Is requiring grouping a good idea in a character development game?
Author
Simple question: is requiring groups for player progression at some point in a character development game (RPG for instance) a good idea?
IMO, you shouldn't ever HAVE to get someone else to do anything in a game, it should only better the experience if you choose to. After playing games like World of Warcraft and seeing the raiding scene, it makes me wonder: can the good parts of a game where you have to group exist without the NECCESITY to group to continue worthwhile character progression?
I remember Diablo II being a very fun game solo or grouped. Is there something wrong with this idea?
Secondary related question: Do MMO's have to force you to group to be "MMO's"?
Could you have a fun, challenging, epic feeling game that you could progress in either solo or grouped - without giving bias to one playstyle or another?
Perhaps a system where everything is design around a single player experience, but you can bring a certain number of friends if you want, and let it self-balance? E.g. nothing changes if you have 10 people in your group to kill one guy who drops one item - just that you have to split the loot 10 ways, no other caveats involved? Or would it be better to accomodate the grouping player with harder encounters and better rewards, a la Diablo II?
I don't play MMO games such as World of Warcraft, so I'm not sure how grouping is dealt with in those games. From what I've read, I take it there's a point where you have to be in a large group in order to progress?
In my opinion, it would be better if it were possible to continue to progress in a MMORPG game on your own, even if it were extremely hard to do so. In a role-playing game, the role of a loner types such as the mysterious stranger who works alone or solo thieves can be fun to play. However if a MMORPG game has some sort of skill system for certain roles, such as leadership ability or political skill, then it would make sense for advancement in these roles to involve other people.
I'm fairly sure you could design a good game that could be played well solo or grouped - the Bioware RPGs (Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate etc.) seemed pretty good to me as either a solo character or as a small party. There could be a greater emphasis on stealth or hit-and-run tactics for a single character than for a group, maybe.
In my opinion, it would be better if it were possible to continue to progress in a MMORPG game on your own, even if it were extremely hard to do so. In a role-playing game, the role of a loner types such as the mysterious stranger who works alone or solo thieves can be fun to play. However if a MMORPG game has some sort of skill system for certain roles, such as leadership ability or political skill, then it would make sense for advancement in these roles to involve other people.
I'm fairly sure you could design a good game that could be played well solo or grouped - the Bioware RPGs (Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate etc.) seemed pretty good to me as either a solo character or as a small party. There could be a greater emphasis on stealth or hit-and-run tactics for a single character than for a group, maybe.
Quote:
Could you have a fun, challenging, epic feeling game that you could progress in either solo or grouped - without giving bias to one playstyle or another?
[imo] No.
There will always be a bias one way or the other. If you get the same progress with both, solo is now better since it's far less hassle to actually get going. Finding that point where it does balance out is impossible, since it will vary from player to player.
Personally, I feel that solo MMORPGs are a waste of time. If I'm going to play the game alone, don't make me deal with all of the downsides that come with playing with people for no benefit. Further, forcing me to deal with idiots every so often to progress (that means you Guild Wars) is infuriating. If you're going to do grouping, do it. Reward teams without regard for soloists; even if it's only for certain gameplay features. Puzzle Pirates is a good example of this. You could run a shop, or be a big tournament player solo, but (except for one exceptional case) couldn't easily run a ship or take an island without a lot of 'mates. Trying to please everyone all of the time doesn't work.
I think both can be done conjunctly if done properly. Since you can't have access to the same content when soloing or grouping means you shouldn't have access to the same ACTIVITIES, instead of the same level of content. It's a well known fact that sometimes, a small group of determined men can succeed where an entire army couldn't have gone, be it only through mobility.
I agree with he who said that soloers should be given the possibility to go solo and achieve infiltration missions, or sabotage, or assassination, or anything.... But raiding a dungeon shouldn't be done solo, or even be feasible. No amount of ubergear should give you the possibility to handle by yourself a throng of orcish guards, troglodytes and a boss dragon. This should only be done through sizeable parties. But assassination missions shouldn't be feasible with a party larger than one. Soloing at its best.
Of course this can only be done in a universe that accepts this kind of behaviour. I feel very uneasy thinking of infiltration or assassination in EVE Online, where you can't see your characters... Unless there was an addition I haven't heard of, you can't really have a crew in any given ship, and therefore infiltration, assassination, and betraying are extremely limited...
I agree with he who said that soloers should be given the possibility to go solo and achieve infiltration missions, or sabotage, or assassination, or anything.... But raiding a dungeon shouldn't be done solo, or even be feasible. No amount of ubergear should give you the possibility to handle by yourself a throng of orcish guards, troglodytes and a boss dragon. This should only be done through sizeable parties. But assassination missions shouldn't be feasible with a party larger than one. Soloing at its best.
Of course this can only be done in a universe that accepts this kind of behaviour. I feel very uneasy thinking of infiltration or assassination in EVE Online, where you can't see your characters... Unless there was an addition I haven't heard of, you can't really have a crew in any given ship, and therefore infiltration, assassination, and betraying are extremely limited...
Grouping should only be required where it makes sense. Should it take 10 - 20 guys to kill Godzilla? Yeah! Should it take the same 10 - 20 guys to kill a pissed off badger? No!
Author
Quote:Original post by ToppDog
Grouping should only be required where it makes sense. Should it take 10 - 20 guys to kill Godzilla? Yeah! Should it take the same 10 - 20 guys to kill a pissed off badger? No!
Hmmm...that does present a problem. I don't think you could logically design an encounter that would be a challenge for 1 OR 10...
Wait, I just owned myself. In Diablo II, you could go solo or grouped with eight - the more people in your game the greater the rewards and difficulty scaled. However, this was only quantatative - you didn't get BETTER things with more people, just MORE things, monsters became more powerful etc.
The problem with games like World of Warcraft is that it's harder to organize the mundane aspects of grouping than it is to actually COMPLETE the challenges. This wouldn't be a problem if the entire endgame wasn't raiding. You can't get the top level of gear without a prohibitively high number of people to go with you. IMO, that's retarded. I should be able to jump on and progress as I want for the ENTIRETY of a game, not just a part of it. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so hard to find 40 of the required class for an instance, but I digress...
You can have your cake and eat it too, it just seems that many developers either prefer to have prohibitive endgame requirements or don't know any better.
Author
Quote:Original post by TelastynQuote:
Could you have a fun, challenging, epic feeling game that you could progress in either solo or grouped - without giving bias to one playstyle or another?
[imo] No.
There will always be a bias one way or the other. If you get the same progress with both, solo is now better since it's far less hassle to actually get going. Finding that point where it does balance out is impossible, since it will vary from player to player.
Personally, I feel that solo MMORPGs are a waste of time. If I'm going to play the game alone, don't make me deal with all of the downsides that come with playing with people for no benefit. Further, forcing me to deal with idiots every so often to progress (that means you Guild Wars) is infuriating. If you're going to do grouping, do it. Reward teams without regard for soloists; even if it's only for certain gameplay features. Puzzle Pirates is a good example of this. You could run a shop, or be a big tournament player solo, but (except for one exceptional case) couldn't easily run a ship or take an island without a lot of 'mates. Trying to please everyone all of the time doesn't work.
What if the solo game was way harder and had a lower solo success rate than the raid/group game, hassles of organizing raids and all?
I'm not familiar with world of warcraft.
Does world of warcraft require you to group with a large group of players (over 10-12 players) to progress?
I've been designing a game in which players are in crews aboard ships, but probably an effective and decent sized crew that is active at one time would only be about 3-5 players.
Is the issue people are having with games that force grouping one of scale (takes too much time to gather a large group) or is it just that they don't want to have to get any group at all. Because even with non-MMORPG type games you have to at least get a few people together to play multiplayer (Rogue Spear, Starfleet Command, Quake, etc.)
-- Scipio3
Does world of warcraft require you to group with a large group of players (over 10-12 players) to progress?
I've been designing a game in which players are in crews aboard ships, but probably an effective and decent sized crew that is active at one time would only be about 3-5 players.
Is the issue people are having with games that force grouping one of scale (takes too much time to gather a large group) or is it just that they don't want to have to get any group at all. Because even with non-MMORPG type games you have to at least get a few people together to play multiplayer (Rogue Spear, Starfleet Command, Quake, etc.)
-- Scipio3
I know that different players like different things and my small group of 5 game playing friends covers the whole range.
Me - I like a game that is mostly solo-able but like to group on a regular basis too, so I don't mind if certain quests are unavailable to me unless I group (as long as I can delay or skip them arbitrarily). Also, I really like games that encourage small grouping (2-8) that have a decent culture for it. I don't like to group with epic style groups (15+) ... cause I really don't like text scrolling by being unreadable and just complete choas.
My Friend and his Wife - My friend and his wife are big gamers, but she is anti-social and will not group with strangers except in the most limited circumstances. Instead she will play solo on 2 computers using both of their accounts when he or their friends are not online. She will absolutely refuse to play any game in which she has to group with strangers. He is a little of an enigma, because he will group with strangers, but dislikes the childish online attitude enough and doesn't like people who endanger the whole group ever, so he is picky when it comes to grouping - and gets upset and stops playing games when he gets burned too many times.
Another female gamer friend is very antisocial as well, to the point that she refused to get the Rez signet or do any char hunting in Guild Wars because they required grouping - and her statement was "I like games because I can be as anti-social as I want".
Me - I like a game that is mostly solo-able but like to group on a regular basis too, so I don't mind if certain quests are unavailable to me unless I group (as long as I can delay or skip them arbitrarily). Also, I really like games that encourage small grouping (2-8) that have a decent culture for it. I don't like to group with epic style groups (15+) ... cause I really don't like text scrolling by being unreadable and just complete choas.
My Friend and his Wife - My friend and his wife are big gamers, but she is anti-social and will not group with strangers except in the most limited circumstances. Instead she will play solo on 2 computers using both of their accounts when he or their friends are not online. She will absolutely refuse to play any game in which she has to group with strangers. He is a little of an enigma, because he will group with strangers, but dislikes the childish online attitude enough and doesn't like people who endanger the whole group ever, so he is picky when it comes to grouping - and gets upset and stops playing games when he gets burned too many times.
Another female gamer friend is very antisocial as well, to the point that she refused to get the Rez signet or do any char hunting in Guild Wars because they required grouping - and her statement was "I like games because I can be as anti-social as I want".
Quote:Original post by Nytehauq
What if the solo game was way harder and had a lower solo success rate than the raid/group game, hassles of organizing raids and all?
Then soloing is effectively not viable compared to grouping. The OP wanted both to be viable. The point I was looking to make is that you can try to balance the difficulty or success rate to the ease of grouping. After all, that would make things completely equal. 'Ease of grouping' though isn't some fixed value. For some it will be far easier than others. It's impossible to balance against that floating target.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
