Trending Games | ArcheAge | WildStar | World of Warcraft | Elder Scrolls Online

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,736,589 Users Online:0
Games:714  Posts:6,175,085
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System Req: PC | Out of date info?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

105 Pages First « 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 » Last Search
2099 posts found
  Loktofeit

Elite Member

Joined: 1/13/10
Posts: 11824

Currently playing EVE, SMITE, ESO, and Combat Arms

5/23/13 6:25:20 AM#1921
Originally posted by immodium
Originally posted by Adalwulff
Originally posted by AlBQuirky

 


Originally posted by Adalwulff
More ad hominem bs...

 

Im not telling you how to play, its you telling me how to play. All I am doing is trying to keep soloers from changing every single MMO that comes along into a solo mmo.

You guys do it every time, fill up the forums with your whining.

Instead of whining on forums and bashing players who actually like other people, why don't you focus all that anger on the game devs.

Maybe one day we will get a game that is fully scaleable, and all content can be enjoyed by groups and soloers without being penalized.



Not really. I question where you get your idea that "MMOs were like this from the beginning." I have yet to see where you got this notion from. Just because you say it is so does not make it so.

 

Others have presented game experiences from older MMOs to back up their points. You have not.

We are not trying to tell you how to play. We are trying to understand where you are coming from. You get defensive and attack the poster instead of answering their legitimate questions for clarification.

What MMO did you play in the past that makes you think that MMOs were originally built for group play? What made you believe this to be true?

Examples, please, not more "Because I said so!" crap. Help us understand where you are coming from.

[EDIT]
Another example of an assumption without cause:



Originally posted by Adalwulff
Most of the MMOs are designed that way, up until recently. Pointing out that all MMO are not like that is dumb, because we all know that.....lol


Apparently it is not as obvious as you would have us believe, don't you think?

 

 

Hammering away at that one point is not helping you. You have unsuccessfully twisted my words. My point is simple, group mechanics have been in MMOs from the early days, and the devs put those mechanics there for a reason.

You want to ignore those reasons and play the game how you like, and that would be fine, but you refuse to see that by changing the game to suit your needs, you are stepping on other people who bought the game to be played as intended.


So have solo mechanics.


...and to a much greater extent in some cases. It seems like somewhere along the line devs shifted away from a focus on creating mechanics that encouraged working together to a focus on simply creating necessity to be tethered to other players to complete objectives.

WAR, GW2, Defiance and several other games have gone the route of public which seems a mediocre attempt to return to ad hoc player interaction, but i think the lack of reasonable communication features and the very narrow scope of gameplay in today's games are really holding back any greater attempts to encourage more collaborative play.

EQ2's guild features are some of the more progressive steps in offering collaborative gameplay. The collection of points for activities allows players to contribute to the greater goals of the guild through both group and solo play. The extensive guild housing storage, tools and resources also lets players work together without having to be tied together.

I'd really be interested in finding out why more MMOs don't pile on tons of features to support guild-level gameplay and interaction, as the guild is the most cohesive unit and strongest building block for collaborative or group play in most MMOs.

 

  Adalwulff

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/18/10
Posts: 1191

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

5/23/13 8:58:24 AM#1922
Originally posted by UsualSuspect
Originally posted by Studdley
 

The problem there is that, nobody enjoys anything that they are FORCED to do. It is just how humans are.

Reading all this has actually given me a head-ache. To sum it up, my opinion is that having choices is better than being forced to do anything.

Surely your first choice was whether you wanted to play a multiplayer game or not? I know I don't sit at home wondering what game to play, like, "Ooh, I really can't face people right now.. Oh, I know, I'll play Counterstrike!".

 

Yes, isn't it crazy!

Seriously, they buy these games knowing full well that its full of group content, then they are shocked to find that they need to actually interact with other players.

Or they hit the forums shortly before or after release, bogging them down with thread after thread about how bad the game is because it "forces" people to play together.

And the really funny part is, their main argument is that they shouldn't be forced to do anything so they want the game changed, without ever realizing (or admitting), that they are forcing other players to play their way.

The hypocrisy is mind blowing!

  Grailer

Apprentice Member

Joined: 6/13/06
Posts: 819

5/26/13 5:06:50 AM#1923

Why not have games where everyone is grouped without having to actually *group*

 

 

  VengeSunsoar

Hard Core Member

Joined: 3/10/04
Posts: 4688

Be Brief, Be Bright... Be Gone.

5/26/13 12:40:47 PM#1924
Originally posted by Adalwulff
Originally posted by UsualSuspect
Originally posted by Studdley
 

The problem there is that, nobody enjoys anything that they are FORCED to do. It is just how humans are.

Reading all this has actually given me a head-ache. To sum it up, my opinion is that having choices is better than being forced to do anything.

Surely your first choice was whether you wanted to play a multiplayer game or not? I know I don't sit at home wondering what game to play, like, "Ooh, I really can't face people right now.. Oh, I know, I'll play Counterstrike!".

 

Yes, isn't it crazy!

Seriously, they buy these games knowing full well that its full of group content, then they are shocked to find that they need to actually interact with other players.

Or they hit the forums shortly before or after release, bogging them down with thread after thread about how bad the game is because it "forces" people to play together.

And the really funny part is, their main argument is that they shouldn't be forced to do anything so they want the game changed, without ever realizing (or admitting), that they are forcing other players to play their way.

The hypocrisy is mind blowing!

 I buy them knowing full well there are many methods of interacting in a multiplayer game other than grouping and that the game addresses them. 

I buy them knowing there is both group content and solo content and that that is not the totality nor meaning of multiplayer in an MMO.

Seriously, they buy these games knowing full well that its full of multiplayer content,  which doesn't mean just group content, has many ways of interacting, then they are shocked to find that there are other things to do besides group. 

Or they hit the forums shortly before or after release, bogging them down with thread after thread about how bad the game is because it "caters" to solos, knowing full well that multiplayer means more than one method of interacting, that  the best methods of getting xp, gear, loot and coin are still group content giving groupers ALL the advantages, and still they are not content.

And the really funny part is, their main argument is that they shouldn't be forced to do anything so they want the game changed, without ever realizing (or admitting), that they are forcing other players to play their way.

The hypocrisy is mind blowing!

 As long as the grouping is still the best, fastest and most efficient methods of acquiring items and advancing, which they are, these games are still primarily group games no matter how much solo content is put in.

 

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

  Adalwulff

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/18/10
Posts: 1191

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

5/27/13 1:46:33 PM#1925

There is an excellent example of what I've been saying.

Go check out the discussion at Dark Fall unholy wars, someone posted that the game is all about group PvP.

When in fact, the game has ALWAYS been about group PvP. They have NEVER advertised the game any other way, other than calling it a sandbox, which it is not.

Then look at most of the replies, people complaining they cannot solo. Its just like I've been saying all along, they buy the game knowing full well its about group PvP, with the intent of playing the game in a way it wasn't designed, and when they cant, they come to the forums and complain.

This happens way to often, something is wrong with todays gamers......

  VengeSunsoar

Hard Core Member

Joined: 3/10/04
Posts: 4688

Be Brief, Be Bright... Be Gone.

5/27/13 2:05:24 PM#1926

Well Darkfall themselves while saying they recommend joining a clan and a lot (not all) of the gameplay has been designed around massive siege battles and epic clan wars, you do not need to join a clan and you can play by yourself as a lone adventurer.

The poster may not have had realistic expectations regarding how much could be done solo.

 

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

  Adalwulff

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/18/10
Posts: 1191

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

5/27/13 7:55:52 PM#1927
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

The poster may not have had realistic expectations regarding how much could be done solo.

 

 

That's exactly my point.

But, it isn't confined to just Dark Fall Unholy Wars, these soloers do it for every single game that is released.

  GrumpyMel2

Advanced Member

Joined: 3/24/09
Posts: 1789

6/03/13 12:22:47 PM#1928
Originally posted by Cephus404
Originally posted by Adalwulf

 

Hammering away at that one point is not helping you. You have unsuccessfully twisted my words. My point is simple, group mechanics have been in MMOs from the early days, and the devs put those mechanics there for a reason.

You want to ignore those reasons and play the game how you like, and that would be fine, but you refuse to see that by changing the game to suit your needs, you are stepping on other people who bought the game to be played as intended.

Sure they did, because at the time, that's what the majority of people playing the games wanted.  You seem to think that because they did it once, they have to do it forever.  The marketplace changed and now, a majority of players don't want those mechanics so they're being removed, just like forced downtime and corpse runs. 

Are you ever going to stop acting like you're entitled to a game that you want and understand how the economics of these games works?

One thing to understand about the economics of this is that for Service Oriented business models (MMO's are generaly structured as those) going after the same market segment as all your other existing competitors is generaly a BAD business proposition. It's part of the reason why many of the newer entrants to the market have been disappointments financialy. It's also why we see Developers for the next set of MMO's coming out trying to appeal to different segments of the market that are percieved as unserved or underserved such as more group/cooperative play oriented or "sandbox" oriented models.

For service oriented offerings, in a crowded and well established market going after the largest market segment usualy isn't the best recipie for success because no matter how big that segment is, you'll have to fight all the other big, well established brands for market share which is very expensive and very risky.

That different then say the movie or even single-player business model because those models are structured financialy for single consumption or short term consumption (i.e. you buy tickets, see the movie and don't look back...except maybe to buy the DvD 6 months  later). In that model, you're not fighting for market share with movies that came out 4 years ago....so you can go for the same audience that they were targeted for. Unless you've structured your business model to not depend upon recurring revenue.....that doesn't work out as well for MMO's.

 

 

  olepi

Advanced Member

Joined: 1/15/07
Posts: 970

6/03/13 12:30:57 PM#1929

I play RPG's and MMORPG's because I want to play a role in a virtual world.

In MMORPG's, I want to be able to solo if I feel like it, craft, or go fishing, or fight some mobs. I also want to join a group sometimes. I wouldn't want an MMO that *only* let you play one way or the other.

------------
RIP City of Heroes. One of my favorite MMO's.

  Loktofeit

Elite Member

Joined: 1/13/10
Posts: 11824

Currently playing EVE, SMITE, ESO, and Combat Arms

6/03/13 3:24:55 PM#1930
Originally posted by Grailer

Why not have games where everyone is grouped without having to actually *group*

Like most of the pre-WOW MMOs and GW2.

  MMOExposed

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 6/17/10
Posts: 5895

6/04/13 2:41:39 PM#1931
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by Grailer

Why not have games where everyone is grouped without having to actually *group*

Like most of the pre-WOW MMOs and GW2.

problem is that leads to community not really caring anymore. look at GW2's PvE for example.

  danwest58

Advanced Member

Joined: 5/14/09
Posts: 502

6/04/13 2:46:10 PM#1932
Originally posted by MMOExposed
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by Grailer

Why not have games where everyone is grouped without having to actually *group*

Like most of the pre-WOW MMOs and GW2.

problem is that leads to community not really caring anymore. look at GW2's PvE for example.

Kind of why I am going to FFXIV is because grouping matters and is the fastest way to level.  Not solo grinding.  Basically this is what MMOs have become today but a chat channel in a game.  

  Loktofeit

Elite Member

Joined: 1/13/10
Posts: 11824

Currently playing EVE, SMITE, ESO, and Combat Arms

6/05/13 12:07:55 PM#1933
Originally posted by MMOExposed
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by Grailer

Why not have games where everyone is grouped without having to actually *group*

Like most of the pre-WOW MMOs and GW2.

problem is that leads to community not really caring anymore. look at GW2's PvE for example.

Look at UO or Puzzle Pirates or ATITD, for example.

  simplius

Novice Member

Joined: 12/12/12
Posts: 978

6/22/13 7:01:49 AM#1934
Originally posted by makerzyo
Originally posted by DiSpLiFF

 i'll say what i've said before, I personally think WoW did it best. Theres group play and solo play, but you won't get nearly as good quality gear just by soloing. I would never play a game that forced me to group 24/7, on the other hand i'd never play an mmo that was just solo play. Of course i'm a casual player (i guess? 2 hours a day) sometimes I don't have an hour to wait to join  a group i'll probably leave 40 mins into it. 

Couldn't of said it better myself, WoW did the perfect combination and probably what made them the most popular p2p mmo. You can login play for 20 mins and feel like you accomplished something, you can log in for 4 hours run a 25 man instance and feel like you accomplished something etc etc...

yup,,more options=more players= more Money

the reason for wows astounding success

8 years on the top , and countless competitors beaten

  Adalwulff

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/18/10
Posts: 1191

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

6/26/13 8:09:00 AM#1935
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by Grailer

Why not have games where everyone is grouped without having to actually *group*

Like most of the pre-WOW MMOs and GW2.

 

And once again, its clear you live in an different reality.

pre-WoW mmos were WAY more group friendly. Its common knowledge that WoW promoted solo game play more than any game before it, and many titles since have tried to duplicate it. The last 5 years of solo centric mmos proves it.

They failed miserably and went F2P within a year.

Truth is, WoW balanced the game better, and group play wasn't penalized as much as the more recent titles.

The newer mmos thought solo centric was the future, along with F2P, and they paid the price for that lazy assumption.

  User Deleted
7/24/13 1:56:28 PM#1936
Originally posted by DiSpLiFF

 i'll say what i've said before, I personally think WoW did it best. Theres group play and solo play, but you won't get nearly as good quality gear just by soloing. I would never play a game that forced me to group 24/7, on the other hand i'd never play an mmo that was just solo play. Of course i'm a casual player (i guess? 2 hours a day) sometimes I don't have an hour to wait to join  a group i'll probably leave 40 mins into it. 

its all about the player and how he likes to play atleast it should be, for role players especialy. you know? those who like to maximize the immersion and dont want to see "penis" and "anal" or "noob" type of comments in the chat and they have a character they want to get into and play the game with a style suitable to their character

forcing one or the other in modern games is just stupid

  frizzlepickle

Apprentice Member

Joined: 7/25/13
Posts: 74

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." Abraham Lincoln

7/25/13 3:22:00 PM#1937

      That's an interesting point and to an extent I agree, but I doubt that that is THE sole reason. It seems every MMO player knows the exact single reason most recent MMOs have failed and it always has to do with whatever subject they are currently talking about. The reality is a huge numbers of small reasons and variables. If it was any one reason than it would have been addressed and we wouldn't have spent the last decade in what was basically an MMO dark age.

  Beartosser

Novice Member

Joined: 9/18/08
Posts: 90

8/01/13 4:44:11 PM#1938

When you consider the millions of solo players who have unsubbed over the years due to the inequality they faced daily in MMORPG's, the time has come for a Massively Solo Online Roleplaying Game.

Trying to force soloers to become raiders has been from it's inception an abysmal failure on the part of the developers. It's time they realized you can't force a square peg into a round hole, and more importantly, they need to realize that the majority of their potential customer base don't want to play these games they way that they do.

  Kevyne-Shandris

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/10/08
Posts: 1980

You can't † BURY † ¤¤ Holy Paladins ¤¤ As we will always __.- ASCEND -.__

8/21/13 1:53:59 AM#1939
Originally posted by Adalwulff

pre-WoW mmos were WAY more group friendly. Its common knowledge that WoW promoted solo game play more than any game before it, and many titles since have tried to duplicate it. The last 5 years of solo centric mmos proves it.

Because around 20% playing the game play solo as a choice (and probably other MMOs had the same ratios, since MMOs share players).

So if but 10% raid at end-game (again Blizzard data, and from seeing even EQII there weren't many raiders), that's even more players playing a MMO than raiders itself. Sheer marketing behooves devs to make solo friendly content.

Forced grouping to live up to some definition of what "MMO" means isn't fun. Some players just like the challenge of soloing (I do, I get little satisfaction having 9 others help down content. It feels like I was robbed of the glory, as I didn't test myself). Like testing class limits, and showing it can be done, not more EQ/EQII style class/role discrimination.

If I can't be a hero, why am I playing a MMORPG? If I'm blocked from character development that just more canned spam, why call it an MMORPG? If realm/server economies are dictated by one or a couple guilds with all the "power", why pay to have in game dictatorships?

Solo play has it's benefits, especially building a hero and his story in a fantasy world. It's not the grouping that defines that hero, it's what he does that matters.

  Adalwulff

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/18/10
Posts: 1191

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

8/21/13 9:26:57 AM#1940
Originally posted by UNATCOII
Originally posted by Adalwulff

pre-WoW mmos were WAY more group friendly. Its common knowledge that WoW promoted solo game play more than any game before it, and many titles since have tried to duplicate it. The last 5 years of solo centric mmos proves it.

Because around 20% playing the game play solo as a choice (and probably other MMOs had the same ratios, since MMOs share players).

So if but 10% raid at end-game (again Blizzard data, and from seeing even EQII there weren't many raiders), that's even more players playing a MMO than raiders itself. Sheer marketing behooves devs to make solo friendly content.

Forced grouping to live up to some definition of what "MMO" means isn't fun. Some players just like the challenge of soloing (I do, I get little satisfaction having 9 others help down content. It feels like I was robbed of the glory, as I didn't test myself). Like testing class limits, and showing it can be done, not more EQ/EQII style class/role discrimination.

If I can't be a hero, why am I playing a MMORPG? If I'm blocked from character development that just more canned spam, why call it an MMORPG? If realm/server economies are dictated by one or a couple guilds with all the "power", why pay to have in game dictatorships?

Solo play has it's benefits, especially building a hero and his story in a fantasy world. It's not the grouping that defines that hero, it's what he does that matters.

 

This is the same old, selfish argument.

You talk about being forced to group, then go on and say how awesome it is too solo and more people should be doing it.

Do you know what a hypocrite is?

Your whole post was all about YOU.

105 Pages First « 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 » Last Search