Group or Solo?

skarvika · April 2015

I prefer to PvP with the option to Group or Solo

I was a little confused by the answer options...I PVP mostly, but when I'm outside of Cyrodiil, I always go solo and don't even bother with group content. I hope that's what the choice I picked means.

bloodenragedb14_ESO · April 2015

I prefer Solo with the option to group or PvP

this game is just a passing fancy, and a place to roleplay on. When TES6 comes out, im a ghost

AngryNord · April 2015

No wonder MMOs are dying when one sees the answers here...

Heromofo · April 2015

I prefer Solo with the option to group or PvP

So ESO has a death date?

Elder scrolls six anyone lol

carlos.trevisan.contatonrb19_ESO · April 2015

I prefer Solo with the option to group or PvP

The problem of groups are the skill choice and trinity role.

In ESO i can biuld my character for most of gameplay: solo PVE or PvP. And by doing that i normaly build a medium all around character. But by doing that ive ended up not being a dedicaded healer, DPS or Tank. So i feel bad in entering a group dungeon and not doing well my role. So ill stik up with solo

titanofdoom · April 2015

I prefer Solo with the option to group or PvP

Casdha wrote: »

titanofdoom wrote: »

80 percent says it all...forced grouping in this day and age is unacceptable!

I like grouping, please don't think Im playing In Vacuo constantly. But even if I am playing solo, I'm still chatting to guildies and friends - thats where the MMO aspect kicks in to.

I would love it if Craglorn had solo aspects. Especially the main story.

Yea but one good guild response could change this drastically.

As much as I'd like it too, I wouldn't count on that 80% holding. Then again, it depends on if different types of guild were to vote as well.

I was a litle pre-emtive with my initial remark about the percentage! However, also rather vindicated as it as now risen to 84%

I shall watch this thread eagerly, and hope the dev's are watching to.

Sting864 · April 2015

I prefer Group with the option to PvP or Solo

Eliteseraph wrote: »

Solo content should be the norm. Players don't always have the time to wait around for their friends to log on and get to the right spot. They don't always have the desire to tackle content that requires perfect coordination and group builds that only work when they have synergy with others.

There are plenty of single player games that are examples of this. Why it's different in MMOs has never made sense to me.

Really?? Do you know what MMO stands for? Doesn't the second "M" stand for "Multiplayer?" Needing group coordination in a MULTIPLAYER game makes perfect sense.

Casdha · April 2015

I prefer Solo with the option to group or PvP

Sting864 wrote: »

Eliteseraph wrote: »

Solo content should be the norm. Players don't always have the time to wait around for their friends to log on and get to the right spot. They don't always have the desire to tackle content that requires perfect coordination and group builds that only work when they have synergy with others.

There are plenty of single player games that are examples of this. Why it's different in MMOs has never made sense to me.

Really?? Do you know what MMO stands for? Doesn't the second "M" stand for "Multiplayer?" Needing group coordination in a MULTIPLAYER game makes perfect sense.

Actually yes I do but you must understand MMO is an Acronym not necessarily a style of play, especially not a single style of play. I'm of the mind than an MMO should not have to be just a game, but that it should be a virtual living world and that cant be accomplished if everyone is expected to play the same way.

Sting864 · April 2015

I prefer Group with the option to PvP or Solo

Casdha wrote: »

Sting864 wrote: »

Eliteseraph wrote: »

Solo content should be the norm. Players don't always have the time to wait around for their friends to log on and get to the right spot. They don't always have the desire to tackle content that requires perfect coordination and group builds that only work when they have synergy with others.

There are plenty of single player games that are examples of this. Why it's different in MMOs has never made sense to me.

Really?? Do you know what MMO stands for? Doesn't the second "M" stand for "Multiplayer?" Needing group coordination in a MULTIPLAYER game makes perfect sense.

Actually yes I do but you must understand MMO is an Acronym not necessarily a style of play, especially not a single style of play. I'm of the mind than an MMO should not have to be just a game, but that it should be a virtual living world and that cant be accomplished if everyone is expected to play the same way.

No one is required to play the same way... "Co-operative play" does not mean "Identical play." Complimentary play-styles can be extremely different. I like to play solo until such time as I can contribute to a group. However, giant PvP groups tend to devolve into frenetic [snip] if not well led... too many solo-minded people (as evidenced in this poll...) and too many solo-objectives. That's why I prefer small 4-person parties which can tackle group dungeons and daily undaunted pledges....

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Cursing & Profanity]

Audigy · April 2015

I prefer Solo with the option to group or PvP

Sylveria_Relden wrote: »

Why did I get the feeling the overwhelming answer would be the first one? Perhaps because there's really not much incentive or bonus for grouping in this game?

(might be something to look at, ZOS)

If you must be rewarded to Group, then you do something wrong in MMOs. A lesson Blizzard still hasn't learned

At Vanilla we grouped for fun, today we group by force and guess what? The quality in those groups has dropped massively since players get rewarded for them.

I prefer playing with people who do it for fun and not for rewards. The reward hunters are usually very unsocial and rude, only caring about their own interests.

golfer.dub17_ESO · April 2015

I prefer Solo with the option to group or PvP

Sting864 wrote: »

Eliteseraph wrote: »

Solo content should be the norm. Players don't always have the time to wait around for their friends to log on and get to the right spot. They don't always have the desire to tackle content that requires perfect coordination and group builds that only work when they have synergy with others.

There are plenty of single player games that are examples of this. Why it's different in MMOs has never made sense to me.

Really?? Do you know what MMO stands for? Doesn't the second "M" stand for "Multiplayer?" Needing group coordination in a MULTIPLAYER game makes perfect sense.

"Multiplayer" and "Co-Op" are not the same. I guess by your definition a Quake Free-For-All isn't Multiplayer.

Even if ESO had no group content at all, there would still be other players to interact with.

However, giant PvP groups tend to devolve into frenetic -blam- if not well led... too many solo-minded people (as evidenced in this poll...) and too many solo-objectives.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out "follow the crown".

Will never understand why every PvP group demands you be in a Teamspeak. It's not like there's a ton going on compared to a shooter. Is ESO PvP really so hectic that someone can't take ten seconds to type "okay, now rush this keep"? I doubt it.

Maudieu · April 2015

I prefer Solo with the option to group or PvP

Really?? Do you know what MMO stands for? Doesn't the second "M" stand for "Multiplayer?" Needing group coordination in a MULTIPLAYER game makes perfect sense.

Major masochists online?

Sting864 · April 2015

I prefer Group with the option to PvP or Solo

With the advent of B2p tESO, it is vital to become a member of a static party... I'm sure an active community like this has plenty of adventurous souls. My @ccount name is @Sting864. My main Character right now is Ceephlatt.

Sylveria_Relden · April 2015

I prefer Solo with the option to group or PvP

Audigy wrote: »

Sylveria_Relden wrote: »

Why did I get the feeling the overwhelming answer would be the first one? Perhaps because there's really not much incentive or bonus for grouping in this game?

(might be something to look at, ZOS)

If you must be rewarded to Group, then you do something wrong in MMOs. A lesson Blizzard still hasn't learned At Vanilla we grouped for fun, today we group by force and guess what? The quality in those groups has dropped massively since players get rewarded for them.

I prefer playing with people who do it for fun and not for rewards. The reward hunters are usually very unsocial and rude, only caring about their own interests.

I never stated that I needed to be rewarded to group- perhaps you need to re-read my post.

I stated that there's really not much incentive or bonus for grouping- this does not equate to "reward". As an example- there are other games that have managed to successfully implement "incentive" in the form of bonus XP multipliers and other forms of incentive. As it stands currently- there's no real reason other than overcoming a challenge that someone wouldn't be able to do solo for people to group in this game.

I'm not particularly "stuck" on solo in ANY MMO, because as others have pointed out, it's inherently a "multiplayer" game, however- I also understand the mechanics and makeup of the game well enough to know that it's not structured with ONLY multiplayer in mind. (Can you say "Solo Instances"?) If it was- and multiplayer wasn't excluded in certain cases, I'd see the relevance of the argument.

The structure of this game is story-based- in that each person gets the story told to them on a "personal" level, and there are exclusive single-player sections in this story in which grouping isn't possible. To argue this game is only multiplayer is a flawed position, just in this context alone.

And by the way- I group in MMO's a lot- even PUGs, which I loathe because of the unpredictability. I'm in no sense a "misanthrope", but I do admit I'm introverted (which doesn't equate to anti-social either). I've raided many times in games, even led guilds and alliances- I'm not "against" grouping- I'm just pointing out that there's some base mechanics in this game that should be addressed if we're going to improve the current situation.

Eliteseraph · April 2015

I prefer Solo with the option to group or PvP

Sting864 wrote: »

Really?? Do you know what MMO stands for? Doesn't the second "M" stand for "Multiplayer?" Needing group coordination in a MULTIPLAYER game makes perfect sense.

I'm very aware of it. I'm also aware that having multiple players does not equate to forced grouping. I see this argument all the time, and it always cracks me up that people think MMO = GROUP ONLY TROLOLOLOLOL.

Multiplayer can mean any number of things. Guilds, community, pvp, economy, etc. It does not automatically mean that group content is the only thing that qualifies as an MMO.

The point I was referring to was the way that MMOs tend to switch from a single-player experience with the option to group if you desire, to 'End-Game' content which is mostly the opposite: Group content only, with limited single player options.

If 'End-Game' is where the game really gets interesting, then why not create the entire game around those concepts? Why not start from the very beginning with most of the content being oriented around raids and dungeons instead of forcing people to slog through 50-100 levels just to qualify?

If the game is going to be a leveling game, then why not set it up more like Diablo style games, where it's primarily solo, and the difficulty and loot ramps up with how many players in your group there are?

Aeladiir · April 2015

I prefer Solo with the option to group or PvP

I love all three of them, but as far as PvP is concerned, I'm more of an arena/battleground dude.

The state of solo (and group) content at the moment is horrible, though. It's just too easy.

Sting864 · April 2015

I prefer Group with the option to PvP or Solo

Eliteseraph wrote: »

Sting864 wrote: »

Really?? Do you know what MMO stands for? Doesn't the second "M" stand for "Multiplayer?" Needing group coordination in a MULTIPLAYER game makes perfect sense.

I'm very aware of it. I'm also aware that having multiple players does not equate to forced grouping. I see this argument all the time, and it always cracks me up that people think MMO = GROUP ONLY TROLOLOLOLOL.

Multiplayer can mean any number of things. Guilds, community, pvp, economy, etc. It does not automatically mean that group content is the only thing that qualifies as an MMO.

The point I was referring to was the way that MMOs tend to switch from a single-player experience with the option to group if you desire, to 'End-Game' content which is mostly the opposite: Group content only, with limited single player options.

If 'End-Game' is where the game really gets interesting, then why not create the entire game around those concepts? Why not start from the very beginning with most of the content being oriented around raids and dungeons instead of forcing people to slog through 50-100 levels just to qualify?

If the game is going to be a leveling game, then why not set it up more like Diablo style games, where it's primarily solo, and the difficulty and loot ramps up with how many players in your group there are?

Your take on the converse is not at all what I said... Reread it. While all groups are Multiplayer, (see, the definition of group is more than one...) Not all Multiplayer situations are forced groups... Oh, and I see what you did there saying it takes 50 (which is not that much...) to 100 (which is completely made-up and arbitrary...) levels to qualify for interesting gameplay... If you get bored, you're a boring person...
What do you think the goal of ESO was? Was it to produce an Elder Scrolls six game, or was it to give players the OPTION to tackle challenges in Tamriel with groups of people instead of alone?

Auricle · April 2015

I prefer Solo with the option to group or PvP

The only problem I have with group content is when it comes to places like Craglorn. If there was an alternate, solo zone that could get you from VR10-VR14, I would be 100% supportive of Craglorn's existence. I just want the option to play solo, and to level to max on my own if I need to.

ESO is a MMO. And that's awesome. But not all of us play MMOs for the "make best friends with strangers" aspect. Some of us just like the randomness of the marketplace, the spontaneity of zone chat, and the occasional bouts of PvP (none of which are possible in a single-player game).

Some of us have plenty of friends in the real world, and MMOs aren't there to fufill that need. So, please, cut it out with that 'It's an MMO, make some friends' crap.

Audigy · April 2015

I prefer Solo with the option to group or PvP

Sylveria_Relden wrote: »

Audigy wrote: »

Sylveria_Relden wrote: »

Why did I get the feeling the overwhelming answer would be the first one? Perhaps because there's really not much incentive or bonus for grouping in this game?

(might be something to look at, ZOS)

If you must be rewarded to Group, then you do something wrong in MMOs. A lesson Blizzard still hasn't learned At Vanilla we grouped for fun, today we group by force and guess what? The quality in those groups has dropped massively since players get rewarded for them.

I prefer playing with people who do it for fun and not for rewards. The reward hunters are usually very unsocial and rude, only caring about their own interests.

I never stated that I needed to be rewarded to group- perhaps you need to re-read my post.

I stated that there's really not much incentive or bonus for grouping- this does not equate to "reward". As an example- there are other games that have managed to successfully implement "incentive" in the form of bonus XP multipliers and other forms of incentive. As it stands currently- there's no real reason other than overcoming a challenge that someone wouldn't be able to do solo for people to group in this game.

I'm not particularly "stuck" on solo in ANY MMO, because as others have pointed out, it's inherently a "multiplayer" game, however- I also understand the mechanics and makeup of the game well enough to know that it's not structured with ONLY multiplayer in mind. (Can you say "Solo Instances"?) If it was- and multiplayer wasn't excluded in certain cases, I'd see the relevance of the argument.

The structure of this game is story-based- in that each person gets the story told to them on a "personal" level, and there are exclusive single-player sections in this story in which grouping isn't possible. To argue this game is only multiplayer is a flawed position, just in this context alone.

And by the way- I group in MMO's a lot- even PUGs, which I loathe because of the unpredictability. I'm in no sense a "misanthrope", but I do admit I'm introverted (which doesn't equate to anti-social either). I've raided many times in games, even led guilds and alliances- I'm not "against" grouping- I'm just pointing out that there's some base mechanics in this game that should be addressed if we're going to improve the current situation.

Its fun that you bring this up about other games and the bonus XP there / bonus drop rates. This is something that in another forum is highly criticized as players feel pressured to pug.

I don't say that this is wrong what you want, personally I would love to see a social system in ESO where every time you do something with someone, a bonus reputation will be granted. What this reputation can be used for? Well, social items, RP stuff, maybe additional cosmetics ...

I am not 100% sure why you brought the second argument up? I never said that a game should be about grouping just because its an MMO, I love the on the fly grouping - while I hate the premade one. Being introvert is nothing bad either, having someone around who is a bit quieter isn't bad and ya, please do not think that I would not like you / respect you, because you prefer to solo, as I play mostly solo too and understand the reasoning behind it.

Sorry if I misunderstood you wrong in the first place

Sting864 wrote: »

Eliteseraph wrote: »

Sting864 wrote: »

Really?? Do you know what MMO stands for? Doesn't the second "M" stand for "Multiplayer?" Needing group coordination in a MULTIPLAYER game makes perfect sense.

I'm very aware of it. I'm also aware that having multiple players does not equate to forced grouping. I see this argument all the time, and it always cracks me up that people think MMO = GROUP ONLY TROLOLOLOLOL.

Multiplayer can mean any number of things. Guilds, community, pvp, economy, etc. It does not automatically mean that group content is the only thing that qualifies as an MMO.

The point I was referring to was the way that MMOs tend to switch from a single-player experience with the option to group if you desire, to 'End-Game' content which is mostly the opposite: Group content only, with limited single player options.

If 'End-Game' is where the game really gets interesting, then why not create the entire game around those concepts? Why not start from the very beginning with most of the content being oriented around raids and dungeons instead of forcing people to slog through 50-100 levels just to qualify?

If the game is going to be a leveling game, then why not set it up more like Diablo style games, where it's primarily solo, and the difficulty and loot ramps up with how many players in your group there are?

Your take on the converse is not at all what I said... Reread it. While all groups are Multiplayer, (see, the definition of group is more than one...) Not all Multiplayer situations are forced groups... Oh, and I see what you did there saying it takes 50 (which is not that much...) to 100 (which is completely made-up and arbitrary...) levels to qualify for interesting gameplay... If you get bored, you're a boring person...
What do you think the goal of ESO was? Was it to produce an Elder Scrolls six game, or was it to give players the OPTION to tackle challenges in Tamriel with groups of people instead of alone?

I think ESO was supposed to be a online ES game. A game that you could play with others, but didn't had to. This perspective however seems to have shifted a bit towards a dungeon crawler with forced grouping.

In my opinion, ZOS made several mistakes in regards of consistency. We do play a public MMO (we can group with passer byes) from 1-VR10, but then suddenly at Craglorn its a closed MMO where only those in premades play together. Its a weird concept and one I am not a fan of.

MercyKilling · April 2015

I prefer Group with the option to PvP or Solo

UrQuan wrote: »

MercyKilling wrote: »

I would prefer to group, but it seems a major portion just wants to solo. Note that my preference to group does not extend to joining a guild.

Wait, I'm confused by this. If you enjoy grouping, why wouldn't you want to join a guild? With a guild you get to know people in it, so when you group with them you already know them and you're more likely to have a good time... So if you like grouping, why wouldn't you want to join a guild? I mean, I'm sure you've got some reason for not wanting to join a guild, I just can't think of what it could be.

Because in my decades of gaming, experience has taught me that guilds are one of three things:
1) Someone's petty power struggle.
2) Filled with drama llamas.
3) Basically just a group of people trying to get me to play the game the way THEY want me to, rather than the way I want to.

Besides, I shouldn't be forced into a guild just to socialize or RP.

UrQuan · April 2015

I prefer Solo with the option to group or PvP

MercyKilling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

MercyKilling wrote: »

I would prefer to group, but it seems a major portion just wants to solo. Note that my preference to group does not extend to joining a guild.

Wait, I'm confused by this. If you enjoy grouping, why wouldn't you want to join a guild? With a guild you get to know people in it, so when you group with them you already know them and you're more likely to have a good time... So if you like grouping, why wouldn't you want to join a guild? I mean, I'm sure you've got some reason for not wanting to join a guild, I just can't think of what it could be.

Because in my decades of gaming, experience has taught me that guilds are one of three things:
1) Someone's petty power struggle.
2) Filled with drama llamas.
3) Basically just a group of people trying to get me to play the game the way THEY want me to, rather than the way I want to.

Besides, I shouldn't be forced into a guild just to socialize or RP.

Ah, I see. That's unfortunate. That hasn't been my experience, but then this is the first MMO I've played, so maybe in my relatively short experience with guild I've just been lucky. I'm really only in 2 guilds (not technically true, but I'm only in 2 guilds that act like traditional guilds), 1 of which is basically just me and my real life friends who play, and the other is very casual and friendly - it's mostly just people socializing, helping each other out, and organizing completely optional events (some of which are dungeon runs and stuff, and others are more social events that are really just for fun).

If I had had the types of experiences you list, I'd probably be somewhat soured on the idea of being in a guild too.

Lifsteinn · April 2015

I think this matter cannot be described in such simple options as your poll.

I like solo, group and PvP almost equally.

Terminus1 · April 2015

I agree with an option that says "I wouldn't PvP even if it meant I had to quit the game".

I have PvP'd in this title and the experience for me was nothing short of traumatic. I am not one of those folks that is willing to pay to be griefed (which is what PvP is) and the lag during PvP is so bad that I simply do not go to Cyradiil at all anymore. It just isn't worth it.

Casdha · April 2015

I prefer Solo with the option to group or PvP

Lifsteinn wrote: »

I think this matter cannot be described in such simple options as your poll.

I like solo, group and PvP almost equally.

Then you should put down Group or PvP, which ever one needs the new content the most,,,If I had your opinion I'd choose PvP I think it is the most lacking and unchanged content in the game.

eventide03b14a_ESO · April 2015

I prefer Group with the option to PvP or Solo

I would just like them to fix the LFG system so I don't have to spend all my time waiting around in Deshaan for a group.

Sting864 · April 2015

I prefer Group with the option to PvP or Solo

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

I would just like them to fix the LFG system so I don't have to spend all my time waiting around in Deshaan for a group.

This^^^^^^^^^^

AlnilamE · April 2015

That's a tough question to answer.

I do "group content", and I also group with players during PvE questing in zones (if they need help with a boss or a dolmen), and I sometimes quest together with friends. I also PvP, sometimes in a group, sometimes solo, though I'm not very good at it. I'm not sure which one I prefer, though. Probably grouping, but not necessarily for group content.

Jules · April 2015

I prefer Group with the option to PvP or Solo

WOW! so surprised by the amount of solo players in this game. I really would've thought otherwise

Casdha · April 2015

I prefer Solo with the option to group or PvP

Jules wrote: »

WOW! so surprised by the amount of solo players in this game. I really would've thought otherwise

Honestly I am as well. I thought PvP would have been higher considering the design of the game.

I still suspect these percentages will change a bit, but if they don't, I'd hate to be in ZOS's shoes. Do you release Imperial City first to try and draw back in some who have left or release Orsinium first to keep those here from leaving? That is of course assuming Orsinium is a mixture of Solo and Group like the alliance zones. I think at this point the only safe thing is to release them both together as one DLC, considering how long both have been promised.

Ser Lobo · April 2015

I prefer to PvP with the option to Group or Solo

On the whole, I prefer a challenging solo experience that increases in difficulty if I group up with friends. I prefer the capability to group with friends at any time for any reason, as I often outlevel them in games and have to go back and help them through sticky areas.

When I do prefer to group, I prefer content set for three players, with at most six. I don't like to try and do 12-man and up content anymore, as I feel it's too much headache managing everyone's personal goals and real life issues.

I like large PvP battles as well as small, and prefer PvP overall to PvE. But I can't PvP all the time, and thus spend the majority of time in PvE.