Solo flashpoints with companions

[Sabarok]

CoH scales your level down when you do their (loosely related) version of Heroics (called Task Forces) or Operations (called Trials). So, in TOR terms, when you do a L10 Flashpoint, you would have been temporarily de-levelled to L10 to do the Flashpoint. You can therefore always do “old” content in CoH at the right level.

 

LOTRO scales the instances up to match the player's level. When they implemented this, they began not only by creating new instances that were designed scalable, but redesigned many of the old ones to scale to level. This made it possible for older content to give rewards that could still be comparable to the player's level, and it also gave old content new life by making end-game players want to play the old stuff again.

 

LOTRO also has an awesome Skirmish system, which is a large library of repeatable instances with random elements and scaling content (both to level and party size). Incidentally, the LOTRO Skirmish system uses a customizable companion called a Soldier.

 

With the large number of flashpoints, I think there would be value in making them able to scale up to the player's level, so that it's not really a matter of "which flashpoint is at my level" but "how many flashpoints can I choose from at my level". I'd also like to see scaling based on team size to determine both difficulty and loot/reward.

[Orisai]

I love the idea, but the only way it could work is having an advanced Tactics systems for companions much like the one in Dragon Age: Origins. This way companions will only use their abilities when certain conditions are given, and not randomly like they do now.

[Sabarok]

A trooper, lore wise, should have no match for a Jedi or a Sith. But 10-100 could be. A player would have his own squad as a “character” and Force users can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers (as per Attack of the Clones).

 

An ordinary trooper wouldn't, but players don't play an ordinary trooper. They play the best of the best; on par with the best Bounty Hunter; the SWTOR version of a Bobba Fett. Jango Fett was able to take down 1 Jedi on his own before he was taken down himself. The trooper isn't an ancient version of a clone trooper, but more like the Star Wars version of Gears of War. What you have is what force users train to do physically the Trooper class is the rare individual gifted naturally. That's my take on it.

 

Wedge Antilles is one of the best fighter pilots in the Republic and behind the stick of an X-wing in a 1-on-1 fight, I figure he'd probably have as good as a 40% chance of beating Luke Skywalker in a simulated dog fight. They might even have covered it in the books, I don't recall specifics.

[Inarai]

So your only opposition to this is that you assume it will come at the expense of new content? It's an excuse that can be used at any idea given. It's very unconstructive.

 

...

 

I'm talking about new content designed to offer to solo players the challenge, progression, story and so forth that are offered by flashpoints. I am saying that THIS is a better solution then gutting the ability of an element of the game of its ability to perform its role. And, frankly, it's just a good idea in its own right.

 

I hope BW also like the idea, I know they want us to be social and try to group hence social rewards but I also hope that they recognise how unique and rewarding companions are (sure they do). And hpw beneficial it would be to allow us to run heroics & flashpoints with them as a party/group.

 

Companions and complex real time mechanics will not mix. It's unfortunate, but it is a fact. It's just an absolute, flat fact that in a non-deterministic environment with so many factors that must influence the next action and the fact that decisions must be able to be made and executed in live time that there's no AI that could possibly run in a modern game with modern hardware that could handle it. Hardware becomes an issue with AI even WITHOUT the real time requirement - and, for that matter, without the non-determinism (For the unaware, in this realm this is jargon meaning that the next state is not fully determined by the actions of the agent. Should point out that this is also not a strategic environment - one where there are multiple agents and their actions collectively determine the next state - which which makes it even MORE difficult).

 

Basically, we can have complex content or content where companions can work. Thus, in content where companions can work, the avenues through which challenge can be provided. This essentially means that we can have properly challenging solo non-companion content, or numerically challenging solo companion content.

 

Please do understand that this is not coming from an uninformed position.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Inarai

[BlytzSaber]

While I like Flashpoints as they are, I do think it would be kinda cool if there were a couple like The Esseles/Black Talon that were heavy on the story aspect and were designed around interacting with your companion characters, perhaps as a way of making sure their gear was up to date or as an alternate means of increasing their affection with you (without having to constantly buy them gifts or risk dieing in story missions and quests because they're not your tank or healer companion).

 

I don't want to be able to do the current flashpoints with companions, but I would LOVE this. Have a few flashpoints that are tailored to be done with companions, and are heavy on the story. Make them endgame, reward gear proportionate to the work you have to do for them, and I'd be really happy. There are just those times when I want to play my character but don't want to play with other people, or get mad at a group and want to blow off some steam, and this is the perfect way to do it.

[Sabarok]

I'm talking about new content designed to offer to solo players the challenge, progression, story and so forth that are offered by flashpoints. I am saying that THIS is a better solution then gutting the ability of an element of the game of its ability to perform its role. And, frankly, it's just a good idea in its own right.

 

It sounds more like you missed the point of the OP's idea. This is about experiencing the story & content of the existing flashpoints

 

Companions and complex real time mechanics will not mix. It's unfortunate, but it is a fact. It's just an absolute, flat fact that in a non-deterministic environment with so many factors that must influence the next action and the fact that decisions must be able to be made and executed in live time that there's no AI that could possibly run in a modern game with modern hardware that could handle it. Hardware becomes an issue with AI even WITHOUT the real time requirement - and, for that matter, without the non-determinism (For the unaware, in this realm this is jargon meaning that the next state is not fully determined by the actions of the agent. Should point out that this is also not a strategic environment - one where there are multiple agents and their actions collectively determine the next state - which which makes it even MORE difficult).

 

It's not only companions that have AIs but hostile NPCs and for efficiency, it would make most sense if companion's combat AIs were based on the same codebase as enemy NPCs. Having 3 companions can be offset by reducing the number of enemy NPC combatants by 3. Being chased by a large group of enemies is probably the most taxing thing that the AI will ever process. Also, a flashpoint in 3-companion mode would not be the exact same one as a 4-player mode. The fights would have to be adjusted to compensate for the more limited abilities of the player since 1 player +3 isn't as effective as 4 players.

 

Basically, we can have complex content or content where companions can work. Thus, in content where companions can work, the avenues through which challenge can be provided. This essentially means that we can have properly challenging solo non-companion content, or numerically challenging solo companion content.

 

You can have both with the choice being made at mission acceptance. There is already a Heroic 2 difficulty standard. This is meant for 2 players + 2 companions. The same standard could be used for a 1 player + 3 companions. Flashpoints are already designed with multiple difficulties. This would be a matter of also including the equivalent of a Heroic 2 difficulty for solo +3. It could also make possible for an easy mode 16-man operation being done with 4 players + 3 companions each. Players can experience the "progression, story and so forth" of these flashpoints with a lower bar at the expense of the loot quality. It also has the benefit of being able to double as a 2-man easy-mode.

[silverprovidence]

While I have been dabbling to see what the lowest threshold at each flashpoint I could solo it, I agree making a solo option flashpoint with x3 companions is a bad idea. I disagree with it at the basic level in that there should just be content thats group focused. I dont mind that you can take companions into flashpoints, wouldnt mind if you could take companions into operations, if they cant hack it to do the content thats fine by me.

 

I'm hoping that with the legacy system if they go the whole 'you can have epic skywalker-esque duels' route that means questlines. Make em repeatable ala heroic quests and you'd have a cool solo companion gear route. Kind of tricky to do the solo content route with the class quests since they're meant to 'matter' (thougn I'd personally lobbey for first time = story choices count, then you can do em as dailies or something... be nice to relive some of the class content again without the drudgery of rerolling. Perfectly justifiable by having it as a retelling to a companoin or something).

 

The idea that there should be a solo+3 companions route to flashpoints is kind of pointless. Theres no small number of flashpoint bosses where frankly companion controls are too poor for them to perform. Case in point the bonus boss of esseles, creates a melee aura that ***** companions, Vokk on esseles has a lightning attack on non tanks thats a pain in the arse to move companions out of, and have a lot of fun with shifting rockets to turrets on HK in false emp.

 

Fact of the matter is even if a solo option for flashpoints with max group companions existed, it'd have to be severely nerfed to be feasible. Far better to have its own content anyway and frankly companions NEED a control overhaul. To get them to move atm requires them on passive... and they dont move on passive... they walk. Makes a lot of crap a pain in the arse with them, its more bearable if they are ranged companions but melee worse.

 

Though theres a question for how their development resources is. Which is always something thats grating. They supposedly 'listen to the community' but theres not the barest hint of whats feasible design wise to allow features to be prioritised within the community. Just degenerates into a bunch of crazies spamming the place.

[Thargrim]

I would love to see some challenging, rewarding (by rewarding I mean you can get unique competent gear by doing it) solo endgame content for folks who just want to log in and do it right away and cant wait to find a raid group or stuff like that.

[Inarai]

It sounds more like you missed the point of the OP's idea. This is about experiencing the story & content of the existing flashpoints

 

Not quite - that just can't be addressed without doing harm. That said, a part of what I'm suggesting is having the same level of content quality and story in solo content. A particularly clever trick would be to link them to the Flashpoints - the content (or some of it) is part of the same set of events and perhaps occurs simultaneously with the Flashpoint (perhaps having an impact upon the events in the Flashpoint, and the reverse). There's a step further where you have a soloer and a group with their experiences being intertwined, however, that has potential issues.

 

It's not only companions that have AIs but hostile NPCs and for efficiency, it would make most sense if companion's combat AIs were based on the same codebase as enemy NPCs. Having 3 companions can be offset by reducing the number of enemy NPC combatants by 3. Being chased by a large group of enemies is probably the most taxing thing that the AI will ever process. Also, a flashpoint in 3-companion mode would not be the exact same one as a 4-player mode. The fights would have to be adjusted to compensate for the more limited abilities of the player since 1 player +3 isn't as effective as 4 players.

 

The NPC's don't have to deal with all the stuff players do. Notice that in Athiss, for example, the final boss isn't impacted by the Living Fire. Thus the AI can safely ignore those details. And I don't think you have a full appreciation for what's taxing to an AI. They're not really capable of pre-analysis dismissal such as the human mind performs - so no matter how irrelevant something in it's state-space may be, it has to analyze it for EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE state that it's looking at and in turn has to look at EVERY POSSIBLE STATE created by changing that thing. The pathing of a group of chasing enemies, on the other hand, is actually simple - if it's executing a chase response, it needs track only a few enemies - mainly the closest one. Or it could look at that group as an element, and not as individuals (this is possible, but terrible when they matter as individuals and more taxing in small enough groupings).

 

You can have both with the choice being made at mission acceptance. There is already a Heroic 2 difficulty standard. This is meant for 2 players + 2 companions. The same standard could be used for a 1 player + 3 companions. Flashpoints are already designed with multiple difficulties. This would be a matter of also including the equivalent of a Heroic 2 difficulty for solo +3. It could also make possible for an easy mode 16-man operation being done with 4 players + 3 companions each. Players can experience the "progression, story and so forth" of these flashpoints with a lower bar at the expense of the loot quality. It also has the benefit of being able to double as a 2-man easy-mode.

 

Scaling permits for changes in only numerical difficulty. This is one of the lowest forms of difficulty. Thus this is kind of the difference between having good solo content or crappy solo content.

 

And do note that you don't have, say, a Heroic 4 version of the Heroic 2 quests. That content is DESIGNED for it's group sizes, and thus its non-numeric difficulty is as well. You're basically redeveloping a large chunk of the content for each permitted grouping if you're altering non-numeric difficulty.

[Sabarok]

The NPC's don't have to deal with all the stuff players do. Notice that in Athiss, for example, the final boss isn't impacted by the Living Fire. Thus the AI can safely ignore those details. And I don't think you have a full appreciation for what's taxing to an AI. They're not really capable of pre-analysis dismissal such as the human mind performs - so no matter how irrelevant something in it's state-space may be, it has to analyze it for EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE state that it's looking at and in turn has to look at EVERY POSSIBLE STATE created by changing that thing. The pathing of a group of chasing enemies, on the other hand, is actually simple - if it's executing a chase response, it needs track only a few enemies - mainly the closest one. Or it could look at that group as an element, and not as individuals (this is possible, but terrible when they matter as individuals and more taxing in small enough groupings).

 

The Companion AIs also don't need to do anything more than they already handle, which should be an AI comparable to the NPC AI. This isn't about improving Companion AIs to handle flashpoints, but modifying flashpoints so they can have a downscaled version that's companion compatible.

 

When you get into a solo fight against 5 enemies with your companion, that's 6 AIs for the server to handle. Multiply that by the number of players, and I would expect there to be several thousand active AIs at any given moment on a single server.

 

Scaling permits for changes in only numerical difficulty. This is one of the lowest forms of difficulty. Thus this is kind of the difference between having good solo content or crappy solo content.

 

The choice of scaled content is already there with the difficulty levels. I also believe that there's an operation that has different difficulties based on 8-man vs 16-man.

 

And do note that you don't have, say, a Heroic 4 version of the Heroic 2 quests. That content is DESIGNED for it's group sizes, and thus its non-numeric difficulty is as well. You're basically redeveloping a large chunk of the content for each permitted grouping if you're altering non-numeric difficulty.

 

I was using that as an example of a difficulty level that already exists in the game that is appropriate for companions. There are 2 ways to allow players to solo flashpoints for the story aspect:

 

1) Massive redesign of the flashpoint to create an easy mode that's achievable for a solo player + 1 companion. This would be large work done individually on each flashpoint, and would be difficult to scale into larger operations. I don't think we'll see this on existing content unless Bioware implements a scaling system similar to LOTRO's Skirmishes.

 

2) Massive work on a new feature to allow 3 companions. This would make the redesign needed for flashpoints down to a more trivial level of work (perhaps involving only the change of disabling some environmental or boss effects during easy-mode). The feature could also be useful in new types of content. Easy mode operations done with 4 people instead of 16. Mega operations where 16 players + 3 participate in 64-character craziness. New content intended to be soloable but scaled up to handle 3 companions, perhaps as part of the class quest. I think this should be limited to special instances, so no open world heroics would be done with 3 companions.

 

I think there's real potential for some good ideas without complicating the AI.

[jackalious]

I think Bio did it right. They Have Solo questing (Class), PvP (enough said) and Flashpoints (Group). I think people should understand they did their best to please all aspect of people and gaming experience. I think it would be awesome to have that ability but at the same time I think it would take away meet new people, learning you function in a group and most of all guilds. Why would anybody join a guild if you could solo this whole game without the help of others. I would like to see a class flashpoint where you are saving one of you companions or something like that but not every flashpoint. plus I could stand the talking of two of my companions.

[littleming]

I think if this is done it would need to be done as a different difficulty level for flashpoints. Dungeons are there for group content for the people that like to group. The rest of the world is there for solo content.

 

That doesn't mean they shouldn't, at some point, implement solo dungeons. Take a look at how Rift did it. They are called 'Chronicles' where they are solo dungeons intended for one or two players to progress through.

 

I imagine a feature like this would work wonderfully in TOR. While I would like to see the ability to use more companions (like Guild Wars did with the hired mercenary characters), I feel that it would cause a greater rift in the MMO community than there already is. It would only enable the game to become more SINGLE player than MULTI player. Which I think the latter is their aim.

 

That said, we're more likely to get bioware on board with this feature if it's done in the way mentioned above. Solo dungeons that were designed to be played as solo dungeons.

[NoxiousAlby]

Thankyou all for your feedback, to cap many posters would like the option to run flashpoints with 3 companions. On the downside is generaly agreeable that due to the boss mechanics it would be to difficult to impossible.

 

And there are those that claim flashpoints & heroic quests should remain a group function only to encourage guild membership and social interaction. To those players I say not everyone enjoys the guild mentality, for me personaly Blizz attempt to super size guilds with a rewards system in Cata left a bad taste in my mouth, I for one am to old to make internet acquaintances. There are also players who log on for 2 hours a night, for them being able to run a flashpoint or do heroic quests with 3 companions saves alot of downtime looking for a group.

 

For me this game will always be an MMO even if solo material +3 companions was available, all I need to do is go to the fleet or Ilum to realise how big an MMO it is.

 

My favorite class quests were those that used all your companions, as a trooper Havoc Squad truly felt like a squad when the entire crew was required to save a kidnapped Senator.

 

Companions are truly innovative as they arent pets, to be able to utilise them more thoroughly would only enrich the game for me. I assume that at the moment BW has alot on it's plate, asking for more solo content on top of raid, pvp, flashpoint, bug fixes, & improvements wasnt my intention. I had thought it may have been possible to do some of the current content as it was.

 

In the first few weeks I ran BT with just 2 dps & heroic quests with 4 dps, now players are constantly advertising for tanks & healers to do the same content. If I could run Heroic quests with 4 dps surely I would be capable of doing them solo with 3 companions (hlr,tank, +1 more dps).

 

I would just like to see the richness of class companions utilised to it's full extent, I have 5 at the moment but only 2 ever get used. Heres hoping for something in the future

Edited January 22, 2012 by NoxiousAlby

[CygnisJunior]

Companions are "dumb" and will simply sit there in AoE spells.

 

They could make the AI better, but then honestly they would be better than 50% of players, so what would be the point?

[Inarai]

And there are those that claim flashpoints & heroic quests should remain a group function only to encourage guild membership and social interaction.

 

It has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with guilds in particular. It's about the effect of social interaction upon the long-term health of the game. Flashpoints and Heroics achieve a lot in that direction. You're suggesting, essentially, a reduction in the long-term health of the game by taking away their positive influence on that factor. This is a bad plan. It has nothing to do with player preferences, honestly - which is part of why player consensus is not a driving force of game design. Players aren't mindful of the consequences of what they want, they just want it. A poster demonstrated it in this very thread - he flat out stated that he didn't care about its impact on other people's play or on the game overall, he wanted it and thought (wrongly) that this was a good reason to add it to the game. It's a valid reason to suggest/request the feature, but not a reason to add it.

 

Adding solo content offering the same things at large remains the better approach.

 

The issue isn't about what you seem to think it's about. It has nothing to do with "these players want X, these players want Y". It has to do with the larger consequences for the game of adding X and/or Y. A bad idea is a bad idea no matter how many people get behind it.

[tyranusdarec]

The OP does have a point... While I wouldnt want to have to baby sit 3 companions, one is bad enough, I really dont think it would be a bad idea for those that cant login much.

 

The biggest argument here is that it would kill players grouping together... But I dont think so. Look at history. Whenever a game is or goes solocentric it actually has more people grouping together then a game that is groupcentric. SWG for example was, at one time, extremely soloable. You could solo anything or any content. Yet I saw more groups of people running around then in any other group game.

 

The other thing is people would have to gear up more then one companion. I have one companion on my juggie geared up. The rest are all way under geared. Why? I dont need them when I am running missions. So allowing this would mean more people would need or want to run missions or buy more gear to get those others geared as well.

 

Tyr

[Inarai]

The biggest argument here is that it would kill players grouping together...

 

The design argument properly goes that it takes away the ability of this aspect of the game to encourage it. And given that these are non-central systems; ancillary systems have different impacts and functions as compared to central ones.

 

SWG, for example, formed it's core essentially around it's social systems so far as I understand it. Seeing more grouping evolved naturally from that.

[Orisai]

Companions are "dumb" and will simply sit there in AoE spells.

 

They could make the AI better, but then honestly they would be better than 50% of players, so what would be the point?

 

This is why I think SWTOR needs Dragon Age's Tactics system for companions.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Orisai

[DaxRendar]

I don't know that I'd go as far as the OP, but some "Solo/Duo FPs" would be pretty cool - fun, repeatable instances designed for a Single Player/Companion or 2 Player (no Companions).

 

Just another nice game mode to go along with the others :jawa_grin:

[Inarai]

This is why I think SWTOR needs Dragon Age's Tactics system for companions.

 

It would help, but you could still never really leave them entirely on their own in terms of hard content. Unless you're playing on easy modes, DA:O cannot be played in real time.

[Trevuar]

Heck I still don't understand why you can't take 3 companions with you.... If you can group up with 3 other people you should be able to have that many companions as well.....

[Inarai]

Heck I still don't understand why you can't take 3 companions with you.... If you can group up with 3 other people you should be able to have that many companions as well.....

 

So, what would be your idea for the default bindings for those 36 companion ability slots? It's not going to leave much for everything else.

 

And then there's a few design issues.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Inarai

[Vitiock]

Thankyou all for your feedback, to cap many posters would like the option to run flashpoints with 3 companions. On the downside is generaly agreeable that due to the boss mechanics it would be to difficult to impossible.

 

And there are those that claim flashpoints & heroic quests should remain a group function only to encourage guild membership and social interaction. To those players I say not everyone enjoys the guild mentality, for me personaly Blizz attempt to super size guilds with a rewards system in Cata left a bad taste in my mouth, I for one am to old to make internet acquaintances. There are also players who log on for 2 hours a night, for them being able to run a flashpoint or do heroic quests with 3 companions saves alot of downtime looking for a group.

I don't think anyone who feels this is a bad idea is out to get you or to try and force you to group, most of us feel that if encounters were tuned so that someone could solo them with 3 companion AIs it would detract from our game because we enjoy grouping up with people socializing and working together.

 

On the other hand if they just left everything as is and allowed you to summon 3 companions I think it would just make things worse because it would be like bioware saying we support soloing this content, and people would become frustrated by how hard it is to do with their companions and how lacking the companion AI is for it.

For me this game will always be an MMO even if solo material +3 companions was available, all I need to do is go to the fleet or Ilum to realise how big an MMO it is.

 

My favorite class quests were those that used all your companions, as a trooper Havoc Squad truly felt like a squad when the entire crew was required to save a kidnapped Senator.

 

Companions are truly innovative as they arent pets, to be able to utilise them more thoroughly would only enrich the game for me. I assume that at the moment BW has alot on it's plate, asking for more solo content on top of raid, pvp, flashpoint, bug fixes, & improvements wasnt my intention. I had thought it may have been possible to do some of the current content as it was.

I think most people who do raid, and socialise would also be happy with more single player content, even content designed that used all your companions, I haven't done havok squad so I don't know how it works, but I think people would agree that solo content like that could find it's place in this game.

 

In the first few weeks I ran BT with just 2 dps & heroic quests with 4 dps, now players are constantly advertising for tanks & healers to do the same content. If I could run Heroic quests with 4 dps surely I would be capable of doing them solo with 3 companions (hlr,tank, +1 more dps).

 

I would just like to see the richness of class companions utilised to it's full extent, I have 5 at the moment but only 2 ever get used. Heres hoping for something in the future

People are also looking for full groups for BT on my server when me and another dps ran it just fine, this isn't to say you can't 2 man it with companions, and me and a friend have done the same for higher level instances but it requires an insane amount of micro managing the companions because they are stupid and just stand in AOE.

[NoxiousAlby]

It has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with guilds in particular. It's about the effect of social interaction upon the long-term health of the game. Flashpoints and Heroics achieve a lot in that direction. You're suggesting, essentially, a reduction in the long-term health of the game by taking away their positive influence on that factor. This is a bad plan. It has nothing to do with player preferences, honestly - which is part of why player consensus is not a driving force of game design. Players aren't mindful of the consequences of what they want, they just want it. A poster demonstrated it in this very thread - he flat out stated that he didn't care about its impact on other people's play or on the game overall, he wanted it and thought (wrongly) that this was a good reason to add it to the game. It's a valid reason to suggest/request the feature, but not a reason to add it.

 

Adding solo content offering the same things at large remains the better approach.

 

The issue isn't about what you seem to think it's about. It has nothing to do with "these players want X, these players want Y". It has to do with the larger consequences for the game of adding X and/or Y. A bad idea is a bad idea no matter how many people get behind it.

 

I'm sorry Inarai but the above is complete utter rubbish, creating more soloable content for players currently enjoying the game WITHOUT ineracting socially wont make any difference whatsoever. Whether there is content added for solo play with 3 comapnions or not will not force people to interact with anonymous internet personalities.

 

You assume that people will have no choice but to become sociable, they do indeed have a choice. They play solo as it is or quit, personaly I would like to see a richer use of the companion system.

 

Your assumption that what is good for the game rather than whats good for the individual is also flawed. We pay a monthly subscription, in my last rpgmmo I subscribed for 7 years and that is where the business makes it's cream not the purchase of the product. Whats good for the health of the game is to encourage people to continue to play and that means providing for the various segments of the player base. According to you raiding should be scrapped...why? because it is only enjoyed by a minority of players and yet its been a focal point of every mmo for the last 15 yrs (been flogged to death in my opinion).

 

As a previous poster stated and you quoted he didnt care if soloable content (with companions) was added and how it impacted on others. But why the hell should he? The minute you start offering to pay for other players gametime is the minute you can start determining whats good for the rest of the playerbase.

Edited January 23, 2012 by NoxiousAlby

[Inarai]

I'm sorry Inarai but the above is complete utter rubbish, creating more soloable content for players currently enjoying the game WITHOUT ineracting socially wont make any difference whatsoever. Whether there is content added for solo play with 3 comapnions or not will not force people to interact with anonymous internet personalities.

 

You assume that people will have no choice but to become sociable, they do indeed have a choice. They play solo as it is or quit, personaly I would like to see a richer use of the companion system.

 

Your assumption that what is good for the game rather than whats good for the individual is also flawed. We pay a monthly subscription, in my last rpgmmo I subscribed for 7 years and that is where the business makes it's cream not the purchase of the product. Whats good for the health of the game is to encourage people to continue to play and that means providing for the various segments of the player base. According to you raiding should be scrapped...why? because it is only enjoyed by a minority of players and yet its been a focal point of every mmo for the last 15 yrs (been flogged to death in my opinion).

 

As a previous poster stated and you quoted he didnt care if soloable content (with companions) was added and how it impacted on others. But why the hell should he? The minute you start offering to pay for other players gametime is the minute you can start determining whats good for the rest of the playerbase.

 

First, I'm not making an argument about what players what - I'm making a design argument about what's good for the game, not a preference argument about what I like (I'd try this if it were there and I'd probably enjoy it, but I am also able to recognize the consequences of it because I do not ONLY look at a game from the perspective of a player -- I also look at it from a game design standpoint, which is the perspective from which you can judge what is or is not good for the game). Respond in kind or your post is pointless, for it fails to address the subject. There's a lot of things in a game that are essential for it to be a decent, let alone good or great game, that the players don't overall like - a good MMO example is all the credit sinks. The game's got to have them, yet people don't like them (unless they're consequence-minded). What players want is not the same thing as what's good for the game - as I said earlier, players will often want things that are actually bad for the game overall and could even detract from their own enjoyment of it due to the consequences or flaws they're not seeing before playing it.

 

As for what's good for the game - it's about maintaining subscriptions. ENCOURAGING social interaction via optional content like Flashpoints is a great way to help maintain subscriptions. So is adding new and compelling solo content. I'm not talking about forcing people to group, but you design a game like this to encourage it. And it is a simple fact that one of the factors that causes people to keep subscribing is the connections they make with people in game.

 

I don't assume that people will have no choice - they can just not do the Flashpoint, it's OPTIONAL CONTENT. Just like having compelling solo content as OPTIONAL CONTENT isn't forcing people to solo - and it's also a good way to increase and maintain subscriptions. On the other hand, taking your optional content that encourages socialization and has mechanics requiring the group of human players and then allowing players to attempt to solo it with the assistance of in-game agents that are not able to replicate human players is a great way to create player frustration with the game itself which results in DECREASED subscriptions.

 

And you're actually not arguing against what I've said at this point - I'm the one arguing for compelling new solo content, and here you are going on as if I'm saying the game shouldn't cater to the full playerbase (Can you recognize that you do not and cannot cater to everyone with the same thing?). And further, it is your side's argument, that it's about what players want, that said that raiding should be removed. I am saying that it DOESN'T MATTER that it's only enjoyed by minority if it's good for the game, just like it doesn't MATTER if a majority wants it if it's bad for the game.

 

What you need to grasp is that while not wholly irrelevant, the opinion of players as to whether or not they like something is not remotely close to being the determining factor on what's good for the game. It's kind of like how people forget that the guiding principle of democracy is not that the majority is probably right, rather, it is that the people have a right of self-determination and as part and parcel to that they have the right to make the wrong choice. No matter how many people are behind a bad idea, the fact that it is a bad idea does not change. And it is due to this fact that game design cannot be about player consensus, because the resulting decisions would often be terrible. Rather, it's about the MERIT of the thing.

 

So will you please actually start arguing the merits of the idea? And that's merits, plural, as in your entire argument cannot consist of variations upon "people would like it" as it has in all honesty thus far?

Edited January 23, 2012 by Inarai