If a great group MMO came along that was fun and had a relatively smooth launch it could work as well. I have nothing wrong with solo based games but there is nothing wrong with group based ones either. I don't see why all the negativity towards the OP. Must every game conform to one model? I don't think everyone will enjoy every game so there should be variety.

Except most of the players in the market want some solo options as shown in the success of the solo friendly game.

Sure, it may becmoe a niche success, but why cater to a small niche?

Originally posted by nariusseldon

If a great group MMO came along that was fun and had a relatively smooth launch it could work as well. I have nothing wrong with solo based games but there is nothing wrong with group based ones either. I don't see why all the negativity towards the OP. Must every game conform to one model? I don't think everyone will enjoy every game so there should be variety.

 

Except most of the players in the market want some solo options as shown in the success of the solo friendly game.

Sure, it may becmoe a niche success, but why cater to a small niche?

I often think of it like money left on the table waiting for someone to pick it up.

I don't play WoW, and one of the main reasons is because it's too solo friendly. A solo friendly game isn't going to get my money.

But I've got money sitting on the table. I'll glady pay 14.95 for a good grouping game.

So, you're right. The majority wants the solo friendly game like WoW. But I've got 14.95 sitting on the table, and if you read this thread, I'im not alone.

Someone will eventually want to take that money since it's just sitting there and no one else wants it.

Originally posted by Tsolless

This is ridiculous.

"I want a game where I can't solo"

"Why don't you just do everything with a group?"

"Why would I gimp myself?"

Make up your mind. Either you want to group or you don't.

I really doubt that people soloing are ruining your fun. How does that work? "Look at that bastard... Soloing... by himself... he's ruining the game!" The whole thing about soloing is that it doesn't affect anyone. It can't affect you whatsoever. This sounds like the people who blather on about how getting rid of "foreigners" in their country would remove all their problems.

If "that bastard" can solo, then I can solo. I want a game where I can't solo. That's how it affects me.

I'm sorry but I don't understand this at all. Why does it bother you if you have the ability to solo? I mean, I have the ability to drop my pants down to half of my ass, lose all my shirt, buy a cap and put it on backwards, listen to Soulja Boy, and then act like a wigger but I'm not going to.

Just don't do it if you don't want to.

Edit:

There really is a grouping game out there. Final Fantasy XI. There is only one class that can actually solo and even then they have a hard time with it.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

If a great group MMO came along that was fun and had a relatively smooth launch it could work as well. I have nothing wrong with solo based games but there is nothing wrong with group based ones either. I don't see why all the negativity towards the OP. Must every game conform to one model? I don't think everyone will enjoy every game so there should be variety.

 

Except most of the players in the market want some solo options as shown in the success of the solo friendly game.

Sure, it may becmoe a niche success, but why cater to a small niche?

Because you can make a lot of money in a niche market. Take a look at the world it has very big organisations and co-existing alongside huge numbers of small enterprises catering to the tastes of the non masses. Why do they bother? Because those small enterprises make smaller groups of people a lot of money, they don't have the same costs, and more importantly the same number of backers wanting a slice of profit.

Try not to be blinkered by size being everything, it is often as important to be different, especially in a market that is over saturated with mass appeal goods.

Originally posted by Tsolless

I'm sorry but I don't understand this at all. Why does it bother you if you have the ability to solo? I mean, I have the ability to drop my pants down to half of my ass, lose all my shirt, buy a cap and put it on backwards, listen to Soulja Boy, and then act like a wigger but I'm not going to.

Just don't do it if you don't want to.

Edit:

There really is a grouping game out there. Final Fantasy XI. There is only one class that can actually solo and even then they have a hard time with it.

Well, if you don't get it already I doubt you ever will, but I'll give it a shot.

How often would you play a game by your own made up rules just to make it harder for yourself, or more challenging, or more fun? In reality, the answer is almost never. How often would you play a game by the actual rules of the game? In reality, almost all the time.

For example, let's say someone is asking for a game with Perma Death. They COULD play WoW and delete thier character everytime they die. But they won't. They will just keep on playing the same toon, because they can, and they will still want a game with Perma Death where they cannot keep on playing and they die. They don't want the choice to delete their character. That is completely different from being careful because if you make a mistake you're dead, and there is no choice.

You're telling me the choice is just the same. you're telling me that a game with Perma Death is EXACTLY the same as if I played WoW and just chose to delete my character every time I died.

Do you see now, how what you're saying, and what I'm asking for are not the same thing?

So again, IT"S NOT ABOUT YOU. I don't care if you solo in a game all day long. That's great, hope you're having a blast doing it. I want a game where I, me, not you, cannot solo. Nothing to do with you, nothing to do with wanting you to group, forcing you to group, I absolutely don't care about YOU and what you are doing in the game. This is the hardest part for people to get for some reason.

Try D&D online 95% of the game is group only, from the beginning to end (especiallly the end). Turbine had to add some solo content becuase they were losing alot subs. The other 5% is running around buying stuff so you don't need a group to do that.

Originally posted by Dendro

Try D&D online 95% of the game is group only, from the beginning to end (especiallly the end). Turbine had to add some solo content becuase they were losing alot subs. The other 5% is running around buying stuff so you don't need a group to do that.

DDO certainly showed that a group centric game is going to be niche, having said that its playerbase has been solid (with a bit of a surge since Turbine won a few awards), so there is a market (even if small) for group content. It also has twitch combat, complex character building and instancing which are also heavy like/dislike factors.

Originally posted by Dr.Rock

Originally posted by Dendro

Try D&D online 95% of the game is group only, from the beginning to end (especiallly the end). Turbine had to add some solo content becuase they were losing alot subs. The other 5% is running around buying stuff so you don't need a group to do that.

DDO certainly showed that a group centric game is going to be niche, having said that its playerbase has been solid (with a bit of a surge since Turbine won a few awards), so there is a market (even if small) for group content. It also has twitch combat, complex character building and instancing which are also heavy like/dislike factors.

I did try DDO. I didn't like it very much. It was too unlike an MMORPG if you know what I mean. Way to isntance heavy. I did not like doing a dungeon on easy, medium, and hard. Same dungeon, different settings. You do it once on easy, then again on medium, then again on hard.

It kind of wrecks the persistence for me. I want a dungeon that is the dungeon. It's easy, or it's hard, and I will do it when I have a character and a group that's up for it. The dungeon doesn'nt change, my character and my group does. If I try the dungeon and it's to hard, I either level up, skill up, or go get help. If the dungeon is to easy, I have to go somewhere else.

If that makes sense, that's what I prefer in an MMORPG.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Dr.Rock

Originally posted by Dendro

Try D&D online 95% of the game is group only, from the beginning to end (especiallly the end). Turbine had to add some solo content becuase they were losing alot subs. The other 5% is running around buying stuff so you don't need a group to do that.

DDO certainly showed that a group centric game is going to be niche, having said that its playerbase has been solid (with a bit of a surge since Turbine won a few awards), so there is a market (even if small) for group content. It also has twitch combat, complex character building and instancing which are also heavy like/dislike factors.

 

I did try DDO. I didn't like it very much. It was too unlike an MMORPG if you know what I mean. Way to isntance heavy. I did not like doing a dungeon on easy, medium, and hard. Same dungeon, different settings. You do it once on easy, then again on medium, then again on hard.

It kind of wrecks the persistence for me. I want a dungeon that is the dungeon. It's easy, or it's hard, and I will do it when I have a character and a group that's up for it. The dungeon doesn'nt change, my character and my group does. If I try the dungeon and it's to hard, I either level up, skill up, or go get help. If the dungeon is to easy, I have to go somewhere else.

If that makes sense, that's what I prefer in an MMORPG.

To me instancing and group content go together, the quest needs to be designed around the group, open zones wouldn't work. But they I expect my quests to be handcrafted and complex.

p.s. Elite is the only real setting for most quests, Normal and Hard I see as just very challenging solo content

Originally posted by Dr.Rock

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Dr.Rock

Originally posted by Dendro

Try D&D online 95% of the game is group only, from the beginning to end (especiallly the end). Turbine had to add some solo content becuase they were losing alot subs. The other 5% is running around buying stuff so you don't need a group to do that.

DDO certainly showed that a group centric game is going to be niche, having said that its playerbase has been solid (with a bit of a surge since Turbine won a few awards), so there is a market (even if small) for group content. It also has twitch combat, complex character building and instancing which are also heavy like/dislike factors.

 

I did try DDO. I didn't like it very much. It was too unlike an MMORPG if you know what I mean. Way to isntance heavy. I did not like doing a dungeon on easy, medium, and hard. Same dungeon, different settings. You do it once on easy, then again on medium, then again on hard.

It kind of wrecks the persistence for me. I want a dungeon that is the dungeon. It's easy, or it's hard, and I will do it when I have a character and a group that's up for it. The dungeon doesn'nt change, my character and my group does. If I try the dungeon and it's to hard, I either level up, skill up, or go get help. If the dungeon is to easy, I have to go somewhere else.

If that makes sense, that's what I prefer in an MMORPG.

To be instancing and group content go together, the quest needs to be designed around the group, open zones wouldn't work. But they I expect my quests to be handcrafted and complex.

 p.s. Elite is the only real setting for most quests, Normal and Hard I see as just very challenging solo content

I much preferred the open world dungeons of DAoC and EQ2. I don't mind if you want to instance the Boss Mob so people don't have to wait in line to complete  a quest.

It's not so much the instances I dislike as the change in settings. I didn't like this about CoH either.

I want the content to be static, not increase or decrease in difficulty depending on what I choose. It feels like clicking the "win" button. Like  being on a golf course with a button that makes the hole near, far, and really far. Oh, today I'll choose near, I don't feel like trying for really far, maybe I'll do that tomorrow.

I want the course to be a set challenge to overcome.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Dr.Rock

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Dr.Rock

Originally posted by Dendro

Try D&D online 95% of the game is group only, from the beginning to end (especiallly the end). Turbine had to add some solo content becuase they were losing alot subs. The other 5% is running around buying stuff so you don't need a group to do that.

DDO certainly showed that a group centric game is going to be niche, having said that its playerbase has been solid (with a bit of a surge since Turbine won a few awards), so there is a market (even if small) for group content. It also has twitch combat, complex character building and instancing which are also heavy like/dislike factors.

 

I did try DDO. I didn't like it very much. It was too unlike an MMORPG if you know what I mean. Way to isntance heavy. I did not like doing a dungeon on easy, medium, and hard. Same dungeon, different settings. You do it once on easy, then again on medium, then again on hard.

It kind of wrecks the persistence for me. I want a dungeon that is the dungeon. It's easy, or it's hard, and I will do it when I have a character and a group that's up for it. The dungeon doesn'nt change, my character and my group does. If I try the dungeon and it's to hard, I either level up, skill up, or go get help. If the dungeon is to easy, I have to go somewhere else.

If that makes sense, that's what I prefer in an MMORPG.

To be instancing and group content go together, the quest needs to be designed around the group, open zones wouldn't work. But they I expect my quests to be handcrafted and complex.

 p.s. Elite is the only real setting for most quests, Normal and Hard I see as just very challenging solo content

 

I much preferred the open world dungeons of DAoC and EQ2. I don't mind if you want to instance the Boss Mob so people don't have to wait in line to complete  a quest.

It's not so much the instances I dislike as the change in settings. I didn't like this about CoH either.

I want the content to be static, not increase or decrease in difficulty depending on what I choose. It feels like clicking the "win" button. Like  being on a golf course with a button that makes the hole near, far, and really far. Oh, today I'll choose near, I don't feel like trying for really far, maybe I'll do that tomorrow.

I want the course to be a set challenge to overcome.

We differ a lot, I totally hate the concept of queueing for a rare spawn, and the fact that a dungeon may already be partially completed ruins all immersion for me. I like my dungeons to have traps, secrets, ambushes no way that can be done in an open zone. For me totally unplayable open.

Your do it once and only at one difficulty is a little too limiting for me. I think you are in the realms of a niche of a niche game.

Originally posted by Dr.Rock

Originally posted by nariusseldon

If a great group MMO came along that was fun and had a relatively smooth launch it could work as well. I have nothing wrong with solo based games but there is nothing wrong with group based ones either. I don't see why all the negativity towards the OP. Must every game conform to one model? I don't think everyone will enjoy every game so there should be variety.

 

Except most of the players in the market want some solo options as shown in the success of the solo friendly game.

Sure, it may becmoe a niche success, but why cater to a small niche?

Because you can make a lot of money in a niche market. Take a look at the world it has very big organisations and co-existing alongside huge numbers of small enterprises catering to the tastes of the non masses. Why do they bother? Because those small enterprises make smaller groups of people a lot of money, they don't have the same costs, and more importantly the same number of backers wanting a slice of profit.

Try not to be blinkered by size being everything, it is often as important to be different, especially in a market that is over saturated with mass appeal goods.

That statement is obviously NOT true in general. It depends on how big the niche market is, and what is the minimum amount of investment to become successful.

BTW, MOST small enterprises are not successful.

And in this case, very few gamers would want NOT to have the choice to solo. The fact that almost all newer MMORPGs tout soloability as a feature tells us a lot. You think they will have done some market research before making that decision.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Dr.Rock

Originally posted by nariusseldon

If a great group MMO came along that was fun and had a relatively smooth launch it could work as well. I have nothing wrong with solo based games but there is nothing wrong with group based ones either. I don't see why all the negativity towards the OP. Must every game conform to one model? I don't think everyone will enjoy every game so there should be variety.

 

Except most of the players in the market want some solo options as shown in the success of the solo friendly game.

Sure, it may becmoe a niche success, but why cater to a small niche?

Because you can make a lot of money in a niche market. Take a look at the world it has very big organisations and co-existing alongside huge numbers of small enterprises catering to the tastes of the non masses. Why do they bother? Because those small enterprises make smaller groups of people a lot of money, they don't have the same costs, and more importantly the same number of backers wanting a slice of profit.

Try not to be blinkered by size being everything, it is often as important to be different, especially in a market that is over saturated with mass appeal goods.

 

That statement is obviously NOT true in general. It depends on how big the niche market is, and what is the minimum amount of investment to become successful.

BTW, MOST small enterprises are not successful.

And in this case, very few gamers would want NOT to have the choice to solo. The fact that almost all newer MMORPGs tout soloability as a feature tells us a lot. You think they will have done some market research before making that decision.

Nobody is arguing whether soloing is more popular, it clearly is, my point is simply that you can still aim a business at a niche market and as long as you control your costs and don't have to share the profit too far, you can personally make a lot of money. It isn't without risks, but people do very well out of small businesses even though they are a fraction of the size of the competitors, as long as they have an angle. Going nose to nose with the same ot similar product is of course a dubious business model.

As for most small enterprises not being successful, guess I have been lucky to be involved with ones that were, which may indeed give me a rather positive view of it.

Originally posted by Tsolless

I'm sorry but I don't understand this at all. Why does it bother you if you have the ability to solo? I mean, I have the ability to drop my pants down to half of my ass, lose all my shirt, buy a cap and put it on backwards, listen to Soulja Boy, and then act like a wigger but I'm not going to.

Just don't do it if you don't want to.

Edit:

There really is a grouping game out there. Final Fantasy XI. There is only one class that can actually solo and even then they have a hard time with it.

I think I know what the original poster is saying. He wants to play a game where grouping is the only option so he will be able to play with others of the same audience that will enjoy that type of game. You know it is always nice to get to mingle with like minded people. : )

I don't mind people having the ability to solo, but does it have to be like that in every single MMO in existence? I don't think so. I think one or two group only games could turn a profit. Also, why do you feel that every game in existence should cater to solo? Different types of games out there is a good thing.

Oh I don't think that way but I just don't see the point. But really the OP should try out FFXI if he wants a grouping game. The only problem then is that people can wiat for an hour or two to get into a group because everyone is looking for a group.

Originally posted by qombi

Actually if you played EQ in it's most popular days, no one had issues finding a healer and tank. What has made tanks and healers unpopular in current games IS solo. Tanks and healers just don't solo as well as the dps classes, if everyone is left to solo then tanks and healers have a slow boring time leveling up. No way! This is not to do at all with whether a game has solo vs. group content. It has to do with the fact that a lot of players find healing and tanking boring, even if they're in a group of 5, 8, 10, whatever other players. I was there during EQ's popular days and I was still waiting on healers and tanks to log on to go do content. I also remember players whining about how dreadfully boring Warriors were to play. On the other hand, Monks were popular because they had cool abilities, like Feign Death. I remember this very very clearly. I've played games where tanks and healers solo very well, and they're *still* under-represented. Take for example Midgard in DAoC: one of the best classes was the main tank, the Warrior. It could solo well, was extremely powerful, and was always in demand. Yet it was one of the rarer classes played in the realm. Or take pre-SL AO, where both Enforcers and Doctors (tanks and healers respectively) were in high demand in what was originally a 95% team-oriented game, but Enforcers were one of the most popular professions, whereas Doctors were fairly rare. Both could solo too, with Doctors being even better then Enfo's. Solo content is not the cause of low numbers of tanks and healers. What has ruined tanks and healers is making them tedious to play in groups: hitting 1 and 2 constantly, over and over again. And quite simply, it's the attitude of the majority of players emphasising how great and important dps is that has ruined tanking and healing (as well as crowd control and debuffing). Back to AO, even in teamplay, people run damage dumps to assess 'contribution' to teams... they don't concentrate on who was the best healer or the best tank. They're only interested in who did the most dps.

If they did make a group only game where tanks and healers are required as well as dps etc etc. Then since everyone will be looking for a group, there would be one giant pool to pull from. You only need outpost to meet up at. There would also be plenty of healers and tanks because if everyone is grouping their job translates to the WHOLE game not just the end of it and they are getting xp just as fast as everyone else. If you have a pool of 100 players and 5 classes that they can play, you will not find 20 people playing each of the classes. There will always be under-represented classes, and there will always be over-represented classes. I guarantee you that. There will always be something attractive about certain classes that makes players play them rather than others.

I have always seen the flaw in solo and group in a game. Healers and tanks spend 99% of the game not doing what they were designed to do only to reach the top of the game 1% of it it do their job. Very flawed. Most of the tanks and healers in today's games are hybrids. Take WAR which is another grouping game. Yes, you can solo in PvE to an extent, but most of the game is about cooperative play with people on your own side. I played an Arch-Mage and a Zealot. It was up to me to decide I wanted my AM to be a debuffer, and my Zealot to be a healer. No one else can decide that for me. Both ways of playing were designed in these classes, therefore who's to say what the 'job' was of either one? Why would this be flawed? It's not flawed unless you're one of those people who can't stand the thought of giving players choices they make on their own characters and playstyles.

 

Also why do people have to call people stupid, idiots, ridiculous because they would like ONE game out there that caters to their playstyle. Would a bit of variety among MMORPGS be a bad thing? I would rather seen all kinds of MMORPGs exist for different people. This all in one for everyone is getting old. Swiss army knife of MMORPGs have a little of everything but do well at nothing. There already are primarily grouping games: FFXI as has been mentioned, DDO, EvE (though people try to solo in it, it's really a fleet/corporation game... you only experience a fraction of the game if you solo), WAR especially in oRvR which is its main goal, and probably others I can't even think of right now. I agree with you though... people shouldn't talk down to others because they have a different view.

I really don't think that making a 100% grouping game will solve any of the problems you mention...

I agree, 100% grouping would never work. People dont like to be depending on other players all the time.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

I would like a grouping game with ZERO solo content.

For players that like to solo, this game would simply not be for you. There would be no solo content, nothing for you to do. Even crafting would require grouping.

Think of it like a multi player First Person Shooter, like Call of Duty, or Battlefield. Solo players complain sometimes that I don't have time to look for a group, I need to accomplish something. What could you accomplish on a Battlefield or Call of Duty server by yourself? Nothing. You'd just stand there with a gun and nothing to do. I'm not saying it has to be PvP, I'm just saying think of this differently than a typical MMORPG.

The object of this game is to play with other people. The object of the game is not to level up your toon and collect gear. In other words, there's no point in playing by yourself without being in a group. If you couldnt' find a group, you wouldn't play the game, because the game would BE all about grouping.

Saying you'd want to solo this game would be like saying you want to play poker by yourself. Poker is all about bluffing. You can't bluff a computer, so don't say you'd just play against a computer. Sure, you can play against a computer to learn the basics, but to really play poker you need other people.

This game would include a tutorial stage for you to learn the GUI and basics, so when you get to the online portion, you already know how to play, so other people wouldn't have to wait on you to learn the controls.

 All mobs you could kill solo give no xp, all mobs that would give you xp would require at least one other person in your group, or they would kick your ass, and you would have no chance of killing them.

All quests would require at LEAST two people. One to pull a lever while the other rushes through the door to complete the mission, and things like that.

Won't ever  happen.. No money it it consider the majority want to be at least able to solo at any time especiall when no groups can be found.

A Grouping MMO how could it be done?

Perhaps it could be achieved using an Award System based on player interaction. For simplicity sake, I'll call it Player Interaction Points or PIPs. PIPs would be intrinsic to all aspects of game play to be valueable to players' success. PIPs could be applied attributes, skills, items, spells, weapons, etc to increase power, effect, value, etc.

The tricky part is identifying and creating game mechanics that encourage players to work together or against each other, directly and indirectly. If it uses a class-based system such game mechanics would have to applicable to all classes. Even participation in chat and forums could be used to award PIPs.

A game that comes to mind is Army of Two. This game has very specific game mechanics that requires Two Players to assist each other in order to complete missions. For example, there are hard-to-reach areas that require players to lift and pull each other up. There are doors that require two people to activate.