Thursday's hurt my brain

[Fargull]

Hmm...

Lum again sums up way to well the state of the game.  Community has always been the center.  EQ had the group centric power cycle with nifty items.  UO was basically a great big sandbox and everyone was given a pail and shovel and said do what you will.  Shadowbane turned the end game into isolated islands with a Lord of the Flies air.  DAOC has the three sided pie and both WOW and EQII are pushing for a two sided tourney.

Perhaps the reason Asia is having such a booming market for MMORPG's is because the gaming houses are offering a live arena for social gathering outside the game when your in the game.  While here in the states we hop into our virtual little skin in the darkness of our isolated little rooms.

Damn you Lum for making me think on a Thursday, and at work no less.

[Dialogue]

Mmmmph. Agreed. I don't remember my head feeling this way eva. Must invest in some sort of cranial cooling device to ensure low headache occurances.

On topic, I think Lum touches on something that just keeps bugging me and was really thrown in my face yesterday. The discussion on Slashdot about the closing of Earth and Beyond wasn't super interesting ("What's a mmog?"), but one guy did say something that made me pause.

bmnc (643126) said:
I don't buy MMOGs and I won't because of crap like this. When I pay NZ$100 for a game, I expect to be able to play it forever (given backwards compatibility created by the games community). *IF* I'd invested in this game I'd be asking for a refund for the original software from EA right now.

People are paying top dollar for their unfun grind fests. Someone on Terra Nova mentioned that somebody bought an avatar on ebay for E&B just last week for something like 3K. Wow. Great investment.

The issue is (I think) that players and designers are treating mmogs like they are worlds. Persistent worlds validate the buying and selling of virtual property for real world money. But, if something like E&B can happen at the drop of a hat...?

One of the reasons I'm looking forward to WoW is because Blizzard isn't building a world, they're building a game. There is a difference, and it matters.

[Neph]

That's why I think FF11 was such a success, it was more so a game than a standard MMOG world. There was more to fighting than just auto-attack, there were actual quests that made you feel like you were the hero (cutscenes and other stuff). These are small things but in the end go towards making the user feel good about plucking $$$ per month for the game.

[Grimm]

All these group-centric games are starting to tick me off though.  Being alble to log on only for a few hours and actually accomplish something w/o help would be nice once in a while.

[WayAbvPar]

All these group-centric games are starting to tick me off though.  Being alble to log on only for a few hours and actually accomplish something w/o help would be nice once in a while.

Agreed. To beat a long dead horse, it would be nice if those of us without 20 hours a week to dedicate to one game could still play, have fun, and not be left in the wake of our friends with more free time. Casual gamers are great for the bottom line- we take up less bandwidth and less CS costs. Cater to us!

[Ballast]

Guild Wars, perhaps.

[Disco Stu]

All these group-centric games are starting to tick me off though.  Being alble to log on only for a few hours and actually accomplish something w/o help would be nice once in a while.

I haven’t played AC in a long time but I remember it being very non group-centric. Once they get the graphical update in I may return and see what’s going on. For me AC was probably my favorite game because sometimes it did make me feel like a hero. I can remember taking on 20 bugs twice my size and kicking their ass, I felt like a god. Of course then someone else came by and did exactly the same thing I did but twice as fast and the feeling disappeared. That’s the problem with online games; you can't have a world full of heroes.

[Grimm]

All these group-centric games are starting to tick me off though.  Being alble to log on only for a few hours and actually accomplish something w/o help would be nice once in a while.

I haven’t played AC in a long time but I remember it being very non group-centric. Once they get the graphical update in I may return and see what’s going on. For me AC was probably my favorite game because sometimes it did make me feel like a hero. I can remember taking on 20 bugs twice my size and kicking their ass, I felt like a god. Of course then someone else came by and did exactly the same thing I did but twice as fast and the feeling disappeared. That’s the problem with online games; you can't have a world full of heroes.

That's 1 thing I miss about current MMO's.  A group fights 1 fricking mob.  Where the hell are the eipic battles where a small group cuts through a horde of monsters!  Grouping should be made into something that gives you a bonus for doing it, not requiring it.

[Numtini]

AC is aggressively solo. If you join a "group" you're told to all go off in opposite directions to maximize XP.

AO has about the best incentive to group while retaining soloability that I've seen. The soloable classes (martial artist, metaphysicist) are all very group friendly and there's almost no character that can't solo even if it's a back of the bus sort of thing. The exceptions are most of the added content, both shadowlands and free dungeons, have been pretty group centric.

For that matter, the the soloable classes (necro, mage, and druid) in EQ were actually among those preferred for LDON and were even popping up in raids. LDON is all about damage and pet classes, particularly the mage, put out a lot of it. And as long as the player wasn't an idiot (yeah I know that excludes most pickup groups), druids were sufficient for healing through missions. And beastlords were designed to be soloable from everything I can see.

In both AO and EQ though, the soloing tends to be very very dull and a great deal is simply repeating the same things over and over and over again. People say that about MMPORPG's in general, but it feels much worse pet soloing.

Eve is a pretty good mix of solo and group, as long as you're willing to put up with the "afk gaming" aspect.

[Flashman]

That’s the problem with online games; you can't have a world full of heroes.

What does this say about the upcoming release of "City of Heroes"....


But seriously, you have just summed up the problem with SWG. What do you think the ratio of people who want to be Jedi as opposed to those who are content gathering stacks of Corellian Vegetable Fungus?

The release of the holocrons and the subsequent hologrinding has really make this game a bit unfun. Who buys a Star Wars game and doesn't want to be a Jedi? Added to this is that every marketing bit Sony brings out seems to imply you can all be Jedi in SWG, when really for the game to function they have to be very rare or should not even have been put in at all.  

How can the devs then balance most everyone wanting to be a jedi/hero and still have a functioning game?

I don't think they've figured it out yet.

[Boondawgle]

Community is the reason I started playing and the reason I am still playing.  I started playing EQ way back when because I kept overhearing the guy in the office next to mine talking about EQ when folks would drop by.  I asked him about it and he arranged for me to take over the account of somebody who was leaving.  Playing with real people on the other side of all those toons was an eye opener for me.  When DAoC came out most of the group made the move and we are still there.

I tried to go to ShadowBane, but no one would move with me and the game just seemed empty without all my friends.  It will be interesting to see what happens when WoW comes out as only about half of my current guild is interested in trying it out.

[Numtini]

Who buys a Star Wars game and doesn't want to be a Jedi

<raises hand>

Probably because I'm old and see Star Wars as Star Wars and Empire. The rest of it is as relevant as the Christmas special.

To me Star Wars is about blasters, not light sabers...

[Riley]

What does this say about the upcoming release of "City of Heroes"....

Heh, Same old shit with a different package.  Its why people were psyched about Mythica too because you got to be a 'god'.  After the novelty of the graphics and the super hero name wears off though, whats going to be left?

I think one of the most under-rated things in any MMORPG is the commuity tools built into the game.  How do you communicate and interact, are there interesting and worthwhile things for groups to do, is there a "stickiness" that keeps a group together and allows them to become closer?  Those things are much more intangible and tough to build into a game design.  Its also one of the most overlooked aspects by reviewers because people don't consider those things "fun".

I actually think SWG is very underrated in that respect - they have great tools for communication, emails with WP attachments, player cities, etc.  If (big if) they actually had interesting content and a working combat system, the game could be a great deal better.

The jedi are just another example of a different package though.  Everyone wants to have one, but in reality they are just another fighter with some cool graphics - they are not much more powerful than a normal well equiped fighter.  They are unique in that they require a longer, more boring grind to level :)  And of course, other players can hunt them down and cause them to loose XP by killing them... but that is a detraction for most people.

[Dravalen]

Perhaps the reason Asia is having such a booming market for MMORPG's is because the gaming houses are offering a live arena for social gathering outside the game when your in the game.  While here in the states we hop into our virtual little skin in the darkness of our isolated little rooms.

I dunno, Cyber Cafes are kinda eh for playing games. There's near my house that I hang out at from time to time but normally I don't end up playing games. I also think voice chat goes a long way towards creating a better social environment. I still have fond memories of chatting it up over teamspeak when I played Shadow Bane.

[WayAbvPar]

I also think voice chat goes a long way towards creating a better social environment.

If I have a pre-existing relationship with a group of people (like a clan or a guild), I don't mind voice chat. However, I am not at all interested in chatting with any and all comers on the Internet...just too many fucktards.

[Dren]

Stuff....

I had the same thought as that poster you quoted.  What happens to those customers that buy a MMOG game one week and they shut down the next?  The ability of playing the game is completely gone.

I could see people getting quite upset over this kind of thing in the future.  They might get mad to point of *gasp* lawsuits.  In the past, your upfront payment of $50 gave you the right to pop that game in your computer at anytime in the future and play whether it was outdated or not.  MMOGs don't work that way.

I'm still trying to imagine the day UO actually shuts down completely with 20,000 people still playing (number swiftly grabbed from hind-end.)  I'm not sure people will take that lying down....in ghost robes.....going oO oOOO OO OOoo!

[Dropkicktobucket]

Paging Haemish to the thread.

Expect the unexpected, then deliever on that.  Watch the flock of guilds come.

[Ehle]

The size of the incentive to solo or group is a fulcrum for an mmo.  

I still prefer EQ to UO because, notwithstanding the suckage of EQ, I play online games to do things with other players.  It was too easy to be a one man show in UO (excepting SP).  Even though I played both games with a solid guild that I enjoyed, EQ was a more powerful experience for me simply because of the relationships that developed (both positive and negative) because of the need to work together for almost everything.

It's important to ask why folks want to solo in an mmo.  Because it is their preferred playstyle?  Don't play an mmo then.  As a notcompletelymoronic alternative to grouping when time is limited or you just don't feel like being socially outgoing?  Well, that makes sense.

If you buy the line that community and friends are what keep folks playing these games then engineering a game that focuses on sustainable solo play in a persistent world is of questionable value.  At some level devs have to develop game mechanics that require cooperative play or, if you still put any misguided faith into the social engineering of online worlds, force it.

If on-demand long-term solo play is the goal, why not stick with a single player game that supports online play then?  That truly provides the best return in terms of satisfying the need.

[Dravalen]

I don't belive that it's most people's prefered playstyle to solo, rather soemtimes it is not possible to put together a group of people.

If you can't find a healer that is close in level to you in DAoC there's very little point to having a group. If you can solo that gives you a backup plan if most of your friends are offline or you can't get a group together. It sure has hell beats spending 1+ hours sitting LFG with nothing else to do, trust me.

[Daydreamer]

I don't belive that it's most people's prefered playstyle to solo, rather soemtimes it is not possible to put together a group of people.

If you can't find a healer that is close in level to you in DAoC there's very little point to having a group. If you can solo that gives you a backup plan if most of your friends are offline or you can't get a group together. It sure has hell beats spending 1+ hours sitting LFG with nothing else to do, trust me.

I agree, I think the advantage of grouping in most major MMORPGs is relatively close to balanced, though still clearly stilted in favor of groups.  The killer for my intrest in a game is that forming a useful group is so difficult.  

DAOC's LFG system was absolutely brilliant at launch - I was there and used it constantly - and as a melee fighter I got good groups with healers regularly.  Then, by the 2 month mark, the level distribution and geographic distribution became so great, it became nearly useless, and I got trapped in the late 30's and lost interest.  Yet to increase player concentrations is to cut down on content or to overload servers.

This is the only reason I plan on giving WoW a chance - can they make grouping reasonably easy and/or make quest-based soloing fun?

[HaemishM]

I've noticed something about the betas/trials for MMOG's I've been in lately, such as the Horizons 7-day trial.

I made no effort whatsoever to meet other people, to join in the community in any way. At all. I'd talk to people if asked, but I didn't try to go out and group. I very much stayed a solo player.

It isn't because of my overwhelming hatred of people, though that helps.

I did it because I really wanted to see how much GAME there actually was in the game. And found out that for the most part, MMOG's are woefully deficient in this aspect. I knew that already, but I had to see if the particular MMOG followed suit.

It isn't about making the game "solo-friendly" or "group-friendly." If I only have 30 minutes to login, I want those 30 minutes to be fun. Grouping with anyone usually takes 30 minutes or more to accomplish especially in a game with travel constraints. And if you have maybe 2 hours a night like I do, 30 minutes is 25% of that time that isn't fun. So if I can solo and have fun, it means the gameplay is involving enough to be worthwhile, whether I "gain" anything from it or not.

I'm of the opinion that community doesn't really have to be encouraged to become strong. It happens whether the developers plan on it or not. Don't believe me? Look at FPS clans. Name one FPS game without voice support that really builds community support into the game. People who like to play together will form their own communities whether the game helps them to do it or not. They'll find 3rd party applications like TeamSpeak or message boards that can bring them together. Sure, I want the game to aid those communities; but it really doesn't have to force them together every single minute of every single day.

Make the gameplay involving and the communities will form of their own. I'm not saying make every piece of content solo-accessible. But make sure that consuming that content is fun.

And no, hitting auto-attack and watching my guy swing a sword is no longer fun in and of itself.

[Dravalen]

While I agree to a point that an outsitde community will form you have to keep in mind that your average player won't always feel compelled to go visit the vault boards or such.

With that said I still think heavy community involvement is a double edged sword. You can have the problems with grouping that DAoC has. Or something similar to Shadowbane, where your guild could be what limits/strengthens you and if you don't have one your SOL. Generally however, the more restrictive you make your 'social requirements' the tighter knit your communities tend to be(such was the case with me moving to SB from DAoC).

Where do I think the sweet spot lies? Well I'm partial to something diablo2-esque, where you aren't penalized for bringing in more players into your 'group' and hence more people tend to work together rather than go their separate ways. It may not develop a very tight knit community but it also means that you don't spend hours LFG.

Of course all of this is null and void if you don't have a fun game to play in the first place.

[HaemishM]

I don't consider the Vault boards a place that community forms. Communal retardation, maybe.

Community should be encouraged, but not at the sacrifice of gameplay.

[Sloth]

I like group friendly games. I think fundamentally MMOGs are about grouping. Does grouping take alot of time? Yeah usually, of course it varies, but more often than not you want at least an hour to play. That means games should feature side tasks for players who don't always have 2 or more hours to play. Things like shopping at the bazaar, minor quests, restocking supplies, exploring, and so on.

Ideally games should support three different levels of groups. The pickup group which entails killing things for XP and loot,  The Guild Group which involves a larger time and effort investment for quests or powerful items. The Raid Group which is obviously the large gathering of players to take down a really powerful mob or encounter for the best loot/quests in the game.

Now I'm not saying take away the ability to solo completely afterall not everyone wants to group every day, but soloing shouldn't be a viable means of advancement. It should mainly be for raising faction, doing minor quests or completing stages of quests that don't really require a group, collecting some spending cash or reagents, and farming some items for twinks.

[HaemishM]

Now I'm not saying take away the ability to solo completely afterall not everyone wants to group every day, but soloing shouldn't be a viable means of advancement.

Why not? After all, roleplaying is not just about the group, but about the lone individual as well. Sure, it shouldn't be a better means of advancement than grouping, but cockblocking solo players from advancing will just hamper the casual player.

It should be viable to advance solo, just harder.

[WayAbvPar]

Now I'm not saying take away the ability to solo completely afterall not everyone wants to group every day, but soloing shouldn't be a viable means of advancement.

So in your game, I am free to log in as a solo character, but can't do anything? Remind me when you get hired as a dev so I can avoid your game like the fucking plague.

I should be able to solo from level 1 to level 1000 if I so choose. It will be a HELL of a lot slower and probably less interesting than doing it with a group, but the option should be there nonetheless. If I am forced to find a group everytime I want to advance my character, rest assured that my subscription fees will be going away VERY quickly. If I can't hop on for an hour or so and get something done with my character without begging for a group for 3/4 of my alloted play time, then it isn't the game for me.

[Fargull]

I wonder if we will ever reach a stage where grouping is not required for group participation and merited attainment.  I am thinking of relative participation and the impact of ones participation could be induced without the mechanic of required grouping.  Thus allowing advancement by participation in actions without the worry of getting in with a clique.  One feature I am eager to experience with WOW is the voice commands and how they influence the ebb and flow of combat.  I keep running into people looking for limitations and one of my peevs are limitations.  Dont close the box.

[Sloth]

Now I'm not saying take away the ability to solo completely afterall not everyone wants to group every day, but soloing shouldn't be a viable means of advancement.

Why not? After all, roleplaying is not just about the group, but about the lone individual as well. Sure, it shouldn't be a better means of advancement than grouping, but cockblocking solo players from advancing will just hamper the casual player.

It should be viable to advance solo, just harder.

casual player doesn't pay to play these games. Casual player excuse is just from people who don't like the genre to begin with.

[Sloth]

Now I'm not saying take away the ability to solo completely afterall not everyone wants to group every day, but soloing shouldn't be a viable means of advancement.

So in your game, I am free to log in as a solo character, but can't do anything? Remind me when you get hired as a dev so I can avoid your game like the fucking plague.

I should be able to solo from level 1 to level 1000 if I so choose. It will be a HELL of a lot slower and probably less interesting than doing it with a group, but the option should be there nonetheless. If I am forced to find a group everytime I want to advance my character, rest assured that my subscription fees will be going away VERY quickly. If I can't hop on for an hour or so and get something done with my character without begging for a group for 3/4 of my alloted play time, then it isn't the game for me.

Thats just poor reading comprehension. The fact that I made a point to list things that you could do when you only have limited time to play or don't want to group, and you just ignored it seems to me that you don't really have anything to add to a discussion you just want to rant.

[WayAbvPar]

casual player doesn't pay to play these games. Casual player excuse is just from people who don't like the genre to begin with.

/raises hand

Do you think I bitch about this for my health? I am a casual gamer. I have paid to subscribe to 6 or 7 MMOGs at the minimum. I pay the same fucking price for the box and per month, so I would like to get some sort of attention just like the bandwidth and CS-eating catasses.  Some us have more disposable income than time...why ignore us?

The fact that I made a point to list things that you could do when you only have limited time to play or don't want to group, and you just ignored it seems to me that you don't really have anything to add to a discussion you just want to rant.

I read just fine.  I was responding to your post, particularly the part I FUCKING QUOTED. God you are a pedantic fuck. Just because you get your fucking jollies playing 8 hours a day with your invisible cyber friends doesn't necessarily mean that THERE AREN'T ALTERNATIVE PLAYSTYLES, YOU DUMBFUCK. Just jamming your head in your ass and pretending that casual players don't exist is extremely short sighted.

[Hanzii]

casual player doesn't pay to play these games. Casual player excuse is just from people who don't like the genre to begin with.[/quote]

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
The main reason I started reading and participating on boards like these, was that I really liked the idea of mmorpgs, but not the actual games anymore.
I'm a casual player and I paid not to play UO. I paid not to play AO and I just paid fifty bucks, so I could play Puzzle Pirates for life... but I don't have the time to play.
Apart from the last example there's a limit to how long I will pay for a game, clearly not catering for my style.
Which is a shame, because the reason I don't play is a rather good and wellpaying job, so for the first company to design a game, that gives me a reason to keep playing, I will be a potentially very large walking wallet.
And I'm not the only one.
I'm quite sure, that those of us with jobs, could be an even better source of income, than all the students and unemployed, if anybody would build a game compelling to us, instead of catering for the same 5-700.000 catasses.

[Rodent]

So can anyone explain why the hell it should be slower to solo up a character? When I grouped in UO it was to fight the biggest baddest mofo spawns that our group could handle, the bigger the group the bigger the mofo spawn.

When I solo'd I fought Earth elementals, I earned about the same amount of gold, I gained the same amount of skill, but that didn't stop me from looking forward to the next time we were going to kick the bigger spawns ass.

I've yet to hear one compelling reason for the forced grouping model. Well other then "Uhm, EQ has a ton of users, yo".

[Kyper]

Soloing is and always has been my primary style of play in MMOs.  

I don't mind getting advancement bonuses while grouping, but I won't play a game that will not let me advance my character on my own.  

I've been a guild leader and done the big group quest thing plenty, but my joy in MMOs is the option to escape other people and do my own thing (not all of the time, just a good chunk of it).

[Wukong]

I think it is the very artificial grouping mechanism that all MMOGs employ that chaffes so many people. While in life it is accepted that in order to achieve anything worthwhile you will likely have to interact cooperatively with others, it is rarely neccessary to segregate ourselves into formal groups. We like to think the individual is the basic social unit, while these games assume the group is the atomic unit. It's like the difference between going to a dance club and being in a chorus line. Both can be fun I guess, but the latter is much more gay.

The only example of the former that I've experienced in a MMOG is RvR in DAoC. For certain classes at least, it is possible to participate in the Emain zerg without a group as long as you are in chat. That only seems to work because of the team spirit inherent to RvR, something that is generally absent from other modes of play.

[Dropkicktobucket]

What I can't understand is, soloing vs grouping in FPS games are fairly balanced depending on the map / whats in play.  The particular game I'm talking about, was Tribes1.

Whether you were disc launcing badass, sniper, green potatoe shooter, or whatever.. You could be effective in a group or by yourself.  I don't think I honestly ever played a game of Tribes, where I felt I couldn't solo(I'm not talking about when the other team camps your inv, with four heavies in your base).  Although a few times I must admit it was better soloing, than being in a group.


Your examples?