Casual Player != Hermit: A Defense of Raids and Group Content

[Al.]

As I said, I take "endgame" to mean "stuff I'm going to be interested in doing in an MMO long after I've reached the level cap". All of the examples I gave are perfectly good long-term activities in a game, at least for some players. Ask the players in SWG who spent hundreds of hours simply working on their houses & towns. Or building a crafting empire. Ask the people in FFXI who have spent more time Fishing than they have "adventuring". As it turns out, FFXI does have fishing contests, but those really aren't why most people participate... they simply like the process, the exploring, the collecting, and what sometimes seem like emergent behaviors.

As SWG veteran, all I can say is that the core of SWG end-game wasn't Housing, Cities or even Crafting, the core was community within the game Guilds made cities, Guilds did crafting, Guilds did museums, only on very rare cases there was 1 guy doing it, that changed in the end when you could do everything by yourself...which killed the game.

Again, for you. I spent 5 entire years leveling alts. I don't like raiding, and while PvP can be fun... the "jerk factor" has always driven me off, sooner or later.

I agree alts are great to have, but its not a good sign you only make alts because there isn't any more content to run, I think content should always be there and making alts optional not a requirement like it is in LOTRO.

No thanks. One of the very best things for me in an MMO is learning to play various classes. This was the single biggest reason I stopped playing SWG just 5 months after it shipped. I finished advancing my first character, and they didn't allow me to create a 2nd. I played for about 2 weeks after that, then left for good.

Khafar

I stayed in SWG since the begining to the very end. The things I enjoyed the best is that I could try all classes in 1 character no need to make other really.

[Tyveil]

Everyone clamoring for scalable content. We don't really need scalable content we need variable content. Meaning content that varies in difficulty depending on what you do. Lot's of area's ranging in difficulties. So your group determines which part of the instance you're going to take on. This sounds like exactly what they're doing with Big Battles, so I'm stoked. Fully scalable content just gives you watered down content such as what skirmishes are.

[Whatevaplz]

I think some people here are misrepresenting the word multi-player and put in a ridiculous claims. If someone paid for a game that says "MASSIVE MULTI-PLAYER ONLINE ROLEPLAYING GAME" that means I personally want to experience a multiplayer settings. There is no SINGLE PLAYER in the abbreviated word of MMORPG. When you look at the LOTROs character selection at first glance it gives you ROLES you partake in a GROUP settings. Please enough with the charades and give what players want. A multi-player challenging content with the rewards that most players need in order to advance not this go kill a landscape mob with auto-attacks, go afk come back to loot for a chance to get the BEST in SLOT item for your character.

[Khafar]

I think some people here are misrepresenting the word multi-player...

Hogwash. Massively Multi-player Online means exactly that: lots of players sharing the same virtual environment concurrently. Group Adventuring isn't even a requirement for that - nor is Solo Adventuring. Those are typical features of an MMO, but not all of them have had those. Many have PvP, some don't. Many have Crafting, some don't. Many have Housing, some don't. Etc, etc. None of those are absolute "must haves" in order to have a massively multiplayer online experience.

I play MMOs because of the people - but not because I have any desire to go do group adventures with strangers. I like to chat with people, occasionally find a new gaming friend. I like participating in dynamic player economies, being part of a good guild when I can find one, going to player events on occasion. I've helped organize player events, have written editorials for fan sites, and am a regular fixture on forums. I was a co-founder for a group originally set up to help newbies (although that ultimately fizzled). I like helping people in the game if they're in trouble, offering advice, getting my own questions answered. I like "people watching"... they add an unexpectedness to online worlds which is impossible in offline ones.

Lots of developers use the term "MMOG" for these games. The "G" stands for "Game". Not "Grouping".

Khafar

[RicardoFurriel]

I think some people here are misrepresenting the word multi-player and put in a ridiculous claims. If someone paid for a game that says "MASSIVE MULTI-PLAYER ONLINE ROLEPLAYING GAME" that means I personally want to experience a multiplayer settings. There is no SINGLE PLAYER in the abbreviated word of MMORPG. When you look at the LOTROs character selection at first glance it gives you ROLES you partake in a GROUP settings. Please enough with the charades and give what players want. A multi-player challenging content with the rewards that most players need in order to advance not this go kill a landscape mob with auto-attacks, go afk come back to loot for a chance to get the BEST in SLOT item for your character.

I totally disagree with you. Multiplayer means many players but doesn't mean many players who must group. In my opinion, your assessment is as wrong as the one we often see from a select group of players who condemn and comment on every thread which contains the word "PvP" or "Group content".

What Turbine seems to be missing with HD (not sure but I strongly suspect based on comments around the web) is that Multiplayers have multiple play styles. And solo content has been offered in every expansion. So has crafting. PvP and Group content doesn't seem to have much emphasis in HD and that's the problem I and others have.

But hey, we're only <10%... We won't be missed...

[Al.]

I totally disagree with you. Multiplayer means many players but doesn't mean many players who must group. In my opinion, your assessment is as wrong as the one we often see from a select group of players who condemn and comment on every thread which contains the word "PvP" or "Group content".

What Turbine seems to be missing with HD (not sure but I strongly suspect based on comments around the web) is that Multiplayers have multiple play styles. And solo content has been offered in every expansion. So has crafting. PvP and Group content doesn't seem to have much emphasis in HD and that's the problem I and others have.

But hey, we're only <10%... We won't be missed...

Not really, Multi-player means you are part of a community, be it solo or group oriented, but usually these games focus on community rather than individual activities for balance of classes, content and dynamics. Solo content usually is tied to Group and vice versa.

Everyone is important even if don't participate or Group, but you have to accept that this kind of games will eventually focus on Group-based activities rather than solo because of the nature of the enviroment they are in. Noone should force you to group it should be a choice.

[Whatevaplz]

Hogwash.

Lots of developers use the term "MMOG" for these games. The "G" stands for "Game". Not "Grouping".

Khafar

So the rest means it is a single player game? MMO means single player? You are totally right pure HOGWASH.

The point is that the best equipment are SOLO acquired and doesn't require grouping. If I made it priority to give out the best gear / equipment in any MULTIPLAYER games to single player option why would anyone decide to take the time to do the group oriented activity? Because?

I played games too if CoD4 or any shooting games gives out the same achievement/best equipment in their single player campaign why do multiplayer? Why take the time to gather your friends and beat the other group?

Like every game especially in a virtual world there is a purpose on any given task. You choose to craft because you want to craft, you choose to raid because you want raid gear.. you choose to solo because you also want raid gear? for what? A raider has no desired purpose to raid if the BIS gear drops in solo.

[Whatevaplz]

Noone should force you to group it should be a choice.

No one should force you to solo as well.... especially in a MULTI-PLAYER environment.

[Al.]

No one should force you to solo as well.... especially in a MULTI-PLAYER environment.

Yep, well said. Noone should force you to solo for "end-game" it should be optional.

[discodanman45]

I don't consider LOTRO a MMO, that is why I left. I am now spending all my time in RIFT which seems to be interested in giving content to raiders, which is now why I support that game. The fact is Turbine/WB does not want to put together raids now and they have been pretty clear in this and not making false promises. I have enjoyed my last four years playing this game and enjoyed being in an amazing raiding kin. It was hard for me to come to the conclusion that I have to leave this game, but I now know that I will get no enjoyment from this game with the new direction it is following. My advice to raiders is to just leave this game. There are a few games out there that still develop raid content and care about your game play.

It doesn't make sense to me to ignore raiders in a MMO, since many of the raiders I knew owned 2-3 accounts and also spent a lot of money in Turbine Points. Getting rid of one raider is probably the same as getting rid of three casual players monetarily speaking. I paid for two accounts because of raid locks, then stopped that when they lifted locks. By the way, lifting raid locks was a stupid financial decision IMO. However, the marketing team has decided this is the best path for them to follow. I hope people enjoy the new content and I wish success to LOTRO. I am enjoying my time at RIFT, however there is no way that it would ever be as exciting as the time I spent raiding in LOTRO.

[Minquinn]

I think some people here are misrepresenting the word multi-player and put in a ridiculous claims. If someone paid for a game that says "MASSIVE MULTI-PLAYER ONLINE ROLEPLAYING GAME" that means I personally want to experience a multiplayer settings. There is no SINGLE PLAYER in the abbreviated word of MMORPG. When you look at the LOTROs character selection at first glance it gives you ROLES you partake in a GROUP settings. Please enough with the charades and give what players want. A multi-player challenging content with the rewards that most players need in order to advance not this go kill a landscape mob with auto-attacks, go afk come back to loot for a chance to get the BEST in SLOT item for your character.

Back to this argument. I think just browsing the forums you can certainly see there enough solo players to warrant that they get some content. Should the group content be snuffed out or ignored to accomplish this? No.

I only began playing Lotro shortly before F2P released. When i began playing I noticed that the game was group oriented just like WOW was when I left it. Which is why I have decided to grace yous people with my presence. The only thing Lotro was missing that WOW had was a meaningful group finder that actually worked. (and the amount of content we got with WOW) I was able to find groups for GB, GA and even fornost while leveling on my first toon a burg. Then there was a gap between levels 40 and 52 where groups waited til Treasury or GS to run those.

I'm not sure when player mentality changed but it was real recent. I tried to find a group (at level) for GB on an alt recently and was stuck at 2/6. Then when I hit level 32 tried to start a GA group and was stuck at 1/6. To me this old content has no replayability. Not to mention the incentives for running these can be out leveled in one night. So it's not just the players who are not interested in group play but the way the developers have handled it.

So basically you never had to join a group for anything to reach level 85 what's not to think the mentality of the entire game should be that way.

Sorry about the rant. I guess my point was these players are now involved in Lotro. So why even start this argument with them? You know what they are gonna say about anyone who enjoys group play, that basically we all think like you do. In many cases they already blame us for making them hate group play because of some group they joined where the players were rude etc.

That solo players should leave the game when in many cases this is not the case. Really what we are asking for is to have some meaningful content thrown our way.

[Khafar]

If I made it priority to give out the best gear / equipment in any MULTIPLAYER games to single player option why would anyone decide to take the time to do the group oriented activity? Because?

Presumably, because they like grouping. Pretty much everyone likes great gear, but they should be able to play in the way(s) they enjoy to earn it, whether that's raiding, smaller groups, solo, PvMP, or crafting. Yes, crafting.

you choose to solo because you also want raid gear?

When Turbine proposed what I just outlined above, they called it "Incomparable" gear, not "raid gear". And every play style was supposed to have a way to earn their own flavor of such gear... comparable, but tuned to the play style which earned it. Some players would of course want multiple different types, perhaps by PvP and Raiding, or by Solo and Crafting, or by Fellowships and PvMP and Solo. Play however you enjoy, then earn some great rewards. Only in online gaming communities would this not make sense.

Khafar

[Khafar]

Should the group content be snuffed out or ignored to accomplish this? No.

Agreed. But Epic Battles will be group content. And solo/duo content. I think the issue with raids is simply that a smallish percentage of players consuming content which costs perhaps an order of magnitude more to produce is hard to sustain in the face of layoffs, strict budgets, etc. Back when I was following SWG, Koster said that a single hour of "vanilla" content took at least 100 hours of development time to produce. Compelling content took 5-10X as much money, time, resources to do. If that still holds, how much sense does it make to spend 50% or 70% or whatever on 10% of the players?

That said, it doesn't make sense to spend 0% either. I suspect there will still be some raids done, but not every year. That's a way to reduce costs without swinging that pendulum all the way over to "nada".

I'm not sure when player mentality changed but it was real recent.

Not so recent. When LOTRO released, it had maybe 80% soloable content and 20% group-oriented content. The solo content was mostly vanilla kill quests, FedX quests, etc, and the group content was a split of normal quests and instances. Zero raids when they launched, but they did add 2 in the first year the game was out (when their development pace was easily 3X what it is now - they had a full game development team working on things at first).

In 2008, maybe a year after release (and after they'd already added those raids, plus some more instances), their Executive director had this to say:

We’ve been hearing an awful lot about solo play from our players, which has been a surprise to us, because we thought we built a game that was incredibly soloable. But, what we’re finding is that people at all levels of the game want to have more solo experiences. That was a little bit of a learning experience for us.


Big things at the top of our list that we've heard loud and clear is that players want more solo play, so that's something that we're really focused on. We did some of that work in 11 and you'll see more in 12, 13, 14 and probably beyond until it's not an issue anymore. Players of all levels have made it really clear. Both in what they're saying and also what they're doing, that they would like more solo play at all levels of the game.

It's quite possible it's tilted even more that way since F2P arrived, but it was a strong trend in the game right from the start. What solo players were clamoring for in particular was more compelling soloable content. And to their credit, they listened. First soloable instances in Moria, then skirmishes in Mirkwood, then most Warbands plus Hytbold in Rohan, now Epic Battles in Helm's Deep. Given the continuing investment there, I have to believe they think that trend continues.

Khafar

[DaMac]

Agreed. But Epic Battles will be group content. And solo/duo content. I think the issue with raids is simply that a smallish percentage of players consuming content which costs perhaps an order of magnitude more to produce is hard to sustain in the face of layoffs, strict budgets, etc. Back when I was following SWG, Koster said that a single hour of "vanilla" content took at least 100 hours of development time to produce. Compelling content took 5-10X as much money, time, resources to do. If that still holds, how much sense does it make to spend 50% or 70% or whatever on 10% of the players?

That said, it doesn't make sense to spend 0% either. I suspect there will still be some raids done, but not every year. That's a way to reduce costs without swinging that pendulum all the way over to "nada".

Not so recent. When LOTRO released, it had maybe 80% soloable content and 20% group-oriented content. The solo content was mostly vanilla kill quests, FedX quests, etc, and the group content was a split of normal quests and instances. Zero raids when they launched, but they did add 2 in the first year the game was out (when their development pace was easily 3X what it is now - they had a full game development team working on things at first).

In 2008, maybe a year after release (and after they'd already added those raids, plus some more instances), their Executive director had this to say:

We’ve been hearing an awful lot about solo play from our players, which has been a surprise to us, because we thought we built a game that was incredibly soloable. But, what we’re finding is that people at all levels of the game want to have more solo experiences. That was a little bit of a learning experience for us.


Big things at the top of our list that we've heard loud and clear is that players want more solo play, so that's something that we're really focused on. We did some of that work in 11 and you'll see more in 12, 13, 14 and probably beyond until it's not an issue anymore. Players of all levels have made it really clear. Both in what they're saying and also what they're doing, that they would like more solo play at all levels of the game.

It's quite possible it's tilted even more that way since F2P arrived, but it was a strong trend in the game right from the start. What solo players were clamoring for in particular was more compelling soloable content. And to their credit, they listened. First soloable instances in Moria, then skirmishes in Mirkwood, then most Warbands plus Hytbold in Rohan, now Epic Battles in Helm's Deep. Given the continuing investment there, I have to believe they think that trend continues.

Khafar

Id wait untill we have seen the class changes and the difficulty level of big battles. Its pretty clear that Turbine have decided enough is enough with the every class can do every thing. I think is a clear indication that group play will be the way to survive this content. Of course they could make BBs faceroll easy so solos can complete them easily... but I dont imagine anyone wants to see that happen.

[Khafar]

I think is a clear indication that group play will be the way to survive this content.

That's not even close to what they said. Group play will be the way to achieve more objectives in each battle, getting a higher score. I'd expect that translates into "grouping earns rewards faster", which is how it should be IMO. Skilled solo play should be able to achieve more objectives more thoroughly than "meh" solo play, also achieving a higher score - but not as high as group play would earn.

Khafar

[Al.]

That's not even close to what they said. Group play will be the way to achieve more objectives in each battle, getting a higher score. I'd expect that translates into "grouping earns rewards faster", which is how it should be IMO. Skilled solo play should be able to achieve more objectives more thoroughly than "meh" solo play, also achieving a higher score - but not as high as group play would earn.

Khafar

Hope also "Solo Epic Battles" are increible difficult in skill to able to get "Best rewards", if you are good playing solo you should deserve very difficult objectives for solo.

[RicardoFurriel]

Skilled solo play should be able to achieve more objectives more thoroughly than "meh" solo play, also achieving a higher score - but not as high as group play would earn.

Khafar

I can't wait to check Turbine's definition of "skilled solo play".

And just a reminder, "Death from below" was the only truly solo quest that I found challenging (at least for some classes). We all know the uproar that went on around here.

[Whatevaplz]

Presumably, because they like grouping. Pretty much everyone likes great gear, but they should be able to play in the way(s) they enjoy to earn it, whether that's raiding, smaller groups, solo, PvMP, or crafting. Yes, crafting.

This is when you are wrong they do it because it is rewarding. I craft in this game because of the highest tier i can craft in the end (not because I love it). As you said they "earned it".

When Turbine proposed what I just outlined above, they called it "Incomparable" gear, not "raid gear". And every play style was supposed to have a way to earn their own flavor of such gear... comparable, but tuned to the play style which earned it. Some players would of course want multiple different types, perhaps by PvP and Raiding, or by Solo and Crafting, or by Fellowships and PvMP and Solo. Play however you enjoy, then earn some great rewards. Only in online gaming communities would this not make sense.

Khafar

every play style? Best in Slot gear for raiding is gained from killing LANDSCAPE MOBS using AUTO-ATTACKS. I don't think anyone "enjoys" that idea unless of course you are really beyond casual and don't enjoy any type of difficulty presets in a game. To me that is boring.

[Whatevaplz]

I don't consider LOTRO a MMO, that is why I left. I am now spending all my time in RIFT which seems to be interested in giving content to raiders, which is now why I support that game. The fact is Turbine/WB does not want to put together raids now and they have been pretty clear in this and not making false promises. I have enjoyed my last four years playing this game and enjoyed being in an amazing raiding kin. It was hard for me to come to the conclusion that I have to leave this game, but I now know that I will get no enjoyment from this game with the new direction it is following. My advice to raiders is to just leave this game. There are a few games out there that still develop raid content and care about your game play.

It doesn't make sense to me to ignore raiders in a MMO, since many of the raiders I knew owned 2-3 accounts and also spent a lot of money in Turbine Points. Getting rid of one raider is probably the same as getting rid of three casual players monetarily speaking. I paid for two accounts because of raid locks, then stopped that when they lifted locks. By the way, lifting raid locks was a stupid financial decision IMO. However, the marketing team has decided this is the best path for them to follow. I hope people enjoy the new content and I wish success to LOTRO. I am enjoying my time at RIFT, however there is no way that it would ever be as exciting as the time I spent raiding in LOTRO.

2 of the raidings kins I'm in left for RIFT. I'm playing it as well, the only downfall of rift is you can be "raid ready" by using actual $. Of course it is not the highest tier benefits for doing the actual raids. I come to LOTRO from time to time just to grab my weeklies and do my weekly craft quest, every Wednesday when RIFT is under maintenance lol.

[Khafar]

This is when you are wrong they do it because it is rewarding.

If the only reason people are raiding is to be better than everyone else, and nobody really wants to do them for any other reason... they should just quit creating them at all. Spending huge amounts of $$ to please a smallish minority of your players while annoying your other paying customers is beyond stupid. Of course, I think you're the one who's wrong here - some people really do like raiding on its own merits.

every play style?

Yep, every playing style. Including crafting. They'd probably need to limit the very best of those crafted versions via extremely long cooldowns or bind-on-create mechanics, but it could be done.

The deal with Turbine's idea of "Comparable Incomparables" was that the fastest way to get incomparable gear was via the content most difficult to do (or organize). Not the only way. Also, each play style would have a different set of tradeoffs on its stats/buffs, reflecting how it was earned. Many people would want more than one type.

Khafar

[Zombielord]

If the only reason people are raiding is to be better than everyone else, and nobody really wants to do them for any other reason... they should just quit creating them at all. Spending huge amounts of $$ to please a smallish minority of your players while annoying your other paying customers is beyond stupid. Of course, I think you're the one who's wrong here - some people really do like raiding on its own merits.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but turbine has never (!) released any information which part of their playerbase enjoys which content ... or do you have a link for your claims? No?

It would also be wise to reconsider your "raiders look down on people, because I said so" mentality and stop spreading your hate.

[Al.]

If the only reason people are raiding is to be better than everyone else, and nobody really wants to do them for any other reason... they should just quit creating them at all. Spending huge amounts of $$ to please a smallish minority of your players while annoying your other paying customers is beyond stupid. Of course, I think you're the one who's wrong here - some people really do like raiding on its own merits.

Understand Khafar, your data is wrong to compare, it doesn't take too many resources, developing time or money to make raids, its takes for example more resources to make a new system like "Mounted Combat".

Yep, every playing style. Including crafting. They'd probably need to limit the very best of those crafted versions via extremely long cooldowns or bind-on-create mechanics, but it could be done.

The deal with Turbine's idea of "Comparable Incomparables" was that the fastest way to get incomparable gear was via the content most difficult to do (or organize). Not the only way. Also, each play style would have a different set of tradeoffs on its stats/buffs, reflecting how it was earned. Many people would want more than one type.

Khafar

No I disagree, Turbine should let solo players "skilled" able to get incomparable gear, if you want easy incomparable you should group. thats it.

I think Turbine knows skill is necesary for solo players to get the best gear, Hytbold would have been even better if skill was part of the equation, only skill should get solo "lonewolfs" their incomparable gear.

[monteeburns]

... its takes for example more resources to make a new system like "Mounted Combat".

This is a very valid point. How many people actually like and use mounted combat in a big way compared to the cost of development. Just think of all the raids/instances/regions that could have been made with those resources, and all tha happy hobbits that would have resulted from it. I bet a significant number of people would be happy to trade MC for a raid like the rift, an extra map and a good handful of quality instances for various group sizes. I know I would and I don't even group much at all now, or raid at all.

[Al.]

This is a very valid point. How many people actually like and use mounted combat in a big way compared to the cost of development. Just think of all the raids/instances/regions that could have been made with those resources, and all tha happy hobbits that would have resulted from it. I bet a significant number of people would be happy to trade MC for a raid like the rift, an extra map and a good handful of quality instances for various group sizes. I know I would and I don't even group much at all now, or raid at all.

Don't get me wrong, I think Mounted Combat was a good addition just trying to put costs into perspective.

I like raids the more the better, but they should have made Mounted Combat raids instead of erebor ones to link the two systems, it would have added depth to the game in my opinion.

[Khafar]

Understand Khafar, your data is wrong to compare, it doesn't take too many resources, developing time or money to make raids

Yes, it does. Koster said it took on the order of 1000 man-hours (6 man-months) to create a single hour of compelling content such as a raid. It requires all sorts of people, from world designers to several types of artists, to programmers and content designers and itemization devs, plus a very large testing team.

Was Mounted Combat even more effort? Perhaps it was. But nearly everyone with a character of that level is going to make use of MC. That's almost certainly why they're developing Epic Battles to span more play styles... they get more "Return On Investment" even if the costs are higher.

Turbine should let solo players "skilled" able to get incomparable gear, if you want easy incomparable you should group.

Nah. It should just take longer. Maybe twice as long. What "challenge gamers" don't seem to get is that they're in the minority these days. I like a challenge myself, and my kids think I'm nuts for playing all the shooters and RPGs I do on the "insane" setting. I do that because I like it... I've had a masochistic streak my whole life. But what percentage of players of those games do you think do so? I'd bet it isn't even 10%. In a mass market product like an MMO, it's flat-out stupid to set it up as a meritocracy. It's not a competitive sport, and it shouldn't try to act as if it is. It's an entertainment service.

Khafar