Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
There's some truth to that, but I will play devil's advocate. Some people who are more introverted than most enjoy playing MMOs because they can feel more alive than single player games. Having the opportunity to play with other's when their social battery is fully charged is appealing.
But by their nature they hope for single player content that is meaningful exists, so they can recharge those batteries.
A healthy MMO has a place for all types of players. Today's gamers are different. They seem to me to be instant gratification seekers who will move on quickly to the next "BIG" thing if they are not getting that constant often less gratifying experience everyday.
Often times the best MMO players are the reclusive dedicated type who grinds and participates in groups only if it is beneficial to do so.
Antisocial players are welcome to play. But a game social in nature shouldn't have to cater to players who don't want to be social
The more realistic scenario is that Solo players will easily be able to find Groups to fight alongside.
Doesn't have to bve 20 Solo players fighting together. Easy enough to have a mix of Solo players and Group players fighting the same targets.
That being said... in NWO, I was in a Casual Guild that had a bunch of Solo players.
I was most frequently Grouped in a Duo. But, we were always in Guild Chat and it was not uncommon for several of us to play alongside each other while not formally joining in a Group.
Both extremes are undesirable.
You are a solo player, that groups with others and are in a guild. Ok. For some reason your definition of solo player is different than mine.
solo definition.
adjective [ before noun ], adverb
alone; without other people:
a solo performance/flight
to sail/fly solo
go solo He used to play with a group but now he's going solo/pursuing a solo career.
player definition
noun
Synonyms of player
: one that plays:
: a person who plays a game
a baseball player
a chess player
She's one of the team's best players.
combine the two and you get "one that plays alone".
I am a player who sometimes plays Solo and who sometimes formally joins a Group or Raid.
Being in Guild doesn't indicate whether a player is currently Soloing or Grouping.
The word horsepower does not literally involve horses.
Soccer is not the same thing as Kickball.
People who are in raids sometimes play by themselves as well. By your example above from New World, you are fine grouping occationaly. So why change the game to suit single/solo players. This game is built around group co-operation. If you have no problem with joining raids/parties, then you should be fine with the way the game is.
Catering to social aspects for a social game isnt an extreme nor a negative. Being required to be in a group for a socially focused game to excel at and/or complete mid to top tier content isn't extreme.
Being required to be grouped for anything and everything in every aspect all of the time is a more accurate example of an extreme.
Yes you can go ahead and gather and learn a profession solo. But mastering it and being the best on the server without the involvement and assistance of others won't be possible solo.
Solo content is just a byproduct of the easier bits of group content when it comes to MMORPGs.
So you would just prefer they cater to you?
You missed the point I was trying to make. Those type of players are important to the health of an MMO they will sometimes provide value to groups.
They are often times some of the most skilled players. If you have been playing MMO's as long as I have you probably have a few stories about that one guy who hardly spoke and would only participate when he felt like it.
When he did he dunked on everyone else in the group.
A Raid is multiple Groups formally (mechanically) joined.
Especially in Ashes, Solo players can play alongside a Raid - yes.
I haven't said anything about changing the game to suit Solo players.
The topic is about forced Grouping. Ashes does not force players to Group.
Ashes encourages players to Group.
Ashes has a focus on massively multiplayer combat. You don't have to be in a Group or a Raid in order to fight alongside a Group or Raid for most content. You do have to mechanically belong in a Guild for Guild Wars and Castle Sieges.
Solo means not mechanically joined in a Group or Raid for combat.
An example of forced Grouping would be not being able to damage a mob unless you're mechanically in a Group - or not being able to enter an (Instanced) Dungeon unless you're mechanically in a Group.
Required = forced. So... we agree that forced Grouping is an extreme.
Um. People will be able to do that since being Solo does not mean that you have no involvement with other players. Nor does it mean you don't have the assistance of other players.
Solo means not mechanically joined in a Group or Raid for combat.
Solo Content refers to combat encounters that are specifically designed to be defeated by one player rather than multiple players.
Ashes has a focus on multiplayer combat - especially massively multiplayer combat. Most of that content does not require those masses of players to mechanically be in a Group or Raid.
Players will be able to Solo alongside a Group or Raid and still defeat multiplayer content.
Solo players can interact with and assist Groups and Raids without mechanically joining a Group or Raid.
I prefer social games cater to being social. This doesn't devalue anyone.
I am not sure what that even means
EQ hasn't failed.
With how quickly MMORPG'sare shut down, any MMORPG that is still alive and still getting yearly expansions simply can not be considered "failed".
By all accounts, the EQ franchise is the third most successful MMORPG franchise that has ever existed.
That's a matter of perspective I think people gauge success in different ways. I can't comment on EQ because I never played it, but if they are still making money I would say they are successful.
Agree. People can be really draining at times.
EQ is not only still live and making money, but it and it's sequal are both still getting yearly expansions on par with what Blizzard puts out for WoW every few years. Everquest is currently on it's 30th such expansion, and will get another at the end of this year. EQ2 is currently on it's 19th, and will get it's 20th at the end of this year.
While one can state that these two games didn't recieve the level of success of WoW, it is not a truthful statement to claim that either of them failed.