Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Do solo players have legitimacy to complain about MMO being difficult for solo player
ArchivedUser
Guest
MMO is not a single player game, it is designed to be played by massive amount of players, and it is meant to be social game where players play together and help each other out.
Often you will hear some players claiming they like to play solo, and also often complaining how some part of content is difficult for a solo player, and ask for mechanics to protect a solo player.
Now I will never say that solo players shouldn't play a MMO. They have right to play it, and they have right to opt to play it solo.
However, imho, they have no legitimacy to complain about any MMO content being difficult for a solo player, as it wasn't meant to be player as single player game.
What do you think?
(there is no I don't care option, If you do not care then simply do not vote)
Often you will hear some players claiming they like to play solo, and also often complaining how some part of content is difficult for a solo player, and ask for mechanics to protect a solo player.
Now I will never say that solo players shouldn't play a MMO. They have right to play it, and they have right to opt to play it solo.
However, imho, they have no legitimacy to complain about any MMO content being difficult for a solo player, as it wasn't meant to be player as single player game.
What do you think?
(there is no I don't care option, If you do not care then simply do not vote)
0
Comments
Many a time in mmorps i have played solo but not once have i complained that the content should be nerfed so that a solo player could do it.
if you want to solo content than be good enough to solo more difficult content, otherwise its an mmorpg and there are plenty of ppl who want to complete the content also, so talk to them.
I do not have any friends and I do not join guilds/clans due to all of them always having an absurdly unfair pecking order, a favouritism hierarchy.
So more often than not, I end up quitting when I get stuck, rather than complaining
none.
So what I'm saying is make the right things solo and the right things group content.
Most games lack solo play, its also very important. Just as group play.
Long story short yes the have the right to complain but those complaints should fell on deaf ears.
Example. If was standing on a street corner handing out $50 bills someone would complain that I wasn't handing out $100 bills.
1. Game companies create games to make money.
2. In general, making money in gaming happens when games garner interest and engagement from:
- New customers from the existing segment (competitive acquisition)
- New customers from affiliated segments (growth, cross-over, etc)
- New customers from unaffiliated segments (market penetration, etc)
3. Commonly identified segments in gaming align to one or more of the following:- Demographic, Persona, Psychographic, etc (who, what, why, where, how)
- Business relation style/preference (i.e., Defined thoroughly in the linked articles, below)
4. Affiliated segments are not popular in the gaming business; the industry has a culture of competitive opposition that has not benefited much at all over the years from the power and reach of relationship marketing in ANY manner.5. This culture of competitive opposition in the gaming industry ALWAYS supports conflict and division in its products, usually for the same reasons (i.e., capture the avid, reliable, but decidedly smaller market rather than risk competitive loss in a larger, more open competition).
6. Those game companies "winning" today are those that have (to varying degrees) worked to provide complimentary game mechanics that support multiple choices for "how to play" to a broad set of segments in the existing marketplace.
Examples invariably fire the rage of the reading forum audience, so I'm not going to specify - if you are at all familiar with what I'm saying, the names leap easily to your mind. If not, no amount of information will convince... moving on.
7. Given the above, the choice that makes the most sense for the business and company would be to support as many complimentary revenue paths as is financially feasible and possible in a "gold" release to drive relationship/referral promotion and engagement THAT ALSO can reasonably sustain a forecast of reliable revenue.
8. Unfortunately, most indie houses (legit indie, not the "secretly paid by Microsoft", "secretly paid by Google", or "secretly funded by Electronic Arts" kind) are constrained to starting small and betting it all on a small customer segment being both:
- rabidly engaged AND
- rabidly promotional, (even though it's pretty well known that these niche segments are NOT influencer targets outside their preferred niche)
In my opinion, this group of folks and this game likely have the private rounds in place (or available) to deliver a broader set of choices for a broader market of consumers. If that is true, then it would be incredibly telling if they restrict themselves to a smaller market in their design constraints...... which it seems they are, candidly.The question isn't "are solo player interests legitimate?" Just as it isn't "Are PvE player interests legitimate?" It is, "Is this product's design positioned to deliver to more than one persona's interests?" If not, the question anyone outside the current target should be asking is as pointed as it would be telling when answered:
"Is this product's design such that could reasonably be expected to expand to do so within a year of launch?"
I think this one could and might, so I'm here. That said, I'm very familiar with the ancestry from Studio 59 to Verant to Sony Online Entertainment to Daybreak to Intrepid, so I'll just be diplomatic and say there is a pronounced history of building the product someone in the company prefers than to one the various persona, segments, and markets can be validated to prefer.
And yes, I have moved from "hardcore" and "PvP" and "guild/team/group" preferred to "casual", "PvE", and "solo" preferred over the 20+ years I've been gaming because my life and interests demand it.
So, you see, for me, it's actually very simple (as I suspect it is for most, really):
1. Can I play and feel I've made progress (to the level of my own, personal perspective of what is reasonable) in the time I have available to play?
2. Can I easily move between solo and group play when I want to do so?
3. Am I excluded from significant elements of play because of my play preference and available time?
This, of course, doesn't even touch on my interests in areas ranging from aesthetics to art to story, etc.
In every instance of "either/or" that someone presents, my automatic answer is:
Why not both?
It is not up to me as a customer to prove or justify my interests and preferences. It is up to the business/company/game to convince me that I should constrain or change them.
That, my friend, is a hard sell indeed. (grin)
--- articles mentioned in the preceding contained in the 'spoiler' below ---
The following links recommended for those who are not professionally involved in marketing, product design, creation, etc as a knowledge domain (i.e., the nuts and bolts of design and marketing for a company, a product, etc, as opposed to "a game company" take on game design and game marketing).
That actually includes most game companies, who are still treating it all very much as if it's an "industry domain", which is why we see so many fledgling games wither and die when they release. One of many reasons, really, but they're all related.
Link 1 - HBR Article from *1998* that is surprisingly current for today's interests:
https://hbr.org/1998/01/preventing-the-premature-death-of-relationship-marketing
Link 2 - HBR Article from 2016 on business ROI for online communities (gaming is actually woefully behind on almost all of the points in this item):
https://hbr.org/2016/06/getting-the-most-from-an-online-customer-community
Link 3 - HBR Article from 2017 on the disconnect between most business perspectives and their customers on the TYPE of relationship desired (and how misreading it can derail not only a product, but a company - something also quite obvious in the game industry as an ongoing issue):
https://hbr.org/2014/07/unlock-the-mysteries-of-your-customer-relationships
by myself....c:/sarcasm = 0
I think that's the thread killer in terms of serious responses.
There should be enough variety of content to appease as many people's preferences as possible.
I just mainly don't want to be forcing a square peg through the circle hole. I do get that it's supposed to be a community coming together, but it's also individuals with different tastes and lives coming together. They're all going to play a part in the world no matter what playstyle they prefer.
Two definitions of MMO's"
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_gameA massively multiplayer online game (MMOG or MMO) is an online game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, simultaneously in the same instance.
2. Digital Technology.massively multiplayer online role-playing game: any story-driven online video game in which a player, taking on the persona of a character in a virtual or fantasy world, interacts with a large number of other players.
You're right in that MMO's are not a strictly solo game and designed for multiple players.
But you are wrong to think that they are designed just for people to group with others. INTERACTION does not necessarily mean dependence.
Most everyone has their time of solo play, even the most guild dependent players. Also, most people who are smart and skilled enough to complete solo games know that help is needed to accomplish some things in MMO's. They aren't as apt to complain as many pvp players do about balance and game play.
There are many people who never join guilds in games but will join pugs to go through dungeons etc.
Playing solo is a choice as well as being a PvP or strict PvE player.
They have as much right to complain as the next person. Should they have all their complaints addressed? No and neither should everyone else.
Your poll is biased imho. PvP players often complain about balance. But is it really balance or lack of ability? Should we nerf everyone in a class because some don't have the skill or ability to stand up against another class? Already many PvP players aren't happy that they won't have that "special" gear to make themselves "gods". Considering that Ashes is a PvP and PvE game dependent on both styles of game play should the developers cater to the PvPers?
Everyone has the right to complain. No one has the right to expect changes unless they are attuned with the game and how the developers want it to work.
Anyone is free to complain to try and play the way they want the dev team to lean towards. I don't believe group content should be nerfed to the solo player, but I also don't believe the solo player should be ignored. All of that aside is soley depends on the game.
If your game is good enough that your group content is vibrant, and more importantly it's easy/quick to get groups then the solo question starts to fall into place a little easier. If getting a group is a chore and takes awhile then you start butting into the solo vs. group dynamic.
My gaming habits personally have changed since the time I started gaming (12) to where I am now (36). Now I may only have 30 min to 1 hour blocks due to work/family constraints whereas when I was younger I had essentially whole days or the time I got out of school until 1 am.
If I can't get anything done in the time frame of 30 min to 1 hour then I'll be less inclined to play.. it's really as simple as that. It's not saying that ALL content has to be accessible to me or easy to do, but in reality what i'm trying to say is that 30 min to 1 hour time , I want to be able to do something meaningful to my character.
Let's be clear, in no way shape or form am I saying to get the best stuff and to do all content you must be able to do it in 30 min to 1 hour intervals, but there should be a happy balance that is struck in order for me to advance somehow. I think this is where gaming companies simply get lazy and make content solable all around.
It seems as though the question the OP is trying to get at is along the lines of "should group content be nerfed to the point of soloability?" The answer to which is, of course, no - then the groups won't have fun!
However, it almost seems like the real spirit in the question is being asked is "should MMOs have soloable content at all?" The answer to this is obviously yes, as it benefits both the game and the players when different play styles (not to mention moods) are supported.
However, it's the balance of these things that makes or breaks some games/expansions. For example, the garrisons in WoW's Warlords of Draenor expansion gave the game too much stuff to do solo; combined with the group finder, it really wrecked the social aspect game in a lot of ways. By contrast, GW2's Heart of Thorns open world content was nearly impossible to solo (and is still pretty difficult on a fresh 80).
Should every aspect of an MMO be soloable? No. Should we have productive things to do when we find ourselves alone? Yes.
I feel there should be opportunities for solo play, but not at the expense of what makes this genre unique. I've never understood the mentality of people logging into a multi-player game and refusing to interact with other people.
It's like going to a Chinese Restaurant and ordering a hamburger. What's the point? Sure you can and should be able to do that, but there's other avenues more suited for your wants.
Not to mention demanding the Chinese Restaurant change it's menu to serve more burgers... Honestly, come on. I think this is just as entitled as people feeling solo play has no place in MMOs, if not more so.
Personally I feel that solo-ability is a necessity to have in an MMO. New players that want to test out the game most times aren't going to search out a guild instantly to join and play with people, they're going to play it by themselves to see if it's fun.
In my opinion, the process of leveling and getting gear to the point of being of average competitiveness SHOULD be solo-able (however it should also take a lot longer than if you were group playing), and the process of getting end game gear/being top gun should be only accessible to group raids.
I like to log on do things at my own pace, right away instead of fiding people or waiting for party to do stuff.
Then waiting for people to travel, get ready etc. Or having set times at which friends or guilds are doing stuff.
Im not that committed to follow a schedule of events or quests. Life always comes first. Plus work, tons of unexpected overtime and being on call. I have to drop everything and goto work.
I disagree with end game gear being for group players only. Obtaining sure. Getting by other means? No. ( without having to put in 100x the time solo)