Trending Games | Elder Scrolls Online | WildStar | Star Wars: The Old Republic | ArcheAge

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,644,355 Users Online:0
Games:681  Posts:6,078,066
Rift (Rift)
Trion Worlds | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 03/01/11)  | Pub:Trion Worlds
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:Free
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

General Discussion Forum » The Pub at MMORPG.COM » The 'Group Play vs Solo Play in an MMO' Thread

104 Pages First « 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 » Last Search
2078 posts found
  Adalwulff

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/18/10
Posts: 1191

"I am not the light, or the darkness, but the twilight in between"

6/14/12 7:01:07 PM#1421
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
Originally posted by UsualSuspect
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

 I think you really need to rethink your position and re-read the thread.  Not a single person in this thread has ever stated that MMO's are only for soloers.

However they have stated that soloers can, do and should enjoy MMO's just like groupers.  And developers are catering to them in many parts as well.  As has been stated many many times before the multiplayer in MMO does not mean grouping, it does mean interaction, there are many many many other ways to interact with people other than grouping.  Additionally there actually are people in this thread stating that MMO's should only be for groupers

there is a consenses that gear-whoring is just one of the things that seperates the soloer from teh team players.  But once again it is not the soloers that are solely puersuing the gear, IMO it is mostly the groupers.  Most soloers don't raid, it goes against what they like, or their reasons for soloing. 

Solo players are the ones that are there for fun, just as much as group players.  You are there just to collect your pixels.

I think you need to look back through the posts, this thread is full of soloers saying they want to be able to solo everything, they want to solo raids, they want the same gear as group content gives, they want this, that and the other. The pro-groupers just want the games to be different to a single player RPG, the soloers want to take the MMO and redesign it into their own single player game with a chatroom.

But not a single person has stated that MMO's should be only for solo.

Wanting to be able to solo everything is a very different stance than saying that MMO's should be only for solo.

MMO's, even the most solo friendly ones are different from spg's.  There is far far far more interaction with other players in an MMO, however that does not mean grouping.

Soloers aren't redisgning anything.  Devs are catering to them, and soloing has been in MMO's since the very begining.

Pro-groupers want to take the MMO and redesign it into their own enforced friend and party system. 

 

Yes they have said MMOs should be completly soloable, you obviously have not read any of this thread.

You guys want NO distinction from solo content and group content, meaning you dont belive groupers should get any rewards from grouping that you cant get solo. You also want to solo, any and all group content. which obvioulsy negates the group content.

Then you claim MMOs were solo to begin with? That is completly false, and I honestly cant believe you would think anyone is going to believe that. Seriously just wow!

  VengeSunsoar

Elite Member

Joined: 3/10/04
Posts: 4329

Be Brief, Be Bright... Be Gone.

6/14/12 7:23:34 PM#1422
Originally posted by Adalwulff
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
Originally posted by UsualSuspect
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

 I think you really need to rethink your position and re-read the thread.  Not a single person in this thread has ever stated that MMO's are only for soloers.

However they have stated that soloers can, do and should enjoy MMO's just like groupers.  And developers are catering to them in many parts as well.  As has been stated many many times before the multiplayer in MMO does not mean grouping, it does mean interaction, there are many many many other ways to interact with people other than grouping.  Additionally there actually are people in this thread stating that MMO's should only be for groupers

there is a consenses that gear-whoring is just one of the things that seperates the soloer from teh team players.  But once again it is not the soloers that are solely puersuing the gear, IMO it is mostly the groupers.  Most soloers don't raid, it goes against what they like, or their reasons for soloing. 

Solo players are the ones that are there for fun, just as much as group players.  You are there just to collect your pixels.

I think you need to look back through the posts, this thread is full of soloers saying they want to be able to solo everything, they want to solo raids, they want the same gear as group content gives, they want this, that and the other. The pro-groupers just want the games to be different to a single player RPG, the soloers want to take the MMO and redesign it into their own single player game with a chatroom.

But not a single person has stated that MMO's should be only for solo.

Wanting to be able to solo everything is a very different stance than saying that MMO's should be only for solo.

MMO's, even the most solo friendly ones are different from spg's.  There is far far far more interaction with other players in an MMO, however that does not mean grouping.

Soloers aren't redisgning anything.  Devs are catering to them, and soloing has been in MMO's since the very begining.

Pro-groupers want to take the MMO and redesign it into their own enforced friend and party system. 

 

Yes they have said MMOs should be completly soloable, you obviously have not read any of this thread.

You guys want NO distinction from solo content and group content, meaning you dont belive groupers should get any rewards from grouping that you cant get solo. You also want to solo, any and all group content. which obvioulsy negates the group content.

Then you claim MMOs were solo to begin with? That is completly false, and I honestly cant believe you would think anyone is going to believe that. Seriously just wow!

No one has stated they should be ONLY soloable. 

No.  If you want to group go for it, you should get rewarded.  If you want to solo go for it, you should get rewarded.  Rewards should be based on success. 

No it doesn't negate all group content, see above. 

There SHOULD be alternative pathways for both.  People will choose the one they have more fun with.

I never said MMO's were ONLY solo, I said you could solo in all MMO"s.  Yes you could solo in UO, yes you could solo to cap in EQ with almost half the classes. 

Seriously just wow!

Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  UsualSuspect

Hard Core Member

Joined: 11/01/04
Posts: 1172

6/15/12 1:30:40 AM#1423
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

But not a single person has stated that MMO's should be only for solo.

Wanting to be able to solo everything is a very different stance than saying that MMO's should be only for solo.

MMO's, even the most solo friendly ones are different from spg's.  There is far far far more interaction with other players in an MMO, however that does not mean grouping.

Soloers aren't redisgning anything.  Devs are catering to them, and soloing has been in MMO's since the very begining.

Pro-groupers want to take the MMO and redesign it into their own enforced friend and party system. 

You're obviously not understanding human nature, where we all go the path of least resistance, which has been stated many times in this thread. If everything is soloable then people will solo, as simple as that, it'll remove any need for groups because there wouldn't BE a need for groups if people can do it all themselves. To incorporate both playstyles while making them both viable I think is simply an impossible task. A developer needs to choose one or the other.

Pro-groupers just want to keep a multiplayer game as a multiplayer game. If you can solo everything in a multiplayer game then that game has failed in its genre. It's no better than a single player game with a chat room.

  Ikonoclastia

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/31/11
Posts: 163

6/15/12 1:34:03 AM#1424

Anyone find it wierd how fantasy fiction, on which most MMO's are based, usually have a single hero or small group of hero's and the fictional content is usually a single soloable (by the hero) or small groupable (by the small group) villian but in MMO's the expectation by a lot of people is in game villians must only be destroyable with  large numbers of people.

Pretty bizarre.

@Usual Suspect, you are having a hard time understanding because your definition of multiplayer in MMO's is seriously flawed.

You can do heaps of things solo in the real world, does that make everything you do in the real world by yourself single player too?  If I go speeding down the road in my car, can I discount everyone else on the road because I'm in the car by myself?. 

Your assertion that doing something solo in a game world in which many other players are also doing things in the same game world, somehow makes whatever they are doing inconsequtial to other players is total nonsense.

  VengeSunsoar

Elite Member

Joined: 3/10/04
Posts: 4329

Be Brief, Be Bright... Be Gone.

6/15/12 1:40:17 AM#1425
Originally posted by UsualSuspect
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

But not a single person has stated that MMO's should be only for solo.

Wanting to be able to solo everything is a very different stance than saying that MMO's should be only for solo.

MMO's, even the most solo friendly ones are different from spg's.  There is far far far more interaction with other players in an MMO, however that does not mean grouping.

Soloers aren't redisgning anything.  Devs are catering to them, and soloing has been in MMO's since the very begining.

Pro-groupers want to take the MMO and redesign it into their own enforced friend and party system. 

You're obviously not understanding human nature, where we all go the path of least resistance, which has been stated many times in this thread. If everything is soloable then people will solo, as simple as that, it'll remove any need for groups because there wouldn't BE a need for groups if people can do it all themselves. To incorporate both playstyles while making them both viable I think is simply an impossible task. A developer needs to choose one or the other.

Pro-groupers just want to keep a multiplayer game as a multiplayer game. If you can solo everything in a multiplayer game then that game has failed in its genre. It's no better than a single player game with a chat room.

Except as has also been stated many time in this threaed, it is not true.  So you are not understanding human nature.  Yes many will do the path of least resistance, however many will also do what they enjoy the mostm and that is the key, people will end up playing the game they enjoy most and playing the style they enjoy most.   If people like grouping then they will group.  WoW has shown that.  They made grouping (dungeons) just as easy and rewarding as soloing (quests) and many many many, some even say the majorty are now grouping up more than soloing. 

Also who says soloing is easier.  There is no reason whatsoever that soloing needs to be easier than grouping.  Actually if the soloer takes the same mobs as the group, than soloing is harder.  However it can be made even more difficult via simple puzzles or mini games, and I'm sure many other people can think of many other ways. 

No.  A developer doesn't have to choice on or the other.  They can simply choose activites that are solo or group.  Again, even the dreaded wow has found a solution that offers a great deal of soloing shoulder you, or a great deal of grouping should you wish. 

A multiplayer game only means you have opportunity to interact - thats it, nothing more. 

 

Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  UsualSuspect

Hard Core Member

Joined: 11/01/04
Posts: 1172

6/15/12 2:07:33 AM#1426
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

A multiplayer game only means you have opportunity to interact - thats it, nothing more. 

Really? People are still holding onto this belief? If you only have the opportunity to interact, that's called a chat room. A multiplayer game involves two or more players working against or with each other. Name me one multiplayer game that simply gives the opportunity for you to interact. And count MMO's out of that, they're the problem, not the example.

Let's try a list here:

Multiplayer Pool - "What do you mean it's my shot? I'm not here to play against you.".

Multiplayer Blood Bowl - "No, my team isn't moving, I just want to chat if thats okay?"

Multiplayer Call of Duty - "No! You can't shoot me, I don't want to fight today.".

The list goes on and on.

  VengeSunsoar

Elite Member

Joined: 3/10/04
Posts: 4329

Be Brief, Be Bright... Be Gone.

6/15/12 2:12:36 AM#1427
Originally posted by UsualSuspect
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

A multiplayer game only means you have opportunity to interact - thats it, nothing more. 

Really? People are still holding onto this belief? If you only have the opportunity to interact, that's called a chat room. A multiplayer game involves two or more players working against or with each other. Name me one multiplayer game that simply gives the opportunity for you to interact. And count MMO's out of that, they're the problem, not the example.

Let's try a list here:

Multiplayer Pool - "What do you mean it's my shot? I'm not here to play against you.".

Multiplayer Blood Bowl - "No, my team isn't moving, I just want to chat if thats okay?"

Multiplayer Call of Duty - "No! You can't shoot me, I don't want to fight today.".

The list goes on and on.

A chat room doesn't have a game portion.  A chat room doesn't let you buy/sell, craft, take orders, auction, group, quest, go on dungeon runs, pvp, random drive by heals, buffs, kills... so no, your wrong.  There are many many many forms of interaction in an MMO, grouping is just one.

There are many games in pool, some have teams, some are solo, sometimes its just a bunch of friends hanging out.

And in some games there is a very limited form of interaction.  But MMO's have many many forms of interaction.

Keep trying though.

edit - in any one specific game, the rules of the game may dictate how interaction occurs.  That may be just taking turns, it may be something else.  But MMO's have many different forms of interaction and all are equally viable.

Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  Ikonoclastia

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/31/11
Posts: 163

6/15/12 2:16:22 AM#1428
Originally posted by UsualSuspect
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

A multiplayer game only means you have opportunity to interact - thats it, nothing more. 

Really? People are still holding onto this belief? If you only have the opportunity to interact, that's called a chat room. A multiplayer game involves two or more players working against or with each other. Name me one multiplayer game that simply gives the opportunity for you to interact. And count MMO's out of that, they're the problem, not the example.

Let's try a list here:

Multiplayer Pool - "What do you mean it's my shot? I'm not here to play against you.".

Multiplayer Blood Bowl - "No, my team isn't moving, I just want to chat if thats okay?"

Multiplayer Call of Duty - "No! You can't shoot me, I don't want to fight today.".

The list goes on and on.

The games you listed are all pure adversarial games (you directly compete against another person). 

Try

Sailing, Rally Racing, Mountain Climbing, Picking up girls in bars... there are tons of things we do, were we don't directly interact but we are in competition.

  Adalwulff

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/18/10
Posts: 1191

"I am not the light, or the darkness, but the twilight in between"

6/15/12 9:40:17 AM#1429
Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Anyone find it wierd how fantasy fiction, on which most MMO's are based, usually have a single hero or small group of hero's and the fictional content is usually a single soloable (by the hero) or small groupable (by the small group) villian but in MMO's the expectation by a lot of people is in game villians must only be destroyable with  large numbers of people.

Pretty bizarre.

@Usual Suspect, you are having a hard time understanding because your definition of multiplayer in MMO's is seriously flawed.

You can do heaps of things solo in the real world, does that make everything you do in the real world by yourself single player too?  If I go speeding down the road in my car, can I discount everyone else on the road because I'm in the car by myself?. 

Your assertion that doing something solo in a game world in which many other players are also doing things in the same game world, somehow makes whatever they are doing inconsequtial to other players is total nonsense.

 

And you guys claim we are trying to tell you soloers how to play MMOs...HAHA!

Look at you, first you tell usualsuspect his definition of MMO is wrong, when it isnt, because there isnt one definition for all people.

Then you equate a MMO to a movie???? So game devs should redesign thier MMOs after movies, are you serious???

Then you try and equate real life with an MMO, by driving a car down the road? Sorry but your making one strawman after another.

How about you stick to the topic, can you do that?

  Adalwulff

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/18/10
Posts: 1191

"I am not the light, or the darkness, but the twilight in between"

6/15/12 9:46:05 AM#1430
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
Originally posted by UsualSuspect
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

A multiplayer game only means you have opportunity to interact - thats it, nothing more. 

Really? People are still holding onto this belief? If you only have the opportunity to interact, that's called a chat room. A multiplayer game involves two or more players working against or with each other. Name me one multiplayer game that simply gives the opportunity for you to interact. And count MMO's out of that, they're the problem, not the example.

Let's try a list here:

Multiplayer Pool - "What do you mean it's my shot? I'm not here to play against you.".

Multiplayer Blood Bowl - "No, my team isn't moving, I just want to chat if thats okay?"

Multiplayer Call of Duty - "No! You can't shoot me, I don't want to fight today.".

The list goes on and on.

A chat room doesn't have a game portion.  A chat room doesn't let you buy/sell, craft, take orders, auction, group, quest, go on dungeon runs, pvp, random drive by heals, buffs, kills... so no, your wrong.  There are many many many forms of interaction in an MMO, grouping is just one.

There are many games in pool, some have teams, some are solo, sometimes its just a bunch of friends hanging out.

And in some games there is a very limited form of interaction.  But MMO's have many many forms of interaction.

Keep trying though.

edit - in any one specific game, the rules of the game may dictate how interaction occurs.  That may be just taking turns, it may be something else.  But MMO's have many different forms of interaction and all are equally viable.

 

You just contridicted yourself big time!

You guys were just telling us that you have no time for- "buy/sell, craft, take orders, auction, group, quest, go on dungeon runs, pvp, random drive by heals, buffs, kills.." , all those things require other players!

Remember that? You cant be bothered with other players, because you have no time, you need to do everything solo becaues dealing with other players is a hassle. Those are your words.

Now you claim that you are doing dungeon runs with other players? Taking orders and crafting with other players???

Make up your mind man, you keep changing your tune with each post, kinda wishy-washy and transparent.

  VengeSunsoar

Elite Member

Joined: 3/10/04
Posts: 4329

Be Brief, Be Bright... Be Gone.

6/15/12 12:33:04 PM#1431
Originally posted by Adalwulff
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
Originally posted by UsualSuspect
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

A multiplayer game only means you have opportunity to interact - thats it, nothing more. 

Really? People are still holding onto this belief? If you only have the opportunity to interact, that's called a chat room. A multiplayer game involves two or more players working against or with each other. Name me one multiplayer game that simply gives the opportunity for you to interact. And count MMO's out of that, they're the problem, not the example.

Let's try a list here:

Multiplayer Pool - "What do you mean it's my shot? I'm not here to play against you.".

Multiplayer Blood Bowl - "No, my team isn't moving, I just want to chat if thats okay?"

Multiplayer Call of Duty - "No! You can't shoot me, I don't want to fight today.".

The list goes on and on.

A chat room doesn't have a game portion.  A chat room doesn't let you buy/sell, craft, take orders, auction, group, quest, go on dungeon runs, pvp, random drive by heals, buffs, kills... so no, your wrong.  There are many many many forms of interaction in an MMO, grouping is just one.

There are many games in pool, some have teams, some are solo, sometimes its just a bunch of friends hanging out.

And in some games there is a very limited form of interaction.  But MMO's have many many forms of interaction.

Keep trying though.

edit - in any one specific game, the rules of the game may dictate how interaction occurs.  That may be just taking turns, it may be something else.  But MMO's have many different forms of interaction and all are equally viable.

 

You just contridicted yourself big time!

You guys were just telling us that you have no time for- "buy/sell, craft, take orders, auction, group, quest, go on dungeon runs, pvp, random drive by heals, buffs, kills.." , all those things require other players!

Remember that? You cant be bothered with other players, because you have no time, you need to do everything solo becaues dealing with other players is a hassle. Those are your words.

Now you claim that you are doing dungeon runs with other players? Taking orders and crafting with other players???

Make up your mind man, you keep changing your tune with each post, kinda wishy-washy and transparent.

Um once again no.  No one stated they don't have time for that.  Some have stated they don't have to for other people's schedules, but many of those things can be done on the individuals schedule.  So no your just wrong, again.

As people have stated repeatedly, they do like interaction with other players, however they want to pick and choose how that interaction occurs.  And much of that does not require grouping.

You need to go back to grade school for reading comprehension.

Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  UsualSuspect

Hard Core Member

Joined: 11/01/04
Posts: 1172

6/15/12 12:41:37 PM#1432
Originally posted by Adalwulff

You just contridicted yourself big time!

You guys were just telling us that you have no time for- "buy/sell, craft, take orders, auction, group, quest, go on dungeon runs, pvp, random drive by heals, buffs, kills.." , all those things require other players!

Remember that? You cant be bothered with other players, because you have no time, you need to do everything solo becaues dealing with other players is a hassle. Those are your words.

Now you claim that you are doing dungeon runs with other players? Taking orders and crafting with other players???

Make up your mind man, you keep changing your tune with each post, kinda wishy-washy and transparent.

With the whole mess that was SW:TOR I've come to a conclusion. A solo-centric game will never work, it'll be consumed just like a single player game - people will play it, do what needs to be done, then move on leaving the place a barren wasteland. Actually, that reminds me of that quote from The Matrix - "Humans are like a virus, a plague. You soloers are a cancer of this genre.". Okay, that last bit was modified, but anyway, it just reminded me of that quote. Moving on...!

What I was going to say is that, as much as they hate it, soloers need group content, not for themselves, but for the games whole ambience. People didn't need other people in SW:TOR so the chat channels were mostly silent, there was no need to help anyone nearby, trading was pointless because everyone could craft whatever they needed. It was a single player game dressed up as an MMO.

In MMO's with a larger focus on group play, the players are working together, the groupers do their group thing while chatting and making the chat channels come alive. Soloers can carry on with their own thing too, but because of the activity required between players they get a more community feel to the game, people will be gathered in areas chatting or preparing to move out to a dungeon, etc.

In a strictly solo game, everyone would be wandering back and fore doing their own thing, mostly ignoring each other. That community feel would be missing. It's like real life, people walk around doing their own thing, but you always see groups of people, be it a parent and children shopping or an old couple discussing the weather. If everyone was ignoring everyone else, could you imagine how weird it would be?

So that's how I see the case with the quoted post. He's confused because he needs group content, even if he doesn't want to play it, it's a requirement to make a thriving community. Without it, we end up with games like SW:TOR - empty, soulless, silent and decidedly lonely. A game that is considering F2P within 6 months of opening, despite having cost over $100 million to create.

  VengeSunsoar

Elite Member

Joined: 3/10/04
Posts: 4329

Be Brief, Be Bright... Be Gone.

6/15/12 12:53:04 PM#1433
Originally posted by UsualSuspect
Originally posted by Adalwulff

You just contridicted yourself big time!

You guys were just telling us that you have no time for- "buy/sell, craft, take orders, auction, group, quest, go on dungeon runs, pvp, random drive by heals, buffs, kills.." , all those things require other players!

Remember that? You cant be bothered with other players, because you have no time, you need to do everything solo becaues dealing with other players is a hassle. Those are your words.

Now you claim that you are doing dungeon runs with other players? Taking orders and crafting with other players???

Make up your mind man, you keep changing your tune with each post, kinda wishy-washy and transparent.

With the whole mess that was SW:TOR I've come to a conclusion. A solo-centric game will never work, it'll be consumed just like a single player game - people will play it, do what needs to be done, then move on leaving the place a barren wasteland. Actually, that reminds me of that quote from The Matrix - "Humans are like a virus, a plague. You soloers are a cancer of this genre.". Okay, that last bit was modified, but anyway, it just reminded me of that quote. Moving on...!

What I was going to say is that, as much as they hate it, soloers need group content, not for themselves, but for the games whole ambience. People didn't need other people in SW:TOR so the chat channels were mostly silent, there was no need to help anyone nearby, trading was pointless because everyone could craft whatever they needed. It was a single player game dressed up as an MMO.

In MMO's with a larger focus on group play, the players are working together, the groupers do their group thing while chatting and making the chat channels come alive. Soloers can carry on with their own thing too, but because of the activity required between players they get a more community feel to the game, people will be gathered in areas chatting or preparing to move out to a dungeon, etc.

In a strictly solo game, everyone would be wandering back and fore doing their own thing, mostly ignoring each other. That community feel would be missing. It's like real life, people walk around doing their own thing, but you always see groups of people, be it a parent and children shopping or an old couple discussing the weather. If everyone was ignoring everyone else, could you imagine how weird it would be?

So that's how I see the case with the quoted post. He's confused because he needs group content, even if he doesn't want to play it, it's a requirement to make a thriving community. Without it, we end up with games like SW:TOR - empty, soulless, silent and decidedly lonely. A game that is considering F2P within 6 months of opening, despite having cost over $100 million to create.

Now this I will agree with, in part.  A game that is too solo-centric is IMO too limiting.  Swtor, was too solocentric, it was also far too linear, had some pretty bug pvp, and had no real end-game.  I"m not sure which one will have the greatest impact, however it's still too early to see if it did indeed fail, at last call it still had 1.3 million subs (yes I know that was still within the 6 month mark, but there are no other meaningfull measures to go by yet).

However a game that allows people to solo to end-game is not necessarily a solo-centric game.  Again many could and did solo to end game in EQ.

 

Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  rdrakken

Apprentice Member

Joined: 6/15/12
Posts: 435

6/15/12 12:53:11 PM#1434

The very idea that a topic like this is still raging on after so many years points to the very heart of the problem with this genre.

It is stagnated with closed minds which is why the games themselves havent evolved much...both players AND developers.

This entire issue could be resolved easily if a game maker would just stop being lazy and use the tools at hand. Scaled content would make a game solo, group AND raid friendly. It can be done, it can be done RIGHT and there have even been top developers that have states so at the game developers conference several times, with examples of HOW it can be done right.

No company, large or small should be making an MMO that targets ANY one group of players. Doesnt matter if its solo, group, pvp, pve, raid, elite...

Any game made to target a FEW players will limit their income AND the longevity of the game itself. A game that can scale to the player is the single best way to go.

player is soloing a mob, the player is level 5, the mob is level 5 and has the skills that matches up best to the lvl 5 class the player belongs to. If a mage, the mob gains a skill set to be challenge a mage.

If the lvl 5 mage is grouped with a lvl 5 cleric, the mob scales upward to best match a group of 2 with a healer.

if its a full group of level 5 players, the mob because elite and gains a skillset to match a group.

That is just one of many examples given by people like Raph Koster, a vet MMO maker(whom I dont even like BTW) that made UO, SWG and EQ2 as how to create an MMO that is for EVERY type of player and not only that, but a game that will remain 100% playable no matter what level you become...no more making 10% of a game for levels 1-20 that may NEVER be played by that character again...100% of the game remains a playable option for every character.

Stop thinking in terms of the past...as long as the players think in terms of the past, the game makers will never be forced to making games truly new...for the future.

  silvermember

Novice Member

Joined: 3/02/12
Posts: 489

6/15/12 1:02:11 PM#1435
Originally posted by UsualSuspect
Originally posted by Adalwulff

You just contridicted yourself big time!

You guys were just telling us that you have no time for- "buy/sell, craft, take orders, auction, group, quest, go on dungeon runs, pvp, random drive by heals, buffs, kills.." , all those things require other players!

Remember that? You cant be bothered with other players, because you have no time, you need to do everything solo becaues dealing with other players is a hassle. Those are your words.

Now you claim that you are doing dungeon runs with other players? Taking orders and crafting with other players???

Make up your mind man, you keep changing your tune with each post, kinda wishy-washy and transparent.

With the whole mess that was SW:TOR I've come to a conclusion. A solo-centric game will never work, it'll be consumed just like a single player game - people will play it, do what needs to be done, then move on leaving the place a barren wasteland. Actually, that reminds me of that quote from The Matrix - "Humans are like a virus, a plague. You soloers are a cancer of this genre.". Okay, that last bit was modified, but anyway, it just reminded me of that quote. Moving on...!

What I was going to say is that, as much as they hate it, soloers need group content, not for themselves, but for the games whole ambience. People didn't need other people in SW:TOR so the chat channels were mostly silent, there was no need to help anyone nearby, trading was pointless because everyone could craft whatever they needed. It was a single player game dressed up as an MMO.

Why does an MMO have to be absolute, why cant it be build to support multiple types of gamers? If you look at MMO history, the MMOs that emphasis group play from the beginning tend to not to be as successful as the MMO that trick you into believing you can solo then at endgame pretty much tell you, "oh ya, from now on to progress future you need to start  grouping up with others". And that to me is the problem for most of the game, I am told you can solo, but then at level cap Ifor some odd reason I gotta start grouping up with people I don't know. I personally hate that.

One of the great things about gw2 for me is I don't really need to group up with people IF I don't want to; In other to get the best gear in the game. I can get the benefits of being in a group without having to deal with those people. IF I have 1 hour to play I can get in get out, don't have to worry about getting a group for anything.

Also, The problem with swtor IMO was it had multiple problems it being a solo friendly game was not THE issue it was just one of many that lead to its downfall. If it becomes f2p, watch as it blossoms into a very successful game.

 

  UsualSuspect

Hard Core Member

Joined: 11/01/04
Posts: 1172

6/15/12 1:13:30 PM#1436
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

However a game that allows people to solo to end-game is not necessarily a solo-centric game.  Again many could and did solo to end game in EQ.

Before one expansion after the other started making content easier, there were only really two classes that could solo to end-game in original EQ. The Druid and the Necromancer. Some say a Bard could do it too, but my first character before even Kunark came out was a Bard and it was a nightmare trying to solo. It was doable, but you were much better off not bothering and going with a group. The time it took to down one Cyclops in the Karanas, for the amount of XP you got for doing it, was just.. yeah, go with the group every time.

Druids and Necromancers, on the other hand, could snare and dot, so could simply run around waiting for the creature to die before moving on to the next. I believe the Druid could do this with up to 4 at a time, quad kiting. Both could also self heal and the necromancer went one better and could gather mana back as well.

Other classes, no way. I played a Monk for most of my years in EverQuest and it died so fast solo that it was laughable. Talk about paper tank. It could really dish out the damage, but took hits hard. And this was a Monk with the best gear available, as I was in the top raiding guild on the server, so..

Anyway, EQ you could solo to end game, but your class choices were limited, as were your XP locations.

  VengeSunsoar

Elite Member

Joined: 3/10/04
Posts: 4329

Be Brief, Be Bright... Be Gone.

6/15/12 1:26:07 PM#1437

We've been through that before Usual.  Bards, druids, monk, necro's, rangers, paladins, sk's and later beastlords could all solo.  Yes it took longer but every single one of those classes had ways to either kite, snare, root, seperate mobs and/or heal.

Necro's and Druids could do it better (except for bards swarm kite) but all those classes could and did do it.

White/yellow/red mobs were hard, but they absolutely could take blue mobs.

If you died easily with a monk, you didn't play a monk well.  Find blue, FD to seperate mobs, beat him, mend if needed.  Done, bandage, repeat.

If kiting, dungeons were definately harder.  In open areas Bards could charm, fear, swarm/dot kite, in dungeons they could charm, if in trouble, fear, than invis. And if you going to dot/swarm kite yes it takes long, but don't do just one mob, grab like 20 of them, fire up your drums and aoe dot to death, or charm kite the cyclops, only a few minutes to fight.

Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  Ikonoclastia

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/31/11
Posts: 163

6/15/12 10:01:17 PM#1438
Originally posted by Adalwulff
Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Anyone find it wierd how fantasy fiction, on which most MMO's are based, usually have a single hero or small group of hero's and the fictional content is usually a single soloable (by the hero) or small groupable (by the small group) villian but in MMO's the expectation by a lot of people is in game villians must only be destroyable with  large numbers of people.

Pretty bizarre.

@Usual Suspect, you are having a hard time understanding because your definition of multiplayer in MMO's is seriously flawed.

You can do heaps of things solo in the real world, does that make everything you do in the real world by yourself single player too?  If I go speeding down the road in my car, can I discount everyone else on the road because I'm in the car by myself?. 

Your assertion that doing something solo in a game world in which many other players are also doing things in the same game world, somehow makes whatever they are doing inconsequtial to other players is total nonsense.

 

And you guys claim we are trying to tell you soloers how to play MMOs...HAHA!

Look at you, first you tell usualsuspect his definition of MMO is wrong, when it isnt, because there isnt one definition for all people.

Then you equate a MMO to a movie???? So game devs should redesign thier MMOs after movies, are you serious???

Then you try and equate real life with an MMO, by driving a car down the road? Sorry but your making one strawman after another.

How about you stick to the topic, can you do that?

I never claimed that.  I don't care what groupers think or say.

His definition is incorrect.  You can make up a definition if you like but I'll go by the original and proper definition of Massively (many) Multiplayer (multiple people playing) Online (while connected via the internet).  

MMO's are like interactive movies.  MMO's also model real life elements and we interact in MMO gameworlds like we do in Real Life, if we fall we may be damaged, if someone shoots us we may be killed...

The analogy I used is quite accurate.

I think Adawulf and Usualsuspectt, you will continue to argue your "points" regardless of whether they are untenable or unreasonable.  You inability to consider other points of view and your willingness to create new definitions or skip logic so that you can "Win" this argument really makes the whole argument a waste of time and "Winning" it worthless. 

I'm going to go solo something.

  Adalwulff

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/18/10
Posts: 1191

"I am not the light, or the darkness, but the twilight in between"

6/16/12 3:13:56 AM#1439
Originally posted by Ikonoclastia
Originally posted by Adalwulff
Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Anyone find it wierd how fantasy fiction, on which most MMO's are based, usually have a single hero or small group of hero's and the fictional content is usually a single soloable (by the hero) or small groupable (by the small group) villian but in MMO's the expectation by a lot of people is in game villians must only be destroyable with  large numbers of people.

Pretty bizarre.

@Usual Suspect, you are having a hard time understanding because your definition of multiplayer in MMO's is seriously flawed.

You can do heaps of things solo in the real world, does that make everything you do in the real world by yourself single player too?  If I go speeding down the road in my car, can I discount everyone else on the road because I'm in the car by myself?. 

Your assertion that doing something solo in a game world in which many other players are also doing things in the same game world, somehow makes whatever they are doing inconsequtial to other players is total nonsense.

 

And you guys claim we are trying to tell you soloers how to play MMOs...HAHA!

Look at you, first you tell usualsuspect his definition of MMO is wrong, when it isnt, because there isnt one definition for all people.

Then you equate a MMO to a movie???? So game devs should redesign thier MMOs after movies, are you serious???

Then you try and equate real life with an MMO, by driving a car down the road? Sorry but your making one strawman after another.

How about you stick to the topic, can you do that?

I never claimed that.  I don't care what groupers think or say.

His definition is incorrect.  You can make up a definition if you like but I'll go by the original and proper definition of Massively (many) Multiplayer (multiple people playing) Online (while connected via the internet).  

MMO's are like interactive movies.  MMO's also model real life elements and we interact in MMO gameworlds like we do in Real Life, if we fall we may be damaged, if someone shoots us we may be killed...

The analogy I used is quite accurate.

I think Adawulf and Usualsuspectt, you will continue to argue your "points" regardless of whether they are untenable or unreasonable.  You inability to consider other points of view and your willingness to create new definitions or skip logic so that you can "Win" this argument really makes the whole argument a waste of time and "Winning" it worthless. 

I'm going to go solo something.

 

"Pot meet kettle"

Your claim is bizzare, I see you argueing your point, with no regard to our points of view, you still want games soloable all the way thru. I never said it  wansnt an MMO, I am saying its a stupid way to make an MMO, and I will never play one of those MMOs.

So when I see you soloers come into a game forum, trying hard to promote more solo mechanics, and its a game I intend to play, you can bet that I will be there to make my view heard.

Even If I have to repeat it a thousand times..... just like you are doing.

  Ikonoclastia

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/31/11
Posts: 163

6/17/12 1:28:39 AM#1440
Originally posted by Adalwulff
Originally posted by Ikonoclastia
Originally posted by Adalwulff
Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Anyone find it wierd how fantasy fiction, on which most MMO's are based, usually have a single hero or small group of hero's and the fictional content is usually a single soloable (by the hero) or small groupable (by the small group) villian but in MMO's the expectation by a lot of people is in game villians must only be destroyable with  large numbers of people.

Pretty bizarre.

@Usual Suspect, you are having a hard time understanding because your definition of multiplayer in MMO's is seriously flawed.

You can do heaps of things solo in the real world, does that make everything you do in the real world by yourself single player too?  If I go speeding down the road in my car, can I discount everyone else on the road because I'm in the car by myself?. 

Your assertion that doing something solo in a game world in which many other players are also doing things in the same game world, somehow makes whatever they are doing inconsequtial to other players is total nonsense.

 

And you guys claim we are trying to tell you soloers how to play MMOs...HAHA!

Look at you, first you tell usualsuspect his definition of MMO is wrong, when it isnt, because there isnt one definition for all people.

Then you equate a MMO to a movie???? So game devs should redesign thier MMOs after movies, are you serious???

Then you try and equate real life with an MMO, by driving a car down the road? Sorry but your making one strawman after another.

How about you stick to the topic, can you do that?

I never claimed that.  I don't care what groupers think or say.

His definition is incorrect.  You can make up a definition if you like but I'll go by the original and proper definition of Massively (many) Multiplayer (multiple people playing) Online (while connected via the internet).  

MMO's are like interactive movies.  MMO's also model real life elements and we interact in MMO gameworlds like we do in Real Life, if we fall we may be damaged, if someone shoots us we may be killed...

The analogy I used is quite accurate.

I think Adawulf and Usualsuspectt, you will continue to argue your "points" regardless of whether they are untenable or unreasonable.  You inability to consider other points of view and your willingness to create new definitions or skip logic so that you can "Win" this argument really makes the whole argument a waste of time and "Winning" it worthless. 

I'm going to go solo something.

 

"Pot meet kettle"

Your claim is bizzare, I see you argueing your point, with no regard to our points of view, you still want games soloable all the way thru. I never said it  wansnt an MMO, I am saying its a stupid way to make an MMO, and I will never play one of those MMOs.

So when I see you soloers come into a game forum, trying hard to promote more solo mechanics, and its a game I intend to play, you can bet that I will be there to make my view heard.

Even If I have to repeat it a thousand times..... just like you are doing.

You are just inventing things to suit your needs (again).  If you read my posts I have never argued against grouping, nor advocated for solo only, my position is in the middle ground. 

I believe that both group based, solo based and a combination of both in a game are legitimate ways to create MMO's.  I don't like to play group based content at the moment because of the random nature of current grouping mechanics.  Just as I wouldn't like to go to a party with randoms pulled from the street, I don't want to go to a dungeon with a complement of people pulled randomly from the internet.  

I think your ideology (everyone should be forced to group or not be rewarded)  [mod edit] ignores the natural inclination of humans to group because social activity is already a reward in and of itself.

104 Pages First « 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 » Last Search