Whether you're in the pro-grouping camp or pro-soloing camp, one thing needs to stop; this declaration of "This is how MMOs are supposed to be" crap.

An MMO can be anything from 100% grouping to 0%.    The percentage does not in any way diminish the game's type as being an MMO.

MMO means large game online with lots of people playing simultaneously.    It does not say anything about how much grouping is required for it to meet that definition.

'nuff said.

Originally posted by Jagsman32

While many will disagree with you, I don't.

So many MMORPGs coming out today promote soloing. Leveling up by going from one quest giver to another does not make an MMO. I 

play MMORPGs to socialize and to group, and that is not happening if all you need to do to level is talk to an NPC and collect 10 hides. Everquest promoted grouping with difficulty and a certain lack of a linear quest line, and in my opinion was the greatest MMORPG to come out. It really isn't that difficult. Increase difficulty and stop giving easy, linear quest lines. Give us grouping options for cheese sake.

EQ wasn't hard it just took all your life which i DON'T want to go through in another game 

Originally posted by DaX.9

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

 

Paper and pencil dungeons and dragons has done nothing of the sort.

This is entirely up to the players and the Dungeon Master.

You can run any sort of campaign you like in Paper and Pencil.

you can gain a level solo every play session solo if that's the game you want to play. Or the Dungeon Master can kill your character if you leave town alone, if that's the game you want to play.

What rules are you reading?

 

You can read any of rules, and I may suggest reading dungeon master guide and monster hanbook while you at it, where is nicely stated how is experience given among players.

Dungeon master can create his own world yes, and he can give any kind of experience he wants yes, but you missed my point for light years cause I was reffering to rules in dungeons and dragons not how they are interpreted by some dungeon masters or players. You know what I am talking about right? Core rules, you know what that is right?

Speaking how everything can be changed in dungeons and dragons and how GM can do that and do this is stupid, since you do not play anymore dungeons and dragons, you play something that your GM created based on dungeons and dragons.

And one more thing, GM which is killing players just for his personal fun is egocentric and he needs help.

Which of the 5+ versions of the core rules are you referring to? Given how much D&D has changed over the years trying to make such a generalization is simply ignorant. Like it or not GMs are encouraged to vary the game to best fit there own abilities and those of their players. Given the limitations of the original rules GMs had to be flexible. Playing solo and group adventures has been possible from the beginning of D&D. The rules for XP started as simply dividing them between party members and have become more complex over the years. Someone is still playing D&D even if they mix and match rules from the different versions.

D&D's origin is from the miniatures war game chainmail and the orignal rules set reflected that. Role playing is something that the players and GMs added.

The GM has a free hand at setting up the world. He can make it solo friendly or group friendly depending on his player base and his own preferences.

In my opinion many AD&D versions start out strongly encouraging group play at lower levels but as players gain abilities they actually are more capable of solo adventuring at later levels. Kind of the reverse of the MMO model.

Originally posted by kdkirmse

Which of the 5+ versions of the core rules are you referring to? Given how much D&D has changed over the years trying to make such a generalization is simply ignorant. Like it or not GMs are encouraged to vary the game to best fit there own abilities and those of their players. Given the limitations of the original rules GMs had to be flexible. Playing solo and group adventures has been possible from the beginning of D&D. The rules for XP started as simply dividing them between party members and have become more complex over the years. Someone is still playing D&D even if they mix and match rules from the different versions.

D&D's origin is from the miniatures war game chainmail and the orignal rules set reflected that. Role playing is something that the players and GMs added.

The GM has a free hand at setting up the world. He can make it solo friendly or group friendly depending on his player base and his own preferences.

In my opinion many AD&D versions start out strongly encouraging group play at lower levels but as players gain abilities they actually are more capable of solo adventuring at later levels. Kind of the reverse of the MMO model.

Hm, maybe we are talking about 2 different games here, cause dungeons and dragons latest rule set release is 4. I do not know what other dungeons and dragons exist there but here we have only 4 edittions of rules. But to answer you question I am reffering to most popular 3.5 rules set.

And you do not need to state anything about game itself since I have been GM for like 9 years and I have been playing D&D from first edition. I am well aware about thing how D&D works but than again you missed my point couple of light years in another dirrection.

Originally posted by AstralMystic

It is only the result of Ignorance. A massive multi player online role playing game.

This genre is like the seed of a great tree and the poison that does not allow It to grow is solo game design.

A gamer should be allowed to play the game and have experiences without grouping but the core component that is needed for this genre to grow is community and grouping.

Player interactivity, grouping and community is as important to keeping this genre alive as food is to our bodies.

Without It, It becomes a dead life form.

Follow this rule and die as a game company, you better allow solo play and darn near support it more than any other type or you won't have players.

Originally posted by kdkirmse

 In my opinion many AD&D versions start out strongly encouraging group play at lower levels but as players gain abilities they actually are more capable of solo adventuring at later levels. Kind of the reverse of the MMO model.

If you played AD&D with this soloing thing, than I must say you have not played AD&D at all or your GM has not been able to provide more chalenging quests and puzzles for your group so you could go solo.

I am sorry but AD&D has always been and it will always be about party, not single hero.

Originally posted by SwampRob

Whether you're in the pro-grouping camp or pro-soloing camp, one thing needs to stop; this declaration of "This is how MMOs are supposed to be" crap.

An MMO can be anything from 100% grouping to 0%.    The percentage does not in any way diminish the game's type as being an MMO.

MMO means large game online with lots of people playing simultaneously.    It does not say anything about how much grouping is required for it to meet that definition.

'nuff said.

I will only grant you this on one condition.

You have to stop saying that if you make it just as easy to solo as to group, but merely allow people to group, it's a good grouping game and the groupers should have nothing to complain about, and the solo play doesn't affect them, or shouldn't.

In other words, you have to stop saying a solo friendly game that lets you group is a great grouping game, and the groupers shouldnt' complain that they have no good grouping games.

Originally posted by DaX.9

Originally posted by kdkirmse

Which of the 5+ versions of the core rules are you referring to? Given how much D&D has changed over the years trying to make such a generalization is simply ignorant. Like it or not GMs are encouraged to vary the game to best fit there own abilities and those of their players. Given the limitations of the original rules GMs had to be flexible. Playing solo and group adventures has been possible from the beginning of D&D. The rules for XP started as simply dividing them between party members and have become more complex over the years. Someone is still playing D&D even if they mix and match rules from the different versions.

D&D's origin is from the miniatures war game chainmail and the orignal rules set reflected that. Role playing is something that the players and GMs added.

The GM has a free hand at setting up the world. He can make it solo friendly or group friendly depending on his player base and his own preferences.

In my opinion many AD&D versions start out strongly encouraging group play at lower levels but as players gain abilities they actually are more capable of solo adventuring at later levels. Kind of the reverse of the MMO model.

 

Hm, maybe we are talking about 2 different games here, cause dungeons and dragons latest rule set release is 4. I do not know what other dungeons and dragons exist there but here we have only 4 edittions of rules. But to answer you question I am reffering to most popular 3.5 rules set.

And you do not need to state anything about game itself since I have been GM for like 9 years and I have been playing D&D from first edition. I am well aware about thing how D&D works but than again you missed my point couple of light years in another dirrection.

Original D&D, Basic D&D and AD&D 1, 2, 3, 3.5, 4.0 I count eight versions of the game. 

Where you made your mistake is saying that if someone varies the rules they are no longer playing D&D. GMs are expected to do this.

Originally posted by DaX.9

I am sorry but AD&D has always been and it will always be about party, not single hero.

Wow, didn't know we had the reincarnation of Gary Gygax here who could tell us all about how D&D is *SUPPOSED* to be.

Originally posted by AstralMystic

It is only the result of Ignorance. A massive multi player online role playing game.

This genre is like the seed of a great tree and the poison that does not allow It to grow is solo game design.

A gamer should be allowed to play the game and have experiences without grouping but the core component that is needed for this genre to grow is community and grouping.

Player interactivity, grouping and community is as important to keeping this genre alive as food is to our bodies.

Without It, It becomes a dead life form.

Since it is a Massive Mutiplayer Online Role Playing Game, grouping should not be allowed either.  Grouping is not massive.  Only raids should be allowed.  Not normal raids, but massive ones.  Seventy-five people a raid might be enough for most online games, but not a massive multiplayer online role playing game.  Raids should be at least 642 players (now that is massive).  I can see it now, you log on every night and spend 7 hours rounding up enough people to go on a raid.

Also, this is a massive multiplayer online ROLE PLAYING game.  This means that everyone has to be in character 100% of the time.  Watchdog software should be developed that will fry the motherboard of anyone who is not in character.

Now, sarcasm and word games aside, I have a few questions for you.  Why do you feel the need to FORCE others to play YOUR playstyle?  What is wrong with allowing people to do what they want?  You are actually blaming players of a different playstyle for sorry gameplay.  This blame should be placed on the developers.  It is their lack of imagination and creativity that leads to an imbalance among the playstyles.  A good game should be able to support, reward, and balance multiple playstyles.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by DaX.9

I am sorry but AD&D has always been and it will always be about party, not single hero.

Wow, didn't know we had the reincarnation of Gary Gygax here who could tell us all about how D&D is *SUPPOSED* to be.

or maybe its so obvious that no one would be stupid enough to ask Gary Gygax (RIP) if you could play D&D by yourself in fear they would be laughed at by him.

because i don't know about you and maybe your that "special" but everytime i have played or seen someone play D&D its never by themselves.

Yah D&D is group based that goes without saying.

Originally posted by Ravanos

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by DaX.9

I am sorry but AD&D has always been and it will always be about party, not single hero.

Wow, didn't know we had the reincarnation of Gary Gygax here who could tell us all about how D&D is *SUPPOSED* to be.

or maybe its so obvious that no one would be stupid enough to ask Gary Gygax (RIP) if you could play D&D by yourself in fear they would be laughed at by him.

because i don't know about you and maybe your that "special" but everytime i have played or seen someone play D&D its never by themselves.

With a very skilled and imaginative DM, I've seen it done, and I've seen it done beautifully.

Originally posted by elderotter

Originally posted by Ravanos

Originally posted by elderotter

Originally posted by AstralMystic

Originally posted by elderotter

 

 

so you are hinting that not only do groupers need to be in a group to succeed, they need double xp too?   LOL.

actually i think grouping should give you 6 times the exp soloing does since you need 6 working parts to make a successful group.

you soloers truely are the elitists now, anything that is proposed to help other playstyles "hurts yours" and thus you rally against. you never actually answered my point though in the typical elite solo way

if grouping gets a bonus exp but they don't take anything away from soloing how can you consider that a nerf?

 

 

 

mostly I solo to avoid the idiots that are attracted to random groups.  I group within my guild, and when I want to solo, solo.  Random groups are death fests as far as I am concerned. 

you know why they are death fests? because they are not required so people don't know how to play in them. its amazing what happens even in a new game like Aion when people come from group oriented games. for example ... i was in a group doing one of the first instances. healing was great the tank was amazing the crowd control was out of this world. yet this one gladiator just kept AOEing constantly and actually caused us to wipe a few times. so during a bit of downtime the question came up ... "what games do you all come from?"

myself - EQ1/EQ2 (group based game)
Templar/Cleric - FFXI (group based game)
Sorc - EQ1 (group based game)
chanter - lineage 2 (group based game)

and guess whats next?!?!

the AOE happy Gladiator - WoW (OMGROFL SOLO!)

I consider soloing a challenge - pitting yourself and your knowledge of your class against several mobs at once with no help - I like the challenge.  If I die it is my fault.

pitting the knowledge of your class ... really? are you serious? i have soloed in many games and it is about as mind numbing as you can get. i don't see how people can consider soloing as challenging, especially considering most solo mobs are made to be beat by the lowest common denominator of skills and be beaten by all classes so thus they cannot do anything special.

Also it seems to me that random groupers are in many cases people who do not know their class's capabilities and often fail in a group.  Otherwise their guild would be grouping with them and they would not have to resort to random groups.

actually thats because as i said before grouping is not require nor encouraged so most soloers have no clue how to play thier class in a group. As for the guild comment not really, my guild has played together for 10 years yet in most new MMOs we don't group (unless its to finish a quest) since its much faster and easier to get to max level solo.

 

and thats the problem with MMOs right now, i don't mind you can solo to max level but there is no other way to get to max level efficiently except soloing.  And as i said before if you propose an idea to promote grouping with no change to solo exp, the elite soloers see this as a threat and flame it to hell and back.

 

I mean sure you could group for "fun" but I could also tell you that you should fight unarmed with a melee character or just melee attacks with a caster for fun. but i doubt you would do it since its not an efficient way to play.

or maybe they should give no exp for quests since the lore and storytelling is reward enough and its fun to read about the lore of the world ... amirite?
 

 

 

You are merely proving that groupers have no care for how others enjoy the game, you think only grouping should be allowed.  Frankly I think it should be balanced, but people like you are starting to convince me that groupers should be outlawed from games.  For your knowledge - I have played both grouping and solo in many games: AC, Shadowbane, EQ/EQ2, LOTRO,EVE, DDO, COx, GuildWars, Star Wars Galaxies, etc.  I know how to tank, heal and DPS and can play those roles in any group.  I cann also solo.  As I have said many times - I prefer the option to do either.  My experience with people who cannot group well is also that they are from WoW, but they grouped there.  So I guess WoW, not soloing is the problem.    Also I solo'd a lot in EQ2 -  a group based game according to you, and never had many problems till I hit lvl 45 or so.  After that it became a real challenge. 

I truly hope the developers make a group only game for you groupers, so that you can go play it and leave the rest of us normal gamers who can play either way alone.

Wow, are you freaking kidding? That isn't close to what he said...

This was already argued to death, until content is accessed based on subscription rate, deal with it, MMO != group, never has been, never will be, no matter how much you flog the old nag. Any one arguing about D&D, can piss off and play it then, one has nothing to do with the other, mmo’s were born from the old MUDs which had an RPG focus but were never group centric, regardless of how much you wish it were not the case.

If there were a market for your elitist horseshit, it would already be out there, that is the thing about market economies, the majority and their fatter wallets rule. Oh that’s right, DDO based on your blessed rule set and a group dynamic was a huge bloody flop, ---> doors that way, goodbye.
 

Originally posted by Scot

I do feel this issue is one of the most overblown on the site. After all not many here want a game where they only solo, or only group. It is about the balance and the relative rewards. I find myself on the grouping side because MMO’s have moved to nearly total soloing content, becoming a clone of solo RPG’s.

But a 100% group game is not what I am after, more balance and a separation of rewards is the key. What about items that you can only get in a group that only give you an additional bonus when you are in a group? In other words Mr Solo completes a quest on his own and gets a +10 ring, Mr Group does the same quest and gets a +20 ring with an additional +5 if he is in a group.

I feel it's overblown because it leads to a more important issue that deals with the strength of MMORPGs these days. The rewards you speak of in your post are shallow and immaterial. Pixelated items that demonstrate players' status in the game. The only way to achieve progression or status in many of todays MMORPGs is to acquire items and stat caps.

What the hell happened to the community? Todays MMORPGs pit the player directly against the entire community with tiered progression, where the mentality becomes overwhelmingly self serving. "What do I get out of participating?" A big reason that so many people are weary of the solo-friendliness of todays MMORPGs has a big part to do with what the gameplay style does to the overall communities. Gear progression and shallow material rewards have caused it to decay in my opinion.

The player's attitudes toward one another have changed, and I honestly wonder if the damage can ever be undone because player's have become so used to this type of gameplay that they commonly infiltrate other games and press them to become more familiar.

So let me ask you soloers this .... if say a game like WoW (since many have played that) added a group exp bonus code. so where as .....

before the patch.

soloer gets 1000xp
grouper gets 1200xp

after the patch.

soloer gets 1000xp
grouper gets 2000xp

mind you this is soloer fighting solo mobs and grouper fighting group oriented mobs with a full group.

would you be against something like this? and if so why? how does it hinder your playstyle if nothing is done to effect your xp income?

Originally posted by RendRegen

Yah D&D is group based that goes without saying.

Which is why TSR officially released module B-Solo, Ghost of Lion Castle, which was a solo adventure.

Yup, no question, TSR never supported solo adventuring.

Originally posted by Scot

 

But a 100% group game is not what I am after, more balance and a separation of rewards is the key. What about items that you can only get in a group that only give you an additional bonus when you are in a group? In other words Mr Solo completes a quest on his own and gets a +10 ring, Mr Group does the same quest and gets a +20 ring with an additional +5 if he is in a group.

Until "Mr. solo" subs are 150% less by your calculation, he has every right to expect similar rewards be available from the content he enjoys.

Mmo’s charge the same subscription rates regardless of preferred play style, any game that claims to cater to both playstyles, had better well offer comparable content. For what it's worth, it could equally be argued, as "mr solo" cannot cover all his bases with healing, cc, tanking, dps, off tanking, in the same way a group can, and never hope to compete with group’s zerging solo content. He should be the one getting the extra stats; it is no more preposterous an idea than the one you propose.

Content is scaled based on the target demographic, solo content when soloed is of comparable difficulty to group content when tackled by groups, and neither should be rewarded differently as a result. I would also argue, there is typically more risk of dying, when playing solo than there is grouped, because, as already mentioned the solo’er goes with what he has, and will most certainly not be able to heal,tank,dps and cc all in the same instant.

Before some muttonhead attempts to classify me, to suit his own agenda. I enjoy solo and group content equally, and have run very successful guilds with numbers running into triple figures. However, I understand neither play style has any more validity than the other, and both sides have every right to expect comparable, reward, content and experience while continuing to pay exactly the same subscription for a service.
 

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by RendRegen

Yah D&D is group based that goes without saying.

 

Which is why TSR officially released module B-Solo, Ghost of Lion Castle, which was a solo adventure.

Yup, no question, TSR never supported solo adventuring.

You know, facts and reality are just a crutch for you because you can't properly fabricate an argument. :p