Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

It says "a mode of play involving more than one player at one time" .

It does not say "a mode of cooperative play involving more than one player at one time".

The only requirement based on the definition is for both players to be logged on to play at the same time.   Your link and quote support what I am saying.

You're taking the most obvious point of a multiplayer game and twisting it so it supports your claim. Of course the requirement of a multiplayer game is for multiple players to be in the same game world, how are they going to be able to play together otherwise? At it's most basic a multiplayer game requires people to be in the same game world, sure. But does that mean they then should ignore each other and play it as a single player game? Why even create a multiplayer game in that case?

Why? Because a multiplayer game isn't a single player game and isn't meant to be played as a single player game. It's a multiplayer game, multiple players working with or against each other. Read the description.

 

Exactly, and the part where you say "But does that mean they then should ignore each other and play it as a single player game? Why even create a multiplayer game in that case?"

Thats what I dont get either, and I have never seen a soloer give any good answer. This is why I call soloers selfish.

Because really, all they want, is a solo game with a big chat room, so they dont get bored. They dont give a damn if it ruins the fun for people looking to actually play the game with other people.

What makes them really bad, is they go into every game being developed, and complain so much about any percieved "forced grouping", that changes are almost always made in thier favor, they are a very vocal group, and yet so small.

Soloers are selfish, nuff said.

amen to that bro..

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

It says "a mode of play involving more than one player at one time" .

It does not say "a mode of cooperative play involving more than one player at one time".

The only requirement based on the definition is for both players to be logged on to play at the same time.   Your link and quote support what I am saying.

You're taking the most obvious point of a multiplayer game and twisting it so it supports your claim. Of course the requirement of a multiplayer game is for multiple players to be in the same game world, how are they going to be able to play together otherwise? At it's most basic a multiplayer game requires people to be in the same game world, sure. But does that mean they then should ignore each other and play it as a single player game? Why even create a multiplayer game in that case?

Why? Because a multiplayer game isn't a single player game and isn't meant to be played as a single player game. It's a multiplayer game, multiple players working with or against each other. Read the description.

We were discussing the meaning of the definition of  what an MMO is, no twisting required.

As for whether they should ignore each other, or group or whatever its entirely dependent on the gameplay, gameplay and mechanics being the factors that influence whether players interact, not whether or not its an mmo.

Every time a player loots an item, generates a unit of currency, kills a rare spawning mob, buys or sells that person is changing the game for every other person in it.  The change can be negative or positive and so it fits into your requirement of "multiple players working with or against each other".

@ the above post claiming soloers are selfish, do you not see the irony in that statement when your stance is against soloing and seems likely you would like everyone to play MMO's like you do or not play at all. 

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

We were discussing the meaning of the definition of  what an MMO is, no twisting required.

As for whether they should ignore each other, or group or whatever its entirely dependent on the gameplay, gameplay and mechanics being the factors that influence whether players interact, not whether or not its an mmo.

Every time a player loots an item, generates a unit of currency, kills a rare spawning mob, buys or sells that person is changing the game for every other person in it.  The change can be negative or positive and so it fits into your requirement of "multiple players working with or against each other".

@ the above post claiming soloers are selfish, do you not see the irony in that statement when your stance is against soloing and seems likely you would like everyone to play MMO's like you do or not play at all. 

I believe we were talking about the definition of what a Multiplayer game is, or is supposed to be. At its most basest level it has multiple players in the same game environment, which is a given as that's the only way they'd be able to game together. But the description goes on to encapsulate the fact that these players either play with or against each other, there is nothing in any description of any multiplayer game of people playing alone. It's just not what these games are designed for. If I can play Online Monopoly against a computer opponent then why the hell am I online?

And that's why I back the claim that soloers are selfish. There are a million and one single player games, yet people come into multiplayer games and start whining and bitching because their solo play style isn't supported until it finally is. They can't simply decide that the game or genre isn't for them, they have to force change, until we end up with what we have now. Shallow, soulless MMO's with very little in the way of grouping, a rather bland quest grind to max level that can be done in a couple of weeks, and a genre that's rapidly dying.

Community and the working together toward a main goal was what kept people playing the original MMO's, but now everything has become solo play these new MMO's last little more than a few months before becoming ghost towns and switching to FTP.

Nope thats not whats happening at all.  Very few soloers actually complain about a games solo friendliness or lack of it.  We just don't play the game.

The developers want us in their games because there is a crap load ton of us.  We don't have to say a thing, we just play the games that give us what we want.

The developers are coming to us. We are not coming to them.

And since the games are being developed for us, the genre is for us.

I would say that anyone who demands the genre change to them is selfish - so you.  We just play the games we like.  You are the one complaining that you aren`t getting what you want - that is the very definition of selfish.

Games today are just as deep, or shallow and soulfull or soulless as the old games.  They also havea crap ton of grouing in them.  But the grouping is for pvp, bg's, dungeons...  You can (and a tonne of people do) completely group from beginning to max level in WoW.  You get more xp, more loot, more coin, better gear by doing so.  So yes there is a lot of grouping - just not for most quests. 

The quests are better than old quests.  Yes there still are lots of kill and fed ex.  But there are a lot of fun ones now too.

The genre is more popular, bigger than ever before.  More people, more money, more games, more developers, more being developed.  By every objective measurable data point the genre is the exact opposite of dying.

So there is still lots of grouping, more choice than in most (not all but most) old games in how you play, more games to choose from, more people to group with and you still complain.  Maybe the genre is not for you.

And soloers still make great community.  We help, we communicate, we even group from time to time.  Istaria has a great community, one of the best out there, and the game is almost completely soloable. 

Grouping does not guarantee a great community.  The only thing that does guarantee a great community is like-mindedness.  Old games had communties just as bad (or good depending on your pov) as today's games.  Anyone who disagrees, just remember EQ had to implement a play nice policy because people were such jerks.  If they weren't jerks they wouldn't have had to implement the policy:  scams, ksing, ninja loot, griefing, delibertatly finishing mobs so that others couldn't advance, camps... people were jerks.  Yes there were a lot of nice ones, just like today, but there were a lot of jerks... just like today.

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

We were discussing the meaning of the definition of  what an MMO is, no twisting required.

As for whether they should ignore each other, or group or whatever its entirely dependent on the gameplay, gameplay and mechanics being the factors that influence whether players interact, not whether or not its an mmo.

Every time a player loots an item, generates a unit of currency, kills a rare spawning mob, buys or sells that person is changing the game for every other person in it.  The change can be negative or positive and so it fits into your requirement of "multiple players working with or against each other".

@ the above post claiming soloers are selfish, do you not see the irony in that statement when your stance is against soloing and seems likely you would like everyone to play MMO's like you do or not play at all. 

I believe we were talking about the definition of what a Multiplayer game is, or is supposed to be. At its most basest level it has multiple players in the same game environment, which is a given as that's the only way they'd be able to game together. But the description goes on to encapsulate the fact that these players either play with or against each other, there is nothing in any description of any multiplayer game of people playing alone. It's just not what these games are designed for. If I can play Online Monopoly against a computer opponent then why the hell am I online?

And that's why I back the claim that soloers are selfish. There are a million and one single player games, yet people come into multiplayer games and start whining and bitching because their solo play style isn't supported until it finally is. They can't simply decide that the game or genre isn't for them, they have to force change, until we end up with what we have now. Shallow, soulless MMO's with very little in the way of grouping, a rather bland quest grind to max level that can be done in a couple of weeks, and a genre that's rapidly dying.

Community and the working together toward a main goal was what kept people playing the original MMO's, but now everything has become solo play these new MMO's last little more than a few months before becoming ghost towns and switching to FTP.

You are missing the main point - unless the mmo is a completely static world, where nothing is looted, no currency is generated, no spawns are fought over etc etc then any activity like that is affecting your game world.

In an average MMO we probably only directly interact with a fraction of the entire servers playerbase.  Does that mean those other people don't have an effect on the server and your gameplay experience?  Its nonesense to think that. 

In short - there is no way to play an average MMO like a single player game as you claim soloers play.  The game world experience is dictated by other players actions. Have you ever played a single player game where another player suddenly appears and kills you, kill steals you, underbids you, undercuts you, who earlier killed the rare spawn mob you were hoping to kill when you logged on, trains you, devalues your currency by farming etc etc etc.

Your argument just does not stack up.

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

We were discussing the meaning of the definition of  what an MMO is, no twisting required.

As for whether they should ignore each other, or group or whatever its entirely dependent on the gameplay, gameplay and mechanics being the factors that influence whether players interact, not whether or not its an mmo.

Every time a player loots an item, generates a unit of currency, kills a rare spawning mob, buys or sells that person is changing the game for every other person in it.  The change can be negative or positive and so it fits into your requirement of "multiple players working with or against each other".

@ the above post claiming soloers are selfish, do you not see the irony in that statement when your stance is against soloing and seems likely you would like everyone to play MMO's like you do or not play at all. 

I believe we were talking about the definition of what a Multiplayer game is, or is supposed to be. At its most basest level it has multiple players in the same game environment, which is a given as that's the only way they'd be able to game together. But the description goes on to encapsulate the fact that these players either play with or against each other, there is nothing in any description of any multiplayer game of people playing alone. It's just not what these games are designed for. If I can play Online Monopoly against a computer opponent then why the hell am I online?

And that's why I back the claim that soloers are selfish. There are a million and one single player games, yet people come into multiplayer games and start whining and bitching because their solo play style isn't supported until it finally is. They can't simply decide that the game or genre isn't for them, they have to force change, until we end up with what we have now. Shallow, soulless MMO's with very little in the way of grouping, a rather bland quest grind to max level that can be done in a couple of weeks, and a genre that's rapidly dying.

Community and the working together toward a main goal was what kept people playing the original MMO's, but now everything has become solo play these new MMO's last little more than a few months before becoming ghost towns and switching to FTP.

You are missing the main point - unless the mmo is a completely static world, where nothing is looted, no currency is generated, no spawns are fought over etc etc then any activity like that is affecting your game world.

In an average MMO we probably only directly interact with a fraction of the entire servers playerbase.  Does that mean those other people don't have an effect on the server and your gameplay experience?  Its nonesense to think that. 

In short - there is no way to play an average MMO like a single player game as you claim soloers play.  The game world experience is dictated by other players actions. Have you ever played a single player game where another player suddenly appears and kills you, kill steals you, underbids you, undercuts you, who earlier killed the rare spawn mob you were hoping to kill when you logged on, trains you, devalues your currency by farming etc etc etc.

Your argument just does not stack up.

To be honest, you give a weak counter argument.

In a nutshell, your trying to equate a game experience with a group of people, exploring or questing, to being undercut at the auction house. They are NOTHING alike, at all.

There is no reason for soloers to play MMOs, unless its to show off thier uber gear...lol.. because other than that, they dont want to be bothered with people.

Originally posted by Adalwulff

To be honest, you give a weak counter argument.

In a nutshell, your trying to equate a game experience with a group of people, exploring or questing, to being undercut at the auction house. They are NOTHING alike, at all.

There is no reason for soloers to play MMOs, unless its to show off thier uber gear...lol.. because other than that, they dont want to be bothered with people.

Its not a weak counter argument, it appears so to you because you don't understand what I said or are ignoring 90% of it.  You then go on to make an emotive rant about soloers and how they think when you are obviously not a soloer and so don't know how they think and what their motivations are. Please explain?

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

In short - there is no way to play an average MMO like a single player game as you claim soloers play.  The game world experience is dictated by other players actions. Have you ever played a single player game where another player suddenly appears and kills you, kill steals you, underbids you, undercuts you, who earlier killed the rare spawn mob you were hoping to kill when you logged on, trains you, devalues your currency by farming etc etc etc.

A lot of negative points there about your fellow players activities. It's no wonder you prefer to solo if all you see are kill stealers and gold farmers. With the increasing trend toward solo play and opinions like this, I fear for the future of MMO's. They're going to be little more than single player games with chat rooms and protection bubbles so your fellow player can't affect your own little world. Hell, it's already heading that way with TOR with its many instanced areas that nobody can bother you in.

I think the devs of GW2 are making a last ditched effort to keep the soloers and the groupers working towards the same goal. If the experiment doesn't work, the chances of seeing another title being greenlighted that has a large budget will lessen considerably.

At that point, many devs will probably concentrate their efforts on more specialized MMO's that are aimed specifically at a certain target group, like PvP, Raid, Solo, etc. Considering the impasse on threads like this, and many more I've seen like it, it's probably inevitable.

In the meantime, you'd think some company would at least try a solo server in one of their games. The only reason I can think why they haven't is the solo servers would be overcrowded in short time, and the raiders would complain about having nobody to play with.

Originally posted by Beartosser

I think the devs of GW2 are making a last ditched effort to keep the soloers and the groupers working towards the same goal. If the experiment doesn't work, the chances of seeing another title being greenlighted that has a large budget will lessen considerably.

At that point, many devs will probably concentrate their efforts on more specialized MMO's that are aimed specifically at a certain target group, like PvP, Raid, Solo, etc. Considering the impasse on threads like this, and many more I've seen like it, it's probably inevitable.

In the meantime, you'd think some company would at least try a solo server in one of their games. The only reason I can think why they haven't is the solo servers would be overcrowded in short time, and the raiders would complain about having nobody to play with.

Like++

Thanks a lot for your support,

Regards,

t?ng rank alexa, t?ng th? h?ng website, t?ng traffic, t?ng l??ng truy c?p website, t?ng th? h?ng alexa, t?ng page view

I play Eve solo, mostly. Played it like that since 2003.

I like playing solo and doing my own thing. Why do I play Eve instead of, say, X-3 (which I also have played)?

Because the universe provides diverse challenges based on the actions of other players that I in turn have to deal with. It's challenging and engaging gameplay. And in turn, even while I'm playing solo, I'm changing the world around me. Not that I'm averse to people joining in on what I'm doing as long as they want to play nice. And of course in Eve I have the option of blowing them up >:)

I don't like playing in groups much because I deal with jerks too much (guess I'm unlucky). It's also a lot of work if I just want to play casually. But I like other people in the game because that's what ultimately shapes the Eve universe. Solo play like mine is only possible in a game like Eve.

Perhaps this is why I burn out so quickly on WoW clones, come to think of it. I stayed with Eden Eternal for a long time only because I had a guild I liked, but even then I played mostly solo. The world and gameplay in "WoW clones" is shaped by the devs, not by the players, and both solo and group content feels forced, not liquid and organic and evolving.

Eve was my first MMO, and once it dies, it will probably be my last.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Two classes could solo to endgame in EQ; Druid and Necromancer.

Druid, Necro, Bard, Beastlord, SK, Monk, ranger could and frequently did solo to end game.  And it was longer, I stated that, but no it wasn't a hell of a lot longer.  Bards, before they were nerfed were better than druids and almost as good as necro's - charm, fear, swarm kiting ftw. 

Again it wasn't hard, just longer.  You had to watch the wandering mobs, and learn to kite for most of those classes but definately do-able and once you got the hang of it, pretty easy.  Melody wasn't added till years later, strap on drums, fire up selo's and dot everyone, have a charm and fear for the just in case moments. 

But yes for all classes grouping was better.

[...]

They are multiplayer games.  But multiplayer in MMO's has never, ever ever meant MUST BE GROUPED.  It has only EVER meant can interact.  Thats it. 

This is the thing: some classes in EQ could solo, but even those that could, it was much longer. I personally don't have a problem with a game being soloable to max level, but the problem comes in when it's as easy (time and/or difficulty, pick one) to do so. If soloing is roughly as fast as grouping, people are going to solo, because it removes the element of finding a group. That leads to a self-defeating cycle where you can't find a group because there's no significant benefit over soloing, which ultimately takes its toll on the community.

I cut my teeth on Everquest, and I played EQ2 at launch for a few years. EQ2, at launch, was a definite group-first game, but about six months in, mimicked the WoW solo-first (group-agnostic?) model. The difference in the community after a month or two was shocking - populations didn't change, but chat channels were wastelands, other players were a little more brazen about moving in on your camp, and so on.

At the end of the day, it's all well and good to let people solo. Just flatten out the progression and loot curves to compensate.

Originally posted by Colage

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Two classes could solo to endgame in EQ; Druid and Necromancer.

Druid, Necro, Bard, Beastlord, SK, Monk, ranger could and frequently did solo to end game.  And it was longer, I stated that, but no it wasn't a hell of a lot longer.  Bards, before they were nerfed were better than druids and almost as good as necro's - charm, fear, swarm kiting ftw. 

Again it wasn't hard, just longer.  You had to watch the wandering mobs, and learn to kite for most of those classes but definately do-able and once you got the hang of it, pretty easy.  Melody wasn't added till years later, strap on drums, fire up selo's and dot everyone, have a charm and fear for the just in case moments. 

But yes for all classes grouping was better.

[...]

They are multiplayer games.  But multiplayer in MMO's has never, ever ever meant MUST BE GROUPED.  It has only EVER meant can interact.  Thats it. 

This is the thing: some classes in EQ could solo, but even those that could, it was much longer. I personally don't have a problem with a game being soloable to max level, but the problem comes in when it's as easy (time and/or difficulty, pick one) to do so. If soloing is roughly as fast as grouping, people are going to solo, because it removes the element of finding a group. That leads to a self-defeating cycle where you can't find a group because there's no significant benefit over soloing, which ultimately takes its toll on the community.

I cut my teeth on Everquest, and I played EQ2 at launch for a few years. EQ2, at launch, was a definite group-first game, but about six months in, mimicked the WoW solo-first (group-agnostic?) model. The difference in the community after a month or two was shocking - populations didn't change, but chat channels were wastelands, other players were a little more brazen about moving in on your camp, and so on.

At the end of the day, it's all well and good to let people solo. Just flatten out the progression and loot curves to compensate.

I agree with most of what you posted except where you say "If soloing is roughly as fast as grouping, people are going to solo, because it removes the element of finding a group.". 

In EQ I played an enchanter and a necromancer.  As an enchanter I was always able to find groups, I could solo more efficiently with charm and stuns and duoing with a druid was crazy experience compared to grouping.  As a necromancer I could easily out level a good group.

So why did I spend most of my enchanter time in groups with good in-game friends and why did I always look forward to those rare (compared to enchanter) necromancer group invites from good in-game friends?  Because even though I prefer to solo and it was better experience overall, groups offer a more "fun" time IF you have a good group of in-game friends.

As for comtemporary groups in MMO's, I think people prefer to solo more now because getting a group in the queing system now is like getting a bus just as school gets out, never know what your going to get but you know its going to be annoying and unpleasant in most cases.

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Originally posted by Colage

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Two classes could solo to endgame in EQ; Druid and Necromancer.

Druid, Necro, Bard, Beastlord, SK, Monk, ranger could and frequently did solo to end game.  And it was longer, I stated that, but no it wasn't a hell of a lot longer.  Bards, before they were nerfed were better than druids and almost as good as necro's - charm, fear, swarm kiting ftw. 

Again it wasn't hard, just longer.  You had to watch the wandering mobs, and learn to kite for most of those classes but definately do-able and once you got the hang of it, pretty easy.  Melody wasn't added till years later, strap on drums, fire up selo's and dot everyone, have a charm and fear for the just in case moments. 

But yes for all classes grouping was better.

[...]

They are multiplayer games.  But multiplayer in MMO's has never, ever ever meant MUST BE GROUPED.  It has only EVER meant can interact.  Thats it. 

This is the thing: some classes in EQ could solo, but even those that could, it was much longer. I personally don't have a problem with a game being soloable to max level, but the problem comes in when it's as easy (time and/or difficulty, pick one) to do so. If soloing is roughly as fast as grouping, people are going to solo, because it removes the element of finding a group. That leads to a self-defeating cycle where you can't find a group because there's no significant benefit over soloing, which ultimately takes its toll on the community.

I cut my teeth on Everquest, and I played EQ2 at launch for a few years. EQ2, at launch, was a definite group-first game, but about six months in, mimicked the WoW solo-first (group-agnostic?) model. The difference in the community after a month or two was shocking - populations didn't change, but chat channels were wastelands, other players were a little more brazen about moving in on your camp, and so on.

At the end of the day, it's all well and good to let people solo. Just flatten out the progression and loot curves to compensate.

I agree with most of what you posted except where you say "If soloing is roughly as fast as grouping, people are going to solo, because it removes the element of finding a group.". 

In EQ I played an enchanter and a necromancer.  As an enchanter I was always able to find groups, I could solo more efficiently with charm and stuns and duoing with a druid was crazy experience compared to grouping.  As a necromancer I could easily out level a good group.

So why did I spend most of my enchanter time in groups with good in-game friends and why did I always look forward to those rare (compared to enchanter) necromancer group invites from good in-game friends?  Because even though I prefer to solo and it was better experience overall, groups offer a more "fun" time IF you have a good group of in-game friends.

As for comtemporary groups in MMO's, I think people prefer to solo more now because getting a group in the queing system now is like getting a bus just as school gets out, never know what your going to get but you know its going to be annoying and unpleasant in most cases.

You may be right, but to some degree, I think the unpleasantness is partially because of solo-first mentalities. I had my fair share of bad groups in EQ, but I would at least be reasonably sure that everyone I grouped with past level 20 or so was at least familiar with their class role in the group, encounter mechanics (e.g., aggro, mez), and basic etiquitte. The post-school bus theory is definitely true in my experience, but I think a large reason that happens is because when people get to the mid-to-high levels with a minimum of grouping, it's difficult for them to adjust their playstyles.

The corollary to my point - When I played EQ, by the time I was in my mid-20s, I had a pretty solid friends list where I could do a quick online check and find a group if I needed to, or, at least, have a quick chat with someone. Most of these people were folks I never met in real life, but met through grouping. That's probably what kept me playing EQ as long as I did. LOTRO, in which I recently hit level 40, I don't think I've had a meaningful interaction with anyone. Even within group situations, everything is very task-focused, and when the instance is done, everyone more or less says "gg" and bails.

Maybe I'm just viewing the past through rose-colored glasses, but I can't seem to find any kind of game that comes close to recreating the social atmosphere of EQ. 

Originally posted by Colage

You may be right, but to some degree, I think the unpleasantness is partially because of solo-first mentalities. I had my fair share of bad groups in EQ, but I would at least be reasonably sure that everyone I grouped with past level 20 or so was at least familiar with their class role in the group, encounter mechanics (e.g., aggro, mez), and basic etiquitte. The post-school bus theory is definitely true in my experience, but I think a large reason that happens is because when people get to the mid-to-high levels with a minimum of grouping, it's difficult for them to adjust their playstyles.

The corollary to my point - When I played EQ, by the time I was in my mid-20s, I had a pretty solid friends list where I could do a quick online check and find a group if I needed to, or, at least, have a quick chat with someone. Most of these people were folks I never met in real life, but met through grouping. That's probably what kept me playing EQ as long as I did. LOTRO, in which I recently hit level 40, I don't think I've had a meaningful interaction with anyone. Even within group situations, everything is very task-focused, and when the instance is done, everyone more or less says "gg" and bails.

Maybe I'm just viewing the past through rose-colored glasses, but I can't seem to find any kind of game that comes close to recreating the social atmosphere of EQ. 

My problem is I can't find anyone worth grouping with.  Most people are rude, obnoxious, only looking for a group to use for their own devices, racing through to get to the boss, not caring what anyone else wants.  They are selfish and stupid, wanting to rake in as many XP as they can in as short a time as possible before moving on to do something else.  They don't care about anyone but themselves and honestly, I don't want to spend a second around most of them anyhow.  Yes, there was a time when there were "better people" playing these games, but that was before they went mainstream.  In the beginning, most players shared the same niche.  They had the same interests and goals.  Therefore they formed a single community.  Today, there is a variety of interests and goals, it's hard to find people who are similar enough to make a good group.

To be honest, I don't think that's a bad thing either.  The genre couldn't have survived if it hadn't gone mainstream.  It was a natural progression for a huge number of different types of people to get involved in the genre.  Even back in the "old days", I don't think people were all that hot, you still had shallow, stupid, obnoxious people around whose only commentary was telling off-color jokes.  Maybe the problem is that most of us grew up and the people we run into who act like they acted back in the old days are people we don't want to be around today.

Even the old-time gamers I see today, I don't want to play with.  They're just as bad as anyone else.  The old days are gone.  Good riddance to them.  It's better to have a wide variety of games to play and people to play them with than to have a single type and a shrinking genre.

I play Everquest 2, mostly, doodle in many others, sometimes.

I am a social gamer, but sometimes I just want to craft something, by myself.

I don't believe in power leveling.

I love the chatting, the killing and the randomness that tossing a bunch of strangers together provides.

I also talk to strangers, but everyone was a stranger before they were a friend!

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Colage

You may be right, but to some degree, I think the unpleasantness is partially because of solo-first mentalities. I had my fair share of bad groups in EQ, but I would at least be reasonably sure that everyone I grouped with past level 20 or so was at least familiar with their class role in the group, encounter mechanics (e.g., aggro, mez), and basic etiquitte. The post-school bus theory is definitely true in my experience, but I think a large reason that happens is because when people get to the mid-to-high levels with a minimum of grouping, it's difficult for them to adjust their playstyles.

The corollary to my point - When I played EQ, by the time I was in my mid-20s, I had a pretty solid friends list where I could do a quick online check and find a group if I needed to, or, at least, have a quick chat with someone. Most of these people were folks I never met in real life, but met through grouping. That's probably what kept me playing EQ as long as I did. LOTRO, in which I recently hit level 40, I don't think I've had a meaningful interaction with anyone. Even within group situations, everything is very task-focused, and when the instance is done, everyone more or less says "gg" and bails.

Maybe I'm just viewing the past through rose-colored glasses, but I can't seem to find any kind of game that comes close to recreating the social atmosphere of EQ. 

My problem is I can't find anyone worth grouping with.  Most people are rude, obnoxious, only looking for a group to use for their own devices, racing through to get to the boss, not caring what anyone else wants.  They are selfish and stupid, wanting to rake in as many XP as they can in as short a time as possible before moving on to do something else.  They don't care about anyone but themselves and honestly, I don't want to spend a second around most of them anyhow.  Yes, there was a time when there were "better people" playing these games, but that was before they went mainstream.  In the beginning, most players shared the same niche.  They had the same interests and goals.  Therefore they formed a single community.  Today, there is a variety of interests and goals, it's hard to find people who are similar enough to make a good group.

To be honest, I don't think that's a bad thing either.  The genre couldn't have survived if it hadn't gone mainstream.  It was a natural progression for a huge number of different types of people to get involved in the genre.  Even back in the "old days", I don't think people were all that hot, you still had shallow, stupid, obnoxious people around whose only commentary was telling off-color jokes.  Maybe the problem is that most of us grew up and the people we run into who act like they acted back in the old days are people we don't want to be around today.

Even the old-time gamers I see today, I don't want to play with.  They're just as bad as anyone else.  The old days are gone.  Good riddance to them.  It's better to have a wide variety of games to play and people to play them with than to have a single type and a shrinking genre.

Yeah, I can't find any flaw in what you said.

And now I'm sad.

Originally posted by Cephus404

My problem is I can't find anyone worth grouping with.  Most people are rude, obnoxious, only looking for a group to use for their own devices, racing through to get to the boss, not caring what anyone else wants.  They are selfish and stupid, wanting to rake in as many XP as they can in as short a time as possible before moving on to do something else.  They don't care about anyone but themselves and honestly, I don't want to spend a second around most of them anyhow.  Yes, there was a time when there were "better people" playing these games, but that was before they went mainstream.  In the beginning, most players shared the same niche.  They had the same interests and goals.  Therefore they formed a single community.  Today, there is a variety of interests and goals, it's hard to find people who are similar enough to make a good group.

To be honest, I don't think that's a bad thing either.  The genre couldn't have survived if it hadn't gone mainstream.  It was a natural progression for a huge number of different types of people to get involved in the genre.  Even back in the "old days", I don't think people were all that hot, you still had shallow, stupid, obnoxious people around whose only commentary was telling off-color jokes.  Maybe the problem is that most of us grew up and the people we run into who act like they acted back in the old days are people we don't want to be around today.

Even the old-time gamers I see today, I don't want to play with.  They're just as bad as anyone else.  The old days are gone.  Good riddance to them.  It's better to have a wide variety of games to play and people to play them with than to have a single type and a shrinking genre.

Community and reputation are essential to creating a self regulating social system.  If you were desperately hunting for a parking spot I think 9/10 people would be less likely to steal one from a next door neighbour than from a random they're never see again. 

Likewise if you were going to add to your circle of friends, you are likely to add people who have something in common to you.  In Everquest there were RP guilds, there were raiding guilds, there were family guilds, mature age guilds.  Even as members of those guilds people still tended to gravitate towards cliques of likeminded people.

Grouping now is like going to the mall, being randomly placed into groups and being expected to enjoy the next 30 minutes cooperating.  No wonder everyones trying to get through it as fast as possible.

They should probably add some sort of EHarmony system to it if they insist on using a queuing system rather then fixing the reason its so tough to get a group going :)