As much as I sympathize with the OP, ESO is not a forced grouping game. Forced grouping means you have no other options to advance. In ESO, you can easily avoid any and all group content and solo to max level as well as craft a full set of legendary vr14 gear, and it's one of the few MMORPG's that let you progress that far completely solo. So no, you're not "forced" to group whatsoever.

MCMancub wrote: »

asteldian wrote: »

I have issue with forced grouping for no reason such as Craglorn where the group requirement is totally artificial.
But actual group content I have no problem with because that is the primary point of MMOs. I am aware the modern gamer expects to be able to play solo to max level, and so be it. But actual group content is exactly that - none of the real group content actually requires a full group, it is merely designed for it (again, take note Craglorn - design for a group is fine, artificial requirement is BS), so you are not forced to do it with 4 and indeed it all can be done without 4.

If you wish to play alone or with very few for any reason, you can but it means not being able to do some content and that is just a fact of MMO life.

The reason you're forced to be grouped in Craglorn is because they wanted to make a zone only for group content. That's it. Too bad if you don't like it.

This is the same line of thinking as all of the PvE players whining over I.C. being a PvP DLC...

Not at all. I would be perfectly happy with a game pretty much all group content. However, I expect group content to be because the actual content is well designed to need a group to survive. Craglorn just threw in BS quests that needed 4 people to stand on platforms before letting you continue on to do content that needed no more than 2 people - course now you have 4 so the content is tedious and easy.

If you want to design group content then do it properly. The point of it is to be a challenge, locking a quest barely more challenging than any of the solo content in the game behind an artifical requirement to get 4 people standing on platforms does not magically make the content group worthy. All you have achieved is angering solo players and massively disappointing group players who were promised 'a zone for groups' only to find out it really isn't.

Psychobunni wrote: »

I agree that it was "tragic" that ESO was not released coinciding with the next TES game, or at least close enough to it to let ESO be a clear MMO.

The next TES will benefit ESO, I wish they would hurry!

The only thing that would have done is created a billion more posts on the forum crying about why doesn't ESO have 'x' feature when TES:VI does.

kupacmac wrote: »

As much as I sympathize with the OP, ESO is not a forced grouping game. Forced grouping means you have no other options to advance. In ESO, you can easily avoid any and all group content and solo to max level as well as craft a full set of legendary vr14 gear, and it's one of the few MMORPG's that let you progress that far completely solo. So no, you're not "forced" to group whatsoever.

This is true, and that's why I don't like to use the phrase "forced grouping". There is actually no forced grouping in ESO, but there is content that requires a group in order to complete it. I think the distinction is important. If ESO actually had forced grouping, where players were just arbitrarily thrown together upon entering a dungeon (presumably after entering a queue), that would actually be a better situation for many players (including myself) than the system we have now.

What many people don't seem to understand is that it's not PLAYING in a group that's so problematic for many players, it's the process of forming and joining groups that's rotten. ESO is always going to be an inherently broken game until one of two things happens:

1) A grouping mechanism is introduced that guarantees that ALL players are able to group for ALL content, regardless of whether they know anybody or belong to a guild.

or...

2) A scaling mechanism is introduced that enables solo/duo players to complete ALL content at the same relative difficulty as larger groups.

UrQuan wrote: »

Emma_Eunjung wrote: »

kupacmac wrote: »

As much as I sympathize with the OP, ESO is not a forced grouping game. Forced grouping means you have no other options to advance. In ESO, you can easily avoid any and all group content and solo to max level as well as craft a full set of legendary vr14 gear, and it's one of the few MMORPG's that let you progress that far completely solo. So no, you're not "forced" to group whatsoever.

This is true, and that's why I don't like to use the phrase "forced grouping". There is actually no forced grouping in ESO, but there is content that requires a group in order to complete it. I think the distinction is important. If ESO actually had forced grouping, where players were just arbitrarily thrown together upon entering a dungeon (presumably after entering a queue), that would actually be a better situation for many players (including myself) than the system we have now.

What many people don't seem to understand is that it's not PLAYING in a group that's so problematic for many players, it's the process of forming and joining groups that's so rotten. ESO is always going to be an inherently broken game until one of two things happens:

1) A grouping mechanism is introduced that guarantees that ALL players are able to group for ALL content, regardless of whether they know anybody or belong to a guild.

Of course, that's exactly what OP is arguing against...

Well, in my opinion, there are different ways of approaching the problem. Some of the OP's suggestions might work for some people, other methods might work for others. Personally, I would probably be happiest with option #2, so I could just solo everything without any worries, and I'm guessing that's what the OP wants, too.

Option #1, however, wouldn't necessarily make every solo player happy, but it would open the door to many of us who solo because grouping is effectively impossible. It's worth trying, anyway, because most everybody agrees that the current LFG tool is not doing it's job.

BurtFreeman wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Wow. OP, you're making a lot of assumptions...
What? Seriously, what? ...
I've met quite a few people in-game with social anxiety issues...

the others are all to be an awkward so-and-so in this forum, posting unfriendly and giving none solution to the various matter.

Sorry @BurtFreeman but I literally have no idea what you're trying to say here.

MCMancub wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

kalimar44 wrote: »

It's awfully funny that Everquest was pretty much about grouping, and look now it's still going after 16 years. 16 YEARS!!!!!

I played EQ and had lots of fun with my groups. People back then could works as a team. People today can't handle stuff like that.

ESO IS A MMO PEOPLE. At some point you will have to group. Get over it or go play skyrim.

The reason EQ is still going is that they made all classes soloable and introduced mercenaries.

I'm all for grouping being a feature of MMOs, but it should be optional and not forced. Games need to cater for all playstyles to compete in an overcrowded marketplace. When EQ launched it was pretty much the only one of its kind, being quite different from UO, and with other MMOs like AC and DAoC following on from it. In those days grouping was the dominant playstyle because of the way the games were structured, and people had the time to devote to that playstyle which they tend not to have so much today so that catering for duos and soloers makes a lot of sense while keeping the groupers happy too. I have no wish to impose my playstyle on others, but I also have no wish for them to impose their playstyle on me. Provide options, that's the key to a popular and successful game. It should be possible on that basis to level through a game with any preferred playstyle, especially with all the "play your way" marketing hype that gets pushed at us these days.

Except this isn't true at all. The biggest game genre right now is the MOBA genre, and it is 100% group play. You can easily find groups and not have to spend as much time as you do in MMOs, but that doesn't deter from the fact that what you just said is wrong.

PLENTY of games focus on one major playstyle and do just fine. We are not in an age of gaming where all games have to cater to all playstyles to survive. In fact, we see the opposite. If a game doesn't appeal to you, simply go play one that does.

You're discussing MOBAs and I'm discussing MMORPGs. Chalk and cheese.

While it's true that a handful of AAA MMORPGs cater for one playstyle, most of those MMORPGs that do so are indie niche titles. If ESO aspires to be successful then given the scale of investment it needs to be a lot more than niche, and for that it needs to cater to as many players as possible through a combination of playstyles - PvE, PvP, solo, duo, group, adventuring, cafting etc. If, for example, the only content available in the long term at endgame is PvP or group, then an awful lot of players will drop the game once they have got a few characters to that stage.

I am not against group content in the slightest, but it needs to be optional - not least in a game whose questing, UI including lack of text chat in the console version, and LFG tools all mitigate against grouping - as does the trading system which places the emphasis for guild membership on trading rather than adventuring and in respect of which the concept of multiple guild membership further mitigates against grouping through the loss of the close guild ties and loyalty which apply in single guild membership games and which are central to effective and regular groups especially at a time when PUGs have become almost universally unpopular and difficult to find.