Apparently there's a LFG tool coming to GW2!

[Meledelion]

As I said before, I still believe if there were a choice in how you can run a dungeon that most people would not choose the 5-man format and raiding has always been a relatively small percentage of the player base. When developers spend the amount of time and effort it takes to create an elaborate raid and only ~5% of the population sees it? I think that's a problem. (Again, another reason I loved Rift chronicles, because it allowed me to see at least some of the raid content without having to raid.)

I played both D1 and D2. I enjoyed them, but they're nothing like an MMO. I may hate 5-mans+, but you can't beat a persistent, progressing world.

You don't really give people a choice. It's impossible to make content that is equally difficult/tuned for different numbers (apart from scaling something from 500 to 5000 players ofc).

Just look at all the "solo" raid clears people have done with DK in WoW. Sure you can do them with a pally or w/e too, but it's more difficult. What happened? Everyone used their DK to farm raids.

Same thing happens with adding more difficulties. People who are "hardcore" don't get the choice, they'll have to do both (usually). Why would you reward one person the same way for doing something "easier" (which is hilarious since all my fract weapons came from 20+ and I have never even gotten one in 40+ gotta love that RNG...)

The only thing I can get behind is alternate means of obtaining stuff. They just have to be on the same level of difficulty. So instead of grinding w/e dungeon you want the gear from you could for instance get it from doing JP's. Sadly I've never seen anyone ask for the same difficulty of getting the gear from somewhere else. In WoW it was always "make it come from dungeons" which I have no problem with IF you make dungeons just as hard as raids so that would be X% (droprate)/elligible classes/6(pieces of armor). I'm in the same kind of boat as you but then with "guilds" so I surely understand where you're coming from


The reason why people would solo/duo dungeons isn't because they enjoy them more. In my case it's because it's usually easier (10m raiding vs 25man raiding)


I agree that they're nothing like an MMO that's because diablo isn't an MMO although if you follow some people's definition, it clearly is /snort.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

I don't really get how the world progresses in GW2 (or any other MMO), it's pretty static even with DEs. Any changes are simple patches which also can be gotten for single-player games. Same for persistent.

I think you would've loved GW if you played it in it's prime although it is instanced, having every town as a hub seems to be something you like to make the world feel alive.

I'm not judging you or your preference btw, I'm just trying to understand what actually gets you exited. From what I recall you like questing/map completion and hate dungeons/pvp. You also seem to want human interaction. The one thing I can't wrap my head around is if you want that interaction to be massive or if instanced would be fine too.

[Fencers]

I don't really get how the world progresses in GW2 (or any other MMO), it's pretty static even with DEs. Any changes are simple patches which also can be gotten for single-player games. Same for persistent.

Even multiplayer games can have persistence and additional content added on.

Not to mention modding single/multi player games such as Skyrim, Torchlight or Arma. Which can extend not only the content but the degree of a game beyond what is economically feasible even for some of the wealthiest developers in the industry.

You don't really give people a choice. It's impossible to make content that is equally difficult/tuned for different numbers (apart from scaling something from 500 to 5000 players ofc).

I also want to point out the accuracy of this statement. Scaling content for 1 to 20 players is merely statistical manipulation. Either there are more enemies or harder hits.

A programmer can not reasonably create new mechanics every so many players. It's too easy to manipulate or "game".

[Gray_Matter]

So my assertion is correct. To consider multiplayer aspects of an MMO a relic within the genre is like saying shooting is outdated in FPS games. It's silly.

Lane didn't complaint about "multiplayer aspects", just one facet of them, 5 man dungeons. It's more like removing rocket launchers from a FPS, than shooting. I would suggest that MMO's are going the way that Lane mentioned. Where are the 40 man raids? Even 25 man raids are all but extinct. 10 Man is now the norm with things like scenarios (3 man) being pushed in another very popular game. Where does the whole concept of 5 man come from anyway? Why not 4 or 6? Probably, tank, healer and a few DPS which isn't even relevant in GW2? Personally, I would far prefer a group of 3 people.

[Lane]

The only thing I can get behind is alternate means of obtaining stuff. They just have to be on the same level of difficulty. So instead of grinding w/e dungeon you want the gear from you could for instance get it from doing JP's. Sadly I've never seen anyone ask for the same difficulty of getting the gear from somewhere else. In WoW it was always "make it come from dungeons" which I have no problem with IF you make dungeons just as hard as raids so that would be X% (droprate)/elligible classes/6(pieces of armor). I'm in the same kind of boat as you but then with "guilds" so I surely understand where you're coming from

It probably doesn't seem like it, but I actually enjoy solo challenges. One thing I wished I hadn't missed out on in WoW were the epic quest chains for Benediction/Anathema and the bow (I always forget its name). It seemed to be one of the few things you had to do solo. I usually try to test my mettle where it's feasible, whether it's trying to solo rifts or Chronicles in Rift, BAMs in Tera, or veterans/champions in GW2. Of course, few (none?) of those things are actually meant to be soloed, as far as I can tell. Point being, I could handle alternative means being challenging, I just hate when the challenge is partially reliance upon 4+ other people. -_-

Part of the reason people probably don't ask for it is because there's rarely the option given. The rewards via dungeons/raid system is prevalent in so many games you figure you have to work inside of that system rather than thinking outside of the box. Plus, a lot of people seem to believe that challenging encounters can't be designed for one person.

I don't really get how the world progresses in GW2 (or any other MMO), it's pretty static even with DEs. Any changes are simple patches which also can be gotten for single-player games. Same for persistent.

I think you would've loved GW if you played it in it's prime although it is instanced, having every town as a hub seems to be something you like to make the world feel alive.

I'm not judging you or your preference btw, I'm just trying to understand what actually gets you exited. From what I recall you like questing/map completion and hate dungeons/pvp. You also seem to want human interaction. The one thing I can't wrap my head around is if you want that interaction to be massive or if instanced would be fine too.

Well, I do have to concede the GW2 world has seemed rather stagnant lately (now that I've done map completion twice and alt #7 is pushing 80). Then again, I suppose that's true for every MMO between major updates. Were I not an altoholic I'd probably get bored a lot more quickly than I do. The DEs help a lot though. Regardless, yeah, questing and exploration are my main sources of enjoyment.

Hard to say about GW1. I didn't hear any positive feedback (literally none) from my gamer friends when GW was released so I never bothered with it. Even now when I've looked up HoM guides they adamantly suggest you do not start with Prophecies unless you want to have a hard time. At any rate, I'm not sure I would like the instanced worlds. It's just weird to be in a town full of people and then no one. I do like to pass by other people on occasion to at least remind me I'm not in a single player game. :P

[Meledelion]

I didn't mean to imply that I think you want "ez mode", it's just usually when people ask for other ways of getting gear they're not prepared for the consequences (like make dungeons drop raid loot and then get a higher difficulty).

Even now when I've looked up HoM guides they adamantly suggest you do not start with Prophecies unless you want to have a hard time.

That's mainly due to the different pace prophecies has in comparison to the expansions. You've done over half of the story by the time you get auto boosted to lvl 20. In the expansions you've done like 1/10th of the story and you'll be 20.

Other "issues" are that most zones in proph are immense or don't have any town near it so you have to chain multiple zones after eachother.

[Fencers]

Lane didn't complaint about "multiplayer aspects", just one facet of them, 5 man dungeons.

Already covered this in like 2 posts.

Where are the 40 man raids? Even 25 man raids are all but extinct.

Actually, a few MMOs are out there and coming out which are pushing larger group content.

10 Man is now the norm

I think that is only true in WoW and among WoW players. I can't say that is the norm in any other MMO I play which features raiding of varying sizes.

Getting the 10 mans together in Rift is like pulling teeth. While most shunned the 6 and 12 man instances in RA in favor of the 24 and 48 zones.

Where does the whole concept of 5 man come from anyway?

It's arbitrary mostly. In the past MMOs had dungeons of 6 or 8. The older ones had no true cap on players when zones were created in what is known as the "bowl" style. Guild Wars 1 is like that, for example. Which didn't have a role defined trinity, btw.

[draykorinee]

What if we are a group of 3? Tough luck, find a 4th. :[
What if we are a group of 2? Tough luck, find a 3rd. :'[
What if I am solo? Tough luck, find a partner? t_t

Given enough reduction it is longer a massive or multiplayer game by design.

That isnt what I was suggesting though, What if you were a group of 3 and its designed to be flexible down to 3 you wouldnt need to find any extra players. If its designed to be flexible down to solo play, so what, the game is designed to cater for peoples tastes, but the game design is still an mmo, its still a persistent world with massive numbers of players, you're still likely to social the majority of the time, just because one facet of group play could potentially be solod doesnt mean that by design the game is not multiplayer. The recent lock quest and treasure room in wow is a great example of solo play in an mmo that does not have any impact on the game feeling like an mmo.

---------- Post added 2013-06-19 at 07:47 AM ----------

Already covered this in like 2 posts.

Not well enough for my liking still.

[Valeron]

So I heard that GW2 was getting a LFG tool?

[draykorinee]

Yes but will it be random lfg to cater for wrathbabies or will it not so it can cater for the hardcore vanilla wowers wanting a real challenge! I don't care too much but I really hope its soon, GW2 is now getting replaced by skyrim in my list of priorities, although im finding playing a single player game less rewarding, which is why I wouldnt personally want to see too much single player content in mmos.

[Valeron]

lol, dray, didn't think you would actually take my post seriously.

Anyway, I'm bored of video games period. I enjoy the gameplay and combat of GW2, pretty much why I've only been playing this game for past several months. I can't even play good single player games anymore, just tired of them I guess.

[draykorinee]

I put in a ! for exclamation kind of to interpret sarcasm :P Actually, I am similar to you, video games are becoming less appealing, I find I spend more time looking for another game or discussing games than I do playing games.

[Lane]

I love gaming, unfortunately my budget doesn't allow for much of it. Yet another reason I ended up gravitating towards MMOs, it's quite a bit of entertainment for the investment (usually).

[Valeron]

times change and so does society, Bovinity

forced grouping won't succeed anymore despite it being prevalent before WoW

[Fencers]

Don't really don't remember this being a thing until WoW, either.

Well, World of Warcraft opened the genre up to a lot more people that probably wouldn't and shouldn't be interested in the genre. That's part of it's massive popularity- Blizz managed to snag a wider audience by offering greater ease of access in play systems.

It is successful.

[Valeron]

Ok, well I suppose it depends on our own definition of successful. I'll just amend it and say a game that primarily focused on forced grouped content will be not be a widely popular game.

[Valeron]

Well I agree there. WoW's success certainly has skewed most peoples definition of successful.

Could be said of developers as well. SE said that the newest Tomb Raider was a failure (from a sales point of view) even though they sold over 4 million in the first month.

[Fencers]

Ok, well I suppose it depends on our own definition of successful. I'll just amend it and say a game that primarily focused on forced grouped content will be not be a widely popular game.

There are other factors in Warcraft's success besides less group demanding content. Mostly it was a matter of ease [everything in Warcraft is simple to understand, discern, very clear, very focused] and accessibility in the form of speed of play [Warcraft is fast] and ability to run on a Ti-56.

Culture also plays a part, natch.

It's very difficult to say that anything will reach that point again. Was sort of a zeitgeist thing with Warcraft.

Though that isn't to say that new games don't have large group content; Wildstar is going back to 40 mans, for example. Or would not be successful from a financial point of view. [Yes. I know you are not intimating this directly, Doozerjun.]

Bovinity is right here; the perception of "successful" is pretty skewed in the shadow of Blizzard's monolithic MMO.