Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

lets not forget about groups now....Follow

#52 Jul 23 2009 at 6:16 PM Rating: Good
HocusP wrote:
Quote:
No, in most games the instanced content and/or the PvP are the most important parts of the game Those are typically areas of the game that require a group, whether it's a duo (arena 2s in WoW) all the way up to a large group (25-man raid or 40-man battleground). You keep thinking in terms of FFXI and trying to convey that as representative of all MMOs. You're just flat out wrong. In FFXI leveling was the longest part of the game. And it was only substantially longer than leveling in more current MMOs because of the ridiculous wait times between groups. Content is the most important part of an MMO; leveling is only the process you undergo in order to gain access to more of that content.


PvP will not be important in this MMO either. Content is added well after the game has been released and is only longer because they keep adding content. Solo friendly mmo, "solo mmo" whatever play on words you want to use, its a reason why they are called this. You didn't dispute "solo mmos" when it was used way back and instead you wrote a whole paragraph skipping it, so why dispute it now? We all know what people mean when they say "solo mmos". There is a reason why they are called this by the playerbase.


Yes, there is a reason. And it's because people are ignorant. You fall into that category.
#53 Jul 23 2009 at 6:55 PM Rating: Default
**
456 posts
Quote:
Yes, there is a reason. And it's because people are ignorant. You fall into that category


Its because people know bs when they see it, and that bs is you. LoL a solo mmo is an mmo with no group content...yea right. Then ffxi is not a group mmo because it has solo content also. Sure you can't do everything solo, but you can't do everything solo in any mmo.

Before you say it, yes you can level solo in ffxi. Many people have done it with pretty much all jobs, its called pet camps. Then when you get high enough you have other things like besieged and campaign. By your logic FFXi is not a group mmo then since there is solo content.

Edited, Jul 23rd 2009 11:00pm by HocusP
#54 Jul 23 2009 at 7:14 PM Rating: Good
HocusP wrote:
Quote:
Yes, there is a reason. And it's because people are ignorant. You fall into that category


Its because people know bs when they see it, and that bs is you. LoL a solo mmo is an mmo with no group content...yea right. Then ffxi is not a group mmo because it has solo content also. Sure you can't do everything solo, but you can't do everything solo in any mmo.

Before you say it, yes you can level solo in ffxi. Many people have done it with pretty much all jobs, its called pet camps. Then when you get high enough you have other things like besieged and campaign. By your logic FFXi is not a group mmo then since there is solo content.


I've pretty much established from reading your posts that English is not your first language, so I'll just ask you to take me at my word that there's a significant difference between "solo" and "solo friendly." You can continue to argue it if you think it's going to help, but the bottom line is that you can't look at games like WoW or LOTRO and call them solo games, because both games have a rather substantial amount of group content distributed throughout the various level ranges.
#55 Jul 23 2009 at 8:15 PM Rating: Default
**
456 posts
Quote:
I've pretty much established from reading your posts that English is not your first language, so I'll just ask you to take me at my word that there's a significant difference between "solo" and "solo friendly." You can continue to argue it if you think it's going to help, but the bottom line is that you can't look at games like WoW or LOTRO and call them solo games, because both games have a rather substantial amount of group content distributed throughout the various level ranges.


Everyone knows what people mean when they say solo mmo. There is solo and group content in every mmo. Yea your right the playerbase is ignorant and you are right like always (sarcism). If the majority of players level solo and its the preferred method then it is a "solo mmo" to most people. Every other piece of content is optional, but leveling up is necessary in order to be able to do mostly anything. This is why the leveling up process is the determining factor on if the game is preceived as an "solo mmo" or not.
#56 Jul 23 2009 at 8:57 PM Rating: Good
HocusP wrote:
Quote:
I've pretty much established from reading your posts that English is not your first language, so I'll just ask you to take me at my word that there's a significant difference between "solo" and "solo friendly." You can continue to argue it if you think it's going to help, but the bottom line is that you can't look at games like WoW or LOTRO and call them solo games, because both games have a rather substantial amount of group content distributed throughout the various level ranges.


Everyone knows what people mean when they say solo mmo. There is solo and group content in every mmo. Yea your right the playerbase is ignorant and you are right like always (sarcism). If the majority of players level solo and its the preferred method then it is a "solo mmo" to most people. Every other piece of content is optional, but leveling up is necessary in order to be able to do mostly anything. This is why the leveling up process is the determining factor on if the game is preceived as an "solo mmo" or not.


Since when does your experience in one MMO and interaction with one MMO community qualify you to comment in any way on what "most" people say about a **** thing MMO related?

Lemme know when you've found a clue. Right now you're just wasting forum space.
#57 Jul 23 2009 at 9:29 PM Rating: Default
**
456 posts
Quote:
Since when does your experience in one MMO and interaction with one MMO community qualify you to comment in any way on what "most" people say about a **** thing MMO related?


Most people I talk to that have played many type of mmos says the same exact thing. Same as the people that post in here or that started this thread has called them mmos "solo mmos". The other content is optional in a game, but leveling is pretty much not (I guess you could stay level1 and do some other things but thats rather not likely). This is why the leveling up process is the determining factor rather the mmo is a solo or group mmo. Many people (I have talked to) left ffxi for a "solo mmo" (mostly WoW) because they got tired of grouping.

Quote:
To us at Ten Ton Hammer it is a Massively Soloplayer game, and it's hard to think of a better example of one than WoW.


That is a quote from a website about MMOs and it refers to WoW and other games as you can see. I mean you can type "is WoW a solo mmo" on google and you will see tons of pages from even the WoW playerbase pop up. There is a reason all these pages and websites pop up, but once again you are right and all the websites is wrong. We in this thread just do not want another "solo mmo", its that simple.

Quote:
An MMO to me should mean more than having to connect to an online server and pay a monthly fee just to play all alone. WoW for many players though is just that. Many players do not group at all until they hit 60 and even then just start another character.


Another quote off of this huge mmo website. I can just post a link if you want me to, but its not just me that notices this. I do not have to play the game to research facts, understand common sense, and have friends that do play.

Edited, Jul 24th 2009 1:34am by HocusP
#58 Jul 23 2009 at 9:47 PM Rating: Good
HocusP wrote:
Most people I talk to that have played many type of mmos says the same exact thing. Same as the people that post in here or that started this thread has called them mmos "solo mmos". The other content is optional in a game, but leveling is pretty much not (I guess you could stay level1 and do some other things but thats rather not likely). This is why the leveling up process is the determining factor rather the mmo is a solo or group mmo. Many people (I have talked to) left ffxi for a "solo mmo" (mostly WoW) because they got tired of grouping.


You're arguing a function of syntax. Based on the explicit definitions of the words you are using, you are wrong. Period.

Quote:
That is a quote from a website about MMOs and it refers to WoW and other games as you can see.


Funny you should mention that...

Quote:
I mean you can type "is WoW a solo mmo"


Because typing that into a Google search proves my point, not yours. On the first page of search results you'll see hits for solo MMO players (note: the 'solo' in the context of the English language refers to the player, not the MMO; as in 'solo' + 'MMO player' vs. 'solo MMO' + 'player'). You'll see hits for soloing content in WoW. And you'll see hits referencing "solo friendly." What you will not see is reference to a "solo MMO" unless your grasp of the English language is as weak as your debating skills.

Quote:
Quote:
An MMO to me should mean more than having to connect to an online server and pay a monthly fee just to play all alone. WoW for many players though is just that. Many players do not group at all until they hit 60 and even then just start another character.


Another quote off of this huge mmo website. I can just post a link if you want me to, but its not just me that notices this. I do not have to play the game to research facts, understand common sense, and have friends that do play.


Maybe try siting a reference that isn't 3+ years old mmmmkay? The level cap in WoW hasn't been 60 since before I started playing, and I've been playing for over 3 years now.
#59 Jul 23 2009 at 9:58 PM Rating: Good
**
736 posts

I like an irrelevant semantics tangent and much as the next girl, but can we get back to the part of the debate that explored motivating players to participate in group-play while also offering competent solo content?



#60 Jul 23 2009 at 10:38 PM Rating: Good
Zemzelette wrote:
I like an irrelevant semantics tangent and much as the next girl, but can we get back to the part of the debate that explored motivating players to participate in group-play while also offering competent solo content?


The issue seems to have nothing to do with how to balance and tune a game so that both options are adequately supported and everything to do with people terrified that SE isn't going to play parent and force people to do things a certain way.

What I think a lot of people are failing to realize is that you need a pretty clearly defined carrot dangled in front of people in order to encourage them to trust their luck (and their success) with strangers in order to meet a group objective in an MMO. That's the catch. That's the time sink and the stress and the frustration. It's not that group content is harder...quite often, it's a lot more straightforward than solo content. It's the irrational notion that forced group content helps to build a community while at the same time somehow not enabling that group content to be accessible to the majority at the drop of the hat it would require in order for it to be entertaining on a perpetual basis.

The people arguing for group play to be superior to solo play in terms of progression in all aspects refuse to address the main concern, and that is how do you tune the group content so that a competent solo player will progress faster than a bad party? What kind of difference are we talking about in terms of what a mediocre party could expect to get compared to a highly competent group? Unless we're talking about enormous margins between mediocre and good, there's not a very large window to keep people from playing the game for 2-3 months tops before they figure out that they're better off waiting for a crappy party than they are playing solo in a game touted as being more "casual friendly" and focusing on allowing players to "do what [they] want."

Common sense and reason says that an MMO developer would have to be fully daft to tune a game such that failure in a party is better than success solo in terms of character progression, and if the margin of progression in a group between mediocrity and solid competence is too great, the skilled players are going to run out of content and leave.

But nobody wants to offer any intelligent thoughts on that. I'm not asking for percentages and speculation on a micro level...just thoughts and ideas that don't always revert back to, "QQ if solo is too viable nobody will want to group QQ." And I label that as QQ for two reasons:

1) It doesn't stand up to comparison with what is going on in truly solo-friendly MMOs.
2) The ability to group in an MMO has more to do with connections and reputation than it does with base incentive.

I've known people in WoW that have no guild at all, yet they receive invites on a daily basis for raid content because they've earned such an outstanding reputation as a friendly, skilled player that they don't need to be a part of a guild to get involved in the content. By the same token, I know all kinds of people in crappy guilds that have to PUG all of their group content because they consort with morons or they've ****** off everyone in their guild to the extent that nobody wants to run with them.

The quality players in any MMO will group because they enjoy grouping, not because the rewards are better than what they could get on their own. Top raid guilds in WoW don't raid for epics or status. They raid for the challenge. They raid for the competitive nature of world/continent/realm first kills. They raid for the feeling of progression at downing a new boss and then once they've downed it, they're skilled enough players that they can go on and farm the content for the gear rewards after the fact in order to prepare for the next tier of content. The rewards are (suitably) only the icing on the cake.

And that's the basis for the balanced argument; the MMO developer doesn't need to create barriers for solo players or excessive rewards for people who prefer to group because ultimately, people should be doing what they find entertaining and not be worried about what anyone else is doing. If I'm shredding group content and having fun in the process, wtf do I care what Bob Solo is doing? MMOs typically offer gear incentives for success in group content with escalating reward for escalating challenge. "It takes longer to form a group" is a 100% ******** excuse to claim entitlement to additional rewards. "The group content involves responding to a more dynamic battle scenario than you find in most solo content" is a far better reason to offer rewards above and beyond what a solo player would expect to see.
#61 Jul 23 2009 at 10:49 PM Rating: Default
**
456 posts
Quote:
Because typing that into a Google search proves my point, not yours. On the first page of search results you'll see hits for solo MMO players (note: the 'solo' in the context of the English language refers to the player, not the MMO; as in 'solo' + 'MMO player' vs. 'solo MMO' + 'player'). You'll see hits for soloing content in WoW. And you'll see hits referencing "solo friendly." What you will not see is reference to a "solo MMO" unless your grasp of the English language is as weak as your debating skills.


Once you click those links you will find quotes like MSP (massively soloplayer game). You will also find quotes that has topics like "is wow too solo friendly", and if a game is too solo friendly then it is a solo mmo. Tons of these posts are up, and they are up because its an issue. If the majority of the people didn't see it this way then there wouldn't be so many links with the same exact thing on them. Even big mmo sites like ten top hammer, says the samething about the game. This is my experience, it is called research and observation.

Quote:
people should be doing what they find entertaining and not be worried about what anyone else is doing


What everyone else doing directly effects how the game functions and what you are able to do. In MMOs you need to worry about what other people are doing to an extent because the community controls how the game will be played.

Edited, Jul 24th 2009 2:52am by HocusP

Edited, Jul 24th 2009 3:08am by HocusP
#62 Jul 24 2009 at 4:49 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
777 posts
Karelyn wrote:
You are constantly referring to WoW, but in WoW you are generally expected to spend around 5% of your gameplay on leveling.

LOGIC!

All hail HocusP, the master of logic.

If you spend 5% of a game doing something solo, it must be a solo game. I understand now! How could I be so wrong?

EDIT: And before you call ******** on 5%... In WoW, you are expected to spend around 2-4 weeks leveling per expansion. Each expansion lasts roughly a year. That's about 5% of your time playing the game spent leveling.

Edited, Jul 24th 2009 8:51am by Karelyn
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#63 Jul 24 2009 at 5:42 AM Rating: Default
**
456 posts
Quote:

All hail HocusP, the master of logic.

If you spend 5% of a game doing something solo, it must be a solo game. I understand now! How could I be so wrong?

EDIT: And before you call bullsh*t on 5%... In WoW, you are expected to spend around 2-4 weeks leveling per expansion. Each expansion lasts roughly a year. That's about 5% of your time playing the game spent leveling.


You are speaking for everyone and this statement is inaccurate in many ways. First of all every single person that plays a game doesn't necessaryily do endgame content. For these people they level more then 5% of their time that they play. Secondly people level alt characters, and these people level more then 5% of their time playing. Then there is people that do nothing but level alt characters. These people level more then 5% of their play time. Endgame and other content is optional, but leveling up is the only thing everyone has to do (if you want to be able to do anything else).
#64 Jul 24 2009 at 5:45 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,100 posts
Hocus...you're rebuttal's are becoming redundant. It seems, at this point, you're only arguing with Aurelius because you want to prove him wrong somehow, without knowing how to.

The point being made, overall, is that solo-friendly doesn't not mean solo-orientated. You're saying that (and I'm not entirely sure because it's very hard to follow your posts...) that you're concerned that any introduction of solo-friendly content into FFXIV is going to render it a solo-orientated game, thus if the playerbase embraces this it will ruin what FFXIV will have to offer. You're also (for the most part) focusing on level progression from level A to level B where A is the start and B is the finish.

Am I right so far? If not...oh well, I'm still going to continue here.

Aurelius is just stating that there's a difference between solo-orientated content and solo-friendly content, and so far with MMO's it's been a fairly obvious line drawn in the sand. FFXI is unique in how it handled level progression, especially in the earlier days. FFXIV should maintain a degree of this unique progression, while catering to people that cannot always find time to LFG and get into a party for any extended period of time (hence, solo-friendly). However, the rate of progression needs to be acceptable to the person in this situation, but cannot trump group-orientated level progression otherwise it turns into a solo-orientated leveling component. However, this doesn't make the game solo-orientated, it makes level progression solo-orientated.

With me so far?

Likewise, Aurelius is stating a fact that regardless of the balance in the component of group & solo play, when the (typical) rewards of group-centric challenges are greater, people are going to group out of favor to do so rather than the popular component, and John Groupy participating in the group-centric play doesn't need to care about what Bob Solo is doing because John Groupy is having fun regardless (see how that works?).

The later game content of any MMO is going to be primarily group-based. The leveling schematic for any MMO is going to vary. For instance:

FFXI = Earlier group-centric, currently a mish-mosh
LotRO = Solo-friendly with mix in of group objectives
WoW = Solo-friendly with few group objectives until expansion/end-game content
Vanguard = Solo-friendly early with group-centric objectives heavily added in later levels
Guild Wars = Solo-orientated with rewards for group-based objective quests
EQ2 = Solo-friendly with group-centric objectives heavily mixed into the quest pools

But this is the leveling schematic, not the entire game. What you declare is a problem (population orientating the leveling schematic & overall playstyle) is inevitable. The primary goal we hope for in FFXIV is not that this be rectified or in some way avoided, but that group-centric challenges & playstyles be rewarded on a challenge and scaling basis so that everyone gets what they want and has fun, but the solo-friendly component doesn't trump the group component. But regardless, you're going to get to level cap after leveling and join in the end-game content that 99.9% of which is group-orientated.

So yea, nutshell summary = SE, make FFXIV fun for everyone and don't ***** it up. Amirite?

HocusP wrote:
You are speaking for everyone and this statement is inaccurate in many ways. First of all every single person that plays a game doesn't necessaryily do endgame content. For these people they level more then 5% of their time that they play. Secondly people level alt characters, and these people level more then 5% of their time playing. Then there is people that do nothing but level alt characters. These people level more then 5% of their play time. Endgame and other content is optional, but leveling up is the only thing everyone has to do (if you want to be able to do anything else).


I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand players that deliberately play MMO's only for the RPG elements and avoid the group component all together. There are good single player RPG's out there, especially the up and coming Dragon Age by Bioware.

Edited, Jul 24th 2009 9:55am by Ryneguy
____________________________
Common sense is not so common -Voltaire
Wyne Aeros - Hyperion Server
ARRFishing.com

#65 Jul 24 2009 at 6:19 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
777 posts
HocusP wrote:
You are speaking for everyone and this statement is inaccurate in many ways. First of all every single person that plays a game doesn't necessaryily do endgame content. There is people that do nothing but level alt characters. These people level more then 5% of their play time. Endgame and other content is optional, but leveling up is the only thing everyone has to do (if you want to be able to do anything else).

If a person does nothing but level in WoW, then they are missing the main point of the game, and it is nobody's fault but their own if they do not enjoy the game.

If a person is disappointed with a game because they refused to touch 95% of the game's content, well the boo-hoo to them. Go play a different game that actually caters to what you want. Don't play an MMO if you don't want to participate in the group content, especially a MMO like WoW where 90-95% of the game's content is group content.

There are lots of solo games out there. WoW isn't one of them.
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#66 Jul 24 2009 at 6:39 AM Rating: Good
HocusP wrote:
Once you click those links you will find quotes like MSP (massively soloplayer game). You will also find quotes that has topics like "is wow too solo friendly", and if a game is too solo friendly then it is a solo mmo. Tons of these posts are up, and they are up because its an issue. If the majority of the people didn't see it this way then there wouldn't be so many links with the same exact thing on them. Even big mmo sites like ten top hammer, says the samething about the game. This is my experience, it is called research and observation.


Ya, and your objectivity is highly questionable. In fact, I'd say you have no objectivity. You're so **** bent on proving a point you can't prove that you're just making yourself look like a dunce. I reckon I'm about done with you. Again.


Edited, Jul 24th 2009 11:32am by AureliusSir
#67 Jul 24 2009 at 7:24 AM Rating: Default
**
456 posts
Quote:
Ya, and you're objectivity is highly questionable. In fact, I'd say you have no objectivity. You're so **** bent on proving a point you can't prove that you're just making yourself look like a dunce. I reckon I'm about done with you. Again.


Your so **** bent on thinking you are right, that you can't see when thousands of people see these games as a certain way. Its not just threads on other forums, but its editorals by huge mmo websites. If you type in is ffxi too solo friendly, you will get no pop ups that is even relevant (of course because its not). When you see this many topics then it is a reasonable question and it is a reasonable conclusion that people see the game a certain way. Your experience through your own point of view vs thousands of people experiences and there point of view. I will take the majority over just your point of view.
#68 Jul 24 2009 at 7:27 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
777 posts
HocusP wrote:
Your so **** bent on thinking you are right, that you can't see when thousands of people see these games as a certain way. Its not just threads on other forums, but its editorals by huge mmo websites. If you type in is ffxi too solo friendly, you will get no pop ups that is even relevant (of course because its not). When you see this many topics then it is a reasonable question and it is a reasonable conclusion that people see the game a certain way. Your experience through your own point of view vs thousands of people experiences and there point of view. I will take the majority over just your point of view.
Karilyn wrote:
If a person is disappointed with a game because they refused to touch 95% of the game's content, well the boo-hoo to them. Go play a different game that actually caters to what you want. Don't play an MMO if you don't want to participate in the group content, especially a MMO like WoW where 90-95% of the game's content is group content.

There are lots of solo games out there. WoW isn't one of them.
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#69 Jul 24 2009 at 7:33 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,100 posts
Hocus...

In a world where "Those that are content have nothing to say, those that are upset have everything to say", if you go hunting for information on the internet, you're going to find it. Likewise, there are going to be topics, maybe even "thousands" about whether or not "MMO X" is too solo-friendly or not.

Would you like to know why? Because out of the millions of subscribers, maybe a thousand don't like something about it. They post, rant, complain, whine, QQ, and whatever other term you can come up with on various public outlets to voice their concerns. But, and a big but, do you know why those posts even exist?

Because in order for a "discussion" to form about the topic, someone has to feel opposite of the original topic. That means for the millions that are content, a thousand hate something and complain, and another group of topic-goers argue their being content.

You're using the internet, and forum QQ posts to be more exact, to prove a point by saying "Opinion is fact when I argue it, but Aurelius has no basis because he's using his opinion". Really, you need to stop now. We've nearly evolved to you shadowing Aurelius's responses ("No, you suck...no, you don't know...").
____________________________
Common sense is not so common -Voltaire
Wyne Aeros - Hyperion Server
ARRFishing.com

#70 Jul 24 2009 at 9:21 AM Rating: Decent
**
456 posts
Quote:
However, the rate of progression needs to be acceptable to the person in this situation, but cannot trump group-orientated level progression otherwise it turns into a solo-orientated leveling component. However, this doesn't make the game solo-orientated, it makes level progression solo-orientated.


This is what I am saying for the most part. The only difference is people refuse to acknowledge that the game for some people is level progression. If the game for some people is "level progression" then doesn't a solo-orientated level progression makes the game for these people solo orientated. This is where the term "solo mmos" comes from, and to these people, the game really is a solo mmo. You can say its there fault because there whole game revolves around "level progression", but thats what these people like to do. I know people with maats caps, and people that have never touched any endgame content, so to these people those games are "solo mmos".

I want solo friendly content, but not so much so that it turns the level progression into solo-oriented. This will turn the game into a "solo mmo" for some people because there game is level progression. I enjoy endgame content but level progression is most important to me and to many others that had multiple capd jobs. I had blm, smn, brd, sch, and war at 75 and a solo-oriented level progression system would turn the game to a "solo mmo" for me. Same as it would for other people that had multiple jobs and even maat caps.
#71 Jul 24 2009 at 1:48 PM Rating: Good
HocusP wrote:
This is what I am saying for the most part. The only difference is people refuse to acknowledge that the game for some people is level progression.


No, they don't. They acknowledge that the game for you is what is important to you. You like base progression? Awesome. You like group play? Great. You like to focus on group play for your progression? Fantastic. You've yet to address what would be stopping you from taking that set of preferences into FFXIV if FFXIV were to allow viable solo and group character progression.

And the reality is that nothing would be stopping you. The relentless whining about how, "If people can solo and progress their characters at a good rate, they won't want to group," is not more than that...whining. You can talk to your friends and find your "proof" on Google all you want (btw: Proof Elvis is still alive. It's on Google so it must be true, amirite?) I've seen abundant use of group content in solo friendly MMOs. I've taken part in abundant group content throughout the leveling process. Ergo, I have proof based on first hand experience that your claim is inaccurate. You only have google searches and what other people have told you. That does not an effect argument make.

What would be stopping you from deciding to wait around for a group instead of going out to solo your character? Boredom maybe? Frustration perhaps? Irritation at paying to play a game that you can't enjoy because you rely on other people? The difference between a solo friendly MMO and a group centric MMO is that the solo friendly game provides you with other options to go enjoy yourself without having to rely on other people every step of the way. If you've got half decent people skills, know how to perform in a group, and/or have a good guild/LS/whatever, finding groups becomes a non-issue. If you want to PUG everything and then still insist on better rewards for your own twisted masochism, you're a loony.

If you've got 5-6000 people on at peak hours (maybe half that off-peak) and you can't find enough people to form a group when you want it, that tells you something. Either you've got a personality that's easy to forget, you rely on PUGs too much, or you just flat out suck at the game and the people who have grouped with you don't want you back.

Make friends. Be selective in the guild/LS/whatever you join. The groups will come. And when they do, if you're still whining about what the solo player is doing/getting, you need a smack.


Edited, Jul 24th 2009 3:04pm by AureliusSir
#72 Jul 24 2009 at 2:28 PM Rating: Decent
**
456 posts
Quote:
If you've got 5-6000 people on at peak hours (maybe half that off-peak) and you can't find enough people to form a group when you want it, that tells you something. Either you've got a personality that's easy to forget, you rely on PUGs too much, or you just flat out suck at the game and the people who have grouped with you don't want you back.


Not everyone plays at peak hours. If you can solo at anytime you want to (peak or not), why should grouping be harder just because you are not able to play at peak hours. This along with the solo-oriented way of leveling would make grouping almost impossible for these people.

Quote:
"If people can solo and progress their characters at a good rate, they won't want to group," is not more than that...whining.


I am all for a good or reasonable rate, just not the same as grouping. You keeping saying this like I am saying you shouldn't be able to solo at a good rate and progress and this is not true. Grouping could still have the benefits of grouping (a faster pace) while soloing has a good pace and the underlying benefits of soloing.

Quote:
"Make friends. Be selective in the guild/LS/whatever you join. The groups will come. And when they do, if you're still whining about what the solo player is doing/getting, you need a smack.


I have friends, but you do not level with your friends as often as you would think. Also I would rather not level with a static of people because this way of leveling has way less interaction with the rest of the community.

Quote:
I've seen abundant use of group content in solo friendly MMOs. I've taken part in abundant group content throughout the leveling process. Ergo, I have proof based on first hand experience that your claim is inaccurate.


Because you leveled in a group sometimes this means your experience is better then anybody elses? There is a lot of people that feels the opposite way and has the same experience you have (of playing). Ask yourself how many people that would have liked to group the whole way on those games, actually got the chance to group the whole way. The only way they could have is if they had friends that played at the sametime they did and that also liked to group. If during sometimes it is impossible to group then to me that is a problem, especially when you can solo anytime you want to in those games. Thats the point of an MMO to some people, and you shouldn't have to play at a certain time to experience it. Same as you should not be forced to group to level up either, in my perfect world you could solo at a good rate but grouping would always be better.

Edited, Jul 24th 2009 6:30pm by HocusP
#73 Jul 24 2009 at 9:12 PM Rating: Excellent
**
296 posts
In my opinion, it's very telling that those praying for some sort of solo nerf/party buff are more worried about the solo player's advancement than their own. I don't see anyone asking for there to be no grouped content. I don't see anyone asking for less grouped content. What I do see is party centric posters asking for a bonus for playing the game the way they claim they want to anyhow.

This isn't an argument to keep party play viable, because they know that the Devs have stated that party advancement will still be presented. It should also be readily apparent that every single MMO focuses almost exclusively on group content for endgame, and that is where most long term players will spend the majority of their careers, no matter how they got there, so this isn't about that either. This is either about them wanting to be faster than solo players, thereby showing their "leetness" for all to see.... or this is about wanting some sort of developer reward to validate their way of advancing as the better, more pure way. Both end up being the same thing: An EPeen boost to make them feel better about their make believe lives. They are not concerned they can't do well, they are worried someone else could do as well in a different manner. Equal options are now apparently bad to this vocal contingent. Players must be guided like sheep to the "appropriate" style of play or chaos ensues. It's almost funny: the people who espouse the advantages group play the loudest around here are the only ones that seem to believe that it isn't viable without penalties placed for straying away from their preferred advancemet strategy... and don't see the idiocy of punishing people for playing a game in a manner that is comfortable to their real life obligations.


Oh, and by the way guys... you're still arguing about levels and XP after all this time, while talking about a game that has neither? *facepalm*

Just relax and have some faith in the dev team...
#74 Jul 24 2009 at 9:58 PM Rating: Decent
**
424 posts
I have read the arguments made, and I agree, the entirety of WoW endgame relies on group mechanics that go even farther than the FFXI group mechanics to reach endgame.

From AureliusSir:

Quote:
Worry about the content. Worry about the itemization. Worry about the story.

Worry about what matters and adds flavor and diversity in the game. If you like to group, group. That's all you need. You don't need to QQ and **** and moan about "omfg what if solo is too good and nobody wants to group?!!?!?!?1111?!?!?!"


I think that what I am worrying about IS the content, the flavor, and the diversity of the game.

Nobody can argue that raising the 'LFG flag' and sitting on your thumb twirling was the WORST aspect of a MMO ever. (FFXI I am looking at you). Yet the one thing that was added to FFXI was that a 'mid-game' existed, and that was something that I haven't really experienced in many MMOs.

I have no problem with solo play, and if you choose to solo all the way to max level that is your choice. But it IS a MMO after all, and the incentive for grouping (even at lower levels) should outweigh the incentive for playing Solo. Especially with a multiple job system like Final Fantasy.

Why should I "QQ and **** and moan about 'solo being too good'"? Because it would result in players having to solo the same character up to max level time and time again. It was just boring and horrible in WoW.

If we are going to discuss what we want out of a new MMO, we shouldn't be afraid to point out what we hated in old MMOs, like the LFG hours in FFXI, or the complete isolation that existed before level 70 or 80 in WoW.

And that is what the majority of players experience, if you have a core group of friends that all play together and level together, you are unfortunately in the minority.

So what is so wrong about encouraging grouping over soloing in the first place that has some people so upset? It isn't like I am arguing against the solo aspect, I welcome it. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH GROUPS? EDIT: THE PROBLEM WITH GROUPS BEFORE ENDGAME?

Edited, Jul 25th 2009 2:00am by Shazaamemt
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#75 Jul 24 2009 at 10:03 PM Rating: Decent
**
424 posts
I would LOVE to see things like the WAR system of PUBLIC QUESTS be implemented along with the FFXI system of level sync, along with the bare-bones incentives to group like Buffs that are shared group wide, as well as certain jobs that are somewhat viable solo, but perform extremely well in groups. RDM, BRD, you guys go ahead and get grouped, same with PLD.
The BLMs and WARs can solo to their hearts content more easily than the others until they hit endgame.
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#76 Jul 24 2009 at 10:57 PM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
Shazaamemt wrote:

Why should I "QQ and **** and moan about 'solo being too good'"? Because it would result in players having to solo the same character up to max level time and time again. It was just boring and horrible in WoW.


Your assumption then is that if players aren't punished for soloing then no one will ever group? Not only do I disagree with your assumption, but even if I were to agree I fail to see the logic in attempting to coerce people to play a game in a style you apparently believe no one prefers.

Shazaamemt wrote:

So what is so wrong about encouraging grouping over soloing in the first place that has some people so upset? It isn't like I am arguing against the solo aspect, I welcome it. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH GROUPS? EDIT: THE PROBLEM WITH GROUPS BEFORE ENDGAME?


There is absolutely no problem with groups, much like there is no problem with solo advancement. The problem arises when one proponent attempts to marginalize the other. If both aspects are viable, there should be no issue. The only reason for attempting to artificially slow a solo player's advancement (or accelerate groups) is to ensure that players arrive at the conclusion that group advancement is the preferred method to reach endgame. If party focused players spent more time concerned with balance in their own system and less time worried about solo players advancement speed, they'd be happier overall. After all these years, I would think seasoned MMO players would have outgrown the "it's a race" mentality. Unfortunately, it seems some players only pay that lip service...

Perhaps, if you feel so threatened by the very notion of an equal method of solo advancement, you should ask yourself your own question. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH GROUPS?.... that they need some completely arbitrary crutch to make them viable if people have a choice? Or perhaps have some people been overstating the wonderful fellowship and fantastic training that parties provide? Because if those were the case, you would think people would realize those advantages would ensure viable party play by themselves without needing artificial advantages to prop them up...

I believe group play has several strong points ... it's the vocal proponents for grouping that seem to question its sustainability without some sort of developer assigned advantage. And that makes me question if they really believe anything they are saying to begin with.

#77 Jul 25 2009 at 5:26 AM Rating: Decent
**
456 posts
Quote:
Your assumption then is that if players aren't punished for soloing then no one will ever group? Not only do I disagree with your assumption, but even if I were to agree I fail to see the logic in attempting to coerce people to play a game in a style you apparently believe no one prefers.


Firstly, it is not about punishing any type of player. Secondly, You fail to realize the underlying benefits of soloing and these outweigh everything about grouping if you could solo at the same pace. It is not about preferring, it is about people will take the quickest and most convenient way to level and if you could solo at the same pace then it would be soloing. When soloing you can go at your own pace, don't have to play up to anybody standards, can start and stop anytime you want to, and can jump right in to leveling at anytime. Now look at grouping, you have to get a group together, you have expectations to live up to, you have to start and stop when other people steps out, and you have to use teamwork to make a successful group. If you could solo at the same pace, this is why soloing is preferred over grouping, and it has happened already in other games. You shouldn't have to play at a perfect time in order to find a group because everyone is soloing because in time it becomes much quicker then taking the time to get a group together.

Some people want to group before reaching endgame material. Some people don't even like endgame material, and when they reach it they either quit or level another job. If the leveling process is overly solo-oriented then it is impossible to group to max unless you have a static group that plays everytime you do. Even with a static group you miss the interation with the community because you are leveling with the same exact people everytime. You should not be forced to solo at times because you didn't log on at peak hours and the game is overly solo-oriented in the leveling process.

Quote:
If both aspects are viable, there should be no issue


This is not a perfect world and you forget that human players run this game. Soloing will always be more convenient then grouping, so unless grouping has at least a small edge then it will be a huge imbalance. It has already been proving and done in many games, when it comes to the leveling process.
#78 Jul 25 2009 at 6:57 AM Rating: Excellent
**
736 posts
If you like playing a Healer or support role, you're more likely to gravitate to Group play just because your job doesn't function during Solo play. That's not to say you can't make a healer-type that can competently solo, but your not actually healing or supporting other people if your all by yourself.







Edited, Jul 25th 2009 11:06am by Zemzelette
#79 Jul 27 2009 at 12:07 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
764 posts
HocusP, very nice post.

Personally I feel there are already too many mmo's out there with loads of "solo content". I believe it would be better for SE to aim a bit more towards us "groupers" who have been thoroughly neglected by mmo's for years now as it would be pulling at a different crowd of people and thus would have less competition to the current mmo's.

With that said, some amount of solo-ability is important, but I seriously hope there is more grouping than soloing.
____________________________


#80 Jul 27 2009 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
180 posts
What I'm hoping for is more solo oriented gameplay in the story aspect of the game. I love having the statistical character advancement tied to cooperative play, but it's frustrating when I can't complete any of the storyline quests because I can't find five people who want to help, or everyone else has already moved on, or I don't have a niche job leveled. At least in FFXI it's far easier to advance your character in levels with a pick up group than it is to complete the missions with one.

When I log on in FFXIV, I'd like to have the choice of either enjoying some of the story driven missions on my own, or looking for a group of people to 'level' up my character with. There have to be some areas of the game where grouping is the most efficient option however, or everyone will ultimately be forced to solo.
#81 Jul 28 2009 at 11:27 AM Rating: Good
10 posts
I am sure thay won;t do away with groups and such, it's a staple of the mmo experience. What I think they are attempting to do is to alieve the stigma that XI made by almost demanding that you get into a group i order to level at all. It didn't work trying to level solo, and group xp was simply awesome. But when you spend about 3 hours waiting for a PUG, there is something wrong. Especially if the PUG is horrible, and you de-level because of it, lolz^^ Anyways, that's my $0.02.
#82 Jul 29 2009 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
*
169 posts
Maeve wrote:
What I think they are attempting to do is to alieve the stigma that XI made by almost demanding that you get into a group i order to level at all.


At least for the mid-levels (I can't speak for much beyond 40), FFXI has come a long way since I left in early '07, and I think a lot of the people who are most concerned with the viability of solo play aren't aware of that (or at least haven't experienced it firsthand, and are disinclined to trust the word of those who have). Between the changes to Signet, the changes to low-con mob XP, and the addition of FoV training and buffs, a dedicated solo/small group player can keep pace with a moderate XP party.

In the past five months, I've solo/small grouped five jobs to 37 (one to 42), and it's significantly easier than it was two years ago (when I was attempting to do the same thing). I am currently very happy with the balance between solo/small group and traditional party XP. If Squeenix strikes a similar balance in FFXIV, I think most of us will be content with it.
#83 Jul 30 2009 at 6:48 AM Rating: Good
*
140 posts
FFXI, as it is now, has a very good formula for solo and party content. Even though in the beginning it was heavily party based, lets not forget its a "FF" which has always been about "the party" and the friends you make along the way. SE are just staying with their theme of this series, which makes it very unique among the other mmo's out there. Ive play a lot of them, myself, and FFXI has always pulled me back just because of the feel it gives.

I am a fan of the series since I was 12(currently 31), and it would disappoint me, if SE goes and becomes like every other mmo just to make a pretty dollar. Because I know that wouldn't be the case, if they stick to the formula that gives FFXI its flavor. The fans(ffxi) are too hardcore, and SE would still make their pretty dollar with us anyways. SE should do what they do best, give us that FF story feel, build off of what ffxi is now.

Make it the challenge it still is now and give the solo/casual players their cookie to make them come back for more. But the hardcore(ffxi fans)should still get the bigger slice of the cake. For FFXIV, It won't disappoint, SE rarely fails at making games and content that making gamers smile with excitement. Next year should be a hot one. SE is gonna show how an mmo should be done. And we are going to see things that haven't truly been done yet.
____________________________
Shaman/Asura (Retired)
75-SAM 40-WAR
37-DRG 31-BLU
30-PLD 18-NIN
37-DNC 15-THF
37-RNG 20-BST
10-WHT



#84 Aug 16 2009 at 9:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
20 posts
The main advantage that WoW has over FFXI in my opinion is actually the rewards you get for the content they have. There's a reason why they call it "grinding", most people find it really freaking boring. Unfortunately, that's pretty much the only way you gain levels in FFXI. You can gain levels while doing quests, but in these cases it's the process that gets you the levels (the monsters you kill on the way) rather than the quest itself. Basically, it's distracting you from the fact that all you're doing is grinding for levels. Incidentally, this is why so many quests in WoW are grind quests, because it's faster, and it means less time playing FedEx all over the world. Personally, I like the fact that quests give xp, although it's been expressed on this board by some that they think it's a bad idea. Not everything has to be "Kill 10 Worms for me. Get 1000 XP" For instance killing a number of monsters waiting for a rare item drop then coming back and returning the item in order to receive a cutscene about the importance of the item, some storyline, etc. gives the entire quest more meaning. Awarding XP for the whole process allows for reinforcement of the message that should be there: giving direction to actions and taking part in more of the game's content makes your actions greater than the sum of their parts. In short, someone killing mobs for a purpose by partaking of game content should be rewarded more than someone who flails wildly in all directions killing everything that moves.

Therein lies the problem. WoW has better questing for this mechanically, but most people don't care about the storyline or content and just use it to level faster. FFXI has no XP rewards, which makes grind quests slow for levelling and FedEx quests a slap in the face. The #1 reason why WoW is successful, and solo play is related to this, is that you can level and advance in the game by simply playing it. In FFXI, advancement and partaking of game content are two entirely separate entities. This is compounded by the lower viability of solo play, which highly encourages grouping. If you want to partake of game content, you have to prepare, then grind your face off in countless battles, then get to the part of the game you actually wanted to see.

I think that FFXI has great storyline and countless little fun subplots with NPCs that have character and are memorable. However, all of my friends who left FFXI because they found it too hardcore never got to see any of that because they didn't like the levelling system. Message for SE: I am fighting the urge to slit my wrists while trudging through Xenosaga Episode II, but I continue playing because I want to know what happens next, and Xenosaga has an excellent plot. If you can periodically throw people a bone in the form of good storyline or something, they can forgive a few bad game mechanics because they are interested in the rest of the package. If you force someone to partake solely of one aspect of the game, then if they think that aspect sucks, they will leave. Simple as that.
#85 Aug 16 2009 at 9:45 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,801 posts
Rynguy: This is perhaps one of the best posts I've seen on these forums in quite some time.

Quote:
First and foremost, class balance. With the number of classes in FFXI and the varying roles (arguably more DPS than Tanks/Healers), this created a problem. In order for a group to start, you needed the right number of players and the right roles (1 tank, 1 Healer, 4 DPS). With so many DPS classes (compounded by needing 4 per group, I'm sure), you ended up with two problems out of this. With less healer & tanking classes than DPS classes, player preference on tanks & healers weren't established while player preferences for DPS were...and heavily. This leads to classes with less-than-desireable DPS output or abilities left out in the rain due to preference to other DPS. This was a primary reason BST was so popular...and later, the challenging DRG solo setups. So when creating groups, if you didn't have your (few and far between) healer & tank, but a plethora of DPS...you wait, and wait, and wait in LFG. Likewise, if you're a DPS that isn't desired (ie. DRG, for a while it was DRK, etc), you're going to wait, and wait, and wait in LFG.

To fix this, SE needs to create a better balance of classes/jobs (the way most other MMO's that have followed do) to allow even for player-preference in any specific role (Tank, DPS, Heal) to allow for non-player-preference for more than 1-2 classes. Ideally, this would mean (out of the gate) 3-4 Tanking jobs, 5-6 DPS jobs, 3-4 Healing jobs...instead of say 2 Tanking jobs, 6-8 DPS jobs, 2-3 Healing jobs. Likewise, the classes have to be well balanced within their roles on a comparative basis while still maintaining signature & unique abilities that make them fun & exciting to play. This is the primary plague of any MMO, regardless of a PvE or PvP orientation. Class balance makes or breaks a game on so many levels.


Generally, I agree with this. There are a couple of easy fixes. The first is to make parties smaller. Wait, what? That doesn't fix anything! That just makes it harder for the DPS to find a party. Generally untrue. Yes, a smaller percentage of DPS would be in any particular group, however, you'd end up having more groups. How many times have you been able to find 5 people for a party but not a 6th? Often enough, I'm sure.

Now this alone won't do it. The next thing to do would be to include more healing and tank classes. They would need to play differently enough to be distinct from each other, but still balanced. This would entice people who don't like how Healer Job 1 works, but might like Healer Job 2.

Lastly, the game shouldn't be find X job and go here. It should be find X,Y or Z job and go to here if you have X job, there if you have Y job and over there is you have Z job. One of the biggest failings of FFXI (which to SE's credit has been significantly fixed) was that from level 13 to level 70 you fought crabs or beetles. I never want to see another crab again. Ever. EVER! If you have a certain job that excels at killing something, you'd go to a zone with that something in it. I don't see any reason to be boxed into Dunes -> Qufim -> Jungles -> Garlage (sp) -> CN... etc. I want to go somewhere new if a job can do better there than somewhere I've already been. (And admittedly, this is just as much the players' fault as it was SE's.)

Quote:
Second, time-to-level (TTL) and experience loss (EL). For "average" FFXI players, it took some time to get to the level cap (75) compared to other MMO's. This was restricted and compounded on other factors (ie. see my first point). Any problematic issues stemming from class balance runs over. Non-preferred DPS classes take longer to level. Period. Same with Tank & Healing roles that aren't preferred. Furthermore, a more gradual and natural feel to level progression (ie. 1-75) was worked on at different points in FFXI through adjustments, but needs to be there from the start in FFXIV. This issue is further compounded with "EL" through consistent playing of the same job. You would be forced to enter back into group play to maintain your level cap after so many deaths. This isn't necessarily a bad thing except on a mental level. Mechanic-wise...it's fine. But when you "feel" like you never really achieve and maintain the level cap, it weighs again end-game risk taking (mentally) and the desire to group after losing a level. The newer systems (ie. Merit Points, etc) were a GREAT step in making end-game grouping relevant for means other than maintaining your level cap. This needs to be there out of the gate, also or "EL" needs to be absent in FFXIV. All or nothing here...because the medium just sucks.


EL should be absent or significantly reduced. Other games with EL loss made it into a experience debt. You died, you lost exp. You could choose to keep going (making up the lost exp) OR you could call it a day and log out. If you did, the experience you lost would gradually come back.

And the idea of hitting the "level cap" and then having to grind more exp just in case you died? That's silly. End game activity shouldn't be about grinding yet more exp. I'm level capped, my exp days should be over! (And I'm willing to make an exception for Merit Points. Those are essentially more levels, so grinding those out means you're not truly level capped.)

Quote:
Third, is camped area's for leveling parties. This got extreme at some points in FFXI, whereas if FFXI had open world PvP...certain area's would have turned into battlefield's of dead groups from fighting over pulls (Bibiki Bay comes to mind...). The world has to have an expansive zone set that allows for predetermined leveling groups as well as sliding-scale mob spawn regeneration based on kill rate (ie. the rate at which they're removed from the game world). This is something Blizzard implimented in WoW during TBC (expansion) to help fix issues with heavily camped area's where people were leveling or killing specific mobs for quest(s) (ie. item drops, etc). This is something every MMO developer should consider coding into their games to help with adjusting player population & area popularity without patching the game every month based on new population and area data.


Yes. Just yes.

I'm going to grant some leeway for SE on this though. Being their first MMORPG and not knowing how successful it would be lead to some rather serious issues. Above all else this was one of them.

Ideally, they'll add faster respawns. Even better though, would be to not have to camp things at all. From what I understand about Leves, this is exactly what's going to happen. SE has figured out that camping mobs just isn't as fun as hunting down mobs to get a quest done. WoW's system isn't perfect, but it was simply more FUN to play. It didn't feel like a grind. From about level 50 on in FFXI, started to have this sinking feeling whenever you went LFG. "I have to kill HOW many mobs to level?" By level 70 it was enough to scare a LOT of players away. If SE can make the grind "not feel like a grind," then they'll have many MANY more people playing this game.

Quote:
IMHO, FFXI had the most comprehensive and interesting combat/grouping scheme I've seen in a game. The idea of requiring groups to overcome mob NPC's is fantastic, and is great for building community & reputation (as well as controlling it from a player-level). Add to this the skillchain system (which also needs to remain, IMO) and other combat specific mechanics (ie. Rogue threat-transfer, etc) and combat in FFXIV has the possibility to be extremely rewarding and fun.


Agree. As far as grinding games go, FFXI was THE game to play. SOOO many different ways to do things. I too hope they keep skillchains, though they have to make them meaningful this time around. Do the math, make sure SCs are better than TP spam.

Quote:
But, as mentioned already, there should be the accessibility of Solo/Casual play...just with lower Exp rates and lessening risk compounding with a longer time difference to gain levels (as seen with low to mid lvl BST in FFXI).


Yeah, they need to find a nice middle ground between FFXI and WoW. In FFXI you needed a party for just about everything (though this has gotten better). In WoW you could actually get more exp by soloing quests than by doing groups. Guess what people did to get exp in WoW? They soloed to level cap then had no CLUE how to play their class in a party. ><

Quote:
Another thing FFXI did very, very well is their level cap. Unlike WoW and other MMO's that have increased the level caps with multiple expansions...FFXI did not after they adjusted to the level 75 cap and maintained progression through gear & content rather than level. Ironically...grouping never went away...and in fact increased at end-game levels once additional point system(s) (ie. Merit points) where added. SE found the way to keep grouping purposeful and fun, while not being forced to increase the level cap and simply use a sliding scale for adjusting each end-game content addition from the previous point without readjusting for 5-10-15-etc new levels of stats & abilities. Quite smart of them, IMO.


I actually completely disagree with this. We've had a level 75 cap for years now. All the end game gear (or 95% of it anyway) that's been added since hasn't been better than anything that existed way back then. Maybe its just me, but when I get the Epic Sword of Twirly Doom on a Stick I want it to be better than whatever my last weapon was. In order to have that, you NEED to raise the level caps. Even just raising it 5 levels per expansion would be enough. And if need be, you could always cap the new Sky at level 60, then add Sea for level 65. Is getting better loot REALLY too much to ask? :)

From elsewhere on the thread...

Quote:
I believe group play has several strong points ... it's the vocal proponents for grouping that seem to question its sustainability without some sort of developer assigned advantage. And that makes me question if they really believe anything they are saying to begin with.


If everything was equal, then this problem arises. It takes TIME to find and co-ordinate a group. If that time could be spent gaining exp from solo play, then there has to be some advantage to group play in order for it to be sustainable.

For example: If I can get 5k exp while playing solo or in a group over an hour, everything is great. But, it may take 20 minutes to find a group, get it set up, talk about how to best get exp, etc. That means, that I've only spent 40 minutes actually getting exp from the party. This in turn means that for the hour I've played, I've only gotten 3333 exp while in a group. Compare this to the 5k exp I'd have gotten soloing and anyone can see it is better to solo than to party.

Given all that and that people naturally want the best exp/hr than can get, do you REALLY think partying would still be viable? I certainly do not.

Edited, Aug 17th 2009 2:05am by Caia
____________________________
WoW -- Zaia -- Dragonmaw -- Mage 80 BABY! Alchemy 450
Also... Hunter 62, Rogue 52, Warrior 66, Warlock 43, Death Knight 70, Shaman Who Cares? ;)

FFXI -- Caia -- Retired/Deleted -- Blm 75, Alchemy 97
Pandimonium server - Rank 10 - Bastok

Zaela Rdm -- 35, Alchemy 45 -- Forced into retirement because I didn't have the right kind of credit card. Hope it was worth 18 bucks a month, SE.

#86 Aug 17 2009 at 9:58 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Don't have time to respond to everything right now, but I will say this about group vs. solo rewards. If good inter-character balance is achieved, it takes really no time to assemble a group. Early in the game, for example, you're not going to have to worry much about finding a -good- "X job" because everyone will be pretty equal. If grouping becomes mostly small-group stuff, like 4-man groups, then it also becomes easier to limit the importance of roles.

i.e., it's possible to create a game where grouping is little more than 4 people soloing together. And I've said this before, because the inevitable question is, "Where's the strategy in that?" and the answer is, "In the gameplay." Meaning, the strategy is not as critical in assembling the group, so much as what the group does in battle.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#87 Aug 17 2009 at 8:20 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
977 posts
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:
HocusP wrote:
Fun and boring varys from person to person. Anything solo is boring to me, thats why when I buy a new game I hop straight online. Other people might like to play solo and that is perfectly fine. I just hope they don't make it so solo friendly that it kills the group aspects of the game. Its a simple fact that in order to have a healthy group system, the solo aspect has to be lesser then the group aspect. If a person can do somehting solo at the same pace or close to the pace as a group then they wouldn't bother grouping up.


We've been through this before. If you like to group, find other people like you. If you can't find people like you, it means you're in the minority, and a game can't be catered to suit the minority.


If you don't like grouping, go play an offline game, why bother playing online if your intention isn't to group?
____________________________
A drink. A drink. A drink.
#88 Aug 17 2009 at 11:28 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Well, just to point out the obvious... to talk to and interact with other players. Competition, pvp... sometimes people just want to group occasionally.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#89 Aug 18 2009 at 5:26 AM Rating: Default
10 posts
We used to do this for earlier stages of FFXI LS conversations when the convos got too heated and needed a little something something.. I'm not sure if you guys are familiar with it.. :p

Pie or Cake? and why!?! :)

Edited, Aug 18th 2009 9:28am by BeaumontSD
____________________________
aka Silentx
#90 Aug 18 2009 at 5:50 AM Rating: Default
10 posts
Just going to put my two cents in:

Few really unique things I really liked about this game above everything else I have ever played with was leveling with a group, doing missions and of course fishing/crafting parties.

Just a little history on myself, I have played end-game competitively in both FFXI and WoW (been healing for 7 years now in case anyone needs a healer for a static when FFXIV comes out :p) - I have also been a huge crafter in both games.

One thing I realized about group contend is that stuff is more fun when done with people. To me, getting together to leveling was just as much fun as me getting a group of people together to go fishing, or to go farming, or even just getting some materials together and sitting in same area and crafting together. I enjoyed it, and probably so did the group of people I have played it because we did it for years together, but of the two games, I remember my experiances in FFXI much better then those from WoW.

When I did the same thing with WoW, it just wasn't the same, now it could be because FFXI was my first real MMORPG game (I never play RPG games, online is where I thrive) but I think it's because FFXI was able to create an atmosphere where people could enjoy all of this. In real life, I'm a hospitality staff, so to me, before everything else, a vibe that's created is important. Because money means nothing to me if I don't enjoy what I do and who I do it with.

Back to the thought sorry.. I trust SE will be able to create an atmosphere, the same type of vibe that FFXI created for many of us, and will take it a little further to cater to those that always wanted to play FFXI but did not have the time to do so, I will put my money where my money is on that, because I actually trust that SE will deliver us a great game. (I hope :p)

Now, it was in another topic that was recently discussed that someone mentioned, I think it was Hocus, but I'm not 100% sure but they said:

"Only those that have a problem with the game will come onto the forums and complain, you will never see someone come to the forums to say how much they love the game. The only reason why I come onto the forums is to check recipes and read up discussions about trade skills."

Or something along those lines. I agree with this, which is why we always had the black list in most of the server forums before admins really took care of them. People just like discussing what they don't like, because those that like the game, will rather be in-game playing rather then ******** (like myself). Now why did this come up for me, because someone mentioned, those that are supporting you are (or think supporting you) are the ones that came online to complain, you can't take their word as majority or w/e

What I mean to say is sometimes silence says and means more then any voice. I think that, most of the posts that we been having recently are turning to differences of opinions and constant quote wars. I really like the positive threads more, even if they are not AS FUN as reading the flame wars.

:) I really do miss playing though, I'm in the process getting a full time job now so I should be able to have more time to play MMORPGs very soon. If there is a part you don't understand by the way, let me know guys, I don't mind trying to expand on it a little more. I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible but you know how it is, no matter how good you write (or think you can) some people just can't get your thoughts, mostly because I do it all the time but, sometimes I think of several different ideas embedded in the sentences I make and think everyone gets it. :)

Edited, Aug 18th 2009 9:55am by BeaumontSD
____________________________
aka Silentx
#91 Aug 18 2009 at 6:39 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
One thing I've always felt about grouping in SE, and tell me if this is just me, but I always felt limited and held back by grouping, rather than empowered by grouping. I'm hoping that's different this time around.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#92 Aug 18 2009 at 7:44 AM Rating: Default
**
821 posts
Why arguing about people opinions?

Some like to play solo? Fine.
Some like to play in groups? Fine.
Some don't like to play at all? Fine.

Leave everyone be...it's not that hard xD

Other than that, I can only say...IF FFXIV will be having such a group-heavy gameplay like FFXI...well I don't mind it, as I liked it to a certain degree in FFXI(except the whole LFG time)
But everyone who doesn't like that, IF it will be that way...don't start ******** around in the Forums...just stop playing FFXIV and find an MMO that better suits your preferences.

Just because "you"(you in general, not someone special) want to play a FF MMO, doesn't mean SE has to built the FF MMO the way "you" want it to be.

If you want to play an MMO because of certain ways you want to play, then find yourself THE MMO that suits you the best. FFXIV Devs are not there to satisfy special individual needs, they are creating a game that they want to be played by all who like it! Just because someone likes the FF franchise, that doesn't force SE to create every FF the way you would like it to be.

I guess you could compare it to Fast Food franchises. If you don't like McDonalds, go eat at Burger King, if you don't like that, go eat at Subways, if you don't like that as well, go eat at Pizza Hut. If there is nothing that fits your taste, well then search for something that works, just don't tell McDonalds, Burger King, Subway or Pizza Hut to create something you would like just because you want to eat there and nowhere else.
The world doesn't evolve around "you"^^

One Sentence summary:. If a game isn't the way you like it, stop playing it, instead of telling others it is wrong that way and it needs to be changed!
#93 Aug 18 2009 at 9:19 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
It's a forum for discussion about the game. Don't try to play the peacemaker. Take your own advice.

If people want to argue, let them argue.

But then I guess if you want to play the peacemaker, I should let you, right? But what if I want to tell you not to? Hmm, quite the quandary we find ourselves in.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#94 Aug 18 2009 at 9:31 AM Rating: Default
**
821 posts
Yeah its for discussion, not for "You are telling BS, you have to change your mind"

I am taking my own advice btw...I am simply defending myself against Endless who constantly says I am telling BS...I am discussing...

And for this discussion, I am not playing Peacemaker, I am only stating that people need to get over the fact, that games are not made how they want them to be, they are made how they are made and AFTER that you can decide if you like it or not and if you don't then stop playing it, instead of ******** around that the game needs to be changed to satisfy your needs(based on personal preferances, not general things that are wrong).

If FFXIV for example, will have the same way of "earning" money as FFXI...this will be crap...that's something that should be changed because it is not good that way in general...but if it's group based, well then don't play it if you prefer a solo based game. If it's impossible to solo reasonable as in FFXI, that's ok to *****, but if you can solo reasonable but group play is better, well then don't ***** that SE needs to change solo play to be as rewarding as group play. Because if it would be...where is the point in playing in groups and especially an MMO?
Wekk ok I for myself would play in groups no matter if solo would be the same...but only because I like playing in groups and everything that comes with it...but not many think the same way...most only think towards "How can I get to that and that point ASAP"

All in all SE needs to find the golden middle...as this is almoost impossible, I guess we can expect a lot of ******** once it comes out^^
#95 Aug 18 2009 at 2:59 PM Rating: Default
*
177 posts
What about things like campaign/besieged? In those events, some people work solo, and some people work as a group. It's lots of people all playing together, but in their own ways.
____________________________
People don't accept the truth if it's typed in a tone unsympathetic to them. It doesn't make something any less true if someone you don't like is the one to enlighten you.
#96 Aug 20 2009 at 8:05 AM Rating: Default
45 posts
I think the way to solve the situation is...

Forget balancing.

Solo should be awesome! No, party should be awesomER!

Why can't we ALL be awesome?

If we want MMOs to be a game representation of the concept of a world, then we have to remember: it takes all kinds.

Here's a thought. Make solo play viable. Not easy, not uber, just viable. You should be able to walk into a zone of comparable level and start killing things without fear that the "Too Weak Crab" is going to eat your soul.

Now, if we want this to reflect real life, and there are sufficient other players playing, you'll probably run into somebody while you're beating down the ugly buggers.

"Oh, hi!" you say. "What are you doing?"

"Levelling," they say. "You."

"The same. Let's group!"

And just like that, you're in a party. Yes, a party of two. You don't need a full party, because you were killing the pincer-faces just fine on your own. But now with two of you, you're killing a little faster and easier (only one of you is taking damage, and the speed of the kill means less damage taken, more damage dealt, but less long-term buff/debuff impact.

Just like it should. Two people doing something together doesn't equal twice as fast, it usually means 40-60% faster. Just a natural cause-effect of overlapping effort.

So, maybe on top of that, you get a party buff that says "XP / skill gain increased by 10%". Not only are you moving a little faster, but you're gaining more for being with a person. It's not huge - people who find themselves on a server of 2,000 level-capped and 15 levellers will do just fine. But if you happen to find someone else playing, it's obvious that grouping is the way to go. With a full group, the buff could stack up to perhaps 30/40% increase.

Or, if you have a static group of friends you play with, you can go to more challenging areas and make every fight a battle to the death, and get even better rewards.

Yes, players going to a challenging area are going to earn more in the same amount of time. (Note: This won't be a strict mathematical comparison, because 6 players in same-level-zone will kill more creatures in X time than the same group in higher-level-zone will kill even one, resulting in higher gain than a 1:1 comparison will show.)

But they should. The fights are tougher - more risk, therefore more reward.

The point is, you're setting the baseline at the solo, and everything group is a bonus, rather than the other way around. Solo levellers will feel okay with their progress, partying feels like a reward, and everybody* can be happy with life.

I do want to stress though - with the non-level game that FFXIV is supposed to be, I really hope that quests are not "levelling" tools.

Why?

Because it means that quests have to relate to a specific level, or else you could save your "kill 10 rats quests" until the end and just plow through the last few levels using nothing but your little pinky.

And I really want to see the story-telling aspect that's so powerful in FFXI continue into this world, which means story-quests have to be level-independent, neither better nor worse at any stage of your progression.

If I want to spend my time learning the story, I want to feel like I've gotten something special out of it, and if I feel compelled to focus on stat-development, doing those quests along the way will be shooting myself in the foot.

I really feel that quests should reward the player in relation to what they are. If the quest is "kill 10 rats", then perhaps you get a 5% bonus to your experience gained while doing it, and a small payout of cash at the end.

However, if the quest is "I need a sword crafted", then it should be your crafting that gets the bonus, not a random XP handout to whatever you are at the moment. And maybe a boost to your hidden stat, "Personal Relations".

On a side note, I certainly also hope that they offer more "work needed" opportunities, so earning money can be accomplished by working for some NPC instead of simply hunting rare items to sell or crafting rare items to sell. (Note the pattern.)

Anyway, to tie this all back together...

My point is, the game should avoid arbitrary balance mechanics and try to reflect what we innately know about life: That performing specific tasks makes us better at the skills we use; that we can do things alone or with other people; and that doing things with other people is almost always better, but rarely essential.

Essentially: The results should be intuitive.

* Happiness not guaranteed. Individual preference may still dictate a dissatisfaction with life and a need to moan about SOMETHING. All rights allowed.
____________________________
d'Jang'ai'alarion
#97 Aug 26 2009 at 8:59 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
*
180 posts
If, when I first started playing MMO's about ten years ago, someone told me that I would be considered selfish in the future for wanting to have the opportunity to play with other people in an MMO, I would have had a good laugh. Now ever since WoW we see one solo "friendly" solo-centric game after another where the ability to group is extremely limited by the fact that soloing is just too **** easy and convenient. Cooperative play for anything other than end-game raiding has been ruined.

If I log into FFXIV and it's another cookie cutter "Go to area A, collect 10 solo quests - level up, go to area B, collect the same 10 quests - rinse repeat" game design that every MMO I've tried has used in the last few years, I'm going to get bored and quit before my free month is even up. I always end up having to skip what little group content there is in those games because people are too busy doing their own thing to even respond to a tell most of the time. Does that mean soloing is more fun? **** no... it just means it's accepted by the community as the path of least resistance and everyone knows that putting together a group in a game like that is near impossible so they don't even bother.

I don't play MMO's for end game content either, so moving all group based play to the end doesn't work for me. By definition, "End game" is content that happens after the game is over. It should be an extension or an afterthought, not the main focus. I play for the journey from beginning to end... you know, the "game" part that actually used to matter. I don't see the point of paying a subscription fee for an online game that forces me to play through that part by myself. WoW's millions of subs has turned every MMO developer in that direction. Imagine if all movie directors started copying Michael Bay every time he had a number one hit at the box office. That's what we're seeing in the gaming industry.


Edited, Aug 26th 2009 1:01pm by Calispel
#98 Aug 26 2009 at 9:48 AM Rating: Good
**
565 posts
Zemzelette wrote:
I like an irrelevant semantics tangent and much as the next girl, but can we get back to the part of the debate that explored motivating players to participate in group-play while also offering competent solo content?

It seems to me I read that the way the guildleve system is being developed, the number and type that a single player can acquire in a given time is capped, but that grouping with other people with guildleves of their own allows you to participate in a greater quantity and variety without having to flag them yourself. And I think I also read something implying they are all pretty much repeatable.

na.finalfantasyxiv.com wrote:
...there are no regulations stating that tasks must be completed alone. Adventurers are free to call on their companions to join them, as only one leve is required to take advantage of the benefits and privileges provided to its bearer. By coordinating the leves of multiple party members, adventurers can even plan grand campaigns built around several different quests.

Whether you have an hour or a whole day, are alone or with friends, seeking battle or bounty, guildleves give you the ability to forge your own adventures.

The impression I get is that if Player A has 3 guildleves, and Player B has 3 guildleves, then between the two of them, they potentially have 6 scenarios to participate in. Add Player C with 3 of his own, and you've got a total of 9, and so on.

If this is the case, if anything, I'd expect to see a lot of horse-trading going on with players bargaining with each other over teaming up to perform quests in which multiple people are interested, but which only a handful may have flagged.

EDIT: Man, this thread so makes me need to rethink 100 posts to a page.

Edited, Aug 26th 2009 10:49am by Greenray
____________________________
~ Retired...? Maybe not... ~
1 2 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 16 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (16)