Not an MMO?

[Jederix]

We have just become a gluttonous consumer base, Just like the obese person that would rather eat 10k empty french fry calories instead of a nice fine meal. Most of us just devour our way through the easy portions of the game, never taking our eyes off the plate to talk with our friends. If it takes any effort or time at all we aren't interested.Once we are stuffed sick and unfulfilled then we blame the chef. It's our culture and It's sad.

 

It doesn't help that the "good for you" meal costs $25 and the "heart attack in a box" meal costs $6. It's a bit off topic, but I see this argument regarding weight in America and this is what I keep coming back to. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

[Feanor_cz]

Your line of thinking is why MMO developers think they can get away with releasing games that lack basic features that most players expect. Adapting to a lack of standard features is not the same as learning a new game. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with life. I have to adapt in life all the time, but I don't play games to be subject to the rules of life.

 

I do not wish and I did not defend dev. especially of this game no Sir. I do agree with you on that point. I just wanted to say that all games has rules if you want to enjoy the game you got to play inside of these rules , learn mechanisms of the game , adapt to them.

But on contrary games has many rules of life. Games are easier then life for many , wow started its downfall when it started to give almost free epics for everybody , lower difficulty etc.. when WotLK came out.

I think in game you sort of know of what role ( life ) you will lead. But it does not mean that you have to ommit them when they are well implemented.That is not of course case of this game.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Feanor_cz

[Jederix]

Speak for yourself.

 

I never played EQ, but group farming is fun wherever I've done it.

 

Which is fine for a matured game (or at least, we could argue it).

 

It's not at all the right decision for a fledgling MMO.

 

I do speak for myself. It is not my fault that a good chunk of MMO players see it my way (no, I have nothing to back that up except for the success of WoW and the many many games that have tried to copy them using a similar formula).

 

Hey, I like doing group stuff too. Maybe you misunderstood my point. There is a good number of players out there who are here to play a game, not make lasting, online relationships with peers.

[Ansultares]

I do speak for myself. It is not my fault that a good chunk of MMO players see it my way(no, I have nothing to back that up except for the success of WoW and the many many games that have tried to copy them using a similar formula).

But the industry totally misidentified the cause for WoW's success. Even Blizzard bought into the misconception.

 

Hey, I like doing group stuff too. Maybe you misunderstood my point. There is a good number of players out there who are here to play a game, not make lasting, online relationships with peers.

I understand that. I'm here to play a game, online, with others, usually strangers, and I have no real interest in joining a guild, especially not a raiding guild because they're often filled with drama.

 

WoW's success was making that group content in EQ more accessible, while facilitating the grouping process with well structured questing. Like I said, I never played EQ, but I've heard stories of ridiculous spawn timers, heavily camped NPCs, etc.; WoW took that content, and tuned it down some, in particular by using boxed PvE to alleviate some of the more onerous burdens of world PvE.

 

It's worth noting that most of this content has been reworked over the years, none of it by developers as skilled as those who originally crafted it, and often with the intent of making it more solo accessible because the game had matured significantly.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Ansultares

[stickyickytricky]

I see the points all of you are making. Some people want to group to level cap, some don't and some do sometimes and all that stuff.... WoW is great, WoW is bad.... whatever

 

But why am I paying a monthly fee for a RPG? I've played hundreds of RPG's over the years and cannot think of one that I had to subscribe to. I pay to play a MMO, this is not a MMO so I'm confused as to why I have to pay.

 

61 Days left on my 3 months sub....

[Suldra]

I wanted to post one of those smart assed "In B4 someone blames WoW" shots but it seems someone has already blamed WoW. Poor WoW, responsible for every other game's shortcomings.

 

Its not really WoW they put down, its the generation of of entitlement that grew up in it and ruined it that people dislike. Real MMO players want the game to be a challenge not a stat fest or iWin instant gratification fest.

[SmokePants]

There are a lot of people, myself included, that are playing because we want a gigantic, perpetual BioWare Star Wars RPG. The MMO aspects are something we merely "put up with".

 

It's not that I'm against interacting with other players. I just think the MMO brand of interaction is pretty terrible. Not that I would refuse a group invite from someone whose goals happen to be aligned. But the general chat? I'm not even paying attention to that and I like that I don't have to.

[Dekkau]

Simple answer, people want to trat the game like wow. If they dont have a system where they can click a button, be ported, and go half afk through the quest/FP then they arent interested.

 

It's 100% a player problem and not a game problem. Unfortunately it's not likely to ever change.

 

That was new and interesting. You appear to reason that a slight on the good name of World of Warcraft is suffice to justify your argument. Though your argument is without substance. I for one play the game in question and fear that you misconstrue the question in hand given that the one click you refer to, I assume relates to LFG which by nature requires a group.

 

For my part I never group, given that I enjoy playing on my own. Other players are not necessary to progress in the game and I enjoy my own pace of play. Most times I am on specific quests and battling my way through various stages of the story. There is little point in me halting my current path through the game to form a group. The various group stages are easily solo-able once you complete the story chain as you are likely to be three levels higher. By that stage my efforts are directed to the next stage of the story and I find myself so involved I am already on the ship and travelling to knew adventures.

 

This game is most enjoyable as a solo game and I along with my companion are suffice it seems for the greater content of mission activities. I do not feel the need to curtail my missions for the sake of others given that such processes are deemed less enjoyable than the singular mode of play that suits me better. Most other game users that I have had the misfortune to interact with on similar such games as World of Warcraft have been less than satisfactory in their general behaviour and this is most intolerable. In truth there is little benefit to me and therefore I choose not to interact. That is my choice and I am left thinking that it may have something to do with their years spent thus far in terms of games experience.

 

Enjoy your gaming. We are not all of the same mind.

[Ansultares]

Its not really WoW they put down, its the generation of of entitlement that grew up in it and ruined it that people dislike.

The term "generation of entitlement" is misleading, because it isn't defined by age.

 

My experience has been that the "generation of entitlement" is mostly driven by adult gamers, the very people I would expect to be most willing to accomplish goals in-game over the very long term, and the one's I would expect to be least concerned about the fact that they don't have access to the most recent content or the current bis gear.

 

What's funny is that they'll even demonstrate such an ability to disregard their relative performance in-game (when they show up underleveled/undergeared/underskilled), but they'll still take the time to claim that they're discriminated against when raid content is exclusive to raids and its gear rewards are bis.

 

I just think the MMO brand of interaction is pretty terrible.

Of course it seems bad when you categorize all of it by its worst elements.

 

Sadly, it's one area where AAA developers have been completely fail in remedying. Easymode is a knee jerk reaction to elitism, but not the nuanced reaction the genre needs.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Ansultares

[Waypoc]

Yep. Not sure where everyone equates "Massively Multiplayer Online" to "Must Group and Socialize."

 

Because that is the foundation of the genre. And it's a great foundation.

 

I would have no problem with TOR if it just said that it was an mmoRPG LITE or SPORPG and stopped pretending that it was a true MMORPG.

 

What an MMORPG is, is really not up for debate. There are 2 ways to look at it. You either base your viewpoint on what MMORPG's are supposed to be at their core with all the social elements intact. Or, you have a viewpoint based on the bastardized versions of what MMORPG's have become; e.g - Rift, AION, WoW (now), etc...

 

I base my viewpoint on the former when I try to understand SWTOR complete failure in capturing the mmo market. Of course it's early and there is still time.

 

I really think the last of the true MMORPG's was VG, with it's forced grouping, hard content, grind, crafting, housing, harvesting, social aspects, events, etc...

 

So to be clear I'm not knocking the mmoRPG (lite) genre. I thoroughly enjoyed AION & Rift, but I didn't expect a deep MMO. Though ultimately that's why I quite them.

I just wish that the "new" breed of MMOlite (SWTOR) was appropriately named as such and didn't pretend.

 

I long for the days of the true MMO. I know there are a couple on the horizon and I cannot wait to play them. Why? Because I'm not in a hurry. I want to be immersed. I can wait for the best gear, highest level, best mount, etc..

Edited February 20, 2012 by Waypoc

[Explosive_Lasers]

Same deal in WoW.

 

I leveled a druid to level 68 entirely by questing after Cata came out. I did not group a SINGLE time.

[Ansultares]

Same deal in WoW.

 

I leveled a druid to level 68 entirely by questing after Cata came out. I did not group a SINGLE time.

/facepalm

[Vecke]

Real MMO players want the game to be a challenge not a stat fest or iWin instant gratification fest.

 

For clarification, a real MMO player is any person that plays an MMO. I think you're primarily referring to people that played MMOs that were released more than, say, 5 years ago, because I know the vast majority of MMOs released in the last 5 years have been focused on the casual player.

 

It's fine that you don't like the direction MMOs have gone. I love some of the changes that have come to the genre and I loathe others. But if we're being honest here, a "real MMO player" is probably a casual player because there are many, many, many more MMOs that are designed for them.

[Explosive_Lasers]

/facepalm

 

Funny thing is, I actively looked for groups on a regular basis.

 

Point is, people only group for dungeons and things like that. TOR at least gives some incentive to grouping (heroics and social points), so I group fairly often in this game. I did not in WoW, despite taking a stance that was just as active while looking for groups.

 

So, I wouldn't say TOR is any worse than other games.

[Waypoc]

But if we're being honest here, a "real MMO player" is probably a casual player because there are many, many, many more MMOs that are designed for them.

 

I disagree. I feel a real MMO player is someone that played at the dawn of MMO's and experienced them in all their niche market glory.

 

I think maybe using the word "real" may be offensive.

How about using the words "older" or "original" MMO players as opposed to the "new' generation of MMO players.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Waypoc

[Ansultares]

But if we're being honest here, a "real MMO player" is probably a casual player because there are many, many, many more MMOs that are designed for them.

I've bought that line for the past five years; it led to SWTOR.

 

I don't think WoW released in its current state, even with all its content and all its polish, could achieve the genre transcending success it achieved with vanilla.

 

Funny thing is, I actively looked for groups on a regular basis.

 

Point is, people only group for dungeons and things like that. TOR at least gives some incentive to grouping (heroics and social points), so I group fairly often in this game. I did not in WoW, despite taking a stance that was just as active while looking for groups.

 

So, I wouldn't say TOR is any worse than other games.

I facepalmed because the last two pages at least covered that WoW wasn't released in that state, and only moved towards it as the game matured.

 

If Cataclysm was your first taste of WoW, I'm sorry that you missed out on what was a great game. Azeroth was kickass before they started cleaning it up.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Ansultares

[Waypoc]

I've bought that line for the past five years; it led to SWTOR.

 

I don't think WoW released in its current state, even with all its content and all its polish, could achieve the genre transcending success it achieved with vanilla.

 

Exactly.

[Explosive_Lasers]

I facepalmed because its already been discussed that WoW didn't release like that, and only moved towards it as the game matured.

 

If Cataclysm was your first taste of WoW, I'm sorry that you missed out on what was a great game. Azeroth was kickass before they started cleaning it up.

 

I know, I played a rogue at launch.

 

What I was saying was to point out that TOR is just as much an MMO (if not moreso) than any other MMO on the market. It gives more incentive for out-of-dungeon grouping than WoW, and therefore I generally get more groups while questing.

 

So, to say that TOR is an MMO also states that Rift and WoW aren't looking too MMO-ish, either.

[Vecke]

I've bought that line for the past five years; it led to SWTOR.

 

I don't think WoW released in its current state, even with all its content and all its polish, could achieve the genre transcending success it achieved with vanilla.

 

I don't really understand how that applies to what I was saying. I wasn't saying which is better. Like I said, there are aspects to the modern gen of MMOs that I like much better, but other aspects I despise.

 

I was just saying I don't see how we can say these people aren't "Real" MMO players. They are, in fact, real people that are playing MMOs. That's all.

[Waypoc]

I know, I played a rogue at launch.

 

What I was saying was to point out that TOR is just as much an MMO (if not moreso) than any other MMO on the CURRENT market. It gives more incentive for out-of-dungeon grouping than WoW, and therefore I generally get more groups while questing.

 

So, to say that TOR is an MMO also states that Rift and WoW aren't looking too MMO-ish, either.

 

Fixed.

 

However the current MMO market is completely borked.

[Vecke]

I disagree. I feel a real MMO player is someone that played at the dawn of MMO's and experienced them in all their niche market glory.

 

I think maybe using the word "real" maybe offensive.

How about using the words "older" or "original" MMO players as opposed to the "new' generation of MMO players.

 

I don't think "real" is offensive. I just happen to think it's inaccurate and gives an inference (whether intended or not) of superiority which isn't warranted. IMHO.

[Waypoc]

I don't think "real" is offensive. I just happen to think it's inaccurate and gives an inference (whether intended or not) of superiority which isn't warranted. IMHO.

 

I agree which is why, while I understand there is a huge generation gap in MMO players from those that played 10 years ago as opposed to those that started within the last 5, using a word like "real", could be viewed as derogatory if you aren't in the "real" crowd.

 

I do think there should be some sort of differentiation between the 2.

[Ansultares]

It gives more incentive for out-of-dungeon grouping than WoW, and therefore I generally get more groups while questing.

Is that the secret to getting groups in this game? Sell them on social point grinding? Nevermind that I want to engage in the content, and not spend an overwhelming amount of time fully watching every cutscene (because my groupmates want to) in order to grind social points I could care less about?

 

How do people say that old MMOs were terrible games filled with nolifer timesinks, when the social point system is even more accurately described as such?

 

Then again, "engaging in the content" in TOR seems to consist of watching cutscenes, so maybe I'm just going about it the wrong way. Maybe they could just do away with all the combat/leveling/gear/etc, and all the gameplay could consist of sitting through cutscenes.

 

That actually sounds like a really innovative game, like a 21st century take on text-based RPGs.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Ansultares

[Andryah]

This was not an isolated incident.

 

Last night I decided to start a new character for giggles and because nobody wanted to run CWG or Maelsreom.

 

So I get a ways through tython and get the chamber of speech quest. Seeing that there was 45 peoe on the planet I felt like getting a group would be fairly easy....

 

... It was not. For a 2 plus heroic nobody wanted to do it for hours?!?!? What's wrong with this community? CoS takes like five minutes! And then I tried to get people to kill that champion droid with me and that failed as well. Nobody even said anything in chat the whole time I played.

 

Also, I saw someone walk over to look at the droid for a bit so I shot them an invite and made sure to stand where they could see me. This was during the process of asking in general chat so I didn't want to be redundant and whisper them. They promptly declined.

 

Why are people playing this game if they don't want to do grouP content?!?!

 

 

 

Edit: So, do you think that there should be greater incentives to do group content? Should group content have summon to location abilities?

 

I could see no downside in implementing the aforementioned improvements.

 

A rant about grouping for a +2 heroic in a starter zone.

 

1) as someone said earlier, if they were on the same quest and ready to do, AND you aksed nicely, they would probably do it with you.

 

But frankly, most people are running alts through starters zones and it's sort of "been there done that" and want to do it as quickly as possible and move on.

 

2) starter heroics are more trouble then they are worth really. You know who runs them?? Mostly friends who are already running together in the starter zone. I only run them to top off xp to level 10, and I do this at the very end, running them solo.

 

3) you can solo a +2 heroic with your companion, and so most people in zone were probably if you kept spamming for group on a +2 heroic.

 

4) why people play the game is their business, not yours, and especially not with you attitude when you say: "Why are people playing this game if they don't want to do grouP content?!?! That sounds a lot like you are saying "play it my way, and NAO!"

Edited February 21, 2012 by Andryah

[Vecke]

I agree which is why, while I understand there is a huge generation gap in MMO players from those that played 10 years ago as opposed to those that started within the last 5, using a word like "real", could be viewed as derogatory if you aren't in the "real" crowd.

 

I do think there should be some sort of differentiation between the 2.

 

/agree