Define a MMO

MisterBigglesworth

I define MMOs as games aren't and never will be World of Warcraft.

Belidos

pdebie64b16_ESO wrote: »

SleepyTroll wrote: »

Name one game where a grp is required for lvling(that's successful)... dungeons, bosses, raids, arenas, yea those should all be grp but over world should be solo.

Vanilla Dark Age of Camelot, without a group leveling was so slow.

No, no it wasn't, at least it wasn't in hib with an aoe chanter. On Excalibur server my friend levelled a chanter to 50 by day three after release and I finished levelling my bard two days after that, so no it wasn't slow without a group at all, I won't even mention how quick I levelled my friar in alb land lol.

tinythinker

leandro.800ub17_ESO wrote: »

A good mmo is defined by having good balance in all content types like: (my top 10 not ir order)

-Single Player / Story
-CO OP
-Multy Player Dungeons / Trials
-PVP
-Crafting / Housing
-Social Events
-Economy System (in game / stores/ RNG)
-World and Enviorment
-Customization Options (Player and Skills)
-System Performance (lag)

Tandor wrote: »

For some it means playing the game with 3 other people.

For others it means playing the game in the company of thousands of other people.

Even those who solo 100% of the time are interacting in many different ways with the other people playing the game.

Even those who group 100% of the time are sitting alone at a computer.

Personally, I think the best MMOs offer choice. If you want to consider a MMO as an evolutionary extension of a single-player RPG then that's fine, that's your choice. If, on the other hand, you want to consider a MMO as a part of your social life and spend the whole time chatting and grouping with your friends then that's fine too, that's also your choice. The sensible developers offer content to all playstyles be it solo or group, crafting, housing decorator, PvE or PvP etc.

The bottom line is that we all contribute to the success of a game, both by the mere fact of logging in as well as by the contributions we make when doing so regardless of our chosen playstyle.

Yup. And I am all for having lots of content for all play styles and focuses. I said last year on the forums, I'm all for more PvP areas/opportunities (including zones), more group-oriented PvE areas and zones, more solo-oriented PvE areas and zones. Heck, if ZOS adds a zone with mixed solo/group play that heavily featured artwork/locales/item sets catering to role players I wouldn't mind. Some players want to spend 50% or more of their time on just one play focus (crafting/trading, social events/RP, PvP, solo PvE, group PvE), some like to divide their time each week on two or more of these things, and some may swap back and forth over weeks or months.

I know people get upset when a new update doesn't focus on the area(s) they like most, but I like to say that *because* it is an MMO, not you You&YourFriendsOnlyO, just wait until your time comes around again in a different update. People who mostly play solo are welcome and there is plenty for them to do. The only thing that wouldn't be cool is if they insisted all game content be soloable with subpar gear and a low skill level, or if they resent/complain about the fact that they actually might see another player doing the same solo-oriented content at the same time ("They took errr maahbs"). That's where I might play the "it's an MMO card" regarding solo play.

Fun fact, though, for the newer players. When the game launched in spring 2014, veteran zones (which at the time only = Cadwell's Silver/Gold) were designed to encourage grouping. Yes, really good and patient players could solo the content, but basically, if you got caught in a red circle from a trash mob, you died. If you didn't properly keep trash mobs cc'd or have a super tanky build those packs of three mobs could end you if you were careless. Especially during a few weeks when the difficulty got jacked waaaaay up due to some patch error. Then it got back to being a bit easier, and eventually it was nerfed altogether to be the same relative difficulty as your 1-50 zones. Sounds a little like what I've seen/heard about from the PTS version of Orsinium, not the same full degree of difficulty as the old vet zones but harder than the 1-50 zones. You can probably solo the main story with experience/practice and maybe a few tries per big fight, but you probably won't be soloing most of the overland bosses unless you have really great gear and impressive skill.

Tannakaobi

Callous2208 wrote: »

Tannakaobi wrote: »

Callous2208 wrote: »

P.S. As for derogatory, I believe you opened your statement by directly insulting a member of the community because he shared my sentiments. The body was well worded, the opening was self righteous and unnecessary.

I agree that many people exist that fit in with what the poster said. The mistake the poster made was to suggest it's all solo players, hence my choice in words. My post was an insult because It annoys me when someone picks all the faults in the 'MMO player' and says it's the 'solo' players that are like this. In reality it is a mixture of the player base that behave like this. As a solo player mainly I don't like this behavior any more than you.

That is what is wrong with this whole thread, it works on the assumption that solo players don't have a place in the 'MMO' which is quite simply garbage. Most quests are made to be played solo from what I have seen, but it's good that you can choose, because that is what MMO's are really, Choices!

Also I havn't seen many solo players complain about group play to be honest. In fact the only thing I have seen is solo players requesting new content. Which as it happens I agree with, they pay just as much. Why should they not get some of the spoils.

I'm with you now. Was a lack of understanding on my part and I actually agree with your sentiments more than my posts let on. I had just left a thread before this one in which the op was raging on because the dlc contained content he couldn't solo. Many agreed and shared his opinion that all content should have been soloable. My original tone carried with it the emotions from that thread.

No worries, and in no way should all content be available for solo players. That would be as bad as all of it being group content.

I'd even like to see content that is almost impossible so only a few very good and well geared players could manage it, and I really don't include myself in that.
Then as the game progresses more and more players will manage it as they get more levels and what not.

I don't understand why people feel they need to be able to do everything in an mmo's at any one time.

BlackEar

An*

UrQuan

tinythinker wrote: »

leandro.800ub17_ESO wrote: »

A good mmo is defined by having good balance in all content types like: (my top 10 not ir order)

-Single Player / Story
-CO OP
-Multy Player Dungeons / Trials
-PVP
-Crafting / Housing
-Social Events
-Economy System (in game / stores/ RNG)
-World and Enviorment
-Customization Options (Player and Skills)
-System Performance (lag)

Tandor wrote: »

For some it means playing the game with 3 other people.

For others it means playing the game in the company of thousands of other people.

Even those who solo 100% of the time are interacting in many different ways with the other people playing the game.

Even those who group 100% of the time are sitting alone at a computer.

Personally, I think the best MMOs offer choice. If you want to consider a MMO as an evolutionary extension of a single-player RPG then that's fine, that's your choice. If, on the other hand, you want to consider a MMO as a part of your social life and spend the whole time chatting and grouping with your friends then that's fine too, that's also your choice. The sensible developers offer content to all playstyles be it solo or group, crafting, housing decorator, PvE or PvP etc.

The bottom line is that we all contribute to the success of a game, both by the mere fact of logging in as well as by the contributions we make when doing so regardless of our chosen playstyle.

Yup. And I am all for having lots of content for all play styles and focuses. I said last year on the forums, I'm all for more PvP areas/opportunities (including zones), more group-oriented PvE areas and zones, more solo-oriented PvE areas and zones. Heck, if ZOS adds a zone with mixed solo/group play that heavily featured artwork/locales/item sets catering to role players I wouldn't mind. Some players want to spend 50% or more of their time on just one play focus (crafting/trading, social events/RP, PvP, solo PvE, group PvE), some like to divide their time each week on two or more of these things, and some may swap back and forth over weeks or months.

I know people get upset when a new update doesn't focus on the area(s) they like most, but I like to say that *because* it is an MMO, not you You&YourFriendsOnlyO, just wait until your time comes around again in a different update. People who mostly play solo are welcome and there is plenty for them to do. The only thing that wouldn't be cool is if they insisted all game content be soloable with subpar gear and a low skill level, or if they resent/complain about the fact that they actually might see another player doing the same solo-oriented content at the same time ("They took errr maahbs"). That's where I might play the "it's an MMO card" regarding solo play.

Couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I've said a lot of very similar things in the past.

I mean, by a significant margin the majority of my time playing ESO is spent in solo PVE questing, but I absolutely don't want that to be the only focus of new content.

I may not group nearly as much as I play solo, but a lot of my most fun experiences in-game come from playing in groups, and even if that wasn't the case, I would still want there to be content for the players who prefer group play.

The same goes for PVP: I'm a total PVP noob, and hardly ever do any of it (although that may be changing somewhat, as I'm now in a PVP guild to help me learn the ins and outs of it, and I've had fun doing a PVP training run with that guild), but that doesn't mean I don't want the PVP crowd to get some love.

I don't ever do any RP in-game (I prefer my RP to be of the tabletop pen-and-paper variety with friends and a few pints), but I'd totally want ZOS to put out some updates with cool locations and stuff that RPers would be interested in using.

DenMoria

ladyonthemoon wrote: »

kalimar44 wrote: »

So play ESO if you like groups with some solo stuff, or play a single player rpg if your all about just soloing.

Wow wow wow, not so fast! I play ESO because it's an Elder Scrolls game. It happens that it's also an MMO, so I do with it and try to make it the more solo I can.

Abso'friggan'lootley. I play ESO because it's an ES game and for no other reason. I have no interest whatsoever in the "social" aspects or "grouping" or anything like that.

Even as a solo player, it's an awesome game and I like that I can help out others (healing, lowering enemy HP's, depositing stuff to my guilds, etc...) and not really be involved with their play at all.

Of course I've been obsessing over F3 and FNV anticipating F4 for the last month so I haven't devoted much time to ESO. Maybe I'll go back and do some things this evening for a couple of hours.