Most people are both.  In fact I would dare-say that most people would much rather group than play solo.  The reason for solo-friendly games is that most games make forming a group to be a pain.  The time it takes forming a group, holding a group together and everything else that comes with it, is time wasted that could be spent playing the game.  Once you get a group together, you may advance faster, but in the mean-time those that are soloing are still playing the game.

I've found myself in this situation many times.   I want a group to go do something, but I don't want to put up with that hassle.  So, I go and play solo.  I have fun, where instead I'd just be sitting around waiting for that "key person" to join the group.

If grouping was quick, easy, and painless you'd see ALOT more people playing in groups who would otherwise solo.  Also, if there was more group oriented content you'd see alot more people playing group. 

As it is, if you make a very solo game, that's not easy to group together, guess what.  People will solo.

For a game to be good for grouping you need a 50/50 split in content, both that will reach the top, and that combination of content should not just be Solo content, and harder variation for the group.

Originally posted by robert4818

Most people are both.  In fact I would dare-say that most people would much rather group than play solo.  The reason for solo-friendly games is that most games make forming a group to be a pain.  The time it takes forming a group, holding a group together and everything else that comes with it, is time wasted that could be spent playing the game.  Once you get a group together, you may advance faster, but in the mean-time those that are soloing are still playing the game.

I've found myself in this situation many times.   I want a group to go do something, but I don't want to put up with that hassle.  So, I go and play solo.  I have fun, where instead I'd just be sitting around waiting for that "key person" to join the group.

If grouping was quick, easy, and painless you'd see ALOT more people playing in groups who would otherwise solo.  Also, if there was more group oriented content you'd see alot more people playing group. 

This is pretty much sums my feelings on grouping up until the last sentence.  Until grouping is less of a chore that doesn't require certain classes, more people will choose to solo over the hassle of standing around waiting on (usually) a healer or two for half their gaming time.  The fact that most MMOs, even ones that are more grouping dependent,  actually punish grouping doesn't help.  

Maybe from your own experiences but I believe most people are soloists 1st. Ive seen people get burned out on raids and groups way too mnay times. Alot of people i know sign on to and play  mostly solo and consider the MMO part of a game a large chat / help/ info room instead of a game. Personally im 75% solo and 25% group if you want to assign a percentage.

(AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH fires plunger at Onyxia's Butt)

Robert, I agree on all counts. Increasing the rewards for grouping will never do as much to encourage grouping as reducing the hassle of getting a group together. I think that's the direction WOW has been headed with reducing the size of the group necessary for adventuring, and I think it's one of the reasons that DDO, now as F2P, is doing as well as it is. Getting a viable group of 4-6 people together is much faster and much easier to do.

I agree that Everyone is a little of both but I think it's not necessarily the fault of the game designers, but more of a fault in human nature. It's not an easy thing to get 5 people Anywhere to do anything together. Put them in a room together and they'll probably stand around, make small talk, or otherwise stall before getting the task done. 

I think game designers should make it easier yes, I think it should be a very smooth and easy process. Wow has made trumendous strides with this - making Porting easier and sharing quests easier and travel easier. It may "take away from the game" but accessability it adds really make it so much more appealing.  Heh try going back to Lotro or something and see how much fun it is to take literally 2 hours for a group that takes 3 hours to complete the task. 

Imo

Like it or not, you just changed the topic.  Now it's about "Oh dev, why have you burdened us by making our group consist of the trinity plus DPSers."  Bottom line is this.  A healer that can stand on there own in both PvP and PvE is whined about to no end by the PvP crowd.  The healer gets nurfed.  Thus, the devs have a choice of how to make the healer still viable in the game and that is to make it so you can't complete group content at level without a  healer.  I see this being a problem for pugs but not guilds.  If it is, then your guild has issues.

I agree that games need to make it easier to group, but if the game is decent and has a healthy population that will never be a problem. In Ultima Online it would only take a matter of minutes to get a PK'ing/PK hunting/Dungeon Crawling party together. In LoTRO I have never had a problem with groups (then again I play solo most of the time. <3 Minstrel). But in both these games (and I am assuming WoW is the same) the ease of finding groups fade over time. This could be due to server pop going down, guilds/kins becoming more entrenched and not wanting to PUG, or other such issues. This would explain why they are dropping the size requirements as they have been. I for one prefer to solo 90% of the time but am always willing to help others out. But as a solo player I feel penalized at the end game. I am FORCED to group in order to get the l33t gear. I am FORCED to group in order to finish my final class quests (LoTRO). It isn't that I dislike people or hate people, it is simply not my style. I like the OP's idea about 50/50 content and being able to take either track to the end game (currently you can solo to max level in any game, but what about the gear?) but my question is how easily/seamlessly can this be done? Would the current crop of MMO companies risk leaving the mold that they are 80% certain will make them money? 

I think the OP makes many valid points. We should however distinguish between the PUG, or pick up group as it's called, and the regular real life or in game friends that you group with.

I don't think many people that play online games mind grouping with their real life or long time in game friends. This is easy.

The hard part is grouping with people you don't know. Will they be nice, will they be asshats, will they do their jobs in the group or do they suck, will they drop out after 10 minutes without saying a word, will they want to do the same quests you do, etc., etc.

It's not easy to deal with all that, so I think there do need to be incentives to counter these sorts of things if you want to encourage Pick Up Groups.

If you want a game designed for only real life or long time in game friends to group, then you don't need any incentives to overcome these possibilities that often stop people from forming a group.

let's say, there's zero incentive to group. You get the exact same loot drops, exact same xp, group or solo. Ignore the time argument for a moment, which has been covered in other threads, i.e., you'll lose a lot of time forming and organizing a group that could have been spent xping solo.

Let's say you find a pick up group, and it sucks. One guy is insulting, another is a boob and can't remember he's a healer and not a tank, and another member is Leroy Jenkins. You wipe a couple of times, then the group disbands.

Now, you've made pretty much no xp, gotten no loot, and spent let's say an hour talking to these people, meeting up with them in different zones, deciding on which quest to go to, buffing everyone, and fighting some mobs, discussing what went wrong nad what everyone needs to do next time to get it right, before wiping again.

Ok, so you could have made the exact same xp you would have made with this party if you had been playing solo. Are you going to try another group again, or just run off and start soloing and say, well screw pick up groups, ain't worth it?

On the other hand, let's say there is a nice fat incentive to group. You crapped out with this first group, but you get in a second pick up group that works, AND lo and behold, you actually made MORE xp and loot than you would have made soloing that whole time. Well, first group sucked, but so what the incentive made it worthwhile to try it one more time.

However ,if you just want the game to encourage real life friends to group, or long time guild members, then that's a different game, and of course you can set the game so solo and group parties get the same reward. Real life friends and guild members will group, people will avoid PUGs like the plague.

Originally posted by illanadan

I agree that games need to make it easier to group, but if the game is decent and has a healthy population that will never be a problem. In Ultima Online it would only take a matter of minutes to get a PK'ing/PK hunting/Dungeon Crawling party together. In LoTRO I have never had a problem with groups (then again I play solo most of the time.

I'd say people group more in LOTRO and UO because grouping requires minimal effort and the content is designed so that screw ups, goofing around and novice gameplay don't result in a massive team wipe. Also, LOTRO and UO aren't dependent on the Holy Trinity for a successful group. Any mishmash of classes can easily do well in a group adventure in those two games - their focus is not on challenging the optimal minmax'd trinity but on offering a fun adventure or story for the players.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by illanadan

I agree that games need to make it easier to group, but if the game is decent and has a healthy population that will never be a problem. In Ultima Online it would only take a matter of minutes to get a PK'ing/PK hunting/Dungeon Crawling party together. In LoTRO I have never had a problem with groups (then again I play solo most of the time.

I'd say people group more in LOTRO and UO because grouping requires minimal effort and the content is designed so that screw ups, goofing around and novice gameplay don't result in a massive team wipe. Also, LOTRO and UO aren't dependent on the Holy Trinity for a successful group. Any mishmash of classes can easily do well in a group adventure in those two games - their focus is not on challenging the optimal minmax'd trinity but on offering a fun adventure or story for the players.

I agree that the Holy Trinity is a problem in grouping games. It certainly sucks to get three people together, normally enough to be a decent group to start with, but they are all tanks, for example, and therefore ineffective.

However, I LIKE the games where screwing up causes a party wipe. Take that need to pay attention and cooperate away, and you've taking away a huge part of what I find enjoyable in grouping in an MMORPG.

This is exactly what I felt in WoW pre-raid. Gee, I'm in a group? Doesn't seem like it compared to DAoC or EQ. Sure, a heal is thrown here or there, but really not near the coordination required to make sure you dont' wipe. That's the part that's challenging and fun for me. 

Get rid of that and it feels very watered down, not near as interesting or fun.

But the issue then becomes, is there really a way to make grouping quick, easy and painless? 

I'm not so sure there is because first of all, there's other people involved, and they always bollux things up.

Second, game design where every class combination is viable in every encounter seems sort of bland and un-fun actually, might as well only have one class then, the DPS/Tank/Healer character and then let everyone just sort of tank and spank.

Seems like to create a good grouping game, some limitations have to be imposed on the game world that will not please the more solo oriented player, because they will result in downtime and exclusion on occasion. (perhaps even frequently)

Assembling a good team of the right mix of players is sort of a strategic and solcial  element of MMO's and just one of the areas people need to master in order to succeed in a game.

Yes, its challenging to get a good team together, that would be the point right? To provide players with a challenge?

Apparently not what some folks are really looking for though, they want some sort of auto-join feature where you put together any 5 or 6 players and regardless of how skilled they are, the content will be quickly mastered.

I"m not saying everyone is like this, I just can't see a way to design a game that supports good group and solo content. People say it can be done, but I've yet to see it happen.  (at least to my liking).

Don't get me wrong, I like to solo some, used to do it all the time in DAOC, but the game mechanics encouraged me to group up when I had the time and could find a decent party. 

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by illanadan

I agree that games need to make it easier to group, but if the game is decent and has a healthy population that will never be a problem. In Ultima Online it would only take a matter of minutes to get a PK'ing/PK hunting/Dungeon Crawling party together. In LoTRO I have never had a problem with groups (then again I play solo most of the time.

I'd say people group more in LOTRO and UO because grouping requires minimal effort and the content is designed so that screw ups, goofing around and novice gameplay don't result in a massive team wipe. Also, LOTRO and UO aren't dependent on the Holy Trinity for a successful group. Any mishmash of classes can easily do well in a group adventure in those two games - their focus is not on challenging the optimal minmax'd trinity but on offering a fun adventure or story for the players.

 

I agree that the Holy Trinity is a problem in grouping games. It certainly sucks to get three people together, normally enough to be a decent group to start with, but they are all tanks, for example, and therefore ineffective.

However, I LIKE the games where screwing up causes a party wipe. Take that need to pay attention and cooperate away, and you've taking away a huge part of what I find enjoyable in grouping in an MMORPG.

This is exactly what I felt in WoW pre-raid. Gee, I'm in a group? Doesn't seem like it compared to DAoC or EQ. Sure, a heal is thrown here or there, but really not near the coordination required to make sure you dont' wipe. That's the part that's challenging and fun for me. 

Get rid of that and it feels very watered down, not near as interesting or fun.

 

Ihmo, good post.  You've finally said what I've been getting at all the time.  You are finally getting the point of why devs can't make design choices purely for the pug group.  If you do, it will completely water down the game for friends/family/guild groups and raiders.  Other wise, 85% of the groupers out there that are with friends/family/guild are going to steam roll content (i.e. watered down) much worse than it is today.  Catering to the pug group is a bad idea in my honest opinion.

Originally posted by Shannia  

You are finally getting the point of why devs can't make design choices purely for the pug group.  If you do, it will completely water down the game for friends/family/guild groups and raiders.  

You are riding on the assumption that all friend/family/guild groups want the same thing as raiders. Most MMO gamers are not doing a group event to try to survive the experience ; they are doing it to enjoy the experience ('enjoy' meaning many things to many people and not necessarily challenge), and that means the interest level in difficulty for most will be low to medium at best. AoC's selection of easy/hard for each zone is an example of one way that games work towards appeasing all groups.

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by illanadan

I agree that games need to make it easier to group, but if the game is decent and has a healthy population that will never be a problem. In Ultima Online it would only take a matter of minutes to get a PK'ing/PK hunting/Dungeon Crawling party together. In LoTRO I have never had a problem with groups (then again I play solo most of the time.

I'd say people group more in LOTRO and UO because grouping requires minimal effort and the content is designed so that screw ups, goofing around and novice gameplay don't result in a massive team wipe. Also, LOTRO and UO aren't dependent on the Holy Trinity for a successful group. Any mishmash of classes can easily do well in a group adventure in those two games - their focus is not on challenging the optimal minmax'd trinity but on offering a fun adventure or story for the players.

 

I agree that the Holy Trinity is a problem in grouping games. It certainly sucks to get three people together, normally enough to be a decent group to start with, but they are all tanks, for example, and therefore ineffective.

However, I LIKE the games where screwing up causes a party wipe. Take that need to pay attention and cooperate away, and you've taking away a huge part of what I find enjoyable in grouping in an MMORPG.

This is exactly what I felt in WoW pre-raid. Gee, I'm in a group? Doesn't seem like it compared to DAoC or EQ. Sure, a heal is thrown here or there, but really not near the coordination required to make sure you dont' wipe. That's the part that's challenging and fun for me. 

Get rid of that and it feels very watered down, not near as interesting or fun.

 

 

Ihmo, good post.  You've finally said what I've been getting at all the time.  You are finally getting the point of why devs can't make design choices purely for the pug group.  If you do, it will completely water down the game for friends/family/guild groups and raiders.  Other wise, 85% of the groupers out there that are with friends/family/guild are going to steam roll content (i.e. watered down) much worse than it is today.  Catering to the pug group is a bad idea in my honest opinion.

 

Actually, you're missing my point entirely.

I WANT the game to cater to the PUG.

I can play perhaps on Wednesday at 8 o'clock. My real life friend or guild mates are playing on Tuesday at 9 o'clock.

therefore, if I want to  play in a good group, whenever I have time to play, it's often going to be a PUG.

I don't want the game to be watered down at all. I want it to be much harder pre-raid than anything I see in WAR, LotRO, WoW, and similar games.

The problem IMO, is once you make it harder, you have to compensate players for this difficulty level, or screw it, might as well solo.

So yes, we're in agreement on making the game with tough content for groups, be they rl friends or pick ups.

We're not in agreement on making the solo player the easier path to choose if grouping is challenging. Soloing should be A path to choose, but not to the point you're pushed in that direction because grouping is not rewarding enough.

Did you ever play EQ or DAoC? Real life friends and guilds did not "steam roll" content, IMO. When the game is designed so that the content is challenging, AND seriously encourages grouping, pick up groups can get very good.

I was often in Pick Up Groups in DAoC and EQ where you did not have to say a word. Everyone fell into their roles, and worked like a well oiled machine with in minutes.

I never saw guilds complaining that the content was to easy, and they could just steamroll the content. It simply wasn't the case.

Rather, the pick up groups had to step up their game. Why? Because the incentive was there.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by illanadan

I agree that games need to make it easier to group, but if the game is decent and has a healthy population that will never be a problem. In Ultima Online it would only take a matter of minutes to get a PK'ing/PK hunting/Dungeon Crawling party together. In LoTRO I have never had a problem with groups (then again I play solo most of the time.

I'd say people group more in LOTRO and UO because grouping requires minimal effort and the content is designed so that screw ups, goofing around and novice gameplay don't result in a massive team wipe. Also, LOTRO and UO aren't dependent on the Holy Trinity for a successful group. Any mishmash of classes can easily do well in a group adventure in those two games - their focus is not on challenging the optimal minmax'd trinity but on offering a fun adventure or story for the players.

 

I agree that the Holy Trinity is a problem in grouping games. It certainly sucks to get three people together, normally enough to be a decent group to start with, but they are all tanks, for example, and therefore ineffective.

However, I LIKE the games where screwing up causes a party wipe. Take that need to pay attention and cooperate away, and you've taking away a huge part of what I find enjoyable in grouping in an MMORPG.

This is exactly what I felt in WoW pre-raid. Gee, I'm in a group? Doesn't seem like it compared to DAoC or EQ. Sure, a heal is thrown here or there, but really not near the coordination required to make sure you dont' wipe. That's the part that's challenging and fun for me. 

Get rid of that and it feels very watered down, not near as interesting or fun.

 

 

Ihmo, good post.  You've finally said what I've been getting at all the time.  You are finally getting the point of why devs can't make design choices purely for the pug group.  If you do, it will completely water down the game for friends/family/guild groups and raiders.  Other wise, 85% of the groupers out there that are with friends/family/guild are going to steam roll content (i.e. watered down) much worse than it is today.  Catering to the pug group is a bad idea in my honest opinion.

 

 

Actually, you're missing my point entirely.

I WANT the game to cater to the PUG.

I can play perhaps on Wednesday at 8 o'clock. My real life friend or guild mates are playing on Tuesday at 9 o'clock.

therefore, if I want to  play in a good group, whenever I have time to play, it's often going to be a PUG.

I don't want the game to be watered down at all. I want it to be much harder pre-raid than anything I see in WAR, LotRO, WoW, and similar games.

The problem IMO, is once you make it harder, you have to compensate players for this difficulty level, or screw it, might as well solo.

So yes, we're in agreement on making the game with tough content for groups, be they rl friends or pick ups.

We're not in agreement on making the solo player the easier path to choose if grouping is challenging. Soloing should be A path to choose, but not to the point you're pushed in that direction because grouping is not rewarding enough.

Did you ever play EQ or DAoC? Real life friends and guilds did not "steam roll" content, IMO. When the game is designed so that the content is challenging, AND seriously encourages grouping, pick up groups can get very good.

I was often in Pick Up Groups in DAoC and EQ where you did not have to say a word. Everyone fell into their roles, and worked like a well oiled machine with in minutes.

 

I hate the negative connotation that has been attached to PUGs.  PUGs rule.

One problem with making competent groups is the amount of customization available in certain games.

Let's say WoW had a system where you could toggle on LFG with a display of which classes/archetypes you needed. So, if you needed a healer (either Druid or Pally) the display would be as follows:

O - tank

@ - healer

O - Ranged DPS

O - Melee DPS

O - any DPS

O - any

-------

@ - Druid

@ - Paladin

O  - Priest

The problem is that it completely ignores what talent builds the prospective members have. Now, you can have a frikkin interview prior to group invite, and then inspect them when you meet up (though inspection should be available from any distance once in group) to see if they have the required build/gear, but that's not making grouping quick OR convenient.

I think a good grouping game would require a more restrictive build system for the classes. Having a DPS build option for healing or tanking classes causes all sorts of issues for grouping. Varied character builds is great for solo play (and I love FF Tactics which has the best character builds of any RPG), but it's a mess for grouping.

Cries of 'cookie-cutter' class builds will rain down, but when you are grouping, you need to fulfill your role. Groups are about 'US', not 'ME'.

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by illanadan

I agree that games need to make it easier to group, but if the game is decent and has a healthy population that will never be a problem. In Ultima Online it would only take a matter of minutes to get a PK'ing/PK hunting/Dungeon Crawling party together. In LoTRO I have never had a problem with groups (then again I play solo most of the time.

I'd say people group more in LOTRO and UO because grouping requires minimal effort and the content is designed so that screw ups, goofing around and novice gameplay don't result in a massive team wipe. Also, LOTRO and UO aren't dependent on the Holy Trinity for a successful group. Any mishmash of classes can easily do well in a group adventure in those two games - their focus is not on challenging the optimal minmax'd trinity but on offering a fun adventure or story for the players.

 

I agree that the Holy Trinity is a problem in grouping games. It certainly sucks to get three people together, normally enough to be a decent group to start with, but they are all tanks, for example, and therefore ineffective.

However, I LIKE the games where screwing up causes a party wipe. Take that need to pay attention and cooperate away, and you've taking away a huge part of what I find enjoyable in grouping in an MMORPG.

This is exactly what I felt in WoW pre-raid. Gee, I'm in a group? Doesn't seem like it compared to DAoC or EQ. Sure, a heal is thrown here or there, but really not near the coordination required to make sure you dont' wipe. That's the part that's challenging and fun for me. 

Get rid of that and it feels very watered down, not near as interesting or fun.

 

 

Ihmo, good post.  You've finally said what I've been getting at all the time.  You are finally getting the point of why devs can't make design choices purely for the pug group.  If you do, it will completely water down the game for friends/family/guild groups and raiders.  Other wise, 85% of the groupers out there that are with friends/family/guild are going to steam roll content (i.e. watered down) much worse than it is today.  Catering to the pug group is a bad idea in my honest opinion.

 

 

Actually, you're missing my point entirely.

I WANT the game to cater to the PUG.

I can play perhaps on Wednesday at 8 o'clock. My real life friend or guild mates are playing on Tuesday at 9 o'clock.

therefore, if I want to  play in a good group, whenever I have time to play, it's often going to be a PUG.

I don't want the game to be watered down at all. I want it to be much harder pre-raid than anything I see in WAR, LotRO, WoW, and similar games.

The problem IMO, is once you make it harder, you have to compensate players for this difficulty level, or screw it, might as well solo.

So yes, we're in agreement on making the game with tough content for groups, be they rl friends or pick ups.

We're not in agreement on making the solo player the easier path to choose if grouping is challenging. Soloing should be A path to choose, but not to the point you're pushed in that direction because grouping is not rewarding enough.

Did you ever play EQ or DAoC? Real life friends and guilds did not "steam roll" content, IMO. When the game is designed so that the content is challenging, AND seriously encourages grouping, pick up groups can get very good.

I was often in Pick Up Groups in DAoC and EQ where you did not have to say a word. Everyone fell into their roles, and worked like a well oiled machine with in minutes.

 

 

I hate the negative connotation that has been attached to PUGs.  PUGs rule.

I agree. It's my preferred way to play an MMORPG. Granted, if you play often you'll end up pugging with the same people a lot because you're all working on the same levels, skills, quests, etc., but they're still pugs.

I think the bad reputation of the PUG comes when the game doesn't adequately reward group play. In that case, unlike EQ or DAoC, there's no need to try and be a good team player.

Screw it, if the group doesn't like me I can just run off and make pretty much the same xp on my own. I MIGHT have to actually pay attention and be a good grouper for one or two dungeons in a solo friendly game where I want some particular drop, otherwise I can be an asshat and I'll do just fine.

Originally posted by madeux

I hate the negative connotation that has been attached to PUGs.  PUGs rule.

I enjoy PUGs, as well. They're more relaxed and they aren't on a tight schedule. Been playing Aion a lot lately, and grouping with random people has proven rather fun.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

One problem with making competent groups is the amount of customization available in certain games.

Let's say WoW had a system where you could toggle on LFG with a display of which classes/archetypes you needed. So, if you needed a healer...

And you've already hit the biggest problem, intrinsic to class-based game design.  The more a group *needs* specific classes, the more a group is going to be exclusionary. This detracts from grouping for many people.

The developer has to weigh which their audience wants more - the ability to group up for adventure or adventures that only specific groups can complete. The number of players that want the latter is far fewer than the number of players that simply want to be able to adventure with others.

A fresh light being shed on the solo vs. group dilemna. As humans, we are social creatures, but revert to solo'ing through the law of entropy. It's a classic push-pull senario.

This issue becomes apparent with how the games themselves are designed. In a properly designed game, the 'holy trinity' to echo this threads' nomenclature (tank/dps/heal) is well balanced. Games these days don't go about doing it correctly however.

Most games go about designing classes first, content second. This is the flaw. Design a template for content, set what baseline requirements you will use across the board, then design the classes to fill the roles you've planned out.

1. The 'holy trinity' is a solid concept, and provides aspects of gameplay that appeal to different personalities. To be properly balanced, each component of this concept must be balanced both in a solo capacity and a group capacity to fill the health pool:ability pool ratio identically. This is to say that regardless of my role (tank/dps/heal), I should complete a string of events (a large sample size) with the exact health % and ability % remaining. The same thing also needs to be applied using control and utility, but those are topics worthy of a sub-discussion.

2. If the game designates content to be a 4man or 5man or 6man group requirement, then the class/spec options need to echo this balance. Assuming all classes and specs are properly balanced (that is to say, 1 has been properly accomplished) and each provides a unique and interesting gameplay, given a sufficiently large sample size, your playerbase will fill each class/spec equally. This is simple statistics.

So let's say your game revolves around a 4man group. In this group, you require 1 tank 2 dps 1 heal. This means that your class/spec options should reflect 25% tank 50% dps 25% heal options. So let's assume your game has 6 classes with 3 specs each. Your properly designed game will have 4.5 specs that are tank viable across your 6 classes, 9 specs that are dps viable across your 6 classes, and 4.5 specs that are healing viable across your 6 classes.

We can enter now into the next rule that designers seemingly fail to grasp as well. But first, we can apply a small caveat to the assumptions and proposed solutions present: what about your flavor of the month class/specs? The answer to this is twofold:

   a.) what about them? a small variance in ratios amongst a significantly large playerbase will be empirically irrevelent and not felt by the individual player.

   b.) that's what constant class balancing is for. dev's should and need to tweak all classes/specs that they offer to ensure that all are kept within confidence intervals while promoting an under-represented class/spec to ensure that all options on the board are equally technically viable and equally 'fun' to play

3. Hybrids. In a world of purebreds, hybrids are always meant to feel the brunt of being 'forced' into being a certain role, because the others in a group are mechanically inable to do said role. Hybrids are no longer hybrids at this point, but under-priveledge purebreds. Game developpers need to do 1 of 2 things with hybrids:

   a.) Make all considerations with 1 and 2 complete. In doing so, make every class a hybrid, or make no class a hybrid. By having micro-options within the classes proper, but ignoring to make macro-options amongst the class base, you effectively negate your development of hybrid classes within a group environment.

   b.) Complete 1 and 2, but holding off on finishing all classes. Properly distribute options amongst say, 4 of the 6 classes with the proper ratios based on your group concept, then finish off the final 2 classes as hybrids keeping the ratios solid within those 2 classes as well. In this manner, you have ratio conservation across all the classes, as well as across the purebreds and the hybrids. This approach does not always force the hand of the hybrid, but social conditions will always still apply.

4. Numbers. In games where group play is a major function of development, some games get carried away with the 'selection' that is offered. 'Less is more' applies here. The more you split the playing field into seperate pieces (classes/specs), the more you dilute the product that you're trying to push. Let's say I have a 3man group mechanic in a game. And I have a 3 class system- each has 1 spec only. 1 class tanks, 1 heals, 1 dps'es. When looking to make a group, it is immediately apparent to a solo-player-seeking-group who is a potential groupmate. Try that with 20 options, and now you add frustration and time. Again, 'less is more'.

The OP has a very solid argument that carries much weight. But the issue that games have, whether it's the whole sandbox vs. themepark discussion, the whole pvp vs. pve discussion, or the one we have at hand, is development. Here are outlined simple concepts that all big titles fail to incorporate, and I would venture to claim most everyone has experienced heartache that could have been prevented had this 4 step system been used during development. It isn't about wether solo play or group play is more fun or effective, it's about how seemless I can transition between the two when the urge is present.