Originally posted by Fangrim

Originally posted by Squal'Zell

Originally posted by maplestone

You stop it by going to the group play vs solo play thread and ranting there.

Ok, that's a little harsh.

In my opinion, you make games more interactive by improving the signal-to-noise ratio of interaction.   It takes only a tiny amount of spam, scam, trolling and abuse to make people who are not extreme extraverts completely tune out a communication channel.  If you want people to feel comfortable chatting with strangers, you have to make sure they feel there is more to be gained than lost by saying hello.

It's an emotional calculation, not an economic one.  Forcing people to be dependant only works if the joys outweigh the frustrations.  It may seem like you're increasing interaction, but there's a strong danger that you're doing it by just shrinking your playerbase to a niche of like-minded people.

that is also a great point

when yo usay "hello" in local chat and the answer comes back "NOOB, F*CK YOU" "GAAAAAYYY" and other messages along those lines its simply a matter of seconds that i disable local chat and only keep IMs/group/guild chat open. so the interactions just goes down signifficantly.

 In all my years of MMO gaming I have  never seen any of these things said to someone who says 'hello'.What games did you play where this happens ?

While I've never had it happen to me, I have watched those types of responses on a number of occasions.  I'd rather not mention specific titles because it will completely derail the topic.

@OP

You cannot "stop it".

Only thing you can is to don't play mmorpg's with design that you don't like and hope that there will be again some nicely done mmorpg that will be more demanding and that will put interdependance at top priority.

Like UO & SWG did.

Just stop playing mmorpg's that have design amd mechanics you don't like.

Go play single player games, read books, find new hobby, go earn some money or hook up with a woman (or man if you prefer).

If enough of people will show them middle finger - maybe it will change something. Or maybe it won't.

Anyway if modern mmorpg's are not what are you looking for - then you won't lose nothing by not playing.

Playing mmorpg's where

"There's people running around with you, but they might as well be AI."

IF you want something else - just send a message that you want MORE of what's in currrent mmorpg's design already.

Originally posted by GamerUntouch

MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Role Playing Game

I think we all know that though.The problem is, devs don't. They're not making ORPGs. The games are multiplayer by concept, but there's no reason for the other players to be there.

 

There's people running around with you, but they might as well be AI.

They don't impact you at all, except for maybe the marketplace or the global chat.

 

What's everyone's opinion on this?

How can we stop it?

I picture business managers, with no clue as to what an MMORPG is, making all the decisions and sending devs down paths the latter would never take on their own.

Anything creative, needs to be driven by those who see what they do as art and who love their work.  Getting "suits" too involved, beyond funding, just ruins it, and the field is ruined.

Originally posted by GamerUntouch

MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Role Playing Game

I think we all know that though.The problem is, devs don't. They're not making ORPGs. The games are multiplayer by concept, but there's no reason for the other players to be there.

 

There's people running around with you, but they might as well be AI.

They don't impact you at all, except for maybe the marketplace or the global chat.

 

What's everyone's opinion on this?

How can we stop it?

1)Change everybody else's ideas on gaming.

2)Make everybody spend money on only things you like.

3)Devise a mind control device to control the minds of developers.

Or you could wake up one day and realize the world doesn't revolve around you and that every game doesn't have to be made for you. Then maybe you would play the games designed for you instead of complaining about the ones that aren't

Originally posted by Larsa

 

---

Originally posted by GamerUntouch
MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Role Playing Game I think we all know that though.The problem is, devs don't. ...

---

 

Oh, devs know, they know very well, they're making games that a lot of people buy, like millions of people.

 

Buying a game and subbing long term are two very different things.  With the first, devs are succeeding, although many players are getting wary and trusting to open beta more and more before forking out cash.

But, the latter, the subs, have shown modern devs to not be so successful, and it is subs that make or break a game, long term.

I think economic success (from a dev standpoint, and maybe player too) is folks buy the game and stick with it for a long time. (Long time being a few years, 3 to 5 years or something, or longer).

In WoW, it's good to group up and use the random dungeon finder while you level.  You get more exp and better loot than just solo questing...That's how I level alts, I just queue for dungeons, and go do skinning/mining/whatever craft until it pops up.  On my tanks it's usually instant, on healers no longer than 2-3 minutes at it's slowest, and dps is no more than 15 min usually.  I can get an alt to 85 with 385+ ilvl in about a week, all by grouping.  If blizzard removed the cap on points you can get per week, and take out the dungeon saves, it owuld take about 2 weeks to be completely decked out. That's probably why they have it in there hehe

Originally posted by Atlan99

Originally posted by GamerUntouch

MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Role Playing Game

I think we all know that though.The problem is, devs don't. They're not making ORPGs. The games are multiplayer by concept, but there's no reason for the other players to be there.

 

There's people running around with you, but they might as well be AI.

They don't impact you at all, except for maybe the marketplace or the global chat.

 

What's everyone's opinion on this?

How can we stop it?

1)Change everybody else's ideas on gaming.

2)Make everybody spend money on only things you like.

3)Devise a mind control device to control the minds of developers.

Or you could wake up one day and realize the world doesn't revolve around you and that every game doesn't have to be made for you. Then maybe you would play the games designed for you instead of complaining about the ones that aren't

The problem isn't so much gamers' different tastes as it is the single player game crowd hijacking MMORPG's, converting them to linear single player gameplay and bascially redefining the word MMORPG.

You'd complain too, if you like hamburgers, then hot dog eaters arrived en masse and redefined hamburgers as hot dogs, then told you that maybe you "no longer like hamburgers anymore".  It's maddening.

You can't stop it, because it's what most players want.  If these games prevented grouping, then that would be one thing.  But they offer both playstyles, so they cater to everyone (except the narrow niche of players who won't accept any soloing in their games.  Yeah, all 200 of them amongst what has to be a 20+ million player genre.)

The only thing you can do is (a) enjoy your time grouping in modern MMORPGs or (b) languish as a bittervet in some really old MMORPG which forces grouping.

...one of those options sounds a lot more enjoyable than the other.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_theory implies players want autonomy.  In MMORPG terms, that's the capability of doing things on your own; soloing.  Players are more satisfied when autonomy is a possibility than when it isn't.)

Originally posted by Axehilt

You can't stop it, because it's what most players want.  If these games prevented grouping, then that would be one thing.  But they offer both playstyles, so they cater to everyone (except the narrow niche of players who won't accept any soloing in their games.  Yeah, all 200 of them amongst what has to be a 20+ million player genre.)

The only thing you can do is (a) enjoy your time grouping in modern MMORPGs or (b) languish as a bittervet in some really old MMORPG which forces grouping.

...one of those options sounds a lot more enjoyable than the other.

If most players wanted what you described, they'd still be subbing.  Fact is, the WOW clone era has been a success only in terms of box sales (and the single game WOW), but mostly a disaster in terms of long-term subs.

Tons of different games to choose from is only part of the problem, but I cannot help but think that linear storyline forced gameplay just turns off folks from making an alt and going back through the same "movie" all over again.  Just shallow gameplay.

Originally posted by ReallyNow10

Originally posted by Atlan99

Originally posted by GamerUntouch

MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Role Playing Game

I think we all know that though.The problem is, devs don't. They're not making ORPGs. The games are multiplayer by concept, but there's no reason for the other players to be there.

 

There's people running around with you, but they might as well be AI.

They don't impact you at all, except for maybe the marketplace or the global chat.

 

What's everyone's opinion on this?

How can we stop it?

1)Change everybody else's ideas on gaming.

2)Make everybody spend money on only things you like.

3)Devise a mind control device to control the minds of developers.

Or you could wake up one day and realize the world doesn't revolve around you and that every game doesn't have to be made for you. Then maybe you would play the games designed for you instead of complaining about the ones that aren't

The problem isn't so much gamers' different tastes as it is the single player game crowd hijacking MMORPG's, converting them to linear single player gameplay and bascially redefining the word MMORPG.

You'd complain too, if you like hamburgers, then hot dog eaters arrived en masse and redefined hamburgers as hot dogs, then told you that maybe you "no longer like hamburgers anymore".  It's maddening.

QFT

I've been saying this for the last couple of years at least.  Alot people who play MMOs today, aren't MMO players.  They're converts from RTS, FPS, etc games.  They don't want delayed rewards like MMOs are supposed to be.  They want thier rewards now, and the sooner the better.  They don't want to be doing something more than 30 minutes, that's why most RTS, FPS, etc games only last about 30 minutes maximum.  MMO players want to sit down at thier computer for hours on end, just to chop down a tree or something to that effect lol.

Originally posted by Gravarg

I've been saying this for the last couple of years at least.  Alot people who play MMOs today, aren't MMO players.  They're converts from RTS, FPS, etc games.  They don't want delayed rewards like MMOs are supposed to be.  They want thier rewards now, and the sooner the better.  They don't want to be doing something more than 30 minutes, that's why most RTS, FPS, etc games only last about 30 minutes maximum.  MMO players want to sit down at thier computer for hours on end, just to chop down a tree or something to that effect lol.

Exactly. MMO players are insane, and you can't make a successfull game targeting tiny subgroup of insane people with lots of time to spend chopping down a tree. 

People don't subscribe to games because, again, the majority of the market don't want to spend years in a single game. What we want is to buy a game, play it for a couple of months and delete it - migrate to another game, or, if a game is sensible and fun F2P or B2P leave it on our hard drives returning there for an hour or two every couple of weeks or months.

What we don't want is second life. I have my hands full with the first one, thankyouverymuch. And I already have a lifetime commitment - my wife - and she has ideas about second lifetime commitment. Anyway, when I'll finally turn her around on the whole idea of second lifetime commitment, it will not be a game either...

Originally posted by ReallyNow10

Originally posted by Axehilt

You can't stop it, because it's what most players want.  If these games prevented grouping, then that would be one thing.  But they offer both playstyles, so they cater to everyone (except the narrow niche of players who won't accept any soloing in their games.  Yeah, all 200 of them amongst what has to be a 20+ million player genre.)

The only thing you can do is (a) enjoy your time grouping in modern MMORPGs or (b) languish as a bittervet in some really old MMORPG which forces grouping.

...one of those options sounds a lot more enjoyable than the other.

If most players wanted what you described, they'd still be subbing.  Fact is, the WOW clone era has been a success only in terms of box sales (and the single game WOW), but mostly a disaster in terms of long-term subs.

Tons of different games to choose from is only part of the problem, but I cannot help but think that linear storyline forced gameplay just turns off folks from making an alt and going back through the same "movie" all over again.  Just shallow gameplay.

'You can't stop it, because it's what most players want.' 

There is a reason SWTOR was terrible (for example) most players DO NOT WANT the same old same old themepark mmorg.  Evolution is perfectly normal in the gaming industry, and yet it has stalled in the mmorg gaming world, why is that?  Well, a single game has had a monopoly on the mmorg market, and unfortunately has abused that monopoly by evolving a formulae that promotes addictive qualities over innovation and rich content.  It is absolutely no coincidence that the mmorg game world has stagnated at THE EXACT time period that a single themepark mmorg has had a monopoly on the market. 

Those that argue for the same game style to continue without evolution are following the same ignorant patterns that are usually argued by those who want status quo.   The same ignorant patters that are replicated throughout any industry where there is no good regulation to promote innovation over max profit.

 There are people that argue for stagnation/the status quo for profit (Blizzard) and there are those that argue for the status quo through fear of change or through a perception that their own personal happiness will be affected by change ( as seen a few posts back) 

Evolution and gaming satisfaction is achieved through evolution, Roll on GW2 and TSW to offer genuine choice in this corrupted gaming market.

Originally posted by GamerUntouch

MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Role Playing Game

I think we all know that though.The problem is, devs don't. They're not making ORPGs. The games are multiplayer by concept, but there's no reason for the other players to be there.

 

There's people running around with you, but they might as well be AI.

They don't impact you at all, except for maybe the marketplace or the global chat.

 

What's everyone's opinion on this?

How can we stop it?

Even in muds back in the 90's grouping was optional mmorpg does NOT mean forced group, never has, see a lot of us were brought up on fantasy/action books and films where a single hero or villain kicks ass, many of the heroes in comic books work solo.

We do not need to be sheep following 4 other people around.

Why play a mmo then?

Because human beings are social by nature or most of us are, I rarely group because I am an explorer and like to take my time, being in a group usually means I can not spend my time taking screenshots or noting down things on a blog while roleplaying.

But put me in a town location in game and I will make friends and enjoy myself hell most online games in the past I had relationships and fun like that even cyber :) what makes you happy in an mmo is not what makes someone else happy.

What they need to do is incentives to group but do not penalize those of us who love to go solo.

Originally posted by ReallyNow10

1)Change everybody else's ideas on gaming.

2)Make everybody spend money on only things you like.

3)Devise a mind control device to control the minds of developers.

Or you could wake up one day and realize the world doesn't revolve around you and that every game doesn't have to be made for you. Then maybe you would play the games designed for you instead of complaining about the ones that aren't

The problem isn't so much gamers' different tastes as it is the single player game crowd hijacking MMORPG's, converting them to linear single player gameplay and bascially redefining the word MMORPG.

You'd complain too, if you like hamburgers, then hot dog eaters arrived en masse and redefined hamburgers as hot dogs, then told you that maybe you "no longer like hamburgers anymore".  It's maddening.

Why aren't you on the board about hamburgers, talking about hamburgers? Instead your on the boards for hamburgers and hot dogs complaining about hot dogs.

Originally posted by ReallyNow10

If most players wanted what you described, they'd still be subbing.  Fact is, the WOW clone era has been a success only in terms of box sales (and the single game WOW), but mostly a disaster in terms of long-term subs.

Tons of different games to choose from is only part of the problem, but I cannot help but think that linear storyline forced gameplay just turns off folks from making an alt and going back through the same "movie" all over again.  Just shallow gameplay.

A game where you're not 100% reliant on others to advance is very obviously going to perform better than one where you have the option of either (as was the case in WOW.)

Whether a new game ceases to actually be a new game (clones WOW and captures 50% of WOW's fun, as a lot of modern MMORPGs do) is beside the point.

Whether or not a game is a WOW clone, if it's based heavily on progression and forces players to be 100% reliant on others, it's going to perform worse than a game with a 50/50 mix where grouping provides an advantage but it's not such a ridiculous advantage that it's the only viable playstyle.

This should be obvious.

Originally posted by Bladestrom

'You can't stop it, because it's what most players want.' 

There is a reason SWTOR was terrible (for example) most players DO NOT WANT the same old same old themepark mmorg.  Evolution is perfectly normal in the gaming industry, and yet it has stalled in the mmorg gaming world, why is that?  Well, a single game has had a monopoly on the mmorg market, and unfortunately has abused that monopoly by evolving a formulae that promotes addictive qualities over innovation and rich content.  It is absolutely no coincidence that the mmorg game world has stagnated at THE EXACT time period that a single themepark mmorg has had a monopoly on the market. 

Those that argue for the same game style to continue without evolution are following the same ignorant patterns that are usually argued by those who want status quo.   The same ignorant patters that are replicated throughout any industry where there is no good regulation to promote innovation over max profit.

 There are people that argue for stagnation/the status quo for profit (Blizzard) and there are those that argue for the status quo through fear of change or through a perception that their own personal happiness will be affected by change ( as seen a few posts back) 

Evolution and gaming satisfaction is achieved through evolution, Roll on GW2 and TSW to offer genuine choice in this corrupted gaming market.

 

1. You're assuming TOR captured even 80% of what made WOW fun.  It was an alright game for a while, but the lack of mob variety meant all combat played the same, which meant it was nothing like WOW (which varies mobs quite a bit.)

2. You're confusing a discussion on solo vs. grouping with WOW cloning.  They're two separate traits of a game: soloability, and WOW similarity.  Regarless of how similar or dissimilar a game is to WOW, it's going to do better with a balanced mix of solo and group playstyles.  If both playstyles are viable, players will always be able to choose for themselves which to do.  This obviously appeals to more players than a game forcing players into one style or the other (and ToR certainly made the mistake of forcing soloing, due to how inconvenient grouping was.)

Originally posted by GamerUntouch

MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Role Playing Game

I think we all know that though.The problem is, devs don't. They're not making ORPGs. The games are multiplayer by concept, but there's no reason for the other players to be there.

 

There's people running around with you, but they might as well be AI.

They don't impact you at all, except for maybe the marketplace or the global chat.

 

What's everyone's opinion on this?

How can we stop it?

I don't agree. I mean how many times have you reached end-game completely solo? Sure a lot of the time you can get by on your own but almost every game eventually forces you to play with others. Of course this is where GW2 comes into the argument because it's the perfect example. In GW2 you'll be playing with others directly whether you like it or not. Before, the only hinderance to playing directly with others was organizing group play yourself but now you don't even have to do that anymore. So my opinion is that you're wrong to think devs don't want you interracting with eachother, they'd be foolish not to understand that concept. In the past they may not have known how to get kiddies to play together but Arena, more specifically GW2 is a shining example of dev's grasp on the concept.

---

Originally posted by GamerUntouch
MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Role Playing Game

I think we all know that though.The problem is, devs don't. They're not making ORPGs. The games are multiplayer by concept, but there's no reason for the other players to be there.

There's people running around with you, but they might as well be AI.

They don't impact you at all, except for maybe the marketplace or the global chat.

What's everyone's opinion on this?

How can we stop it?

---

It has been my experience with grouping that there is a goal and everyone works to get to that goal as quickly as possible. Then it is on to the next goal. Many times, that goal is just to level. Try sitting through the cut-scenes while the rest of your group waits for you. Try reading the quest text. More likely than not, your group may get impatient.

Now, don't get me wrong, when I group I tend to enjoy myself more often than not. But it is a very different gaming experience from when I take my time and solo.

When I played tabletop D&D, the group I was in was the same, almost every time I played. It was the same 5-7 friends. We did mundane things together. We ALL interacted with the NPCs (DM). I actually was able to "role-play" a dumb fighter, an overzealous priest, a goody-two-shoes paladin, a self-absorbed rogue, or an absent-minded wizard. Flawed characters were part of the game. Groups in MMOs do not work this way. Try being a dumb warrior in a group. You'll get kicked in 2 minutes. As you will should you "make a mistake" on purpose or not. Not many players want to adjust on the fly for things that should never go wrong :)

Forced grouping is a bad idea. With the caliber of players in the genre today, 75% (or more) of them I would rather not have to group with. We just disagree on what we find "fun."

I'm all for making grouping more feasible. Just don't make it mandatory.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Bladestrom

'You can't stop it, because it's what most players want.' 

There is a reason SWTOR was terrible (for example) most players DO NOT WANT the same old same old themepark mmorg.  Evolution is perfectly normal in the gaming industry, and yet it has stalled in the mmorg gaming world, why is that?  Well, a single game has had a monopoly on the mmorg market, and unfortunately has abused that monopoly by evolving a formulae that promotes addictive qualities over innovation and rich content.  It is absolutely no coincidence that the mmorg game world has stagnated at THE EXACT time period that a single themepark mmorg has had a monopoly on the market. 

Those that argue for the same game style to continue without evolution are following the same ignorant patterns that are usually argued by those who want status quo.   The same ignorant patters that are replicated throughout any industry where there is no good regulation to promote innovation over max profit.

 There are people that argue for stagnation/the status quo for profit (Blizzard) and there are those that argue for the status quo through fear of change or through a perception that their own personal happiness will be affected by change ( as seen a few posts back) 

Evolution and gaming satisfaction is achieved through evolution, Roll on GW2 and TSW to offer genuine choice in this corrupted gaming market.

 

1. You're assuming TOR captured even 80% of what made WOW fun.  It was an alright game for a while, but the lack of mob variety meant all combat played the same, which meant it was nothing like WOW (which varies mobs quite a bit.)

2. You're confusing a discussion on solo vs. grouping with WOW cloning.  They're two separate traits of a game: soloability, and WOW similarity.  Regarless of how similar or dissimilar a game is to WOW, it's going to do better with a balanced mix of solo and group playstyles.  If both playstyles are viable, players will always be able to choose for themselves which to do.  This obviously appeals to more players than a game forcing players into one style or the other (and ToR certainly made the mistake of forcing soloing, due to how inconvenient grouping was.)

Im not assuming anything, SWTOR attempted to copy the WOW pattern, its well documented.  Im not talking about solo v grouping at all, thats just a facet of mmorgs.