Solo Flashpoints (3 companions)

[Clarian]

Add solo FP's but keep group content as just that, groud content.

 

Just to clarify, I don't find it interesting as an argument against opening everything to solo play.

 

I find it more interesting as: if the vast majority of people don't want to group, to the point where getting a group wouldn't even be viable if people had the option to solo...why have group content in the first place? I mean, if the vast majority of people don't want it?

 

I mean, does Bioware know about this?

 

(Assuming it's accurate, of course...)

[ArtMonster]

-"The issue is your asking for content that is designed to require more then one player to be changed to suit your style of play. Why? "

 

-"Because it would suit my style of play"

 

heh... amen bro.

 

[Mortelus]

Just to clarify, I don't find it interesting as an argument against opening everything to solo play.

 

I find it more interesting as: if the vast majority of people don't want to group, to the point where getting a group wouldn't even be viable if people had the option to solo...why have group content in the first place? I mean, if the vast majority of people don't want it?

 

I mean, does Bioware know about this?

 

(Assuming it's accurate, of course...)

 

This type of view is exactly why there are so many problems in the real world. Sometimes it's not just what the majority think or want. If you can cater for everyone then why not. Even the minority should have the option/avaibilty to do the things they want as long as it doesn't effect anyone else.

 

Why do you think they seperate PvP gear from PvE gear. Because it is two seperate parts of one game. So why not make a third seperate part. Solo FP's with their own rewards and content.

 

I really don't see any argument that is valid to why group content should suddenly become Solo content. If that's the case we may aswell make raids, done in groups of 4, and then why stop at 4, just make them Solo as well.

 

BW would also see this to be true, why alienate any portion of your cusomter base, no matter how much of a minority they are if there is a soloution that's benificial everyone.

 

EDIT: Believe me if they made Solo FP's i really would then just play this game purely as a solo game, except the crafting and buying and selling parts. But i don't believe my wants, beliefs or playstyle should effect those that want to still do group content, and by making group FP's Solo'able that's exactly what would happen in the end.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Mortelus

[loudernoises]

This type of view is exactly why there are so many problems in the real world. Sometimes it's not just what the majority think or want. If you can cater for everyone then why not. Even the minority should have the option/avaibilty to do the things they want as long as it doesn't effect anyone else.

 

Why do you think they seperate PvP gear from PvE gear. Because it is two seperate parts of one game. SO why not make a third seperate part. Solo FP's with their own rewards and content.

 

I really don't see any argument that is valid to why group content should suddenly become Solo content. If that's the case we may aswell make raids, done in groups of 4, and then why stop at 4, just make them Solo as well.

 

BW would also see this to be true, why alienate any portion of your cusomter base, no matter how much of a minority they are if there is a soloution that benificial everyone.

 

I know for me, when I started my thread on this subject, I had it in my mind that using content already in game would probably make the development aspect of this easier, considering the template is already in place. I could wholeheartedly embrace any idea that would allow the use of all companions. If people felt that their group content was being trivialised to make it available to the solo player by all means, add additional FPs. I'm not advocating stealing from Peter to pay Paul here. I'm thinking there's a compromise somewhere so people can have their cake AND eat it too.

 

With all that being said, why don't we start discussing possible ways to implement something like this where we can get either more people excited about it or at least accepting of the idea.

Edited February 17, 2012 by loudernoises

[Clarian]

If you can cater for everyone then why not. Even the minority should have the option/avaibilty to do the things they want as long as it doesn't effect anyone else.

 

Yeah, I'm not against grouping for people who want to group.

 

But if you're right that you couldn't even get a group together if people could solo everything...that means that most people who are playing in groups right now are willing to do so, but they'd rather not if they had a choice. So...they're not doing the group content for the sake of group play, but in spite of it. They're putting up with being in a group for some other reason. So...most people are being inconvenienced for the sake of a small percentage of people?

 

I mean, if Bioware wanted to make a group-play game as an artistic choice, fine. But given the above, as a business decision, it seems weird...Is it just that another highly financially successful game did it that way, and they followed that?

[CygnisJunior]

I really enjoy this idea, it would be a blast and I assume it would be very easy to implement!

 

The difficulty of the missions would have to be somewhere around a [Heroic 2+] mission. Your healer companion only heals for a max 400-500 hps at 50, but players can heal for up to 2000 hps and prioritize targets. So [Heroic 2+] is probably the most difficult you can make it without it requiring waaay more healing.

 

Rewards should be about the same as the current daily heroics, each boss could drop a daily badge and the final boss could drop a level 50 purple mod or something. Maybe you could switch on a hard mode and get level 51 mods

 

 

And to the people that say solo content is pointless in an mmo: Do you really spend every second of your online time with a group? During space missions? Dailies? Of course not. 3 companion quests would just add a little more fun and variety to the game, and give you a reason to log on when your friends aren't!

[Mortelus]

I know for me, when I started my thread on this subject, I had it in my mind that using content already in game would probably make the development aspect of this easier, considering the template is already in place. I could wholeheartedly embrace any idea that would allow the use of all companions. If people felt that their group content was being trivialised to make it available to the solo player by all means, add additional FPs. I'm not advocating stealing from Peter to pay Paul here. I'm thinking there's a compromise somewhere so people can have their cake AND eat it too.

 

With all that being said, why don't we start discussing possible ways to implement something like this where we can get either more people excited about it or at least accepting of the idea.

 

I agree.

 

I am more a solo player and it irks me to find out that half way through my chain of missions i suddenly have to stop becuase i need to find a group to finish it. This i agree is wrong, if it starts out as solo content it should end as such, and the same is for the opposite.

 

I truely don't see any other way for it not to impede upon another players experiences unless they make new solo FPs.

 

I really want them as i don't like hanging around to find groups to do a FP, but i enjoy the dungeon running idea. I end up skipping all the heroic missions and i've only done 1 FP. However I don't believe this content should be made available to me because i can't be arsed to wait for a group. Give me new Solo'able FPs designed soly as solo content, but don't change the current content.

[Clarian]

Hmm...maybe I answered my own question. There's evidently SOMETHING else that makes a good number of people who would prefer to solo, play in groups. And that allows Bioware to cater to the players who prefer to group, by giving them people to play with. Is that it?

[Mortelus]

Hmm...maybe I answered my own question. There's evidently SOMETHING else that makes a good number of people who would prefer to solo, play in groups. And that allows Bioware to cater to the players who prefer to group, by giving them people to play with. Is that it?

 

Where once people loved the grind and difficulty of group content and outnumbered those that prefered solo play, today it is the solo player that outnumbers the people who want to group (I think anyway, might be wrong on this )

 

Some people really do love to group for no other reason than grouping. I did in WoW but that's becuase i played with RL friends and people i'd met over many years of playing the same char on the same sever. And for this reason it would be unfair on these players to take away their abilty to find groups in a timely manner because everyones doing it solo.

 

Admittedly though you are right that some player do only group becuase they are forced to becuase of a quest or something. But i also find this equally wrong. But that's a whole other thread.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Mortelus

[Lerthan]

Hmm...maybe I answered my own question. There's evidently SOMETHING else that makes a good number of people who would prefer to solo, play in groups. And that allows Bioware to cater to the players who prefer to group, by giving them people to play with. Is that it?

 

Or maybe, just maybe and bear with me on this, I know its hard for yah, but maybe there is a decent number of folks that actually like to group to do content and rather then alienate one side or the the other they are trying to cater to both solo players and group players.

 

Secondly actually answer the questions that are posed to you as they are relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

These questions actually have a direct relevance to the issue of Group Content being made soloable. Why? In effect due to what your asking for. You made a choice and now you are asking for a change that fits your choice.

 

Simply put, if they change group play to fit your choice of play style. They then need to change everything else in the game to fit everybody's choice of play style. If your not ok with them changing everything else to fit other players choices of play style then well sorry you have no basis for your arguments other then being a selfish twit.

 

At least the majority players that oppose the idea of current group content being solo playable are willing and wanting to add in more unique and new solo content. We are fully supportive of the basis of the idea of using your companions in more ways then what there currently is. We for the most part like the idea of a flashpoint where you can bring 3 of your companions as long as its a new flashpoint and not a change to the group content and group play style.

 

Asking them to cater to only your play style is selfish and idiotic. Frankly the game is better off without players like that.

 

Thirdly you ask for proof that making group content solo playable has an adverse affect on players being able to find groups. Take a look at DDO and LoTR. Both of these games have made almost all of there content with a few exceptions able to be done by one player and guess what, it is almost impossible to find groups to do that content in the games.

 

I will state it once again, there is solo content in the game. maybe not enough but its there. Its up to you as the player to experience content and do what is needed to experience said content. If you want a pure solo player game then please quit wasting your money here and go play a single player game instead of trying to force solo play on everybody in the game.

 

There are a ton of them out there that are actually very decent games that are designed specifically to fit a solo play style. Or might I suggest a Sandbox MMO where you can do anything you want in the game without having to play with or talk to another player.

[Clarian]

maybe there is a decent number of folks that actually like to group to do content

 

Like I said, I have no idea. I was just going off Mortelus' premise.

 

Both of these games have made almost all of there content with a few exceptions able to be done by one player and guess what, it is almost impossible to find groups to do that content in the games.

 

So...based on that, it sounds like there aren't a decent number of folks that actually like to group.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Clarian

[flyersfan]

I support this idea as well. It sounds really fun and I'd love to give it a shot.

[NoxiousAlby]

The main reason I chose to respond to your thread honestly, Is I think that you actually have the basis for a good idea. However just like a petulant child instead of holding a reasonable discourse and actually being able to see the other players point of view you insist on its your way or no way and frankly this game and any other MMO is better without players like you.

You expect me to see your point of view when all you are advocating is for an additional development team to create solo + companion flashpoints as additional content. This wont happan, you understand? I could sit in this forum and scream till i'm blue in the face but I can assure you after 15 yrs of playing MMO's this will not happen.

 

The closest any company has come was Blizzard with it's random raid finder, introduced to encourage solo/casual players to raid due to low participation rates and significant subscription cancelations.

 

As far this game being better off without me, might I suggest you take off your rose coloured glasses and get with the real world.

 

You honestly have the basis for a decent idea. I am all for more solo content in a game, however the group content needs to remain group content only.

I know I do, but it's not original Lotro already has it in game. If I felt I could tolerate elves & dwarves after 7 years of them I would go play that.

 

As for the second part of your statement you have me shaking my head again, group content will remain group content. All BW would be doing is tweaking loot tables and boss mechanics to create a solo & 3 companion version (which technicaly is a group).

[NoxiousAlby]

and isolate players even more so than now.. ya great idea (sarcasm)...solo flashpoints is moving in the EXACT opposite direction they want to go with the community

You want community? Then go outside and talk to a neighbor

 

This is a virtual world full of anonymous people and some fools like to link the term community to it. BW may very well like to force players to group ALL the time, but I can garuantee you after Blizzards attempt last year to force players to raid & join supersize guilds that it is a recipe for disaster.

 

BW enticed players to this game with it's solo/casual friendly atmosphere. And leveling from 1 - 50 was fantastic, but thats where it stopped, there is no solo player end game progressional content. BW apparently had a list of lessons they learned from other MMO's when creating this game, lesson 4 relates to solo players.

Lesson Four

 

One thing that WoW is frequently recognized for is its solo play. Walton's fourth lesson was: support this, because gamers want it. According to Walton, older games that forced players into groups missed the point: "[the] truth is that people soloed every game to the best they could and when they couldn't anymore, they quit. Embracing solo play that was a true innovation for WoW."

 

It was pointed out that players who hit the level cap are pretty much forced to group in WOW; Walton still felt like the game "feels like it's a level playing field for all people at that level" and thus isn't quite as sinful as it could be. He offered a Blizzard quote on the solo issue -- "We look at soloing as our casual game." Given the weight of the phrase "casual game" in 2007, you can bet the audience was scribbling that one down.

BW has failed to follow it's own lesson

[Phydra]

You know, folks, this really doesn't have to be an "one or the other" equation.

 

It is entirely possible to have a track for solo players that nets "end game" gear and to have a track that nets grouping players "end game" gear. To pretend otherwise is to fall victim to the "perfectionist" and "slippery slope" fallacies of logic. (Ref links: http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Perfectionist and http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Slippery%20Slope, respectively).

 

As we all know, a mechanic in a game can be created and implemented in a way that rewards or punishes choice. In fact, the entirety of a MMO can be summed up as an elaborate "Skinner's Box" (ref link: http://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html) designed to reinforce the desire to endure infinite progression against an unwinnable goal (this is called the "Red Queen Dilemma"; ref link - http://www.idunn.no/ts/dk/2009/01/art02).

 

The question is not "can this be done?" as there is no question or doubt that it can be.

 

The question is "why shouldn't it be done?" and frankly, the reasons generally given are baseless in light of the reality that all any game company needs to do is create two "Skinner Boxes" and either (a) require you to choose between them, (b) allow you to choose one or the other with some penalty or constraint for switching (i.e., like a cost or a time delay/cool down, etc), or © to allow it if/as you like and see if it does, in fact, mean that MOST people really would solo if they had the chance/choice (which, frankly, means that the genre overall is missing out on a significant audience in their insistence that grouping MUST be the way of it).

 

It stands to reason that a game offering more choice would find more players willing to choose and willing to remain because additional choices are available (this is demonstrated in both Nick Yee's work as well as past research on game longevity and replayability; both of which decline when choices become exhausted OR are repetitive and thus, no longer attractive).

 

Taken logically, the only people who care or are concerned about solo players getting end game gear are those who know that large-scale raiding is (for many reasons) exclusionary in nature; be it for socio-cultural reasons, lifestyle reasons, or existing mechanical reasons in the game itself (usually a combination of these).

 

Game companies tend to care about this because they continue to labor under the (increasingly challenged) perception that end game raiding is a significant protection against monthly subscription erosion and player attrition. (Handily disproven by expansion returns as well as the point of diminishing return on expansions.... links, alas, are subscription based, but if you're an IGDA member, you know where to find them.)

 

Is solo flashpoint and raid content a "good idea"? Well duh... of course it is. As is any iteration of increasing player choices in relation to types of flashpoints, number of people required, whether or not to use companions, etc.

 

Can all the above overcome existing bias in relation to subscription erosion and popular perspective? Well, to date, obviously not.

 

Will BioWare be the company to break the mold and prove the point? I have no idea..... but it would be nice.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Phydra

[Phydra]

The closest any company has come was Blizzard with it's random raid finder, introduced to encourage solo/casual players to raid due to low participation rates and significant subscription cancelations.

 

Actually, you are incorrect; both Anarchy Online's Mission System and Sony Everquest 1's Dungeon System are pretty solid examples of solo and casual choice for experiencing content and garnering gear up to, including, and in some cases, eclipsing that found in large-group formats (albeit in Sony's iteration, you spent time rather than grouped). Other examples include City of Heroes/Villains mission system, and I know I'm forgetting a few along the way but I think the point is made, so I'm ok with it.

 

Of the above, the Anarchy Online system, with it's ability to choose a fairly wide set of parameters (up to and including the KIND of loot you prefer) was pretty revolutionary and I often point to it as a sorely overlooked option to provide solo and casual players more reasons to maintain that monthly subscription.

 

More on that here: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=309673

Edited February 18, 2012 by Phydra

[NoxiousAlby]

Actually, you are incorrect; both Anarchy Online's Mission System and Sony Everquest 1's Dungeon System are pretty solid examples of solo and casual choice for experiencing content and garnering gear up to, including, and in some cases, eclipsing that found in large-group formats (albeit in Sony's iteration, you spent time rather than grouped). Other examples include City of Heroes/Villains mission system, and I know I'm forgetting a few along the way but I think the point is made, so I'm ok with it.

 

Of the above, the Anarchy Online system, with it's ability to choose a fairly wide set of parameters (up to and including the KIND of loot you prefer) was pretty revolutionary and I often point to it as a sorely overlooked option to provide solo and casual players more reasons to maintain that monthly subscription.

 

More on that here: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=309673

 

I stand corrected

Leveling in this game was amazing the 1st time, second time it is good, 3rd time is becoming a choore. The storyline class quests are fantastic but even thats starting to wear thin. Once you hit 50 the solo content dries up, there is nothing to do apart from WZ & terribad space combat.

 

BW, you will need to do more for me to stay i'm not as tolerant as I was in wow (which is why I stayed for 7 years).