Greenie, Raystantz, I think you both have good ideas that can go hand to hand. Here is my perspective of both of your ideas.

Greenie: You hate it when soloers want a game changed to cater towards them, when the game's mechanics would be seriously altered. That I can understand. If a soloer tries to get EVE Online to start introducing solo options, that wouldn't exactly end well. It would severely kill the game's group based concept, and it probably wouldn't end well. Some games simply shouldn't cater to soloers, because then the game's original mechanics would be severely altered to the point that it's an entirely different game that the original fanbase wouldn't recognize. And you also agree that there should be a few solo elements inside some group games whose game mechanics could stomach the idea, but if the game was group-based, then the main concept is group-based, solo elements are there only for those who really want it or are still looking for people to create a team.

Raystantz: You believe that there should be some solo elements in group games, just in case you end up in situations where you can't join a party or no one is around at the moment. There are many times in which I wish I could've played a game, but I needed more people to join because otherwise by myself that was suicide. If the game's mechanics can stomach it, group games could introduce a few solo elements, but not enough to change the whole group based concept. And that doesn't mean all group games should do this. I don't think FF XI would do this succesfully, and there's alot of people online, so you're not alone usually from what I've heard. Or a game could be created with good balance between the solo and group elements (refer to previous posts I had on this thought).

You both have excellent points, and if I nailed down both perspectives correctly, they would go hand to hand quite well into one huge thought.

Originally posted by rodingo

 

Yeh I'm not the best at painting analogies, but if you got my point then that's all I can ask. I also see what your saying about going into mmos knowing that grouping is part of the deal. But that is where the problem lies. I won't rehash reasoning that has already been stated other than what I already stated earlier. Basically all money is created equal and smart business will win the day... maybe

Cool, I hope I didn't come across as saying the personal "you" instead of you as: in  "any player that does this."

I think what more and more gamers are wanting is to go back to the UO model of game. I really wish I had played that game too.

PLayers are tired of being pigeonholed in once class of character. They're tired of crafting, economy not being fully utilized in games due to design. Players are tired of needing a healer or tank when looking for someone to group with instead of just finding someone they enjoy playing with whether they speak or not.

I'm really hoping that Earthrise turns out to be a good game. Skill based, RPG progression, HUGE emphasis on crafting. Solo play available and group play available, resources, territory ownership and warfare. 

Originally posted by Greenie

Originally posted by raystantz

Can you read?

I'm on your side.

I am a grouper. I group. I like to group. I enjoy grouping.

The difference between me and you.. is that Your ok with doing nothing at all when you can't group. And, you can give all the scenarios you want, but 5 years of FFXI under my belt gives me the credibility to refute it. You can try all you want to "setup a group" or "start your own" group.. but sometimes you just CAN'T. What are you supposed to do then? 

I'm not asking anyone to change a game. I'm fine with the way it currently works. Honestly the only game that does the kind of stuff I don't like is FFXI, and I don't play it any longer for those reasons.

You guys just want everyone who doesn't mind the ability to solo sometimes to jump on the group or bust bandwagon, and its not happening. There is just no way anyone can ever guarantee you will always be able to find a group when you get on, so there has to be other options when those times arise.

 

See you don't get it.. I"m not on a group or bust bandwagon. I want games to have content for BOTH camps. I do not want a game that ONLY encourages group play and I don't want a game that only encourages solo play. I think having only one sucks ass.  What I'm tired of is soloer's trying to disguise their true motive. To have mmo's cater completely to them because they don't want to play SPRPGs.  They will whine and whine until they get what they want because for some reason he who bitches loudest wins.

So I ask you can YOU read?  I want BOTH playstyles in the game. I just want soloer's to stop bitching about not having everything.

I only asked you if you could read because your post seemed to believe I only want to solo.

Originally posted by RamenThief7

Greenie, Raystantz, I think you both have good ideas that can go hand to hand. Here is my perspective of both of your ideas.

Greenie: You hate it when soloers want a game changed to cater towards them, when the game's mechanics would be seriously altered. That I can understand. If a soloer tries to get EVE Online to start introducing solo options, that wouldn't exactly end well. It would severely kill the game's group based concept, and it probably wouldn't end well. Some games simply shouldn't cater to soloers, because then the game's original mechanics would be severely altered to the point that it's an entirely different game that the original fanbase wouldn't recognize. And you also agree that there should be a few solo elements inside some group games whose game mechanics could stomach the idea, but if the game was group-based, then the main concept is group-based, solo elements are there only for those who really want it or are still looking for people to create a team.

Raystantz: You believe that there should be some solo elements in group games, just in case you end up in situations where you can't join a party or no one is around at the moment. There are many times in which I wish I could've played a game, but I needed more people to join because otherwise by myself that was suicide. If the game's mechanics can stomach it, group games could introduce a few solo elements, but not enough to change the whole group based concept. And that doesn't mean all group games should do this. I don't think FF XI would do this succesfully, and there's alot of people online, so you're not alone usually from what I've heard. Or a game could be created with good balance between the solo and group elements (refer to previous posts I had on this thought).

You both have excellent points, and if I nailed down both perspectives correctly, they would go hand to hand quite well into one huge thought.

Yes, I am all about options and choice. PLayers should be able to chooose a game that suits what they are looking for instead of choosing a game they are unhappy with and expecting developers to change the game's initial concepts or design, thereby screwing over any other person who bought the game because the initial design was what they were looking for.

I"m also for people not being stupid and buying a product they either A) know they won't be happy with B) doesn't meet the needs their looking for  and bitching about that product after. I find people who choose to be stupid very offensive lol.

As for EvE, I definitely say it's worth a free trial for the economy and skill system alone.

Originally posted by RamenThief7

Also, just wondering, what exactly does suicide-ganked mean? Does that mean that when someone kills you inside the safe zones, other people take offense to this and will kill the offender to keep the "safe" part in safe? Also, what makes the safe space "safe?" Does it mean space near your corporation, so you're more likely to get help from your teammates? Something else altogether?

What makes the "safe space" safe is NPC police called CONCORD. They're active in high security space (1.0 to 0.5). They show up and destroy the attacker in seconds. Still, a group of players with cheap high damage ships can destroy your ship before they show up.

Originally posted by raystantz

Originally posted by Greenie

 

See you don't get it.. I"m not on a group or bust bandwagon. I want games to have content for BOTH camps. I do not want a game that ONLY encourages group play and I don't want a game that only encourages solo play. I think having only one sucks ass.  What I'm tired of is soloer's trying to disguise their true motive. To have mmo's cater completely to them because they don't want to play SPRPGs.  They will whine and whine until they get what they want because for some reason he who bitches loudest wins.

So I ask you can YOU read?  I want BOTH playstyles in the game. I just want soloer's to stop bitching about not having everything.

 

I only asked you if you could read because your post seemed to believe I only want to solo.

No I had added to the post about your comments on grouping as well. Your and my game experience are the same, sometimes we can group , sometimes we cannot, I however don't expect to take down an epic mob when I am soloing. (not saying you do)

But I disagree with the hardcore groupers being a high population the way you put it.  People who are hardcore groupers go to hardcore group based games like FFXI  or whatever number it is on. Most players fall into the category of "what do I feel like doing today when I log on"  

I thought you guys heard the news already, they are changing this site to ORPG.com. Massive and Multiplayer only gives you the option to be an NPC in everyone else's solo campaign.
 

Originally posted by Greenie

Originally posted by raystantz

Originally posted by Greenie

 

See you don't get it.. I"m not on a group or bust bandwagon. I want games to have content for BOTH camps. I do not want a game that ONLY encourages group play and I don't want a game that only encourages solo play. I think having only one sucks ass.  What I'm tired of is soloer's trying to disguise their true motive. To have mmo's cater completely to them because they don't want to play SPRPGs.  They will whine and whine until they get what they want because for some reason he who bitches loudest wins.

So I ask you can YOU read?  I want BOTH playstyles in the game. I just want soloer's to stop bitching about not having everything.

 

I only asked you if you could read because your post seemed to believe I only want to solo.

 

No I had added to the post about your comments on grouping as well. Your and my game experience are the same, sometimes we can group , sometimes we cannot, I however don't expect to take down an epic mob when I am soloing. (not saying you do)

But I disagree with the hardcore groupers being a high population the way you put it.  People who are hardcore groupers go to hardcore group based games like FFXI  or whatever number it is on. Most players fall into the category of "what do I feel like doing today when I log on"  

 

Right, if you thought I meant that.. thats not so much it. We are basically in agreement.

I just think that the two extremist sides of the coin who want "all" or nothing.. are the problem. They are the ones getting catered to.

I'm in the category of "I enjoy adventuring in an MMO setting with other players, and I decide what I am going to do when I get on"

I don't want everything Soloable, and I don't want to force everyone to have to group for everything. There is a middle ground that people who are on either of these extreme sides fail to see. We can all live happily ever in mmoville and everyone can get the type of play they desire without punishing someone else for how they play the game.

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by heerobya 

See this is what really get's me about guys like you... you wax so poetically about this and that but you do NOT understand, or even try to conceive that your issue is a 100% play style choice.

You could very easily, in a game such as World of Warcraft. Team up with a few friends, only play together through questing and running instanced dungeons to level your toons. You could vary your crafting professions to compliment each other and form your own little exchange economy.

If you find a group of like-minded players you could take your time and enjoy the journey while leveling 100% grouped up the entire time, helping each other in your defined group roles. Sure, lots/most of the quests would be quite simple if you approached them in a group 100% of the time, but in the end these are GAMES and they are designed for you, the player, to win.

It's like the PvP people who simply don't understand that in a truly "balanced" game you'd lose 50% of the time.

The only person who is "making" you rush to solo to the top as fast as possible is you. You are the power-gamer achiever type who can't slow down and smell the roses and make it a game about team-work and group fun. You can slow down the pulls in the dungeon and talk things over, either through a ventrillo or teamspeak or in the game. Hell use typing in the game instead of a chat client so it forces you to slow down and type a bit.

I could do EXACTLY what both you Ihmotepp and Neandrathel are describing in a game like World of Warcraft if I had a few friends that thought and felt the same way.

It's a choice. Sure you CAN solo-grind quests up to level 80 and skip all the group content. But it's a choice.

Don't you see that? There is NO such thing as FORCED SOLOing in a MMORPG. It doesn't exist.

There is no content in MMO I have ever played that doesn't let you group up with others if you want to.

"But it's not as efficient, I could do it much faster playing solo" well right there THAT is a choice YOU make to try and speed through the game and min/max power level.

Don't you see? 

Yes, they have made solo play viable in modern MMOs but they have done nothing to discourage group play. It is YOU that is discouraging group play through your achiever, goal oriented, min/maxer hardcore power leveler mindset.

Don't you see?

+1 Interwebz to you. Well said.

 50 players are online. 49 are soloing. Where's the choice in that?

Well, I just checked out EVE Online (not signed in, just looked at how the game functions), and I must say, that has to be the most kick ass group-based game I've seen so far. My only gripe, the 15$ per month fee. I will be going to college (or most likely a trade school) soon, and perhaps, for now, the game can wait until I get settled...

However, I've heard good things about Earthrise too, but I have a few questions:

1. Is it group based, or at least groups make a difference in the game?

2. What is the death punishment? Is it light (little to no punishment when dying, in fact, sometimes rewarded, brrrr....), middle-core (balanced death punishment, you do feel the sting of dying), or rogue-like (harsh punishment, learn to stop sucking)? Also, does someone know the actual death punishments of that game?

3. What is the fee? Annually or monthly? How much does it cost? Is it free, and you just have to buy it? In general, what does it cost to play this game.

Originally posted by RamenThief7

Well, I just checked out EVE Online (not signed in, just looked at how the game functions), and I must say, that has to be the most kick ass group-based game I've seen so far. My only gripe, the 15$ per month fee. I will be going to college (or most likely a trade school) soon, and perhaps, for now, the game can wait until I get settled...

However, I've heard good things about Earthrise too, but I have a few questions:

1. Is it group based, or at least groups make a difference in the game?

2. What is the death punishment? Is it light (little to no punishment when dying, in fact, sometimes rewarded, brrrr....), middle-core (balanced death punishment, you do feel the sting of dying), or rogue-like (harsh punishment, learn to stop sucking)? Also, does someone know the actual death punishments of that game?

3. What is the fee? Annually or monthly? How much does it cost? Is it free, and you just have to buy it? In general, what does it cost to play this game.

EvE is a great game that has a huge learning curve, so you don't get a lot of the easy mode players past the third day of their trial.

Earthrise from what I can see is going to allow for solo and group play. It's going to be more like EvE with characters instead of ships. Granted people or guilds that group up will have obvious advantages since it is a FFA loot PVP game when it comes to fights. But don't let the FFA loot scare you off, everything can be insured so you shouldn't lose equipment permanantly.

It'll be 13-15 bucks a month but it's still in beta I wouldn't expect it until next year so by then who knows cost might not be an issue. 

There's not a ton of info out there right now, but youtube has some videos.

Originally posted by Ozarumon

Soloers should be given loot that allows them to advance in solo content like group loot allows players to advance in harder dungeons and raids. Soloers should not be given same quality or just almost as good quality gear as a raider/grouper.

I don't think that's exactly the solution but close.

there should be raid specific gear. There should be lower lvl raids that don't require it but that players can earn this raid gear.

otherwise there should be gear for general pve whether group or solo. This way you don't separate players when they want to play together but those who are dedicated to raiding or even pvp content can specialize.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Ozarumon

Soloers should be given loot that allows them to advance in solo content like group loot allows players to advance in harder dungeons and raids. Soloers should not be given same quality or just almost as good quality gear as a raider/grouper.

 

I don't think that's exactly the solution but close.

there should be raid specific gear. There should be lower lvl raids that don't require it but that players can earn this raid gear.

otherwise there should be gear for general pve whether group or solo. This way you don't separate players when they want to play together but those who are dedicated to raiding or even pvp content can specialize.

A post I made in another thread on these same arguments

You know I keep thinking about that concept and an intriguing idea came to me.

I'm sure it would be difficult to code, but imagine you enter a dungeon that is an old castle. In order to complete the dungeon you would need two events to happen. One could be group based and one solo based. Say,, the group must take on the armies in the courtyard, hallways providing a distraction for storyline purposes. The Solo player would sneak into the castle via other mean and has to complete some task,,( close the gates, set a bomb in the ammunition room, assassinate a few lieutenants) when the solo player accomplishes his goal it allows for an unlock of the final stage that the group can get to.

The solo player can then fight his way through his portion of the dungeon to assist in the final battle. At completion everyone gets a shot at the rewards. That way the solo player can see end game content, get the loot, and Groups have the challenge of finding competent solo players to asssist them with a large epic raid.

 

Originally posted by raystantz

here's a possible solution.

- Quest model. (menial quests can be soloed, but there should be a large variety of quests in all level brackets that "require" a group to complete. You don't lose anything for not doing the "group" quests if you chose you don't want to do them, but the grouped folks will be rewarded with either some item or title that sets them apart. Solo players may opt to do the group quests at a decreased difficulty level, but would forfeit the same rewards as the "group" version. Also, in addtion "solo only" quests could be added (maat fight anyone?) that could ONLY be done solo, that would have rewards on the same level as some of the group content for that bracket. However, the group content should always have slightly better rewards, because it takes more effort to coordinate those, regardless of difficulty. This way, everyone gets content, soloers who refuse to group can do so without major penalty, and groupers can group and get the rewards for doing it that way.

I think we have the same aim but my solution would be different.

I don't think group quests work well currently because of the LFG problem. For grouping I think it's better to try and entice players to the same spot and then once they're there make it so it's in their interest to group. So my (attempted) solution would be to go back to mob grind being c 70% of levelling, then give big open dungeons a 10% exp bonus to attract players there, and then make those dungeons dangerous enough to encourage grouping. It should be easy to solo near the entrance (because that helps the LFG problem of waiting if there aren't enough players when you arrive), but deeper in it should be hard to solo (but not impossible) and easier to group. That way most groupers would have plenty of people to group with and fanatic soloers would have a challenge.

I'd make group quests actually be inside the dungeons. So instead of a player being LFG in a zone for ages trying to get a group together for a group thing they'd already be grouped levelling in a dungeon zone and the group could just decide to go try a group quest in an instance inside that open dungeon.

Mob grinding on it's own gets very dull though so you'd still want plenty of solo quests but I'd make the quests less about XP and more about other things like gear and faction. Examples:

1. Each class has armour quests in their home town for their class, maybe three separate chains starting at level 1, 11, and 21. The gear would be some of the best for that tier and fill 3-4 equipment slots but the reward was the gear and not XP.

2. Respawn at nearest "friendly" healer NPC. A race's newbie zone might have a friendly village near the newbie dungeon so if you died you'd respawn close by but the dungeon in the next zone might be a 5 minute run from the newbie village. However near that higher level dungeon is a neutral centaur village with a chain of faction quests that will turn them friendly so you can use their healer and merchants. There'd be a big incentive to do the faction quest but it wouldn't be about XP.

3. Quests to unlock zones e.g get a key to a tomb or tower or something.

So, as far as levelling was concerned you'd basically divide player time into monster-bashing for XP and solo questing for gear and faction.

Originally posted by Greenie

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Ozarumon

Soloers should be given loot that allows them to advance in solo content like group loot allows players to advance in harder dungeons and raids. Soloers should not be given same quality or just almost as good quality gear as a raider/grouper.

 

I don't think that's exactly the solution but close.

there should be raid specific gear. There should be lower lvl raids that don't require it but that players can earn this raid gear.

otherwise there should be gear for general pve whether group or solo. This way you don't separate players when they want to play together but those who are dedicated to raiding or even pvp content can specialize.

A post I made in another thread on these same arguments

You know I keep thinking about that concept and an intriguing idea came to me.

I'm sure it would be difficult to code, but imagine you enter a dungeon that is an old castle. In order to complete the dungeon you would need two events to happen. One could be group based and one solo based. Say,, the group must take on the armies in the courtyard, hallways providing a distraction for storyline purposes. The Solo player would sneak into the castle via other mean and has to complete some task,,( close the gates, set a bomb in the ammunition room, assassinate a few lieutenants) when the solo player accomplishes his goal it allows for an unlock of the final stage that the group can get to.

The solo player can then fight his way through his portion of the dungeon to assist in the final battle. At completion everyone gets a shot at the rewards. That way the solo player can see end game content, get the loot, and Groups have the challenge of finding competent solo players to asssist them with a large epic raid.

 

Ah, now that is an interesting concept. Soloist and Group-based quests that interact with each other. That idea is beautiful (difficult to accomplish, but non the less beautiful).

One thing that people sometimes get wrong is that since people play diverse roles, people forget that some groupies have roles that involve themselves being alone (or being with select people that have your similar abilities). Think of scout-like rogues. They go on ahead stealthily, and sometimes are by themselves, but they directly report back to a team the areas ahead, what enemies you will face, etc. So, a person works by themselves or with only a few other people, but they still contribute to the team. That's my favorite style of play on FPS (and I suppose it's worth a shot on an mmorpg). So, perhaps solos and groups can mingle together, whether by connected quests, or by different styles and roles of playing...

Originally posted by RamenThief7

Ah, now that is an interesting concept. Soloist and Group-based quests that interact with each other. That idea is beautiful (difficult to accomplish, but non the less beautiful).

One thing that people sometimes get wrong is that since people play diverse roles, people forget that some groupies have roles that involve themselves being alone (or being with select people that have your similar abilities). Think of scout-like rogues. They go on ahead stealthily, and sometimes are by themselves, but they directly report back to a team the areas ahead, what enemies you will face, etc. So, a person works by themselves or with only a few other people, but they still contribute to the team. That's my favorite style of play on FPS (and I suppose it's worth a shot on an mmorpg). So, perhaps solos and groups can mingle together, whether by connected quests, or by different styles and roles of playing...

That is one thing I absolutely loved about DaoC Pre-ToA.  Stealthers were a vital source of recon for the RVR community. Whether it was relic raids, keep takes, or even milegate standoffs stealther couldlet you know an incoming force's numbers and direction of travel.

Even in keep takes stealthers were able to climb walls and help take out squishy support classes to help in the keep take.

We even used to group one ranger in particular for an ability called Truesight. He'd pop the skill and destealth all the stealthers in the area and we'd all clean up the rps.

But that was before games became a huge loot fest and when realm pride/teamwork mattered.

Originally posted by Greenie

Originally posted by Dibdabs

Originally posted by heerobya

What game are you playing?

Because every MMORPG I play you get better rewards and more experiences/money/gear from grouping then soloing.

Nope - by grouping with 3 other people for average PvE mobs, you get 25% of the XP and loot, and only have a 1 in 4 chance of winning a roll for an item you want.  Grouping for a quest is practicable, though, since nobody shares quest xp and you get the full quest rewards you are entitled to when the quest is completed, but you'll still have to put up with the conditions described above for standard mobs encountered along the way.  I prefer groups that last one quest and then promptly break up, personally.

The standard rationale for grouping is, of course, that you're killing mobs faster - but I'd prefer all the loot, full xp and the pleasure of not listening to the blather of people I'll never see again.  XP may not be as fast, but it's fast enough for me, it's more profitable - especially given that any resources/nodes I encounter are all mine to gather - and there's a hell of a lot less arguments and whinging over drops, too.

 

So your style of solo play is based on an anti-social and greedy premise. Not that it's wrong, I'm just trying to clarify because of the myriad of arguments out right now about solo play, social aspects, and loot whoring.

Not anti-social as such, but I've been playing MMORPGS for almost 10 years (sometimes a couple at a time, swapping from one to the other) and after encountering the 1,000th incompetent, whiny, dimwitted player in a group I just got sort of burnt out. My fun has been spoilt too many times for me to EVER group with strangers, even if they might potentially be great people - too much chaff and not enough wheat.

Greed isn't a factor either - if I want something, I solo for it for the reasons given above.

Originally posted by Greenie

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Ozarumon

Soloers should be given loot that allows them to advance in solo content like group loot allows players to advance in harder dungeons and raids. Soloers should not be given same quality or just almost as good quality gear as a raider/grouper.

 

I don't think that's exactly the solution but close.

there should be raid specific gear. There should be lower lvl raids that don't require it but that players can earn this raid gear.

otherwise there should be gear for general pve whether group or solo. This way you don't separate players when they want to play together but those who are dedicated to raiding or even pvp content can specialize.

A post I made in another thread on these same arguments

You know I keep thinking about that concept and an intriguing idea came to me.

I'm sure it would be difficult to code, but imagine you enter a dungeon that is an old castle. In order to complete the dungeon you would need two events to happen. One could be group based and one solo based. Say,, the group must take on the armies in the courtyard, hallways providing a distraction for storyline purposes. The Solo player would sneak into the castle via other mean and has to complete some task,,( close the gates, set a bomb in the ammunition room, assassinate a few lieutenants) when the solo player accomplishes his goal it allows for an unlock of the final stage that the group can get to.

The solo player can then fight his way through his portion of the dungeon to assist in the final battle. At completion everyone gets a shot at the rewards. That way the solo player can see end game content, get the loot, and Groups have the challenge of finding competent solo players to asssist them with a large epic raid.

 

An interesting concept, and I'd like seeing this in an MMO I play, but it's still akin to group play :) (Actually now that I think of it, in group PVP we do this kind of teams+solo fighters stunt quite often). What you're describing would still require organization, and following other people's schedule, which if I'm not mistaken most solo players would not like to hassle with. 

Any game that's sincere in making the solo player not feel left out has to give them their own set of rewards that can be earned by truly working alone. Make group play the path of least resistance (thus their rewards easier to earn), but make it possible for resolute solo players to get a powerful special set of rewards as well... that is, if they're willing to put in remarkably more time, more effort and, heck, even more skill than group players :)

Originally posted by Ozarumon

Maybe in the past like games with everquest 1 when it was very difficult to solo. but today when everything is watered down to the max I cant even think of one game where you cant solo. Can any one else?

In almost all games, you cannot solo the endgame because there is no endgame content for solo players.

Originally posted by thorwood

Originally posted by Ozarumon

Maybe in the past like games with everquest 1 when it was very difficult to solo. but today when everything is watered down to the max I cant even think of one game where you cant solo. Can any one else?

 

In almost all games, you cannot solo the endgame because there is no endgame content for solo players.

There is no EPIC encounters for solo players. Other than that you can do the same things any other player can do at endgame.

WoW you've got BG's, Arenas, Crafting, Titles, Auction House round robins,, etc...

WAR you've got scenarios, open world pvp, pve - although war's pve does suck outside of PQ's.

DaoC- there is pve content for you , RVR , is endgame which you can do solo

So it's not that there isn't things you can do, you just cannot do the group conent. Is that your complaint, or that other than what is available to you there isn't much else to do for everyone?