I was reading a post in the forums where the discussion revolved around the changes with Mirkwood that have turned previously group activities such as the Lone Land changes that removed the eliteness of some of the monsters so they are easier for an on-level person to solo them. There of course are also the changes to the Volume I: Book 2 epic quests allowing you to complete them solo.
Is Turbine turning their massive multi-player game into massive solo-player?
My personal opinion on this is no. These changes were necessary to help improve the experience for the new player (not to mention Merric and his many many alts). Instead of locking them out of content and progress in the epic line, they’re able to continue.
Things are much different than they were two years ago. When this content in the Lone Lands was fresh and new to everyone there were people all over. Everyone was trying to get the same things done and finding a group for this content was super stinking easy. I would argue that this is no longer the case for these tasks.
Sure there are always new people joining that need it but it’s not that huge mass from launch. While I’m not calling it impossible to find groups still, the ease that once was is certainly no longer present.
People playing alts will most likely just ask someone in their kinship to help them with a sticky spot and continue or if the content is skippable, they’ll skip it. They’ve seen it before and unless they need something will most likely pass it by.
I agree 100% with Vastin’s reply to the post:
In a nutshell, the solo players tend to get frustrated when they get blocked by a group quest, and the folks who group often find it difficult to pull together enough people who meet all the solo pre-reqs for the group quest they want to complete.
These changes don’t prevent new players from getting the full experience. On the contrary I would say it helps them see more of the content!
Like many posters on the thread, I have to reiterate that multi-player is not mean “forced grouping”. As a casual player myself, I probably wouldn’t get to group often at all simply due to my erratic and random play sessions. It would be difficult to feel like I’ve accomplished everything if my entire playtime was consigned to sitting in LFF hoping someone needs a flighty and afk-prone minstrel.
If I didn’t have the option to solo, playing an MMO (any MMO) would be nigh impossible for me. Does that mean I shouldn’t get to play MMOs? I should say not and I’ll bite anyone who tries to tell me otherwise!
Loading ...
December 7, 2009 at 7:25 am
MOAR SOLO PLS.
MSORPG? Sign me up!
-The Gneech
December 7, 2009 at 9:17 am
Agree 100%!
December 7, 2009 at 9:46 am
Well written, Goldenstar. I agree with your statements.
I would rather be able to play at my own pace than to be forced to do group content with maximum level characters from my kinship because I could not find any on-level assistance.
*thumbsup*
December 7, 2009 at 10:14 am
This an interesting debate (and very controversial to some). I remember myself thinking, “If someone would rather play solo, why play an MMO at all?” But after playing LOTRO for 2+ years and following both sides of the argument, I get it. Just because someone would prefer to solo doesn’t mean they don’t want people around for other reasons, be it trading, socializing, or just providing a sense of “stuff going on”. When I go back to something like The Sims now, it feels a bit lonely playing by myself. And I realize that even when I was heavy into the Sims, I was blogging, visiting forums, downloading custom content — in short, I was integrating other players into my single player game. LOTRO can be like that for solo players, too. People are there — if you need them. And I do think that some things really have to be group-oriented — raids, for instance — but solo players shouldn’t be shut out of things like book quests. That said, some of my favorite moments in this game have occurred while I’ve been in a fellowship. The first time I did the Great Barrows, for instance, and got to see how all the classes complement each other. Accomplishing something as a team can be really gratifying. So as long as they don’t do away with the possibility of grouping altogether, I’m fine with them making more things soloable.
December 7, 2009 at 10:34 am
Exactly. Having the option to solo doesn’t mean I wouldn’t jump at the chance to group up when I can!
December 9, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Exactly right Phebe. I would also add that for some players the MMO part is secondary to the fact that it is Middle-Earth. If you’re a Tolkien fan and want to play in his world, LoTRO is pretty much your only option.
December 7, 2009 at 11:15 am
Even though I play exclusively solo, I enjoy the online environment because I cannot pause the game or reload a saved game. Playing single player games is OK. But, if all you have to do is keep replaying the same saved game until you figure out the proper strategy to get past the next obstacle, what have you really accomplished if you don’t lose anything.
Live games are a one-shot deal. You run the wrong direction, especially in Moria, and you die. No pause, no reload saved game. Get one too many adds and try to run too late (my most used combat strategy) and you wind up answering the question “Dread here, or Dread in the stone circle?”
Lotro feels like home to me and I will probably play it until the servers are shut down for the last time or until I die, whichever comes first. So I appreciate the chance to see content I otherwise could not see.
But the main reason I don’t group with others, is that I am probably the worst group player that has ever played on line. Believe me, everyone on Elendilmir should thank me for playing solo.
December 7, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Personally I like having the “option” open to me. I find it difficult to convince other players to go through older content, no matter what game you’re talking about. Heck, after a couple of months it’s sometimes difficult to get people to go through the “new” content. Having the option to solo these items in no way makes it a solo game. You’re not isolated from the rest/majority of the world for the majority of your game like Diablo or Guild Wars.
I also don’t think that having the solo option makes it anti-social either. It’s just giving an option that wasn’t there before to another category of player. I think that it’s a great option, but it definitely does not always work. In fact Orion admits that only having a solo or group option for Volume 2 in retrospect was not a good option. Goldenstar said it sounded like to her that they’ll move it to more of a skirmish scaling system, and I think that this would be a good idea because it allows more flexibility.
December 7, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I am plenty social when I play, but I don’t always want to group, so having the ability to solo is nice.
I don’t know when or where this notion that massively multiplayer meant that I had to group, but I get the feeling it won’t go away anytime soon.
December 7, 2009 at 5:55 pm
I think it makes sense in this case. Mostly early areas of the game that have gotten harder to find solid groups for on a regular basis… Later on in the game, I don’t think such changes are generally necessary.
Forced grouping is a mixed thing for me. Stuffing some random elite dwarves in an area can just be frustrating. From my perspective, if you want to group up for stuff like that go ahead… You’ll get through it 5 times faster than I would alone (and slayer deeds will likely go much faster). That should be enough incentive in many cases.
December 8, 2009 at 7:52 pm
In theory, I agree with the changes to make Bk 2 solo-able, but there needs to be a good balance to the content on-level. I just took an alt through the Red Pass instance today and the Heroic Buff put me up to 9000 morale, and though the whole instance I never got lower than 7000. I think I heard they are working on rescaling the solo mode mechanic, but this was far too easy to even be fun anymore. I think they did better when they made 1.11 easier with bk8 patch. And that didnt even need the solo version mechanic.
I’ve been trying to get kinmates through Vol1 books as an officer and it’s a real struggle with the current set-up, so I think they are moving in the right direction. Lets just hope they get it right and that the new content people get to experience is also fun that way.
March 18, 2010 at 9:00 am
Increasing the options are the kind of improvements I love, but note that adding, not replacing. So making group quests soloable while still being fun to run in a group? fantastic.
Making an area that was good for groups but not solo players into the opposite? no net gain.
If the changes were made because groups were hard to form, then make group making easier instead!
My /played in Lotro was over 6 months, but i don’t anymore because it takes too much work getting into groups. There are too many obstacles and a chat box and quest finder that no-one uses is not enough.
I wanted to group, but i solo’d from necessity.
Have they added skirmishes to the “LFF” tool yet? because surely that simple addition could turn the whole thing around – but they hadnt when i looked over christmas.
March 18, 2010 at 10:21 am
There haven’t been any changes to the LLF system that I’m aware of. I may check though as I typically run skirmishes with my hubby or kin. I hadn’t even considered using it for skirmishes.