  That's the way to get people to group and stay grouped. Simply put, make the grouped content the best and most interesting in the game.

All you're describing is bribing people to play your way.  If you have to do that, then clearly, your playstyle is a failure.

I dunno -- I think that's how most of these games work anyway -- there has to be something interesting to explore or you wouldn't go there.  I am not recommending grouping as the only way or even the best way, but if you want to promote groups, you need to havea maguffin or hook that draws people to group.  Strongarming isn't very interesting.  The hook could be a visual, and interesting quest/storyline, a tough foe, rare crafting items, pure exploration, lots of things.  I'm not talking about a hard loot bribe here, and those things could be part of a solo path as well.

Originally posted by Ortwig

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Ortwig

Seems like a lot of back and forth on the forced grouping thing still.  If you really want to see people flock to group content, just make that group content incredibly attractive.  Sure keep the solo content for when you only have an hour or two to play, or you simply can't schedule a groups going (you'll need to keep it anyway to be profitable).  

But always keep that amazing zone, that surreal adventure out there as the one everyone talks about and wants to play.  Sure, it's the one that has the difficult challenges, but build in little incentives and lures people to try just a little bit  as a group, then a little more....  That's the way to get people to group and stay grouped. Simply put, make the grouped content the best and most interesting in the game.

All you're describing is bribing people to play your way.  If you have to do that, then clearly, your playstyle is a failure.

I dunno -- I think that's how most of these games work anyway -- there has to be something interesting to explore or you wouldn't go there.  I am not recommending grouping as the only way or even the best way, but if you want to promote groups, you need to havea maguffin or hook that draws people to group.  Strongarming isn't very interesting.  The hook could be a visual, and interesting quest/storyline, a tough foe, rare crafting items, pure exploration, lots of things.  I'm not talking about a hard loot bribe here, and those things could be part of a solo path as well.

Why would you want to promote anything at all?  Here are your options.  Go do what you want.  Play the way you want to play.  If you have to promote a means of gameplay, clearly there aren't a lot of people who are choosing it on their own.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Ortwig

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Ortwig

Seems like a lot of back and forth on the forced grouping thing still.  If you really want to see people flock to group content, just make that group content incredibly attractive.  Sure keep the solo content for when you only have an hour or two to play, or you simply can't schedule a groups going (you'll need to keep it anyway to be profitable).  

But always keep that amazing zone, that surreal adventure out there as the one everyone talks about and wants to play.  Sure, it's the one that has the difficult challenges, but build in little incentives and lures people to try just a little bit  as a group, then a little more....  That's the way to get people to group and stay grouped. Simply put, make the grouped content the best and most interesting in the game.

All you're describing is bribing people to play your way.  If you have to do that, then clearly, your playstyle is a failure.

I dunno -- I think that's how most of these games work anyway -- there has to be something interesting to explore or you wouldn't go there.  I am not recommending grouping as the only way or even the best way, but if you want to promote groups, you need to havea maguffin or hook that draws people to group.  Strongarming isn't very interesting.  The hook could be a visual, and interesting quest/storyline, a tough foe, rare crafting items, pure exploration, lots of things.  I'm not talking about a hard loot bribe here, and those things could be part of a solo path as well.

Why would you want to promote anything at all?  Here are your options.  Go do what you want.  Play the way you want to play.  If you have to promote a means of gameplay, clearly there aren't a lot of people who are choosing it on their own.

So grouping is an option.  So is doing stuff solo.  Why do you have a problem with that?  And why would you have a problem with making both of those choices interesting?

Originally posted by Cephus404

Because that's a completely different genre, maybe?  That's like criticizing an MMO that doesn't let you jump by pointing to platformers.

Seriously, you're not actually making this argument, are you?

They're both multiplayer games, MMO's, online shooters, they both incorporate bringing multiple players together. In the case of the Battlefields of the world, they're what you would describe as 'forced grouping', you have to be a part of a team. Play lonewolf on that team and the team as a whole suffers. So it might be a different style of gaming, but the theory is still the same, people are 'forced' to work together, and yet they're incredibly popular.

So why do you think that the same idea in an MMO would be a failure? Because WoW allowed you to solo most of its content, soloers have taken it upon themselves to believe that MMO's are single player games with multiplayer components. Sadly, recent developers have followed the same path. What they're missing is the core principle of a multiplayer game - the other players.

Why do you think WoW is still so popular? It's not the solo levelling process, I can guarantee you that, it's all the multiplayer dungeons and raids at the end game. As has been said before, people sit in cities and queue up for the dungeons, they don't even bother with the solo content.