Sure, but I look at it like this.
I would rather be excited to roll a new character because of the sweet new warrior spec, or sweet new L80 sylvari story arc, knowing that people with sylvari warriors actually got a better payoff for investing in their characters that was up front, immediate, and fun, just like I got a better payoff on my human thief, because the effort was spread top down in stead of bottom up.
The alternative, that I am excited to roll an alt because everybody has to roll an alt to do this thing is simply less compelling. it means my existing characters, and everyone’s existing characters just don’t matter as much as brand new ones.
That new content comes at the expense of every established character while only benefiting rerolling. The alternative is that every established characte gets a little more, and more importantly respects rather than invalidates the effort and time spent with that character.
GW1 had this balance down really well. There was a little bit of lead up content for new characters, but the vast majority of each narrative was both profitable and narratively appropriate for existing characters, as well as allowing existing characters to flash back to that tiny chunk of content that served as the expansion’s “intro”
Additionally, a new class in GW1 meant new options for every existing character.
Elite specs are the new classes. Races are a concept only usable at the beginning of the story and for aesthetic purposes. Moving all the effort that would go in to a new racial story in to the real story, and moving all the work that would go in to a new race in to significantly more cosmetic options, armor, animations, and maps to explore for the existing ones really does benefit everyone more.
New players have no basis for comparison. GW2’s early game will still be stellar for them. Existing players will derive a _wealth of content whether they only ever play one character, have a full stable of alts, or are just looking for a reason to roll another one.
I just can’t see the value in adding “reroll required” content when the alternative results in a much grander experience that respects and builds upon the existing game rather than replacing parts of it, requiring players to retread other parts they’re already sick of, and results in yet another alt they’ll get bored of until the next expansion requires them to roll yet another alt, that’s they’ll then get bored of because not enough effort was put in to continuing content for the alts they already have.
Conversely, some people really really love making alts. I’ve heard of people on accounts who have hit the maximum number of character slots and then ask for more. Yes, they are the extreme, but there are people who would not have any problem whatsoever with having to roll a new character because a new class or race was released. Especially given how easy it is to get a character to level 80 these days.
Well that was cryptic. How do you get on the bus that avoids the accident -_-
Basically, I believe you have to figure out which node the “accident” is on and harass your ISP who has contracts with the node’s owner to get the node back in working condition. The more information you have the better luck you’ll have with the ISP.
The ISP holds the power due to those contracts.
Other ways are to use VPN’s as you’ll be routed differently. The only problem there is I believe ANet sees the VPN’s IP and not yours and if that VPN IP has been used on a bad account at one point you could get caught in the crossfire when ANet deals with the bad account. Don’t quote me on that, though, as I’m only 80% confident in the statement.
they have value now, whats wrong with that
I think they believed that they were too common so instead of affecting demand, they affected supply.
Whether or not they over-corrected is the real question.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?
His first point:
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.
His second point:
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.
This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.
His third and final point:
There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.
Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.
So I agreed with his post.
And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.
Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.
And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.
But you of course ignored the fast that most of the end game content is group only, and the majority of items related to progression are group only, so you can’t really viably play solo.
I didn’t ignore it.
GW2 has content for players who absolutely refuse to play in the nearby vicinity of other players even if they aren’t actually playing together.
I play 99.9% solo. I don’t particularly enjoy to a huge degree group events since it’s just a press 1 and don’t have to worry about anything because if I go down, someone will get me up.
I’m the player the game going 100% able to be solo would completely benefit. Yet, I realize that that’s an absurd request for an MMO and I’m completely fine with some parts of the game, I have to get over my introvert and shy nature and group with people. I had to do it for the one of the Tier 1 collections for Storm. Had to do the snowblind fractal and I’m not good enough to solo it.
No one has explained why it’s absurd request for an MMO. I’m not proposing we remove multiplayer, so there’s no contradiction with the core of the genre. You might be fine with being left out of content, but a lot of others aren’t.
Massively MULTIPLAYER Online.
I can’t think of a single multiplayer game that I’ve played in any genre that didn’t require me to actively play with other players. Intentionally. So to me, that any part of MMO’s is able to be done solo is a gift and I treat it as such.
Once again, I’m not saying remove the, as you put it, MULTIPLAYER.
Having it present and forcing it are not the same, and there’s no set of logical steps that explains why a multiplayer game should force multiplayer. If that’s what you perceive, okay then, but it’s not an argument.
When I log in, I’m not forced to find a group to play the game. If I wish to do some aspects of the game, I am forced to find a group. And that’s pefectly acceptable for an MMO.
It’s perfectly fine for an MMO to have content that requires players to play together.
Saying that it’s fine doesn’t make it fine, and saying that it’s a multiplayer game doesn’t make it fine either.
Conversely, saying that it’s not fine, doesn’t make it not fine.
And yes, saying that a multiplayer game is just fine in requiring group play for some things does make it fine.
No, it really doesn’t make it fine, and if you can’t see that, I don’t know what else to say. Conversely saying it’s not fine doesn’t make it not fine, that’s true. Which is why we’re offering several actual arguments, something you’re not doing. The community would benefit from more choice, the players would benefit from more choice. Unforced social interaction, organic social interaction, is always going to be better than forcing it, etc.
We’ve made several points, but you’re just ignoring them with your fingers in your ears saying “but it’s an MMO, and one of the M’s means multiplayer, so it’s ok”
I literally can’t see how someone would expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it to not have any content that requires one to play with other people. And I haven’t seen a reason that explains how one would expect that.
So until someone can explain that, there’s no way you’re going to get me to agree that having content that requires group play is not fine for an MMO.
You don’t consider player choice and the organic forming of social interactions good reasons. Alright.
That doesn’t explain how someone would expect a multiplayer game to not have aspects of the game that require grouping.
It explains having aspects of the game that require group play and aspects that don’t at the same time. It doesn’t explain a multiplayer game not requiring group play at all.
All aspects should be soloable because it has no negative consequences, and only positive ones. People who like soloing can solo more, people who don’t can still play in a group. There’s no good reason not to do it, and the M in MMO is not a reason not to do it.
You still haven’t explained to me how a player can expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it could expect to never be required to play with other people.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter. If this change has positive results, and no negative ones, it should be done, regardless of the semantics of the word multiplayer.
It risks making players who do want to group not be able to find a group every time they want to because those who do want to group don’t play at the same time as they do every time. Especially those who already have a lower pool due to not playing during their region’s prime time.
Then you have players who want to group to do content who can’t because no one is available to do the content with.
Whereas now, that’s hard to run into for content that’s required to have a group (provided ANet’s not nerfed the rewards to kingdom come or made it too hard to do, even for a zerg).
“It risks making players who do want to group not be able to find a group every time they want to because those who do want to group don’t play at the same time as they do every time. "
The alternative to that is coercion, forcing people into a game mode they don’t want to be in. If so few people are left to run group content, sorry but that just means they didn’t want to run it to begin with. But I think with group content having more efficient rewards, you’re still going to be able to find a group.
Nothing is all good or all bad.
ANet has the details to decide on which of the two options is the lesser of two evils in their eyes.
Since they haven’t come out with easily able to be soloed dungeons and have gone on to make group content that requires play with more players than dungeons and fractals do, I would imagine ANet doesn’t feel that required group play is the greater evil.
And like I said earlier, if ANet wants to make content that is able to be soloed out of group content (like different versions) with scaled down rewards, that would be fine with me. Just as long as things like legendary armor stuff from raids doesn’t get put into the solo raid. The legendary piece should require you to actually participate in the group version.
That being said, they should eventually make another legendary armor skin and make it be acquired through other means (which could include means that are solo only).
So if you want the current legendary armor skin, you would have to do the group content, but you could still get legendary armor without grouping. Just not the group raid skin.
Anet hasn’t done anything yet because they work mostly based on community feedback, which, I would imagine, is the point of this thread. If you want to be fine with being excluded, then be fine with it. But just because you accept it doesn’t mean everyone else should.
Like I said at the end of the post you quoted:
I do not mind if they create solo-versions of dungeons/fractals/raids if they are mindful of the rewards and keep exclusive rewards to each type, just as long as the exclusive rewards aren’t unique because of stats or rarity level.
Open world, short of the organized map-wide metas and the harder world bosses, 99% should not require you to play with others. And of that 1% that requires playing with others, not more than 90% should require playing with others.
I do think there is a difference between two players silently doing a harder hero challenge together because they coincidentally ended up there and two players deciding to run around and do hero challenges together before they start playing.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?
His first point:
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.
His second point:
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.
This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.
His third and final point:
There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.
Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.
So I agreed with his post.
And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.
Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.
And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.
But you of course ignored the fast that most of the end game content is group only, and the majority of items related to progression are group only, so you can’t really viably play solo.
I didn’t ignore it.
GW2 has content for players who absolutely refuse to play in the nearby vicinity of other players even if they aren’t actually playing together.
I play 99.9% solo. I don’t particularly enjoy to a huge degree group events since it’s just a press 1 and don’t have to worry about anything because if I go down, someone will get me up.
I’m the player the game going 100% able to be solo would completely benefit. Yet, I realize that that’s an absurd request for an MMO and I’m completely fine with some parts of the game, I have to get over my introvert and shy nature and group with people. I had to do it for the one of the Tier 1 collections for Storm. Had to do the snowblind fractal and I’m not good enough to solo it.
No one has explained why it’s absurd request for an MMO. I’m not proposing we remove multiplayer, so there’s no contradiction with the core of the genre. You might be fine with being left out of content, but a lot of others aren’t.
Massively MULTIPLAYER Online.
I can’t think of a single multiplayer game that I’ve played in any genre that didn’t require me to actively play with other players. Intentionally. So to me, that any part of MMO’s is able to be done solo is a gift and I treat it as such.
Once again, I’m not saying remove the, as you put it, MULTIPLAYER.
Having it present and forcing it are not the same, and there’s no set of logical steps that explains why a multiplayer game should force multiplayer. If that’s what you perceive, okay then, but it’s not an argument.
When I log in, I’m not forced to find a group to play the game. If I wish to do some aspects of the game, I am forced to find a group. And that’s pefectly acceptable for an MMO.
It’s perfectly fine for an MMO to have content that requires players to play together.
Saying that it’s fine doesn’t make it fine, and saying that it’s a multiplayer game doesn’t make it fine either.
Conversely, saying that it’s not fine, doesn’t make it not fine.
And yes, saying that a multiplayer game is just fine in requiring group play for some things does make it fine.
No, it really doesn’t make it fine, and if you can’t see that, I don’t know what else to say. Conversely saying it’s not fine doesn’t make it not fine, that’s true. Which is why we’re offering several actual arguments, something you’re not doing. The community would benefit from more choice, the players would benefit from more choice. Unforced social interaction, organic social interaction, is always going to be better than forcing it, etc.
We’ve made several points, but you’re just ignoring them with your fingers in your ears saying “but it’s an MMO, and one of the M’s means multiplayer, so it’s ok”
I literally can’t see how someone would expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it to not have any content that requires one to play with other people. And I haven’t seen a reason that explains how one would expect that.
So until someone can explain that, there’s no way you’re going to get me to agree that having content that requires group play is not fine for an MMO.
You don’t consider player choice and the organic forming of social interactions good reasons. Alright.
That doesn’t explain how someone would expect a multiplayer game to not have aspects of the game that require grouping.
It explains having aspects of the game that require group play and aspects that don’t at the same time. It doesn’t explain a multiplayer game not requiring group play at all.
All aspects should be soloable because it has no negative consequences, and only positive ones. People who like soloing can solo more, people who don’t can still play in a group. There’s no good reason not to do it, and the M in MMO is not a reason not to do it.
You still haven’t explained to me how a player can expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it could expect to never be required to play with other people.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter. If this change has positive results, and no negative ones, it should be done, regardless of the semantics of the word multiplayer.
It risks making players who do want to group not be able to find a group every time they want to because those who do want to group don’t play at the same time as they do every time. Especially those who already have a lower pool due to not playing during their region’s prime time.
Then you have players who want to group to do content who can’t because no one is available to do the content with.
Whereas now, that’s hard to run into for content that’s required to have a group (provided ANet’s not nerfed the rewards to kingdom come or made it too hard to do, even for a zerg).
“It risks making players who do want to group not be able to find a group every time they want to because those who do want to group don’t play at the same time as they do every time. "
The alternative to that is coercion, forcing people into a game mode they don’t want to be in. If so few people are left to run group content, sorry but that just means they didn’t want to run it to begin with. But I think with group content having more efficient rewards, you’re still going to be able to find a group.
Nothing is all good or all bad.
ANet has the details to decide on which of the two options is the lesser of two evils in their eyes.
Since they haven’t come out with easily able to be soloed dungeons and have gone on to make group content that requires play with more players than dungeons and fractals do, I would imagine ANet doesn’t feel that required group play is the greater evil.
And like I said earlier, if ANet wants to make content that is able to be soloed out of group content (like different versions) with scaled down rewards, that would be fine with me. Just as long as things like legendary armor stuff from raids doesn’t get put into the solo raid. The legendary piece should require you to actually participate in the group version.
That being said, they should eventually make another legendary armor skin and make it be acquired through other means (which could include means that are solo only).
So if you want the current legendary armor skin, you would have to do the group content, but you could still get legendary armor without grouping. Just not the group raid skin.
So what are all of us, the people experiencing this issue, supposed to do? The ISP won’t do anything, we’ve tried everything we have been told to try on the Forum, I don’t know lol. Just uninstall and give away our stuff?
The bus that you’re on is on the route that has had an accident that’s slowing traffic down (or causing it to stop).
Other players are on a different bus that takes a route that avoids the accident.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?
His first point:
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.
His second point:
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.
This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.
His third and final point:
There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.
Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.
So I agreed with his post.
And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.
Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.
And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.
But you of course ignored the fast that most of the end game content is group only, and the majority of items related to progression are group only, so you can’t really viably play solo.
I didn’t ignore it.
GW2 has content for players who absolutely refuse to play in the nearby vicinity of other players even if they aren’t actually playing together.
I play 99.9% solo. I don’t particularly enjoy to a huge degree group events since it’s just a press 1 and don’t have to worry about anything because if I go down, someone will get me up.
I’m the player the game going 100% able to be solo would completely benefit. Yet, I realize that that’s an absurd request for an MMO and I’m completely fine with some parts of the game, I have to get over my introvert and shy nature and group with people. I had to do it for the one of the Tier 1 collections for Storm. Had to do the snowblind fractal and I’m not good enough to solo it.
No one has explained why it’s absurd request for an MMO. I’m not proposing we remove multiplayer, so there’s no contradiction with the core of the genre. You might be fine with being left out of content, but a lot of others aren’t.
Massively MULTIPLAYER Online.
I can’t think of a single multiplayer game that I’ve played in any genre that didn’t require me to actively play with other players. Intentionally. So to me, that any part of MMO’s is able to be done solo is a gift and I treat it as such.
Once again, I’m not saying remove the, as you put it, MULTIPLAYER.
Having it present and forcing it are not the same, and there’s no set of logical steps that explains why a multiplayer game should force multiplayer. If that’s what you perceive, okay then, but it’s not an argument.
When I log in, I’m not forced to find a group to play the game. If I wish to do some aspects of the game, I am forced to find a group. And that’s pefectly acceptable for an MMO.
It’s perfectly fine for an MMO to have content that requires players to play together.
Saying that it’s fine doesn’t make it fine, and saying that it’s a multiplayer game doesn’t make it fine either.
Conversely, saying that it’s not fine, doesn’t make it not fine.
And yes, saying that a multiplayer game is just fine in requiring group play for some things does make it fine.
No, it really doesn’t make it fine, and if you can’t see that, I don’t know what else to say. Conversely saying it’s not fine doesn’t make it not fine, that’s true. Which is why we’re offering several actual arguments, something you’re not doing. The community would benefit from more choice, the players would benefit from more choice. Unforced social interaction, organic social interaction, is always going to be better than forcing it, etc.
We’ve made several points, but you’re just ignoring them with your fingers in your ears saying “but it’s an MMO, and one of the M’s means multiplayer, so it’s ok”
I literally can’t see how someone would expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it to not have any content that requires one to play with other people. And I haven’t seen a reason that explains how one would expect that.
So until someone can explain that, there’s no way you’re going to get me to agree that having content that requires group play is not fine for an MMO.
You don’t consider player choice and the organic forming of social interactions good reasons. Alright.
That doesn’t explain how someone would expect a multiplayer game to not have aspects of the game that require grouping.
It explains having aspects of the game that require group play and aspects that don’t at the same time. It doesn’t explain a multiplayer game not requiring group play at all.
All aspects should be soloable because it has no negative consequences, and only positive ones. People who like soloing can solo more, people who don’t can still play in a group. There’s no good reason not to do it, and the M in MMO is not a reason not to do it.
You still haven’t explained to me how a player can expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it could expect to never be required to play with other people.
multiplayer just means multiple people on one integrated server or setting, so since the world’s data even instanced is live fed to the main server technically GW 1 would fit that criteria to you, and so would any flash game hosted on the internet. And the vast majority of flash games, are in fact soloable. consider it defined for ya
When the discussion is in regards to whether an MMO should or should not have content that requires multiple players, a CORPG is not a good example to bring up to support your claims.
And no, that does not explain how one could expect a multiplayer game to not have ANY aspects that require playing with others.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?
His first point:
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.
His second point:
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.
This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.
His third and final point:
There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.
Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.
So I agreed with his post.
And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.
Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.
And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.
But you of course ignored the fast that most of the end game content is group only, and the majority of items related to progression are group only, so you can’t really viably play solo.
I didn’t ignore it.
GW2 has content for players who absolutely refuse to play in the nearby vicinity of other players even if they aren’t actually playing together.
I play 99.9% solo. I don’t particularly enjoy to a huge degree group events since it’s just a press 1 and don’t have to worry about anything because if I go down, someone will get me up.
I’m the player the game going 100% able to be solo would completely benefit. Yet, I realize that that’s an absurd request for an MMO and I’m completely fine with some parts of the game, I have to get over my introvert and shy nature and group with people. I had to do it for the one of the Tier 1 collections for Storm. Had to do the snowblind fractal and I’m not good enough to solo it.
No one has explained why it’s absurd request for an MMO. I’m not proposing we remove multiplayer, so there’s no contradiction with the core of the genre. You might be fine with being left out of content, but a lot of others aren’t.
Massively MULTIPLAYER Online.
I can’t think of a single multiplayer game that I’ve played in any genre that didn’t require me to actively play with other players. Intentionally. So to me, that any part of MMO’s is able to be done solo is a gift and I treat it as such.
Once again, I’m not saying remove the, as you put it, MULTIPLAYER.
Having it present and forcing it are not the same, and there’s no set of logical steps that explains why a multiplayer game should force multiplayer. If that’s what you perceive, okay then, but it’s not an argument.
When I log in, I’m not forced to find a group to play the game. If I wish to do some aspects of the game, I am forced to find a group. And that’s pefectly acceptable for an MMO.
It’s perfectly fine for an MMO to have content that requires players to play together.
Saying that it’s fine doesn’t make it fine, and saying that it’s a multiplayer game doesn’t make it fine either.
Conversely, saying that it’s not fine, doesn’t make it not fine.
And yes, saying that a multiplayer game is just fine in requiring group play for some things does make it fine.
No, it really doesn’t make it fine, and if you can’t see that, I don’t know what else to say. Conversely saying it’s not fine doesn’t make it not fine, that’s true. Which is why we’re offering several actual arguments, something you’re not doing. The community would benefit from more choice, the players would benefit from more choice. Unforced social interaction, organic social interaction, is always going to be better than forcing it, etc.
We’ve made several points, but you’re just ignoring them with your fingers in your ears saying “but it’s an MMO, and one of the M’s means multiplayer, so it’s ok”
I literally can’t see how someone would expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it to not have any content that requires one to play with other people. And I haven’t seen a reason that explains how one would expect that.
So until someone can explain that, there’s no way you’re going to get me to agree that having content that requires group play is not fine for an MMO.
You don’t consider player choice and the organic forming of social interactions good reasons. Alright.
That doesn’t explain how someone would expect a multiplayer game to not have aspects of the game that require grouping.
It explains having aspects of the game that require group play and aspects that don’t at the same time. It doesn’t explain a multiplayer game not requiring group play at all.
All aspects should be soloable because it has no negative consequences, and only positive ones. People who like soloing can solo more, people who don’t can still play in a group. There’s no good reason not to do it, and the M in MMO is not a reason not to do it.
You still haven’t explained to me how a player can expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it could expect to never be required to play with other people.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter. If this change has positive results, and no negative ones, it should be done, regardless of the semantics of the word multiplayer.
It risks making players who do want to group not be able to find a group every time they want to because those who do want to group don’t play at the same time as they do every time. Especially those who already have a lower pool due to not playing during their region’s prime time.
Then you have players who want to group to do content who can’t because no one is available to do the content with.
Whereas now, that’s hard to run into for content that’s required to have a group (provided ANet’s not nerfed the rewards to kingdom come or made it too hard to do, even for a zerg).
Okay so since defining an MMO is lost on people let’s look at the starting point Everquest, a completely group oriented game, that when faced with declining players added merc NPC’s to do group content, same for everquest two, in WoW old content is made soloable after a certain amount of time. In Aion and Liniage, low level and old content made soloable. These games were at one time or another forerunners, and what did they all do, they made things soloable, to keep players invested in the world, atm Anet, is down in player count, and monetarily not doing the best, so what should they probably do, well let’s look to see how many of the aforementioned games are closed… none. should probably add in something to keep us invested and playing. And soloing seems to work great in this genre as a hook, gimmick and marketing strategy.
…can you cite an example of an MMO that, like GW2, doesn’t have it’s ‘old content’ maps become a wasteland with the release of each new map?
Everquest, WoW, Aion, Lineage, etc. all have old content become soloable because there’s no incentive for veteran players to go back and play that content. The population on any map is heavily restricted to the very few players who happen to fall into that map’s level range at that time. Guild Wars 2 does not have that problem.
There’s tremendous incentive. There’s cosmetic gear, mounts, pets titles, not to mention lore. I play WoW, and I almost exclusively do old content.
Solo, on a level-capped or near-level capped character, right?
WoW discourages grouping up for open-world content – You can outlevel everything, so there’s no challenge to going back and farming anything you want as an unstoppable juggernaut. Other players are competition for mob tags, resource nodes, and loot drops. WoW’s Cross-Realm Zones – it’s answer to low player population in low-level maps, is wildly hated by the community because of the increased competition from other players. So please… find an example of a game that ISN’T hostile to casual group content.
CRZ is hated because WoW’s outdoor world is poorly implemented, but actually the new expansion is making some efforts to fix that.
Having said that, you made the false assumption that casual group content equals outdoor content when WoW has lots of casual, instanced group content.
No. WoW has easily-accessible instanced group content thanks to LFD/LFR and battlegrounds, but it’s not ‘casual’ in the same sense that Guild Wars 2 is. “Instanced’ is mutually-exclusive with ’Casual”, because "instanced’ is deliberate.
Then you don’t know what casual means. I think you mean to say organic.
Considering the multiple definitions of the word casual when it comes to MMO’s, he may be using the word casual correctly with regards to his definition.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?
His first point:
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.
His second point:
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.
This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.
His third and final point:
There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.
Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.
So I agreed with his post.
And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.
Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.
And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.
But you of course ignored the fast that most of the end game content is group only, and the majority of items related to progression are group only, so you can’t really viably play solo.
I didn’t ignore it.
GW2 has content for players who absolutely refuse to play in the nearby vicinity of other players even if they aren’t actually playing together.
I play 99.9% solo. I don’t particularly enjoy to a huge degree group events since it’s just a press 1 and don’t have to worry about anything because if I go down, someone will get me up.
I’m the player the game going 100% able to be solo would completely benefit. Yet, I realize that that’s an absurd request for an MMO and I’m completely fine with some parts of the game, I have to get over my introvert and shy nature and group with people. I had to do it for the one of the Tier 1 collections for Storm. Had to do the snowblind fractal and I’m not good enough to solo it.
No one has explained why it’s absurd request for an MMO. I’m not proposing we remove multiplayer, so there’s no contradiction with the core of the genre. You might be fine with being left out of content, but a lot of others aren’t.
Massively MULTIPLAYER Online.
I can’t think of a single multiplayer game that I’ve played in any genre that didn’t require me to actively play with other players. Intentionally. So to me, that any part of MMO’s is able to be done solo is a gift and I treat it as such.
Once again, I’m not saying remove the, as you put it, MULTIPLAYER.
Having it present and forcing it are not the same, and there’s no set of logical steps that explains why a multiplayer game should force multiplayer. If that’s what you perceive, okay then, but it’s not an argument.
When I log in, I’m not forced to find a group to play the game. If I wish to do some aspects of the game, I am forced to find a group. And that’s pefectly acceptable for an MMO.
It’s perfectly fine for an MMO to have content that requires players to play together.
Saying that it’s fine doesn’t make it fine, and saying that it’s a multiplayer game doesn’t make it fine either.
Conversely, saying that it’s not fine, doesn’t make it not fine.
And yes, saying that a multiplayer game is just fine in requiring group play for some things does make it fine.
No, it really doesn’t make it fine, and if you can’t see that, I don’t know what else to say. Conversely saying it’s not fine doesn’t make it not fine, that’s true. Which is why we’re offering several actual arguments, something you’re not doing. The community would benefit from more choice, the players would benefit from more choice. Unforced social interaction, organic social interaction, is always going to be better than forcing it, etc.
We’ve made several points, but you’re just ignoring them with your fingers in your ears saying “but it’s an MMO, and one of the M’s means multiplayer, so it’s ok”
I literally can’t see how someone would expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it to not have any content that requires one to play with other people. And I haven’t seen a reason that explains how one would expect that.
So until someone can explain that, there’s no way you’re going to get me to agree that having content that requires group play is not fine for an MMO.
You don’t consider player choice and the organic forming of social interactions good reasons. Alright.
That doesn’t explain how someone would expect a multiplayer game to not have aspects of the game that require grouping.
It explains having aspects of the game that require group play and aspects that don’t at the same time. It doesn’t explain a multiplayer game not requiring group play at all.
All aspects should be soloable because it has no negative consequences, and only positive ones. People who like soloing can solo more, people who don’t can still play in a group. There’s no good reason not to do it, and the M in MMO is not a reason not to do it.
You still haven’t explained to me how a player can expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it could expect to never be required to play with other people.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Second Line, defines a MMO, and again players should have the options and choices. 1 because of immersion and 2 because some people have issues actually doing group things due to mental disorders (social anxiety anthropohobia agoraphobia, etc.), but are recommended they play MMO’s by clinicians as a form of management and therapy, if they pay 60$ for the game they should be allowed to play all of it and the mental issues should be accommodated.
Did it ever occur to you that the fact that MMO’s have content that requires group play may be one of the reasons that clinicians recommend playing MMO’s to those types of players?
100% of content of MMO’s does not need to be able to be done solo. Which is what GW2 has. Some content that can be done solo and some content that requires a group.
when coping with something like that, it is best to have social interaction casually and by choice, but alot of people with these issues, get sucked into groups and get told they are playing wrong which makes matters worse, this can also help them learn the game, which in turn can prevent said issue from occuring. once they are confident they may even want to do group content.
Or the player could just never ever do group content at all because it’s not required for them to play and the therapeutic benefits aren’t achieved because their doctor wanted to actually group with other players intentionally.
I don’t have a degree in psychology of any level, so unless you do and can prove it, neither of us can say for sure what all the reasons clinicians have for “prescribing” MMO play to their patients. I can’t think of a single MMO that doesn’t require group play for parts of the game. GW1 is a CORPG, not an MMO.
You do realize you can have social interactions in an MMO without participating in forced group content, right?
Yes. I do it all the time. I’m one of those players who prefers to play solo.
However, their doctor may want them to actually do content together.
And at some point in their treatment, content that may actually create a disagreement to see how well the patient has progressed. To see if the patient doesn’t have as much anxiety. Or can at least control their response to the anxiety better.
When group content is required, people become a means to an end. It would not be good for a person with a mental disorder to be treated and talked to like a tool by random strangers wanting their currency in an optimal timeframe.
Of course, if group content wasn’t required, those kinds of people are less likely to be there, and the experience would be a lot more relaxed. Disagreements would be respectable instead of venomous.
Players don’t suddenly become 100% nice 100% of the time just because they aren’t required to group together.
Please find me a study that proves this and I’ll give you the point.
Name me one well known MMO that does not have any content that requires group play (well known so that one could expect enough doctors to know about it to “prescribe” to patients).
The most well known MMO is WoW. Which I believe does have content that requires groups to play. So tell me why a doctor would “prescribe” MMO play to a patient they didn’t feel was ready for what could happen when they play an MMO, when the most widely known MMO has content that requires group play?
I didn’t say it would be 100% one way or 100% another, but it would certainly make a difference.
And I highly doubt these doctors, with their up to 20 hour work days actually know the intricacies of the way MMOs work, and how the group content is structured, so just because they recommend a game with social interaction doesn’t mean they’re intending their patients to be put into nasty, cutthroat social situations.
And most MMOs requiring group content doesn’t mean they should. Just because something is a certain way doesn’t mean it’s the best way for it to be.
Like I said in the post, name a well known MMO that doesn’t require group play. I’m not saying that there isn’t an MMO out there that doesn’t require group play, but if it’s not well known, then I wouldn’t expect more than a handful to know about it.
And the younger doctors would. The ones just getting out of school and starting in the field. The ones who grew up with WoW having already been released and well known.
Plus, with google being pretty a commonly used resource, I’m sure a reputable doctor would do some research on MMO’s before telling a patient to play it. Just like they would read studies and/or listen to reps discuss a drug before writing prescriptions for them to their patients.
name one soloable Everquest heralded as the first MMO, and yeah they looked some up I chose guild wars out of the list.
If by guild wars, you mean GW1, that’s not an MMO, that’s a CORPG.
Fair enough on their being MMO’s that don’t require grouping.
But since GW2 has required grouping since day continuously for some content, I would not consider the doctor to be a good one if they recommended GW2 to a patient who was not ready for all possible types of interactions with players.
That would be like a doctor prescribing Drug A to their patient without looking into it at all and it having a known bad reaction of Drug B, which that doctor had prescribed to the patient at the same visit.
was GW1, and during development for 2 we weren’t told it wasn’t soloable, didn’t find that out until BWE’s and those lucky to Test at PAX so at the time if it hadn’t been out but in development based off info from its prequel, would have stood to wager as good as the other. And the drug a vs drug b thing, happens alot clinicians aren’t as well trained at pharmaceuticals in most countries as they should be when it comes to mental health.
Like I said, a known reaction with the drug A/B thing.
So you can’t really use GW1 as a reason for why GW2 should be able to have 100% solo able things as GW1 and GW2 are in different genres. Similar, but different.
And I did say GW2 was known to have group content since it’s release. While it was being developed wouldn’t be since it’s release.
And just to add, that doesn’t mean that ANet should keep acquisition of top tier gear in group-required content at all times. And by gear I mean either rarity level (exotic vs ascended vs legendary) and stats wise. Skins can be 100% exclusive to the group-required content.
So yes, at some point, legendary armor should be available by doing things other than raiding. But it should have a different skin.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?
His first point:
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.
His second point:
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.
This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.
His third and final point:
There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.
Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.
So I agreed with his post.
And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.
Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.
And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.
But you of course ignored the fast that most of the end game content is group only, and the majority of items related to progression are group only, so you can’t really viably play solo.
I didn’t ignore it.
GW2 has content for players who absolutely refuse to play in the nearby vicinity of other players even if they aren’t actually playing together.
I play 99.9% solo. I don’t particularly enjoy to a huge degree group events since it’s just a press 1 and don’t have to worry about anything because if I go down, someone will get me up.
I’m the player the game going 100% able to be solo would completely benefit. Yet, I realize that that’s an absurd request for an MMO and I’m completely fine with some parts of the game, I have to get over my introvert and shy nature and group with people. I had to do it for the one of the Tier 1 collections for Storm. Had to do the snowblind fractal and I’m not good enough to solo it.
No one has explained why it’s absurd request for an MMO. I’m not proposing we remove multiplayer, so there’s no contradiction with the core of the genre. You might be fine with being left out of content, but a lot of others aren’t.
Massively MULTIPLAYER Online.
I can’t think of a single multiplayer game that I’ve played in any genre that didn’t require me to actively play with other players. Intentionally. So to me, that any part of MMO’s is able to be done solo is a gift and I treat it as such.
Once again, I’m not saying remove the, as you put it, MULTIPLAYER.
Having it present and forcing it are not the same, and there’s no set of logical steps that explains why a multiplayer game should force multiplayer. If that’s what you perceive, okay then, but it’s not an argument.
When I log in, I’m not forced to find a group to play the game. If I wish to do some aspects of the game, I am forced to find a group. And that’s pefectly acceptable for an MMO.
It’s perfectly fine for an MMO to have content that requires players to play together.
Saying that it’s fine doesn’t make it fine, and saying that it’s a multiplayer game doesn’t make it fine either.
Conversely, saying that it’s not fine, doesn’t make it not fine.
And yes, saying that a multiplayer game is just fine in requiring group play for some things does make it fine.
No, it really doesn’t make it fine, and if you can’t see that, I don’t know what else to say. Conversely saying it’s not fine doesn’t make it not fine, that’s true. Which is why we’re offering several actual arguments, something you’re not doing. The community would benefit from more choice, the players would benefit from more choice. Unforced social interaction, organic social interaction, is always going to be better than forcing it, etc.
We’ve made several points, but you’re just ignoring them with your fingers in your ears saying “but it’s an MMO, and one of the M’s means multiplayer, so it’s ok”
I literally can’t see how someone would expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it to not have any content that requires one to play with other people. And I haven’t seen a reason that explains how one would expect that.
So until someone can explain that, there’s no way you’re going to get me to agree that having content that requires group play is not fine for an MMO.
You don’t consider player choice and the organic forming of social interactions good reasons. Alright.
That doesn’t explain how someone would expect a multiplayer game to not have aspects of the game that require grouping.
It explains having aspects of the game that require group play and aspects that don’t at the same time. It doesn’t explain a multiplayer game not requiring group play at all.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Second Line, defines a MMO, and again players should have the options and choices. 1 because of immersion and 2 because some people have issues actually doing group things due to mental disorders (social anxiety anthropohobia agoraphobia, etc.), but are recommended they play MMO’s by clinicians as a form of management and therapy, if they pay 60$ for the game they should be allowed to play all of it and the mental issues should be accommodated.
Did it ever occur to you that the fact that MMO’s have content that requires group play may be one of the reasons that clinicians recommend playing MMO’s to those types of players?
100% of content of MMO’s does not need to be able to be done solo. Which is what GW2 has. Some content that can be done solo and some content that requires a group.
when coping with something like that, it is best to have social interaction casually and by choice, but alot of people with these issues, get sucked into groups and get told they are playing wrong which makes matters worse, this can also help them learn the game, which in turn can prevent said issue from occuring. once they are confident they may even want to do group content.
Or the player could just never ever do group content at all because it’s not required for them to play and the therapeutic benefits aren’t achieved because their doctor wanted to actually group with other players intentionally.
I don’t have a degree in psychology of any level, so unless you do and can prove it, neither of us can say for sure what all the reasons clinicians have for “prescribing” MMO play to their patients. I can’t think of a single MMO that doesn’t require group play for parts of the game. GW1 is a CORPG, not an MMO.
You do realize you can have social interactions in an MMO without participating in forced group content, right?
Yes. I do it all the time. I’m one of those players who prefers to play solo.
However, their doctor may want them to actually do content together.
And at some point in their treatment, content that may actually create a disagreement to see how well the patient has progressed. To see if the patient doesn’t have as much anxiety. Or can at least control their response to the anxiety better.
When group content is required, people become a means to an end. It would not be good for a person with a mental disorder to be treated and talked to like a tool by random strangers wanting their currency in an optimal timeframe.
Of course, if group content wasn’t required, those kinds of people are less likely to be there, and the experience would be a lot more relaxed. Disagreements would be respectable instead of venomous.
Players don’t suddenly become 100% nice 100% of the time just because they aren’t required to group together.
Please find me a study that proves this and I’ll give you the point.
Name me one well known MMO that does not have any content that requires group play (well known so that one could expect enough doctors to know about it to “prescribe” to patients).
The most well known MMO is WoW. Which I believe does have content that requires groups to play. So tell me why a doctor would “prescribe” MMO play to a patient they didn’t feel was ready for what could happen when they play an MMO, when the most widely known MMO has content that requires group play?
I didn’t say it would be 100% one way or 100% another, but it would certainly make a difference.
And I highly doubt these doctors, with their up to 20 hour work days actually know the intricacies of the way MMOs work, and how the group content is structured, so just because they recommend a game with social interaction doesn’t mean they’re intending their patients to be put into nasty, cutthroat social situations.
And most MMOs requiring group content doesn’t mean they should. Just because something is a certain way doesn’t mean it’s the best way for it to be.
Like I said in the post, name a well known MMO that doesn’t require group play. I’m not saying that there isn’t an MMO out there that doesn’t require group play, but if it’s not well known, then I wouldn’t expect more than a handful to know about it.
And the younger doctors would. The ones just getting out of school and starting in the field. The ones who grew up with WoW having already been released and well known.
Plus, with google being pretty a commonly used resource, I’m sure a reputable doctor would do some research on MMO’s before telling a patient to play it. Just like they would read studies and/or listen to reps discuss a drug before writing prescriptions for them to their patients.
name one soloable Everquest heralded as the first MMO, and yeah they looked some up I chose guild wars out of the list.
If by guild wars, you mean GW1, that’s not an MMO, that’s a CORPG.
Fair enough on their being MMO’s that don’t require grouping.
But since GW2 has required grouping since day continuously for some content, I would not consider the doctor to be a good one if they recommended GW2 to a patient who was not ready for all possible types of interactions with players.
That would be like a doctor prescribing Drug A to their patient without looking into it at all and it having a known bad reaction of Drug B, which that doctor had prescribed to the patient at the same visit.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?
His first point:
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.
His second point:
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.
This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.
His third and final point:
There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.
Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.
So I agreed with his post.
And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.
Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.
And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.
But you of course ignored the fast that most of the end game content is group only, and the majority of items related to progression are group only, so you can’t really viably play solo.
I didn’t ignore it.
GW2 has content for players who absolutely refuse to play in the nearby vicinity of other players even if they aren’t actually playing together.
I play 99.9% solo. I don’t particularly enjoy to a huge degree group events since it’s just a press 1 and don’t have to worry about anything because if I go down, someone will get me up.
I’m the player the game going 100% able to be solo would completely benefit. Yet, I realize that that’s an absurd request for an MMO and I’m completely fine with some parts of the game, I have to get over my introvert and shy nature and group with people. I had to do it for the one of the Tier 1 collections for Storm. Had to do the snowblind fractal and I’m not good enough to solo it.
No one has explained why it’s absurd request for an MMO. I’m not proposing we remove multiplayer, so there’s no contradiction with the core of the genre. You might be fine with being left out of content, but a lot of others aren’t.
Massively MULTIPLAYER Online.
I can’t think of a single multiplayer game that I’ve played in any genre that didn’t require me to actively play with other players. Intentionally. So to me, that any part of MMO’s is able to be done solo is a gift and I treat it as such.
Once again, I’m not saying remove the, as you put it, MULTIPLAYER.
Having it present and forcing it are not the same, and there’s no set of logical steps that explains why a multiplayer game should force multiplayer. If that’s what you perceive, okay then, but it’s not an argument.
When I log in, I’m not forced to find a group to play the game. If I wish to do some aspects of the game, I am forced to find a group. And that’s pefectly acceptable for an MMO.
It’s perfectly fine for an MMO to have content that requires players to play together.
Saying that it’s fine doesn’t make it fine, and saying that it’s a multiplayer game doesn’t make it fine either.
Conversely, saying that it’s not fine, doesn’t make it not fine.
And yes, saying that a multiplayer game is just fine in requiring group play for some things does make it fine.
No, it really doesn’t make it fine, and if you can’t see that, I don’t know what else to say. Conversely saying it’s not fine doesn’t make it not fine, that’s true. Which is why we’re offering several actual arguments, something you’re not doing. The community would benefit from more choice, the players would benefit from more choice. Unforced social interaction, organic social interaction, is always going to be better than forcing it, etc.
We’ve made several points, but you’re just ignoring them with your fingers in your ears saying “but it’s an MMO, and one of the M’s means multiplayer, so it’s ok”
I literally can’t see how someone would expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it to not have any content that requires one to play with other people. And I haven’t seen a reason that explains how one would expect that.
So until someone can explain that, there’s no way you’re going to get me to agree that having content that requires group play is not fine for an MMO.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Second Line, defines a MMO, and again players should have the options and choices. 1 because of immersion and 2 because some people have issues actually doing group things due to mental disorders (social anxiety anthropohobia agoraphobia, etc.), but are recommended they play MMO’s by clinicians as a form of management and therapy, if they pay 60$ for the game they should be allowed to play all of it and the mental issues should be accommodated.
Did it ever occur to you that the fact that MMO’s have content that requires group play may be one of the reasons that clinicians recommend playing MMO’s to those types of players?
100% of content of MMO’s does not need to be able to be done solo. Which is what GW2 has. Some content that can be done solo and some content that requires a group.
when coping with something like that, it is best to have social interaction casually and by choice, but alot of people with these issues, get sucked into groups and get told they are playing wrong which makes matters worse, this can also help them learn the game, which in turn can prevent said issue from occuring. once they are confident they may even want to do group content.
Or the player could just never ever do group content at all because it’s not required for them to play and the therapeutic benefits aren’t achieved because their doctor wanted to actually group with other players intentionally.
I don’t have a degree in psychology of any level, so unless you do and can prove it, neither of us can say for sure what all the reasons clinicians have for “prescribing” MMO play to their patients. I can’t think of a single MMO that doesn’t require group play for parts of the game. GW1 is a CORPG, not an MMO.
You do realize you can have social interactions in an MMO without participating in forced group content, right?
Yes. I do it all the time. I’m one of those players who prefers to play solo.
However, their doctor may want them to actually do content together.
And at some point in their treatment, content that may actually create a disagreement to see how well the patient has progressed. To see if the patient doesn’t have as much anxiety. Or can at least control their response to the anxiety better.
When group content is required, people become a means to an end. It would not be good for a person with a mental disorder to be treated and talked to like a tool by random strangers wanting their currency in an optimal timeframe.
Of course, if group content wasn’t required, those kinds of people are less likely to be there, and the experience would be a lot more relaxed. Disagreements would be respectable instead of venomous.
Players don’t suddenly become 100% nice 100% of the time just because they aren’t required to group together.
Please find me a study that proves this and I’ll give you the point.
Name me one well known MMO that does not have any content that requires group play (well known so that one could expect enough doctors to know about it to “prescribe” to patients).
The most well known MMO is WoW. Which I believe does have content that requires groups to play. So tell me why a doctor would “prescribe” MMO play to a patient they didn’t feel was ready for what could happen when they play an MMO, when the most widely known MMO has content that requires group play?
I didn’t say it would be 100% one way or 100% another, but it would certainly make a difference.
And I highly doubt these doctors, with their up to 20 hour work days actually know the intricacies of the way MMOs work, and how the group content is structured, so just because they recommend a game with social interaction doesn’t mean they’re intending their patients to be put into nasty, cutthroat social situations.
And most MMOs requiring group content doesn’t mean they should. Just because something is a certain way doesn’t mean it’s the best way for it to be.
Like I said in the post, name a well known MMO that doesn’t require group play. I’m not saying that there isn’t an MMO out there that doesn’t require group play, but if it’s not well known, then I wouldn’t expect more than a handful to know about it.
And the younger doctors would. The ones just getting out of school and starting in the field. The ones who grew up with WoW having already been released and well known.
Plus, with google being pretty a commonly used resource, I’m sure a reputable doctor would do some research on MMO’s before telling a patient to play it. Just like they would read studies and/or listen to reps discuss a drug before writing prescriptions for them to their patients.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?
His first point:
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.
His second point:
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.
This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.
His third and final point:
There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.
Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.
So I agreed with his post.
And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.
Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.
And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.
But you of course ignored the fast that most of the end game content is group only, and the majority of items related to progression are group only, so you can’t really viably play solo.
I didn’t ignore it.
GW2 has content for players who absolutely refuse to play in the nearby vicinity of other players even if they aren’t actually playing together.
I play 99.9% solo. I don’t particularly enjoy to a huge degree group events since it’s just a press 1 and don’t have to worry about anything because if I go down, someone will get me up.
I’m the player the game going 100% able to be solo would completely benefit. Yet, I realize that that’s an absurd request for an MMO and I’m completely fine with some parts of the game, I have to get over my introvert and shy nature and group with people. I had to do it for the one of the Tier 1 collections for Storm. Had to do the snowblind fractal and I’m not good enough to solo it.
No one has explained why it’s absurd request for an MMO. I’m not proposing we remove multiplayer, so there’s no contradiction with the core of the genre. You might be fine with being left out of content, but a lot of others aren’t.
Massively MULTIPLAYER Online.
I can’t think of a single multiplayer game that I’ve played in any genre that didn’t require me to actively play with other players. Intentionally. So to me, that any part of MMO’s is able to be done solo is a gift and I treat it as such.
Once again, I’m not saying remove the, as you put it, MULTIPLAYER.
Having it present and forcing it are not the same, and there’s no set of logical steps that explains why a multiplayer game should force multiplayer. If that’s what you perceive, okay then, but it’s not an argument.
When I log in, I’m not forced to find a group to play the game. If I wish to do some aspects of the game, I am forced to find a group. And that’s pefectly acceptable for an MMO.
It’s perfectly fine for an MMO to have content that requires players to play together.
Saying that it’s fine doesn’t make it fine, and saying that it’s a multiplayer game doesn’t make it fine either.
Conversely, saying that it’s not fine, doesn’t make it not fine.
And yes, saying that a multiplayer game is just fine in requiring group play for some things does make it fine.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Second Line, defines a MMO, and again players should have the options and choices. 1 because of immersion and 2 because some people have issues actually doing group things due to mental disorders (social anxiety anthropohobia agoraphobia, etc.), but are recommended they play MMO’s by clinicians as a form of management and therapy, if they pay 60$ for the game they should be allowed to play all of it and the mental issues should be accommodated.
Did it ever occur to you that the fact that MMO’s have content that requires group play may be one of the reasons that clinicians recommend playing MMO’s to those types of players?
100% of content of MMO’s does not need to be able to be done solo. Which is what GW2 has. Some content that can be done solo and some content that requires a group.
when coping with something like that, it is best to have social interaction casually and by choice, but alot of people with these issues, get sucked into groups and get told they are playing wrong which makes matters worse, this can also help them learn the game, which in turn can prevent said issue from occuring. once they are confident they may even want to do group content.
Or the player could just never ever do group content at all because it’s not required for them to play and the therapeutic benefits aren’t achieved because their doctor wanted to actually group with other players intentionally.
I don’t have a degree in psychology of any level, so unless you do and can prove it, neither of us can say for sure what all the reasons clinicians have for “prescribing” MMO play to their patients. I can’t think of a single MMO that doesn’t require group play for parts of the game. GW1 is a CORPG, not an MMO.
You do realize you can have social interactions in an MMO without participating in forced group content, right?
Yes. I do it all the time. I’m one of those players who prefers to play solo.
However, their doctor may want them to actually do content together.
And at some point in their treatment, content that may actually create a disagreement to see how well the patient has progressed. To see if the patient doesn’t have as much anxiety. Or can at least control their response to the anxiety better.
When group content is required, people become a means to an end. It would not be good for a person with a mental disorder to be treated and talked to like a tool by random strangers wanting their currency in an optimal timeframe.
Of course, if group content wasn’t required, those kinds of people are less likely to be there, and the experience would be a lot more relaxed. Disagreements would be respectable instead of venomous.
Players don’t suddenly become 100% nice 100% of the time just because they aren’t required to group together.
Please find me a study that proves this and I’ll give you the point.
Name me one well known MMO that does not have any content that requires group play (well known so that one could expect enough doctors to know about it to “prescribe” to patients).
The most well known MMO is WoW. Which I believe does have content that requires groups to play. So tell me why a doctor would “prescribe” MMO play to a patient they didn’t feel was ready for what could happen when they play an MMO, when the most widely known MMO has content that requires group play?
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?
His first point:
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.
His second point:
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.
This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.
His third and final point:
There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.
Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.
So I agreed with his post.
And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.
Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.
And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.
But you of course ignored the fast that most of the end game content is group only, and the majority of items related to progression are group only, so you can’t really viably play solo.
I didn’t ignore it.
GW2 has content for players who absolutely refuse to play in the nearby vicinity of other players even if they aren’t actually playing together.
I play 99.9% solo. I don’t particularly enjoy to a huge degree group events since it’s just a press 1 and don’t have to worry about anything because if I go down, someone will get me up.
I’m the player the game going 100% able to be solo would completely benefit. Yet, I realize that that’s an absurd request for an MMO and I’m completely fine with some parts of the game, I have to get over my introvert and shy nature and group with people. I had to do it for the one of the Tier 1 collections for Storm. Had to do the snowblind fractal and I’m not good enough to solo it.
No one has explained why it’s absurd request for an MMO. I’m not proposing we remove multiplayer, so there’s no contradiction with the core of the genre. You might be fine with being left out of content, but a lot of others aren’t.
Massively MULTIPLAYER Online.
I can’t think of a single multiplayer game that I’ve played in any genre that didn’t require me to actively play with other players. Intentionally. So to me, that any part of MMO’s is able to be done solo is a gift and I treat it as such.
Once again, I’m not saying remove the, as you put it, MULTIPLAYER.
Having it present and forcing it are not the same, and there’s no set of logical steps that explains why a multiplayer game should force multiplayer. If that’s what you perceive, okay then, but it’s not an argument.
When I log in, I’m not forced to find a group to play the game. If I wish to do some aspects of the game, I am forced to find a group. And that’s pefectly acceptable for an MMO.
It’s perfectly fine for an MMO to have content that requires players to play together.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Second Line, defines a MMO, and again players should have the options and choices. 1 because of immersion and 2 because some people have issues actually doing group things due to mental disorders (social anxiety anthropohobia agoraphobia, etc.), but are recommended they play MMO’s by clinicians as a form of management and therapy, if they pay 60$ for the game they should be allowed to play all of it and the mental issues should be accommodated.
Did it ever occur to you that the fact that MMO’s have content that requires group play may be one of the reasons that clinicians recommend playing MMO’s to those types of players?
100% of content of MMO’s does not need to be able to be done solo. Which is what GW2 has. Some content that can be done solo and some content that requires a group.
when coping with something like that, it is best to have social interaction casually and by choice, but alot of people with these issues, get sucked into groups and get told they are playing wrong which makes matters worse, this can also help them learn the game, which in turn can prevent said issue from occuring. once they are confident they may even want to do group content.
Or the player could just never ever do group content at all because it’s not required for them to play and the therapeutic benefits aren’t achieved because their doctor wanted to actually group with other players intentionally.
I don’t have a degree in psychology of any level, so unless you do and can prove it, neither of us can say for sure what all the reasons clinicians have for “prescribing” MMO play to their patients. I can’t think of a single MMO that doesn’t require group play for parts of the game. GW1 is a CORPG, not an MMO.
You do realize you can have social interactions in an MMO without participating in forced group content, right?
Yes. I do it all the time. I’m one of those players who prefers to play solo.
However, their doctor may want them to actually do content together.
And at some point in their treatment, content that may actually create a disagreement to see how well the patient has progressed. To see if the patient doesn’t have as much anxiety. Or can at least control their response to the anxiety better.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?
His first point:
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.
His second point:
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.
This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.
His third and final point:
There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.
Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.
So I agreed with his post.
And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.
Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.
And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.
But you of course ignored the fast that most of the end game content is group only, and the majority of items related to progression are group only, so you can’t really viably play solo.
I didn’t ignore it.
GW2 has content for players who absolutely refuse to play in the nearby vicinity of other players even if they aren’t actually playing together.
I play 99.9% solo. I don’t particularly enjoy to a huge degree group events since it’s just a press 1 and don’t have to worry about anything because if I go down, someone will get me up.
I’m the player the game going 100% able to be solo would completely benefit. Yet, I realize that that’s an absurd request for an MMO and I’m completely fine with some parts of the game, I have to get over my introvert and shy nature and group with people. I had to do it for the one of the Tier 1 collections for Storm. Had to do the snowblind fractal and I’m not good enough to solo it.
No one has explained why it’s absurd request for an MMO. I’m not proposing we remove multiplayer, so there’s no contradiction with the core of the genre. You might be fine with being left out of content, but a lot of others aren’t.
Massively MULTIPLAYER Online.
I can’t think of a single multiplayer game that I’ve played in any genre that didn’t require me to actively play with other players. Intentionally. So to me, that any part of MMO’s is able to be done solo is a gift and I treat it as such.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Second Line, defines a MMO, and again players should have the options and choices. 1 because of immersion and 2 because some people have issues actually doing group things due to mental disorders (social anxiety anthropohobia agoraphobia, etc.), but are recommended they play MMO’s by clinicians as a form of management and therapy, if they pay 60$ for the game they should be allowed to play all of it and the mental issues should be accommodated.
Did it ever occur to you that the fact that MMO’s have content that requires group play may be one of the reasons that clinicians recommend playing MMO’s to those types of players?
100% of content of MMO’s does not need to be able to be done solo. Which is what GW2 has. Some content that can be done solo and some content that requires a group.
when coping with something like that, it is best to have social interaction casually and by choice, but alot of people with these issues, get sucked into groups and get told they are playing wrong which makes matters worse, this can also help them learn the game, which in turn can prevent said issue from occuring. once they are confident they may even want to do group content.
Or the player could just never ever do group content at all because it’s not required for them to play and the therapeutic benefits aren’t achieved because their doctor wanted to actually group with other players intentionally.
I don’t have a degree in psychology of any level, so unless you do and can prove it, neither of us can say for sure what all the reasons clinicians have for “prescribing” MMO play to their patients. I can’t think of a single MMO that doesn’t require group play for parts of the game. GW1 is a CORPG, not an MMO.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?
His first point:
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.
His second point:
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.
This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.
His third and final point:
There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.
Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.
So I agreed with his post.
And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.
Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.
And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.
But you of course ignored the fast that most of the end game content is group only, and the majority of items related to progression are group only, so you can’t really viably play solo.
I didn’t ignore it.
GW2 has content for players who absolutely refuse to play in the nearby vicinity of other players even if they aren’t actually playing together.
I play 99.9% solo. I don’t particularly enjoy to a huge degree group events since it’s just a press 1 and don’t have to worry about anything because if I go down, someone will get me up.
I’m the player the game going 100% able to be solo would completely benefit. Yet, I realize that that’s an absurd request for an MMO and I’m completely fine with some parts of the game, I have to get over my introvert and shy nature and group with people. I had to do it for the one of the Tier 1 collections for Storm. Had to do the snowblind fractal and I’m not good enough to solo it.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Second Line, defines a MMO, and again players should have the options and choices. 1 because of immersion and 2 because some people have issues actually doing group things due to mental disorders (social anxiety anthropohobia agoraphobia, etc.), but are recommended they play MMO’s by clinicians as a form of management and therapy, if they pay 60$ for the game they should be allowed to play all of it and the mental issues should be accommodated.
Did it ever occur to you that the fact that MMO’s have content that requires group play may be one of the reasons that clinicians recommend playing MMO’s to those types of players?
100% of content of MMO’s does not need to be able to be done solo. Which is what GW2 has. Some content that can be done solo and some content that requires a group.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?
His first point:
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.
His second point:
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.
This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.
His third and final point:
There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.
Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.
So I agreed with his post.
And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.
Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.
And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.
The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.
This.
However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.
Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.
Or maybe they have looked at it and decided they are just fine with the rate they are being generated compared to the consumption rate.
You are assuming that ANet has the same belief as you.
Maybe they intended that all things that can be bought with Mystic Coins were to be long term goals and not short term goals.
Maybe they didn’t want them to be so common as they were, but not as uncommon as they are today and they had overcorrected.
But they knew the generation of mystic coins would go down when they made the changes they did. So they meant for the average supply on the TP to go down, which means they meant for the cost to go up.
However, unless you’ve got insider information on what ANet intended when they changed how the mystic coins are earned, your guess is as good as mine as to what they meant by it and if anything needs to be done.
That’s the thing, it’s an MMO. One should not expect an MMO to not have anything in game that does not require grouping to achieve.
Most dungeons are soloable if you have the skill. The only ones that aren’t are the ones with logistical things that require multiple players to do.
As to meta requirements for dungeons, fractals, and raids: read the LFG and only join the ones that you meet the requirements of or make an LFG saying anyone is welcome (and then get the ones who try to dictate kicked from the group).
There will never be new classes added, revenant was added to fill the gap of the missing 3rd heavy armor profession.
Any concept for a new class will become an elite spec.
Just adding 9 more elite specs is a HUGE amount of work and balancing let alone adding entire new professions with all their elite specs included. Revenant already lacks a lot of the fundamental depth that other classes have, i REALLY doubt anet would be able to come up with a fresh base profession that they could also comfortably expand on with future elite specs whithout severely hampering their design decisions for the other professions elite specs.
Bottom line, we arnt going to get more professions, just exoticly themed elite specs for existing proffesions that essentially are like new proffesions
I wouldn’t say we won’t ever get anymore base professions, ANet may decide to add some one day in the distant future – like if we one day get Cantha or Elona. But I would say that the chances are slim since to keep balance they’d have to add 3, which would mean for each elite that has already been released at that time or released in the future, that’s 3 more elites that would have to be done.
This issue is affecting a lot of people. Tired of hearing people claim it’s an issue with their connection, or ISP, or a hop, etc. No other game requires you to go in depth with internet tech and try to solve problems like this. These kinds of things are supposed to be dealt with on the developers end, console gamers aren’t required to do these things with any game they play. And no other PC I play has either
The thing is, if it was ANet’s end, a LOT more people would be affected. As in, most everyone.
The internet is like the roads. I take a different path to work than my manager does, but at one point, our paths will cross. If an accident takes place before the point where our routes converge on my side, I’ll take longer to get to work, but she won’t be affected. But if it happens after that point, we’d both be affected.
So it all boils down to what paths people who have the issue have converge. The more people who send in reports and give ANet the details they need, the faster they can narrow the issue down so that they can inform those affected to contact their ISP to get them to put pressure on the people who own the affected nodes. Since ISP’s are the ones with the contracts with them, not ANet.
If they didn’t intend for us to get more than one elite spec per class, I’d imagine we’d be allowed to put the elite spec trait line in any of the three spots available and not just the bottom one.
All I have seen in this thread is “Well I did it (x) times, so everyone can do it.” and comparing map completion (which doesn’t affect anyone else but the player in question) to things that are even TP based. (Wardrobe unlocks, pvp rewards). And if you really want to say that all the mats/items the person could get from doing map completion with free WPs would destroy the market… Do you really think someone who hates map completion this much, and is only doing it for the gift of exploration for legendaries is going to spend the time doing it over and over for mats?
If someone wants access to the WPs after they already did full map completion, let them. It’s not going to harm you in anyway. Is really having any/all of the WPs on a map on a new map completion character really going to change things for you?
Though, I have no idea why all of you are arguing. Anet would never put this in.
So you support Anet adding a permanent consumable that provides 100% movement speed on open world PvE maps? After all, it won’t affect anyone else so why should anyone against it care?
Why not? It’s PvE, and there are WPs. Why do you care so much? Why are you so against it? Would I buy it, doubt it, being unable to work tends to do that. Would I be jealous if someone could run faster? Sure. Would I be salty and rage at Anet? No. I’d play my game.
People do map completion for various reasons:
1. They enjoy it.
2. They want the rewards for it.
3. They want to play with friends on that character.
4. Some combination of the above. Imagine three overlapping circles like a Venn diagram.
Personally, unless you do 100% of map completion yourself, you don’t deserve 100% of the rewards. At minimum 1 gift of exploration should be lost (or it must cost 1 gift of exploration to get to net the loss of 1 gift of exploration), along with a percentage of each map’s rewards. Basically equal to whatever % of the map the WP’s make up.
Right. I guess most people didn’t read the part where I said I’m not for this unlocking WP thing at all. I’m with BrotherBelial on this one: get off your kitten and do the work! All I was saying is that people still deserve rewards for doing 75% of the content, just not the same reward as people doing all 100% by themselves. And that was in direct reply to someone who said people shouldn’t get any rewards for map completion at all if their WP’s are all unlocked automatically. That just makes it sound as if said person doesn’t think they deserve it because they didn’t do all the work he/she did. Doing 75% of a task is still getting off your kitten , and still deserves a reward, not no reward at all.
Nope. Doing 75% of the work needed is not doing 100% and shouldn’t get 100% of the rewards.
Unlocking waypoints on alts should be a convenience for those who don’t want to do map completion on alts and can’t get themselves out to grab waypoints because it’s too boring/takes too long/whatever. It shouldn’t be an option for those to bypass doing a substantial portion of the work, which 25% is, yet get full rewards.
Now read again the sentence I made bold (in my post, not yours) and tell me where I said doing 75% is deserving of 100% rewards.
Then what are you even talking about? Those who have wps unlocked like this can do the maps and they will get hearts unlocked to use as merchants, XP if they are below level 80 or if they haven’t done the Tyrian Masteries yet, karma from doing hearts and the value of mats gathered. Those are the appropriate rewards for doing 75% of the maps. No rework of map completion rewards to cater to those who can’t do the little bit of effort to run to waypoints needed.
It’s simple. If you read the initial post I responded to, you know what I’m talking about. That person suggested that people who have their WP’s automatically unlocked should not deserve ANY rewards for doing the other 75% of world completion by themselves, apparently because they can go everywhere on the map quickly by using the WP’s instead of walking. No rewards whatsoever also means no Gifts of Exploration to use for legendaries (and/or perhaps crafting that globe decoration as a Scribe). It’s fine if you respond to a response, but do keep track of what’s been said.
Definitely no Gifts of Exploration on characters that would use an item to gain all WP’s without discovering them.
Gift of Exploration is the reward for doing map completion to 100%. Not the reward for doing 75% of it.
However, since 75% is more than 50%, I would compromise and say such a person can get 1 Gift of Exploration instead of the usual 2. Just as long as all other rewards are adjusted such that overall a player only receives 75% of the total reward for map completion.
Guys, he’s got no problem with Jumping Puzzles being in the daily.
He’s got a problem with so much content advertising Jumping Puzzles heavily (Dailies) or requiring Jumping Puzzles (map completion, a few festival activities, Dry Top, etc). And then ANet putting meaningful rewards at the end of them and not found anywhere else.
The Daily likely just was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back.
As to the why behind it, that I do not know.
Then explain punishments for exploits? Just because the game lets you, doesn’t make it legal.
Whether ANet will do anything about it or not is the question for AFK farming.
Punishment for exploits is for people doing something like glitching etc to give them an unfair advantage or breaking mechanics. e.g Teleport hacking to win in a pvp match etc. These “afk” people are not breaking any game mechanics. Nor are they gaining any advantage because as I stated earlier you can make far more money actively playing the game than afking.
What has been said is that yes the current system allows this type of game play as an unintended side effect. Yes they are aware of it and they do disagree with it. But they also said that to fix this would require a design change on their end to the game. So take that as, for now they can’t stop people because there’s no way to tell who is afk and who isn’t. Because as it stands people are just using basic features such as auto cast and the auto loot mastery which are available to everyone, not by exploiting, just by owning the game. So they don’t want to punish innocent people in the process.
Please merge all the afk threads into one because anet have already addressed this issue and people seem unwilling to search for the other threads.
I put my previous point back on the table. Why does this bother so many people? Just ignore them and play the game/ have more fun than someone who is afking and not playing the game to its fullest.
Please let this topic just die already z-z.
Like I said, just because the game lets you do it, doesn’t make it legal. And the question isn’t is it legal as ANet’s pretty clear that it’s not intended gameplay and therefore technically an exploit; the question is will ANet do anything. AKA does the risk of just letting it continue outweigh the work it would take to fix it or not.
Remember they have considered it exploits when people abuse the fact that sometimes they make errors in numbers on costs of items and how many things are salvaged from items. Things that don’t require glitching the game out to do.
I personally don’t have a huge issue with it. If you think a person is AFK farming, report and move on. Give ANet more numbers to judge if it’s necessary to put in the hours to fix the problem at the current time.
These threads are getting out of hand. The devs have already made a statement on this. Basically if it’s using the ingame system and nothing else then there’s not much they can do. That’s not a, yea ok go forth and afk farm quote by them. But more of a, we don’t agree with it, but we can’t penalise someone for using what we gave them in the game.
If every passive kill by a pet was punishable then we would have no Rangers around ever. These people don’t even make as much money than if you’re actually playing so I dunno why everyone is so up on arms about it. Play the game, have fun, make more than them by actually playing and occasionally draw mobs by them if they are bothering you that much ;3.
Then explain punishments for exploits? Just because the game lets you, doesn’t make it legal.
Whether ANet will do anything about it or not is the question for AFK farming.
It amazes me how many people find so hard to understand the meaning of proportion.
3.500 and 5.000 out of 20.000 are proportional, but 4.000 and 10.000 out of 20.000 aren’t.
And yet 5.000 is still quite higher than 3.500…This has nothing to do with perception, skill, class knowledge… They are just numbers, cmon!!!
It takes a build and a rotation to get to the numbers you provide.
Even with the coefficients a warrior in mixed stats who chose his traits and skills because their names/skins were cool won’t hit as hard as a warrior in full berserker who chose his traits and skills and weapons and armor because they synced together to form a cohesive build.
I fully understand that my Elementalist main is squishy. But that’s because Elementalists have a bunch of gtfo traits/skills and other ways to mitigate the damage on top of the dodges that everyone has. I can’t wrap my head around builds and rotations and what the numbers mean nor do I have a huge desire to do so: major casual here. HoT areas are a PITA. I keep dying. But I don’t go running to the forums and say that the enemies have an unfair damage difference. Because I realize it’s a combination of my build (glass cannon build or clerics which can’t outlast the enemies attacks given my skill) and my rotation (or lack thereof) that gets me killed. In other words, I’ve got a big L2P issue.
Because my build/rotation doesn’t give me the numbers I need to defeat my enemy before my enemy defeats me.
You got a free 500g dye and it’s your worst day?
I have like 10 different green dyes and Toxin dye is so ugly, like how is it worth 500 gold?
A few reasons:
1. What’s ugly to you is nice to someone else.
2. The color may work for the theme of their character or fit with the colors they’ve chosen.
3. Rarity.
Welp, not sure how feasible it is, but if the player on a carpet is treated as a transformed new object, it might be possible. I know that if you’re transformed into, for example, the snow leopard in the Wayfarer Foothills heart, you can actually glide as that, without the glider itself appearing. As I can be quite childish, I find it endlessly funny. XD Also I was a golem the other day (don’t remember why), and that did gliding without the glider appearing. It was quite cool.
Regardless, I agree with Rose – some sort of paid upgrade, or a new purchase would likely be necessary if this was to be a thing.
If they did it it would need to be an in game earned option as the toy would remove the opportunity cost for traiting for permanent swiftness. It would be a bad idea to put that in the gem store.
While I wouldn’t count a 0.6 AG/forging a steep decrease in the drop rate, I don’t know if the difference is statistically significant or not (hard to tell when each forge can give more than 1 AG). So I can’t say that there hasn’t been a decrease in the drop rate.
If it is, it does show that ANet needs to do it’s computer simulations in order to determine with higher degree of accuracy if there is a problem or not.
If the true average is supposed to be 11.5 AG/forge, then your results I wouldn’t say are problematic: you just happened to hit the high end and the low end of the bell curve. But if it’s supposed to be 11.2, or 11.8 or higher or even lower, then there looks like there may be something up with the code.
And I know its a safty measure..its just not neccerry for me … any way to disable it would be amazing..
Another question I got is:
Im always slow..if I go on event and follow a group I always wind up last..now im useing mushroom to get faster and swiftness etc..still everyone seems must faster then me…anyway to fix this?
The problem is the people who it is necessary for would turn off the warning message.
As to your guild storage question, unless there is a non-account bound variety of banners, there is no way to add them to guild storage as I believe you can’t put account bound items in there.
Would be really nice if participation in sPvP and/or WvW would allow for experience gain towards either HoT or Tyria mastery tracks of your choosing.
Gets old doing these activities endlessly because I enjoy them, but none of my time spent doing them counts towards any masteries.
This might become a glaring problem for wvw when they add gliding to it which is affected by masteries. (I.e. you use gliding in wvw but can only level it up in pve.)
It would be nice if they added 2 reward tracks for HoT and Central Tyria. In the chest they could give xp tomes for the corresponding masteries depending on the track.
Would still need the mastery points. exp is worthless with out the points.
Which means it is a good compromise. You still have to play in the area long enough to get mastery points, but those who don’t like the maps don’t have to spend hours grinding.
It would also give variety to players who do like multiple aspects of the game.
I’d prefer a generic craft x items per day. Not everyone has all crafting disciplines active or high enough for specific items unless they only pick from items level 0 crafters can make.
Maybe see if someone in your guild would be willing to go through Living Story Season 2 with you? You won’t get to do the achievements, but you’ll get to experience the story.
I bought this game years ago and played it for a while until life stepped in and I had to quit until now. I play his when I have the time, and even though I really want to, the people playing this game as well are starting to make me feel like this decision was a mistake.
My max level was 33, on an asura ranger. I decided to start fresh and made a new toon – a sylvari thief. I noticed some Tomes on my bank and I used them, now I’m level 26, but my gear is too weak for me to actually handle myself in combat. I’ve asked help from a few people but all I got was cold behavior from their part.
I tried PvP, but these people are so toxic, so vile that I just turned the game off. I remmeber that everyone was so nic to each other back then, but now everyone’s mean and toxic… maybe coming back was a bad idea.
It’s very easy.
A huge part of the community left the game because GW2 is not what it should be.
Left over are people who are not interested in anything else than loot bag clicking and hard core raider.
These people have usually a more questionable character.
So i am not surprised that people start noticing a change in behavior and hostile
environments.If A-Net brings back adventuring and relaxed playing around content instead
check marking shopping list and huge group elite events i can see
lots of people coming back and brining back the spirit of a healthy community
Not all of the remaining players are just interested in loot bag opening and raiding. Want to know how I know? Because I’m one of those people not interested in just loot bag opening and raiding.
@Haellymm.3801 What did you need help with specifically?
Time exclusive items should be a rare occurrence and the items should be easily obtained by those who want them within the timeframe given to earn it. I do not include yearly festival items that return yearly to be time exclusive.
Content exclusive items should be what the majority of exclusive items should be. Content that will be around for forever, or at the foreseeable future. This can be difficult content or easy content, or somewhere in between.
its been over 3 days, and ive never once gotten a human response, theyre clearly not replying to my original ticket.
Because you keep making new tickets putting yourself into the bottom of the line.
Stop making new tickets. Close down the duplicates. Then post in the thread at the top of this sub-forum that states: Tickets for Review 3 days and older.
Here’s what happened [with me putting random numbers and made up times]:
You made Ticket #1 on 4-23-2016 at 5 pm to change email.
You got impatient and made Ticket #2 on 4-24 at 6 pm to change email.
ANet automated queue management merges your requests and puts it at the time slot entered of Ticket #2, effectively removing Ticket #1 from the queue.
You got impatient again and on 4-26-2016 you made Ticket #3 at 10 am to change email.
ANet automated queue management merges your requests and puts it at the time slot entered of Ticket #2, effectively removing Ticket #2 from the queue..
Hello,
Thanks for contacting us! Your request (#*******:CHANGE EMAIL ADDRESS) has been received, and is being reviewed by our Support team. ive gotten 2 messages like this, and its been 4 days. lets see how long it takes to recieve a human response. i havent got one yet.
Close down any duplicate requests that you can, you get moved to the end of the line when you make duplicate requests due to the system they use. And only update the first ticket you’ve made that you got a ticket number for.
So what you mean is, of the total number of precursors that are being given by Zomorros, are there more and more of that share being given to newer players?
Then I’d guess at saying the answers is yes, but not because of some unfair broken code in the system, but mainly because the older players have probably already made their choice of legendaries, so are moving on to making other things, such as Legendary backpacks, spending in guild halls, doing new legendaries (which require the precursor crafting) instead.
So you suggest that ANET made a conscious decision to alienate all the older players that have never received not one precursor in the 3.5 years the game has been out? That’s a pretty messed up suggestion if you ask me.
Either that or are you suggestion that older players should take their accounts and sink tons and tons of gold into making precursors and that because of this system they don’t deserve precursor drops?
For me, I would like to see one precursor drop before they force me to use a system that is built to cost me more gold because I am an older, more loyal player who has played this game pretty much since release.
I see your point but I disagree. I think that drops for older players should remain the same as drops for newer players. yet I see more newer players receiving special treatment (more fruitful success at obtaining precursors the free way) and not being forced to use the spend all the gold in the game new system.
I think you’ve mis-understood what I said. I haven’t suggested in the slightest ArenaNet are making a conscious decision to alienate older players. I’m suggesting the exact opposite.
I’m suggesting there might be fewer of the older players trying to create precursors, due to already having made a few legendaries over the years. The drops for an older player are still equal to the drop for a newer player, I’m saying the total share of the precursors dropped can go to newer players.
For example, if Zomorrow drops 1,000 tomorrow, 800 of them might be accounts under 1 year, 200 over 1 year, based on fewer older accounts actually trying. That’s what I’m trying to theorise. Of course, I could be wrong, but I’m only coming to this theory based solely on your conclusion that more new players are linking precursors than old ones.
Apologies for the misunderstanding.
You may be right but it would be good to know that I have a lesser chance for obtaining a precursor because my account is older. I suppose that is their way to get people to buy the game more often. Kind of messed up still if you ask me I would like to see a Dev weigh in on this matter because it would be nice to know if that is true. If it does happen to be true I would refuse to use the precursor crafting system at all because it is unfair treatment considering older accounts that have never had a precursor drop are being kind of overlooked and then sort of spit upon by ANET in forcing us to spend almost more than double the cost of just buying the precursor.
They’ve said in the past that there is nothing in a person’s account that is looked at for RNG. Therefore, there is no way for the RNG loot tables to know if an account is a newer account or an older account.
This is helpful information can you provide a source for me please?
Here are a few sources:
There isn’t such thing is some accounts getting stuck lucky. Yes there’s an RNG, yes it’s random and there are streaks and outliers and an even aggregate distribution.
There isn’t such thing is some accounts getting stuck lucky. Yes there’s an RNG, yes it’s random and there are streaks and outliers and an even aggregate distribution.
Can you confirm whether it is an RNG that uses some sort of value from the user’s account or whether it is purely random/session based? I have a friend who swears that smack-talking an anet dev during a beta weekend pvp match doomed his account to poor rng for life.
Absolutely it does not use anything to do with a user.
Here’s the premise. RNG is evenly distributed on aggregate. On an individual level this means that while almost everyone falls into a reasonable range in the middle, there are outliers on each side of the distribution that are either highly rewarded or not rewarded at all. These individuals become sample cases and spotlights for experiences that maybe shouldn’t exist.