2012-04-06, 03:02 PM
thor Wrote:And there is where your argument becomes invalid. You assert that MMO must require sociability. MMO doesn't mean Must Multiplayer Only. MMO simply means that you have other players freely there. You can be as social as you want. There are plenty of MMOs that aren't even games. They are totally social experiences. Your Connotative definition of MMO is different than the actual Denotative meaning of MMO. The monniker MMO doesn't require the environment to have X% of social content. That is just what YOU think MMOs are 'supposed' to be about. That's is completely a personal opinion and not factual.
Then what do you think an MMO's purpose is? To simply walk around and ignore people?
wiki Wrote:Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of role-playing video games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
So what definition do you come up with exactly. I find it utterly retarded you are playing a game intended for interaction and actually supporting the fact it functions more on a solo-playability level. If you make a game with online capability, especially an RPG I would only assume, by common sense, that it takes some type of interaction to play it. You're essentially saying that it being completely stripped out of the product is not only acceptable but encouraged?.
Are you saying you support the current product?
thor Wrote:Yes, I am. I am quite happy with it. If I wasn't, I would not continue to play.
...So you support the fact that any player in any fashion can dictate if you can play the game or not. Okay. You like the fact NX dictates how far you can go into the game? Okay. And you're fine with the fact that majority of the high level content is just unrealistic without a large sum of NX spent and the gaming currency being worthless?
What you essentially support is possibly the worst managed game of the last decade.
thor Wrote:I am not saying, in any fashion, that the game must be a purely solo experience. I am saying that the game must not be a purely social experience. I think we have a good balance right now. I can PQ when I want. I can Solo train when I want. LHC is a social place. Its just not closed off to the solo gamer. PERFECT! If I train solo in LHC, I am not going to do as well as I would with a party. Same for Monster Park.
No one's arguing that but that's what the game has become. Exploit, or train somewhere that was intended for someone nearly half your level. I'm pretty sure solo is the basic concept of the game right now, and it isn't balanced in that regard. Bosses? solo'd. 1-100? Solo. LHC? Party with people on an exploited map? Social?
The game should treat you exactly as you are, a minority. That means minor parts of the game should be solo, not half and half, not majority, which it currently is. It's an MMO, it's entire creation was to make players accomplish adventures together. It's such a basic concept that it's killing me that you are trying to pick at petty definitions. No not definitions, but perspectives.
thor Wrote:It can be argued that it's Party Play (whether PQ or LHC) is the very reason that players advance without any work. So why the hell are you coming down on the solo gamer? He has to work harder than anyone in order to advance!
What strips the challenge is the absolute difference in PvE, if a player can solo HT in less than 10 minutes, what the hell are regular mob monsters? Garbage. I'm not saying kill a million HT's an hour but, there should be more to it than grinding a monster that slows down at 170. Your ability to leech and gain massive amount's of damage at level 100, is not determined by whether you play solo or if you play as a party. It's based off a broken structure that you're either oblivious of or you're not understanding the underlining argument.

