Originally posted by SenorHappy

The majority of the argument comes down to two points of view:

 

1) Solo players don't want to be forced to play a certain way.
2) Group players want content more compelling to their preferences.

 

 

Thus those two problems form a feedback loop. Group players feel they aren't being rewarded adequately for the extra overhead of grouping and are being discouraged from doing so. Solo players see any such reward as indirectly forcing players to group.

And there it is in one simple sentence.

you give the grouper the adequate rewards for the overhead of grouping, and now it's "forced grouping".

You take away those rewards, and now it's a solo fest.

And this is why just letting me see the other players health bar isn't what I've ever asked for, but what the solo player always offers.

But you can group. There. It's a good grouping game! No, I'm looking for a bit more than just seeing another players health bar.

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by Dameonk

I just addressed this in the post I just made above, but I'll elaborate on my personal stance on the matter.

The majority of players will take the path of least resistance to level.  Grouping, even in group based games, has always been more of a challenge than soloing.  It usually takes some time to find a group, then get to the group area, then if a vital class leaves, waiting for the leader to find a replacement.

In contrast, solo players just go to where the mobs are and start killing.  In your example above, the group player is already at a disadvantage before they even start killing.  Also, having both solo and group options in the same game as you listed above will cause even a larger decrease in the amount of people to group with because, as I already stated, most players will take the path of least resistance to advance.  Which, in your example, would be soloing.

I also addressed this in a post above.

A person who chooses to solo despite preferring to group is the architect of their own misfortune.

Your example mirrors Ihmotepps earlier one; you're taking the best case scenario of the solo playstyle and holding it up for comparison against a worst case group scenario. There is nothing to prevent a grouper from pre-arranging their group play sessions, completely negating the LFG "problem". Thousands of raid guilds do it every day.

I also disagree with the blanket statement that grouping is inherently more challenging than soloing. One only has to play a "pure" ranged DPS class in a group based MMO to see that this is not always the case. Standing in one spot and spamming a predetermined "maximum DPS" sequence isn't challenging, but just you try soloing a tough enemy with the same character.

Solo there is no challenge. You either have more DPS than the Mob, or it has more DPS than you. Where is the challenge you speak of?

In the group situation, the "challenge" is in working together.

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

 

if you don't solo, how would it affect you?

Your game experience as a grouper would not have changed.

 

I ad mobs to the game that give 100x the xp of the normal mobs in the game.

If you don't attack these new mobs, your experience has not changed, right?

You're not affected, right?

The game has not changed right?

The conflict you are having is you can see clearly in this instance that the game has changed, which is why you say it's "off topic".

Then, you can't explain, why if this changes the game, adding solo content does not change the game.

The problem is, this example shows that any change in the game affects everyone, not just those that use the new game mechanics.

If affects me because everything in a game is relative.

Why is a Giant Bear a harder challenge than a Giant Wolf?

It's not, unless the developers make one with more hit points, making one more powerful than the other.

The only thing we can do, is measure things by what is IN the game, because nothing else mattters.

What if I ad a Giant Red Wolf, and give it one more hit point than the Giant Wolf?

have I changed the Giant Wolf in any way? I have. It is now less tough, because I have placed something in the game tougher, something you can use to measure the Giant Wolf in comparison to.

Everything I ad to the game changes the game for everyone, becuase all things in the game are measured against each other. What are you going to measure killing magical creatures against, the real world?

What are you going to measure the rate of group xp against, working at McDonald's?

Do you think people play games in a vacuum, and nothing is measured or valued against anything else in the game, and all things are separate and have no meaning  but unto themselves? All things in the game are related ot one another. you cannot escape this fact of game development.

Once again, I'm forced to chastise you for using extremism and off-topic rambling to try and convey a point.

In the simplest terms; you're doing group content that rewards an average of 10,000XP per hour. The developers add solo content that rewards an average of 10,000XP per hour.

Your playstyle has not been changed.

Once again, I will tell you that my play style HAS been changed.

I am playing the game.

Any change to the rules affects me if I continue to play the game. I am subject to ALL the rules of the game, not just the ones I like or dislike.

Originally posted by baff

We know why they did it in great clarity, they all left video messages explaining it to us.

 

What they mean by the "illegal wars against Muslims in Afghanistam and Iraq" is self explanitory.

In case you haven't heard we invaded a couple of countries recently and without international, (or domestic) mandate. Iraq and Afghanistan. Those countries were both predominantly Muslim countries and our allies keep harping on about how Muslims are all violent evil terrorist bombers who are trying to "blow shit up" and bring Sharia Law to the world. Sending us private emails enocouraging us to kill them in the street. And all the rest of that hysteria.

 

It has nothing to do with bringing Sharia Law to a country that already has it and being free to blow shit up.  

 

 

 

 

 

Bhuddists blow people up. The kamikaze's were all Bhuddist. The attack at Pearl Harbour? Bhuddists.

The Massacre at Nanking? Bhuddists.

Genghis Kahn? Bhuddist. Any city which would not convert he burned to the ground and killed them all.

Mao se Tung? Bhuddist.

Kim Jong Il? Bhuddist.

 

 

You've lost me with all your Democracy stuff mate. I don't give a monkies what political system you use. It's all the same to me.

 

I believe that part of what we consider to be democratic prinicples is the protection of minority rights.  Which where I live includes the protection of Muslim minority rights.

Switzerland has a different system of rule to mine, they have referendums for everything which means minority rights like muslims don't get as much protection perhaps. Out of the 50% who biothered to vote, 57% voted against minarets, so the 43% minority who didn't object to them or actively wanted them are stuffed by the democratic majority.

 

Iran for example has minority rights for Jews living in Iran. They are allowed to practide their own Beth Din courts. I'll be damned if my country is less democraticly principled than Iran. No thanks.

Even repressive evil Muslim dictatorships like Saddams allowed Christians and Jews their own religious courts. Know what I mean? When your definition of Democracy starts making Saddam Hussein look like a liberal it's time for you to have yourself a little sit down and rethink your position.

 

P.S. Iran's not the only democracy with the death penalty. Most of them have it. I don't know if I'd vote for it, I like that we are different.

 

The world doesn't currently have a problem with Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Jews, or any other religion.

The current problem in the world is radical Islamists.

They have taken the place of Communists. the fact that peoples of other religions are not perfect is irrelevant to the current world political situation involving radical Islamists. Radical Islamists are the current cause of instabilit in the world. Not Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Agnostics, Athiests, or any other religion. None of those religions are resposnsible for the world wide terrorism and instability that is caused right now by radical Islamists.

When the radical Islmic terrorist threat is under control, maybe some of these issues you are raising will become important, but right now they pale in comparison to the threat of Jihadists.

My point is that no one I know, supports a simple democracy.

In a simple democracy, you could vote to kill someone just for fun, and if a majority voted to do it, you would do it.

That would be "democracy'.

Saying Iran is a "democracy" isn't saying much. A democracy without rights for discrete and insular minorities  is no better than a Fascist regime, or Communism.

People support democratic countries like America, and the countries of the EU, because of their rights for minorities and basic human rights, not because there is a vote.

you see, if a government did not respect your human rights, I would not find that to be a valid form of government, even if there was a majority vote, and the government was a "democracy". I would fight for your human rights, unlike the government of Iran, which is a democracy, but has no value on human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due process, equal protection, and so on.

Hey, the majority voted to kill all the Muslims, so we are going to do that. Would you support a government like that? it would be a "democracy".

Originally posted by Torik

Originally posted by Ihmotepp 

This is EXACTLY my point.

I'm NOT asking for someone to join my group, and I can see his health bar, he can see mine, and then he kills a duck while I kill a duck. THAT is WoW before the raids.

BUT, let's take that a step further. I'm not even asking for a Giant Duck, that he whacks on, while I whack on the same duck.

What I'm asking for, is he is going to die if I don't do my job, and I'm going to die if he doesn't do his job. And I better pay close attention to what he's doing, and vice a versa.

I can't just spam heals, I need to use them wisely, only when he's low. and he can't just shoot off his best spell whenever, he needs to wait till I get aggro.

And we need to watch for ads, hopefully someone can mez, and we need to not pull till the mage has more mana, and maybe two light tanks will have to switch off aggro, etc., etc.

But if it's just a zerg, I don't really care if we are in a group, or running around solo. It's all the same to me. And WoW feels like a Zerg, before the raids, compared to EQ or DAoC.

But, if you design grouping that way, so that it's not a zerg, it makes grouping hard. It's not just hey, jump in my group so we can do this dungeon at the end of the quest line, kthxbye.

And if grouping is that hard, well, it's going to have to give you a good reward or guess what? Might as well go to solo alley because it's better than getting wiped by a bunch of incompetents.

BUT, if the reward is great, well then, I can do the hard grouping, and I can put up with the incompetents. the reward will make up for that occaisional wipe.

 

You are talking about what I call Power Multipliers. 

ie.  One player does X damage.  Two players acting uncoordinated will do 2X damage.  However the two players when they coordinate can do 5X damage.   You get a proper 5-6 man group and suddenly you are doing 100X damage.

Of course this level of Power Multiplication requires some really tough mobs to fight.  Mobs that are deadly to a single player will be pushovers for such a group.  If you design mobs powerful enough to pose a challenge, you cannot just pop them everywhere in a leveling zone or they are gonna slaughter players left and right.  The only viable choice is to put them in their own are so they do not interfere with people just passing through (unless you want to make solo players unable to step foot there).  Even better you can stick them in an instance. 

The problem of course is the large range of Power Modifiers a group can have.  A group of newbies might pull off a factor of 15X while a group of veterans might pull off 100X with the same gear and class composition.  So if you want to have group content for all of them you have to scale it accordingly.  That's a lot of work for leveling zones so it is usually resevered for instances and raids. 

 

Everquest and DAoC did it on non-instanced dungeons.

There is also one more thing to your equation, which I do agree with.

As you level, the earlier content designed for groups now becomes soloable.

you also have to design the game so the solo player cannot just become more powerful, and then just go farm gear from mobs designed to drop stuff for an entire group, or you end up with massive inflation.

Originally posted by baff

We have Sharia law here.

We're still a democracy. So is France, so is Germany.

Like it or not, and most people here will not, so is Iran.

 

If you use violence to support Sharia law, you might be an extremist, but you are more likely to be a soldier or a policeman.

Where I live Sharia law is voluntary. If you don't want it, you don't have to have it.

 

We have Muslim extremists in my country too but it's not Sharia Law they have been trying to bring about, it's an end to the "illegal wars against Muslims" in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It is of not that these extremeists are not immigrants either, they have all been British born and raised.

 

 

I have no trouble with teachers wearing headscarfs or crucifixes. I find the Hijab a bit extreme. But the nun's in Catholic schools wear their habits, so I don't suppose it would make much odds in a Muslim faith school.

I meant a public school. In a Private school you could dress up like jesus and carry a cross around while you teach, or wear a burqa.

I'd say you are either confused about what the radical Islamists want, or you are naive and have been easily tricked by their rhetoric. What they mean by the "illegal war on Muslims" is wars preventing them from blowing shit up and forcing people to follow Sharia Law. If they didnt' do that, if they were a democracy like France, why would anyone want to do anything to them at all? Why would anyone care? The answer is, they would not. Just like know one cares about Buddhists. Be Buddhist all you want, no one cares. Why? Buddhists dont' blow people up for not worshipping Buddha and not followong Buddhist laws. They dont' do it.

There's democracy, and then there is democracy.

If everyone got together and decided to kill you just because they don't like the name baff, and they voted on it, and the majority decided anyone named baff should die, guess what?

That would be a democracy.

Would you support a regime like that? After all, it IS a democracy. It's a simple democracy, with no protected rights for insular minorities, but nonetheless a democracy.

Would you support it? Remember, it IS a democracy.

If you don't support this regime, does that mean you dont' support democracy? Or does it mean, perhaps, you don't support democracies without rights for discrete and insular minorities?

It's not a rhetorical question.

There is a democracy. They vote to kill anyone using the screen name baff. Do you support that? There was a vote after all, which means it IS a democracy. So, you now, majority rules and all.

That's your Iranian style democracy. You are right. It's a democracy. Does that mean you should support it?

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

 

if you don't solo, how would it affect you?

Your game experience as a grouper would not have changed.

I ad mobs to the game that give 100x the xp of the normal mobs in the game.

If you don't attack these new mobs, your experience has not changed, right?

You're not affected, right?

The game has not changed right?

The conflict you are having is you can see clearly in this instance that the game has changed, which is why you say it's "off topic".

Then, you can't explain, why if this changes the game, adding solo content does not change the game.

The problem is, this example shows that any change in the game affects everyone, not just those that use the new game mechanics.

If affects me because everything in a game is relative.

Why is a Giant Bear a harder challenge than a Giant Wolf?

It's not, unless the developers make one with more hit points, making one more powerful than the other.

The only thing we can do, is measure things by what is IN the game, because nothing else mattters.

What if I ad a Giant Red Wolf, and give it one more hit point than the Giant Wolf?

have I changed the Giant Wolf in any way? I have. It is now less tough, because I have placed something in the game tougher, something you can use to measure the Giant Wolf in comparison to.

Everything I ad to the game changes the game for everyone, becuase all things in the game are measured against each other. What are you going to measure killing magical creatures against, the real world?

What are you going to measure the rate of group xp against, working at McDonald's?

Do you think people play games in a vacuum, and nothing is measured or valued against anything else in the game, and all things are separate and have no meaning  but unto themselves? All things in the game are related ot one another. you cannot escape this fact of game development.

Originally posted by Jeffs

Two slightly suspicious emails out of thousands leaked debunking an entire global scientific study is probably as stupid and irrational as a molestation charge on a priest proving there's no God.

So these so-called scientists not only lied about the Global Warming hoax, but they molested little boys too?

OMG!!! What will they stoop to next?

This guy said Man isn't really the cause for most of the warming. These scientists are "showing him the data":

Originally posted by baff

If you consider all Muslims to be extemists

 

Only if you insist on Sharia Law. Sharia Law goes against democracy and human rights, like freedom of religion, and equality between men and women.

If you think Sharia Law should be implemented anywhere, instead of you following your own religion and letting others follow theirs, then ti's a problem for sure.

If you support violence to further Sharia Law, then you are an extremist.

If you personally want to follow Sharia Law, that's fine, as long as you don't force it on anyone else.

For example, you want to wear a head scarf? Fine, wear one. You want to wear one to teach school or get a drivers license? No, not fine.

Teachers in public schools are prohibited from wearing religious symbols. All religious symbols, a yamaka, cross, rosary beads, whatever. You can wear all the religious symbols you want to when you leave the work place. Don't like it? Don't work there.

You are free to start a bakery and wear your head scarf all day long while you sell sticky buns.

Originally posted by xpowderx

Imhotepp, actually I was not "Bitching" as you call it. Bitching is overwith. The time is up. The progressive party is overwith and we are taking action. In a month or so it will be more likely for Obamas impeachment process to take place. It does help that we are watching Obamas own supporters turn against him. So yes. We will take what we can get and the getting is good. Climategate will be Obamas as well as the progressive parties downfall. So YES, we will Impeach him. He will be the second president impeached before his term is over!

I think you're wasting your time. What, you like Joe Biden better?

I'd put my efforts into something more productive, like organizing a campaign for the next election.

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Gameloading

Voting is also by far the most pointless of all civic duties as your individual vote has no effect on the outcome of an election.

 

That's nice, I'm glad you aren't in the US we don't need more people with your attitude towards life.

 

@ GL I shudder to think what our country would be like if most American's shared your opinion.

So what? Everybody doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by millions and millions, regardless if I vote or not.

 

If you don't vote you can complain all you want, but no one will care.

The mistake here is that you give more value to your vote than it really has.

Politicians won't care for your opinion as an individual, it doesn't matter if you vote or not.
A common mistake people make is that your individual opinion gets heard just by voting. It really doesn't.
If your opinion even slightly differs from the masses, it will be completely ignored.

 

In that case the opposite would be true.

If my vote is the same as the masses, it will be completely paid attention to.

I never said my individual opinion gets heard just by voting. I said people that vote elect representatives. People that don't vote, do not.

Therefore, people that vote make policy, people that don't vote do not.

If you are not making policy, why do we care what you think? It's moot.

Stay home on election day. That's great. Just makes my vote count that much more.

 

Your vote already means nothing.

I guess for you, you either go with the flow or fight the tide... some of us just prefer not to swim in a river that inevitably ends up in the ocean.

 

I'm not going with the flow, I AM the flow.

Like I said, i think it's great you don't vote.

Makes other people's  votes count that much more. Believe me, we don't mind telling you what to do. What can you do about it? Nothing, you don't vote.

 

Another drop in the pail, then.

I can protest. I can protest actively and do so regularly. When it gets to the point that my voice is ignored entirely, I will vote with my feet. I used to believe in what America stood for, but that totem is gone. Now it's just a shell hollowed by termites, and you're still worshiping it.

 

If you don't vote, why would anyone care if you "protest"? So you're a looney with a sign. Who cares?

Leave if you want, no one  is stopping you.

If you vote, you make a difference.

If you don't vote, but you just "protest" you're this guy:

 

And you're this.

You, sir, are a sheep. One of "God's" creatures - A slave of your own inhibition and willful shortsightedness.

 

We could go at this for hours. We each have our established stereotypes, but you prefer personal attacks to objectivity. You believe everything I say is an affront to you because you hold your beliefs so tightly, and this is why my point of view is ignored - because it is very uncomfortable and quite contradictory to the popular opinion.

I cannot for the life of me understand why you feel the need to be so closed-minded.

 

Such is America: the self-absorbed, stagnant country.

Your argument is, I want something other people also want, therefore I can't really want it?

Originally posted by Axehilt

"over and over and over"?   Really?   I've never once seen a soloer say that grouping is just seeing other players health bars.  I have absolutely no idea where this is coming from -.-

Even if you found someone who actually said that, why bother making a thread based around a terrible argument?

that's what they are saying in effect, when they say, I can solo to the cap just as fast as you. But look, you can still group. So there you go, that's a game for everyone! Why are you complaining?

Because that's not a game for everyone, it's a game where other players can join together and see each other's health bars, but the group advocates are not asking for games where they can see other players health bars.
 

They are actually asking for good group content.

Go back and read all the group vs solo threads. you'll see post after post that reads, but you can group in WoW, and I can solo. So there! You have your grouping, what more do you want?

Great, you're going to let me see some other players health bars. How nice of you. The only problem is, the groupers arent' asking for that.

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

I want a game that takes a year to max level.

Now, you ad mobs that give 10x the xp, and you can make max level in a month.

Is that the same game?

After all, I can NOT fight any of the new mobs, and it will still take me a year to max level.

Is that the same game?

I say it is not. You say it is?

We're discussing solo and group mechanics, not levelling speed.

And again, you're inventing extreme hypothetical scenarios to support your point of view.

you just said game mechanics can't affect me unless I let them.

Is your statement true or not?

Would this game mechanic affect you are not?

Only if you let it?

We ad mobs to the game that give 100x the xp and now you can level to max in one week.

Did this change the game or not?

I add a solo option to the game, and now you can solo faster than  grouping.

Does this effect everyone on the server, or only solo players?

Game mechanics affect everyone on the server, not just some people.

Game mechanics dont' cease to exist just becuase you want to pretend you are playing a different game.

I make a perma death game.

If you die, your character is deleted.

Now, I change it so there's not more perma death.

BuT! You can still delete your character if you die.

Did I change the game or not? Are you affected or not? Isn't EVERYONE on teh server affected by this change, not just the people that dont' decide to wipe their characters?

Originally posted by bloodaxes

What people want I guess is:

You can solo from 1 to 10 and will take you 3-5 hours

Or

You can group from 1 to 10 and will take you 1.5-3 hours

Both have a choice but if one wants to achieve things easier/faster one needs to group.

 

In wow grouping while questing would make you take longer to reach, drops were not shared (as far as I played) so you had to do it x per player in party and mobs give crap exp to prevent botting.

What actually happens in my experience, is an average of this.
 

If the time spent actually whacking mobs is 3-5 hours solo, and the actual time spent whacking mobs is 1.5 - 3 hours in a group for the same 1-10, then BOTH players will spend roughly 3-5 hours to get from 1-10.

yes, one set, the group, spends less time actually whacking mobs.

But that same set, the group, spends more time NOT whacking mobs.

Rather than bore you with a dozen examples, I'll give just one.

Rolling need for greed, and arguing need before greed.

I need that sword. No you don't, you're a thief. Yes, but I can duel wield with that sword. Yes, but it gives the Ranger +1 to hit points, he should roll, but not you. Yes, but my cloak is worn out, and I need a new one. Nothing drops here but swords. How am I going to get a new cloak, if I don't ever get to roll?

Ok, fine, you all suck, I'm not going to play in your group.....No wait, you can roll on the sword. Ok, let's roll...WTF?! I thought you were going to roll? Oh, sorry, I was reading a message from my guild...Ok, now let's roll...

That is time spent NOT whacking mobs, time the solo player will never spend, unless he has a split personality and argues with himself.

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

No, I am happy for you to enjoy solo content from level 1 to max.

But not if it destroys my grouping content.

The only way the two have no effect on one another is if they do not exist in the same game on the same server.

You cannot ad a feature to the MMORPG that does not affect me.

If you can solo, I can solo.

Again, you're inventing extremist scenarios to support your point of view.

Providing that your playstyle remains supported by the game mechanics, nothing added to game can destroy it unless you decide to destroy it for yourself.

I want a game that takes a year to max level.

Now, you ad mobs that give 10x the xp, and you can make max level in a month.

Is that the same game?

After all, I can NOT fight any of the new mobs, and it will still take me a year to max level.

Is that the same game?

I say it is not. You say it is?

Originally posted by Torik

Originally posted by Neanderthal 

What Imho is pointing out (for the umpteenth time) is that it's not the same thing.  Look at the typical solo quest grinder game and think about what actually happens when you group for the normal content in that game prior to the endgame. 

The way it usually goes is like this:

     1)  You get a quest to go kill 15 ducks (or whatever).

     2)  You run over to the duck pond (or whatever).

     3)  You see some other guy there and invite him to group with you.

     4)  He accepts, so now you and he will share credit for each others kills.

     5)  But you don't actually work together.  He runs around killing ducks on his own and you do the same.  As soon as he fills his quota of ducks he disbands and runs off to work on his next chore.

So the "grouping" in those games is really nothing more than sharing credit for each others solo kills and seeing each others' names and health bars on your screen.  It isn't even real grouping because you aren't working together as a group.  It's just a mechanism to let you take credit for each others kills.

If it were designed for real grouping it would be designed in such a way that people would truly work together to kill the ducks instead of running around soloing ducks.

 

Actually the diffrerence between this scenatio and Ihmo's favoured 'group camping' setup is really a question of mob power.   The two players in your scenario only solo the ducks becuase the ducks are soloable.  The proper continiuation of your scenatio is that the two playuers finish killign the ducks and then move on to kill bears which they cannot normally solo (until a few levels later) but which give better rewards.  If the next quest involves killing bears they will usually move to it together.  Otherwise they will move to it if they prefer xp grinding over xp questing.

The different outcomes of that scenario are not really dependant on whether a person likes to solo or group.  If they did not want to group they would have never grouped for the ducks quest.  The issue actually is whether they prefer doing quests or camping spawns.  

My problems with Ihmotep's ideas are not that he advocates grouping which (which I actually prefer) but that it advocates spawn camping sessions (which I hate).

Ok, these two posts are very insightful.

The issue here, IMO, is not questing versus grinding. It's true, I prefer spawn camping to quest grinding, but that is a separate issue from grouping versus solo content.

here's my issue with quest grinding. The quest stories dont' have any impact on the game world, so they dont' interest me. HOWEVER< if you insist on quest grinding, ok, fine. I'll run around and get all the quests, before killing the mobs, and then run around turning them all in, after killing the mobs. I'm not going to get any extra fun out of the running around, but it's not a deal breaker. I can scroll through the stupid text to get to the Kill X part, but why you want to make me do that, I don't know.

But on to the ducks.

This is EXACTLY my point.

I'm NOT asking for someone to join my group, and I can see his health bar, he can see mine, and then he kills a duck while I kill a duck. THAT is WoW before the raids.

BUT, let's take that a step further. I'm not even asking for a Giant Duck, that he whacks on, while I whack on the same duck.

What I'm asking for, is he is going to die if I don't do my job, and I'm going to die if he doesn't do his job. And I better pay close attention to what he's doing, and vice a versa.

I can't just spam heals, I need to use them wisely, only when he's low. and he can't just shoot off his best spell whenever, he needs to wait till I get aggro.

And we need to watch for ads, hopefully someone can mez, and we need to not pull till the mage has more mana, and maybe two light tanks will have to switch off aggro, etc., etc.

But if it's just a zerg, I don't really care if we are in a group, or running around solo. It's all the same to me. And WoW feels like a Zerg, before the raids, compared to EQ or DAoC.

But, if you design grouping that way, so that it's not a zerg, it makes grouping hard. It's not just hey, jump in my group so we can do this dungeon at the end of the quest line, kthxbye.

And if grouping is that hard, well, it's going to have to give you a good reward or guess what? Might as well go to solo alley because it's better than getting wiped by a bunch of incompetents.

BUT, if the reward is great, well then, I can do the hard grouping, and I can put up with the incompetents. the reward will make up for that occaisional wipe.

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by Neanderthal

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by Neanderthal

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

So, to summarise:

As a soloer, I'm happy for you to enjoy challenging group content from level 1 to max.
As a grouper, you're not happy for me to enjoy challenging solo content from level 1 to max.

And yet, in your OP you're complaining about the attitiude of the soloers?

But what he was saying is right.  It might not sound right.  You might not want it to be right.  But it's right none the less.

People still complain that EQ had forced grouping just to level up even though soloing was a perfectly viable way to level in EQ.  You could experience solo, get the same levels solo, it just went a little slower.  So even though it really was perfectly viable to solo people call it a forced grouping game.

Whether it makes sense or not people will always take the path of least resistance and feel like they are being cheated if their preferred playstlye is NOT the path of least resistance.  It's just the way it is and we ALL do it.

I'll be honest; I've absolutely no sympathy or consideration for an MMO gamer who would choose to ignore their preferred playstyle and engage in activities that they don't enjoy in order to maximise their XP gain. It's something that I would never even consider.

i didn't play EQ, so I won't venture an opinion on how well the solo playstyle was supported by its game mechanics.

Yeah, I'll admit I used say similar things myself in regard to a similar mmorpg topic but in reality it just doesn't work the way it seems like it should.

I can't imagine a game trying to have EQ style grouping and WoW style soloing in the same game.  There is just no way in hell that it would work out.

Imagine that you took a EQ zone like Unrest with EQ rules and stuck it next to a zone with WoW style solo questing and WoW rules.

Ok people, here are your choices; you can go to Unrest, go through the trouble of putting a group together and try to fight your way to a good spot.  If you die you lose a big chunk of experience and have a nasty corpse run which might litterally be impossible without help.  You will fight things which will absolutely gauranteed kill you unless your group is working together.  Sometimes you will get adds and get caught up in insane fights which might or might not force you to run for your lives.  Some of these fights will last for 10 minutes or more.  And you will do all of this while dodging trains of mobs (caused by other groups running for their lives).  You will do it with slow regen of mana/health (which is part of what encourages grouping and part of what makes it more challenging).  Loot and experience will be slow and hard to come by. 

OR....you can go to the WoW zone where you will frolic along and watch mobs drop dead merely by approaching them closely.  There will be no death penalty if you do somehow manage to kill yourself.  No trains.  No hassles.  Experience will flow like the Amazon river in the rainy season.  Shiney loot upgrades will fall out of the asses of every NPC you talk to.

Maybe you can't see it but this just wouldn't work.

 

You're using exaggerated scenarios to support your point of view.

We're not talking about EQ or WoW.
We've not discussed death penalties, downtime or mechanics.

I agree that an easy solo game squished together with a hard group game would not work.

A challenging game that provided complete support to both playstyles would work.

 

the devil, as they say, is in the details.

What's easy? What's hard?

What acceptable?

DaoC works for me, WoW doesn't.

DAoC allowed you to solo, but it was challenging. WoW makes grouping until you get to raid level more or less pointless, not to mention the fact that the actual game play when grouped is sadly lacking compared to EQ or DAoC.

If you think DAoC was fine, then we're in agreement and we could play the same game.

If you think WoW is  a great grouping game, then we probably need to play on different servers.

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

So, to summarise:

You want a game with group content all the way from level 1 to max.
I want a game with solo content all the way from level 1 to max.

There's absolutely nothing to say that we can't coexist.

I could level from 1 to 10 via soloable content in Antisocial Alley.
You could level from 1 to 10 via group content in Codependancy Canyon.

What's the problem?

 Antisocial Alley and Codependancy Canyon are not unrelated in the same game, if they exist on the same server.

There is absolutley NO problem at all, if Antisocial Alley is in Server A, and Codependancy Canyone is on Server B.

If they are both on Server A, then the game is either going to be "forced solo"  or "forced grouping"  depending which alley or canyon is the easier route to the level cap.

You cannot, IMO, design the game so that the type of serious coordination that EQ or DAoC required is viable, and at the same time you can solo just as fast as grouping.

If you make it so you can solo, the grouping is going to have to be dumbed down, like it is in WoW. If you make the grouping like EQ or DAoC, the solo crowd will yell "forced grouping".

If you  make the grouping as challenging as it was in DAoC or EQ, then it will require so much more effort, that I would solo if that was just as easy as grouping. 

here, give me a dollar, and I will give you a piece of stale bread, or a lobster. I don't know about you, but I'm going to take the lobster every time, and not the stale bread.

Imagine this. You can solo and make 100 xp per kill. or you can solo and make 10 xp per kill. One person says, 100 xp per kill is perfect. The other person says, no, that's way to fast. It should be only 10 xp per kill. Or, vice a versa. One person says 10 xp per kill is perfect. And another person says, no, that's way to slow it should be 100 xp per kill.Now, using your solution, we make 100 miles an hour Valley, and 10mph Mountain top. If you wan tto make 100 xp per kill you go to the Valley, and if you want to make 10 xp per kill you go to the Mountain Top.

And that's in the same game.

Do you think any developer would make a game like that? Do you think this would satisfy both players? 

So, to summarise:

As a soloer, I'm happy for you to enjoy challenging group content from level 1 to max.
As a grouper, you're not happy for me to enjoy challenging solo content from level 1 to max.

And yet, in your OP you're complaining about the attitiude of the soloers?

No, I am happy for you to enjoy solo content from level 1 to max.

But not if it destroys my grouping content.

The only way the two have no effect on one another is if they do not exist in the same game on the same server.

You cannot ad a feature to the MMORPG that does not affect me.

If you can solo, I can solo.

You can't make a game where a Mob drops 10 xp and right next to it is a mob that drops 1,000 xp and then say:

Look! We've made a game for BOTH the hard core and the casual gamer!

The "hardcore" gamer can only choose the fight the mobs that drop 10xp and the casual player can choose to only fight the mobs that drop 1,000 xp! It's a BRILLIANT design because it caters to BOTH players in teh same game!

Do you see how that might not work? Or you think that actually would be a brilliant design?

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by baff

I think you need to see the world.

 

Start a thread about the IRA.

It's really irrelevant to the problem with Muslim extremists.

I've been to let's see, every country in the EU, but not England, Mexico, Canada, the US, West coast, East Coast, Deep South, not so much Mid West, China, including Hong Kong, and mainland China (very different from each other) Thailand, Singapore, Hungary and Romania before they were part of the EU, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, the Caribbean and I think that's about it.

 

You've been to Singapore?

I've never been there, but its name is catchy. What's it like there?

It's an Island, so there are beautiful beaches. It's also a high tech center, so it's very cosmopolitan. There are business people from all over the world, very multi cultural. Temples for Buddhists, Hindus, all sorts of religions. It was one of the first times I'd ever been do a Hindu ceremony. It's kind of scary if you ask me, all those Hindu god statues like Kali holding bloody heads, fire, chanting. Very interesting. '

Overall, it reminds me of Hong Kong, only more orderly, less chaotic.

there's a definite Western influence. I went to eat at a Hooter's. Yep, a Hooters in Singapore. the girls were beautiful,  but the wings were terrible. Everything is frozen and flown in because it's such a small island.

Also, you have to pay ridiculous amounts of money to drive a car, something like a 50,000 dollar permit. That's because it's a small island, and theres' only room for so many cars, so they auction off the permits to drive a car on the roads.

it was fun, but I wouldn't put it at the top of the list of places to visit. I'd say go to Hong Kong, or Thailand instead. There's nothing on Singapore you're missing really, and it's very expensive there.

If I get the chance to go back to Asia i want to go to Vietnam and Cambodia, for the history and the temples. But I think maybe Jakarta first. It's on the top of my list right now.

Originally posted by Teala

2nd amendment is a joke.  Most Americans are to stupid to own a gun.

It doesnt' take much intelligence to own a gun.

This is the safety, this is the end the bullet comes out of, don't point it at anyone unless you intend to shoot them, don't shoot anyone except for self defense.

Does that really sound so complicated? I don't think so.

I have a concealed carry permit, and passed the safety course to get it. I have no problem with requiring people to pass a basic safety course to get their concealed carry permits.

For you Teala I recommend a nice .38 revolver. Notice the hammer doesn't stick out? That's so it won't snag on anything in your purse.