Why does BW hate solo players that much?

[well]

I have found that the comments "I don't like you" and "I am not friendly" tend to get one out of just about any conversation. Very effective.

 

No thanks works for me. If they push it ignore works wonders.

[Mozepy]

that's just your standard, run of the mill brainless argument that no longer holds true... if that were true there wouldn't have been a solo story line to begin with.

 

Actually his argument is factual unlike yours. The only solo content in this game are the original space battles. The class storylines are soloable but they are designed for group play. There has to be content that can be soloed or else people will just turn off the game as soon as they can't find a group, and starting out solo can lead to finding a group. The fact is this is an MMO. It is designed around players playing together. You are brainless if you don't understand that.

 

An no BW doe not hat solo players. They have made entire games designed primarily for solo play. Perhaps you have heard of some them?

[Vinjar]

Massive

MULTIPLAYER

Online

[Drudenfusz]

Massive

MULTIPLAYER

Online

And? I mean living in big city also doesn't mean one have to consider everybody a neighbour, multiplayer means there are many people around, still I can solo just like I can to my own thing in a big city.

[Uruare]

Projection is the key. Always. Carry on.

 

Oh look, it's SWTOR's own forum Freud.

 

You really ought to read up on the pitfalls of attempting diagnosis over faulty mediums. No matter how many times you bleat your armchair-psychologist buzzwords, you're still just making goat noises for all it matters.

 

As for the whole 'multiplayer' howl. .. what does that mean?

 

That multiple players can play concurrently. Not that multiple players may be glued to eachother in order to do much as cross a street.

 

Howling 'but it's MULTIPLAYER! ' ad though that somehow justifies every stupid thing mmo devs do in order to try to use people as both content and gating mechanisms is tacitly idiotic.

 

Yes, very good, you've successfully identified that numerous people can play concurrently. Go out a gold star by your name, right next to that one you earned the months ago for not accidently slamming your head in a door. You're a very brave and special specimen.

 

Now, if only you could aspire to the intelligentsia and comprehension required to make that magical leap going from what it is to what that means.

 

It's definitely the hard part, as evidenced by the herds of bleating animals that seem to find 'Multiplayer!' to be all the explanation the could ever be for everything.

 

In order to help you, and god knows you dribbling sock puppets need all the help you can get, I'll contrast a few things for you in the hopes that some glimmer of understanding might embed itself in your never-before-used still-in-the-original-plastic minds.

 

Duck Hunt on the original NES - multiplayer

 

In duck hunt, up to two people could play. That's all it takes for a game to be multiplayer. Two is multiple.

 

Team Fortress 2 - multiplayer.

 

24 people on the pc platform can play together all at once. In fact, due to how the game is made, you'd need at least two to play at all!

 

That requirement is not a function of multiplayer being multiplayer. It's a function of game design. It has nothing what so ever to do with any necessities or tangential implications of what multiplayer is or means.

 

 

Now, let's look at SWTOR. Tens and hundreds of thousands of people can play concurrently! Is that massive? In comparison to the typical structure of multiplayer games, yeah, considerably bigger. We here at Me Inc. agree that the term 'massive' is apt.

 

But then some of you faceplant on the multiplayer bit, making hilarious and far flung assumptions about what that means.

 

It means the same here as it did in Duck Hunt - that multiple people can play concurrently.

 

Not one thing more, else or otherwise.

 

All of the assumptions about how the term 'multiplayer' also encompasses a whole giant battery of necessary behaviors and implicated forms of social structuring are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT GARBAGE you infected the matter with all by yourself, in that fuzzy little brain of yours.

 

You could make a multiplayer game in which the players never really even knew how many people they were interacting with and in no way required other people in order to do everything the game was designed to let people do, and it would still be multiplayer.

 

Because all multiplayer means is ...?

 

Fill in the blank. You'll be quizzed on this for the rest of your gaming lives every time the topic comes up.

[Vinjar]

And? I mean living in big city also doesn't mean one have to consider everybody a neighbour, multiplayer means there are many people around, still I can solo just like I can to my own thing in a big city.

 

That's not a great analogy.

 

I prefer to play solo. I don't care to group but this game is an amazing experience for solo players. You understood when you bought the game that it's primary focus is multiplayer. As did I. I understand that I may not have access to content if I am not in a group or guild. What I don't understand is how people think otherwise.

 

If you want a single player experience you buy a single player game. You don't buy a game in a genre where the word "multiplayer" is prominent.

[mokkh]

Oh look, it's SWTOR's own forum Freud.

 

You really ought to read up on the pitfalls of attempting diagnosis over faulty mediums. No matter how many times you bleat your armchair-psychologist buzzwords, you're still just making goat noises for all it matters.

 

As for the whole 'multiplayer' howl. .. what does that mean?

 

That multiple players can play concurrently. Not that multiple players may be glued to eachother in order to do much as cross a street.

 

Howling 'but it's MULTIPLAYER! ' ad though that somehow justifies every stupid thing mmo devs do in order to try to use people as both content and gating mechanisms is tacitly idiotic.

 

Yes, very good, you've successfully identified that numerous people can play concurrently. Go out a gold star by your name, right next to that one you earned the months ago for not accidently slamming your head in a door. You're a very brave and special specimen.

 

Now, if only you could aspire to the intelligentsia and comprehension required to make that magical leap going from what it is to what that means.

 

It's definitely the hard part, as evidenced by the herds of bleating animals that seem to find 'Multiplayer!' to be all the explanation the could ever be for everything.

 

In order to help you, and god knows you dribbling sock puppets need all the help you can get, I'll contrast a few things for you in the hopes that some glimmer of understanding might embed itself in your never-before-used still-in-the-original-plastic minds.

 

Duck Hunt on the original NES - multiplayer

 

In duck hunt, up to two people could play. That's all it takes for a game to be multiplayer. Two is multiple.

 

Team Fortress 2 - multiplayer.

 

24 people on the pc platform can play together all at once. In fact, due to how the game is made, you'd need at least two to play at all!

 

That requirement is not a function of multiplayer being multiplayer. It's a function of game design. It has nothing what so ever to do with any necessities or tangential implications of what multiplayer is or means.

 

 

Now, let's look at SWTOR. Tens and hundreds of thousands of people can play concurrently! Is that massive? In comparison to the typical structure of multiplayer games, yeah, considerably bigger. We here at Me Inc. agree that the term 'massive' is apt.

 

But then some of you faceplant on the multiplayer bit, making hilarious and far flung assumptions about what that means.

 

It means the same here as it did in Duck Hunt - that multiple people can play concurrently.

 

Not one thing more, else or otherwise.

 

All of the assumptions about how the term 'multiplayer' also encompasses a whole giant battery of necessary behaviors and implicated forms of social structuring are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT GARBAGE you infected the matter with all by yourself, in that fuzzy little brain of yours.

 

You could make a multiplayer game in which the players never really even knew how many people they were interacting with and in no way required other people in order to do everything the game was designed to let people do, and it would still be multiplayer.

 

Because all multiplayer means is ...?

 

Fill in the blank. You'll be quizzed on this for the rest of your gaming lives every time the topic comes up.

 

Now, now... I was being Jungian there. Freud was a quack. And duck hunt always ended up with two people who had their guns right in front of the screen, something that would seem to be fitting for you given the tone of your diatribe. Guess I hit a nerve.

 

And you...

.

[Uruare]

That's not a great analogy.

 

I prefer to play solo. I don't care to group but this game is an amazing experience for solo players. You understood when you bought the game that it's primary focus is multiplayer. As did I. I understand that I may not have access to content if I am not in a group or guild. What I don't understand is how people think otherwise.

 

If you want a single player experience you buy a single player game. You don't buy a game in a genre where the word "multiplayer" is prominent.

 

Correct. For once, we seem to agree.

 

For me, I'm not nearly hard up enough for social interaction to put up with a lot of the common stupidities. I've no end of friends they've all had similar stories on these games, about how they put up with X and Y because they need a guild to do A and B and C, or they put up with their so-called friends being jerks or drama queens or whatever, because they want to be able to do X, Y or Z with them.

 

I don't put up with much crap. I don't need to. I will throw X, Y and Z right under a bus before I'll stay in a guild or a group doing them if aid guilds or group bothers me in ways I won't tolerate.

 

My work life is full and rewarding, my home life is great, my family is the pride of my existence - I need to put up with strangers' foolishness for what?

 

For the priceless pleasure of gritting my teeth in order to do some group content with them?

 

For the delight of having to rely on Dirkxdiggler of the Wangchung legacy to be competent in an op while he's braying in TS about how he drank so much the night before that he doesn't remember how he got home?

 

Multiplayer means you should probably be willing to play with others, sure. Totally agree with that premise, at least.

[DomiSotto]

I dunno, I liked it well enough as a solo - was selling mats that normally never sell. The points, well, that's kind of pointless, but while the Guilds were buying mats (not any more, alas) - YAY! I am a late-comer, and being able to accumulate even modest 200-400 thou warchests for most chars of my young Legacy is great. I almost got 2 more chars to a million, so while it's nothing to write home about for an elder player, I sure breathe easier now after the Conquests! Fingers crossed they put crafting up again for the goals and people will keep wanting to play it. If not, well, it was good while it lasted.

 

I am a single-player normally, but I like the MP aspect of this game. But I only play with my husband or friends (relatively rarely) and I avoid all the content that cannot be done with AI companions by a poor player (i.e. Flashpoints). I know how bad I am, and how slow compared to other people who'd done it a few times, so why aggravate everyone & stress out over a game?

 

I dunno. I am fine with Conquests.

 

The frequent updates are the only annoying thing, because they hit during my playtime.

Edited August 30, 2014 by DomiSotto

[Uruare]

Now, now... I was being Jungian there. Freud was a quack. And duck hunt always ended up with two people who had their guns right in front of the screen, something that would seem to be fitting for you given the tone of your diatribe. Guess I hit a nerve.

 

And you...

.

 

No, you're being useless and without merit. Both Jung and Freud were useful and meritorious to something - what the heck do you hope to accomplish, apart from common trolling, trying to run around being a forum diagnostician?

 

You're not even making me mad, brosef. All you're accomplishing is thrusting yourself into the matter like you're going to give me some come-uppance.

 

I don't think you're qualified, broheimer. You CLEARLY don't understand what's going on. Your forum diagnosis skills are all they're cracked up to be - complete nonsense.

 

See, I'll tell you rather than make you guess - I'm a big fan of hyperbole. I get a huge kick out of it. Entertaining myself with the things I write on these forums is at least half of why I bother at all, because really, its a game forum. Its fun to kick the walls and not be professional and shrug if I've offended people - herp dee derp dee woo. Some people on the internet didn't like what I said. Oh woe. Sorrow. Lamentations.

 

I type a lot because I can. It amuses me. I get a kick out of ranting especially - I'm usually sitting here cackling as I type, if you want to know.

 

There ends all mystery.

 

But forum Freud's always out themselves, trying to showcase their own supposed depth of insight and magnificence of deductive skill by misapplying psychological and psychiatric tools via mediums in which they have no hope of arriving at a justifiable conclusion.

 

Why? I'm bemused by the allure of such pursuit. What do you get out of it? What's the draw?

[Drudenfusz]

If you want a single player experience you buy a single player game. You don't buy a game in a genre where the word "multiplayer" is prominent.

No, I don't want the single player experience. I just want to have options, multiplayer doesn't mean one has to group, only that it offers that as option (which I often enough take). So, stop assuming that multiplayer just means whatever playstyle you prefer, but that it could also just mean the solo player who loves to have some PvP encounters while levelling and thus things. That is why my analogy fits, it is like a big city, it still depends on who much I want to interact, but it is perfectly possible to stay quite lonely within all those peope and simply enjoy watching what they are doing or just minding your own business.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Drudenfusz

[Foambreaker]

Seems like Bioware is going out of their way to drive out people who just like to solo pve.

 

If you are like me, hating GSF, PvP and group play in general, then you're pretty much done after finishing your story line and hitting the lvl cap. Strongholds looked to be something to fill the void, but again, the solo pve player is actively and deliberately limited in options to participate (point wise I mean)

 

This week's personal (yeah , right... personal, big joke that). conquest looked like I actually could make the required point total. Sadly the solo pve'er again gets chopped off at the feet.

 

What is personal in a conquest if most of the objectives require a group to do, apart from crafting and spending oodles of credits on getting the required mats? Bioware why do you dislike solo pve players so much?

 

If you have all those things then you would get a lot more quality out of a single player RPG, tons of compromise is made in the design of an MMO to support the social structure you don't want anything to do with.

[Raansu]

No, I don't want the single player experience. I just want to have options, multiplayer doesn't mean one has to group, only that it offers that as option (which I often enough take). So, stop assuming that multiplayer just means whatever playstyle you prefer, but that it could also just mean the solo player who loves to have some PvP encounters while levelling and thus things. That is why my analogy fits, it is like a big city, it still depends on who much I want to interact, but it is perfectly possible to stay quite lonely within all those peope and simply enjoy watching what they are doing or just minding your own business.

 

You do have options. There is plenty of content in this game that is incredibly solo friendly. I just hate people that get pissy when they find out they have to group up to end game content. You have your content we have ours, dont get mad when you cant solo our content because you fail to understand that the prominent feature of the genre is multiplayer and grouping up with players. I especially hate the solo players that get pissy that they cant get the top tier gear by soloing. Solo players should NEVER have access to the top tier gear. It would defeat the entire purpose of group content and raiding.

[LordArtemis]

I also get annoyed when casual players demand access to every single game feature, including those that should be the exclusive domain of Hardcore players.

 

I am a casual player, and I think this casts casuals in a bad light.

 

By the same token, however, I get annoyed by hardcore players that refuse to accept the reality that they represent a small portion of the playerbase. In almost every online game casual players dominate the playerbase. This is just reality.

 

And that means casuals keep the lights on....which directly means that most content will likely cater to the majority playerbase, like it or not.

[Raansu]

I also get annoyed when casual players demand access to every single game feature, including those that should be the exclusive domain of Hardcore players.

 

I am a casual player, and I think this casts casuals in a bad light.

 

By the same token, however, I get annoyed by hardcore players that refuse to accept the reality that they represent a small portion of the playerbase. In almost every online game casual players dominate the playerbase. This is just reality.

 

And that means casuals keep the lights on....which directly means that most content will likely cater to the majority playerbase, like it or not.

 

Hardcore players only get annoyed when the casuals demand that everything should be accessible to them. Heaven forbid that any form of content ever commits to pvp/group content. Just look at the gree event for example. Look how upset people get when they get killed in the PVP AREA. They get so mad that they cant solo a section of the event peacefully even though the area is clearly stated as pvp.

 

I've been cursed out so many times by solo pve players in that section its not even funny. Then they go "well we are forced to do these to get max rep" which is completely untrue. Solo players hate groups and thinks groups are nothing but stupid people? Well I hate solo players who scream stupidity at every turn.

[jedimasterjac]

Seems like Bioware is going out of their way to drive out people who just like to solo pve.

 

If you are like me, hating GSF, PvP and group play in general, then you're pretty much done after finishing your story line and hitting the lvl cap. Strongholds looked to be something to fill the void, but again, the solo pve player is actively and deliberately limited in options to participate (point wise I mean)

 

This week's personal (yeah , right... personal, big joke that). conquest looked like I actually could make the required point total. Sadly the solo pve'er again gets chopped off at the feet.

 

What is personal in a conquest if most of the objectives require a group to do, apart from crafting and spending oodles of credits on getting the required mats? Bioware why do you dislike solo pve players so much?

 

You are aware of what "massively MULTIPLAYER ONLINE" means, right? This is not a solo game.

[LyraineAlei]

Hardcore players only get annoyed when the casuals demand that everything should be accessible to them. Heaven forbid that any form of content ever commits to pvp/group content. Just look at the gree event for example. Look how upset people get when they get killed in the PVP AREA. They get so mad that they cant solo a section of the event peacefully even though the area is clearly stated as pvp.

 

I've been cursed out so many times by solo pve players in that section its not even funny. Then they go "well we are forced to do these to get max rep" which is completely untrue. Solo players hate groups and thinks groups are nothing but stupid people? Well I hate solo players who scream stupidity at every turn.

 

As a solo PvEer, people complaining like the ones you describe annoy me as well. Then again, I am a bit more obsessive about other things, like enjoying what I have that I like to play. And learning after face rolling 1-55 how to play my own role for if/when I do want to do those group contents.

 

But to the OP's first post, BioWare has more soloable content than any MMO I have ever played. Most of them force you to group up just to move on and level, or else sit and kill progressively less-exp-granting womp rat equivalents ten thousand times.

 

BW gives us eight whole stories to solo, the original set of space missions, all soloable, and crew skills that are soloable since you send NPCs to do it for you.

[JimG]

What is personal in a conquest if most of the objectives require a group to do, apart from crafting and spending oodles of credits on getting the required mats? Bioware why do you dislike solo pve players so much?

If you only do solo content, then you have absolutely no need for the rewards from the conquest system. You can easily solo levels 1-50 without any artifact gear and you now get boosted to 55 on Makeb. So you're complaining about not being able to get loot as a solo player that groups/guilds can get and you don't even need the loot? Sure, that makes perfect sense, lol. If you want everything to cater towards solo players, go play a single player game. Problem solved. Crisis averted.

[Arkerus]

This is, by far, one of the most solo centric games on the market.

 

I understand some frustrations but believe me when I say, you don't know how good you have it. If you have some specific issues by all means point them out but let be real here, SWTOR is extremely solo centric.

[mokkh]

I'm the greatest living thing ever created.

 

I'll let you talk to yourself, you seem really good at it:

 

Your attempt at forum soothsaying is noted. Irrelevant and the product of a mind stupid enough to make such assumptions, but noted.

 

'Cause I don't have a problem with that or with doing anything in the game. You, on the other hand, just proved that your thinking is the direct equivalent of making things up at random.

 

Grats. You're an idiot.

 

And that's why it hurts, because your own words apply to you and you know it.

 

Baseless, unnecessary vitriol served up as self-celebrating masturbatory zeal.

I don't subscribe to threads, I just drop in once in a while, and your attitude is cringeworthy tbh. And so, I let you know it, that's all. Your response is not exceptional, it's the typically trite forum refuse that is the hallmark of the online gaming community. As a seasoned vet of these forums, I'm projecting (oh snap I used the trigger word in a different context) the lifetime of this waste of thread to be about.... Tuesdayish.

 

You're on ignore now so, as I mentioned before. Please, continue.

[thewitchdoctor]

You're on ignore now so, as I mentioned before. Please, continue.

 

Yeah, that particular poster has an exceptionaly high and misplaced perception of him or herself.

[ValeGreiger]

Hey OP

 

How about spending less time pointing fingers at Bioware for not catering to your personal gameplay experience

 

And spend more time accepting and adapting to all the limitations that come from wanting to play this game solo?

[ValeGreiger]

-snipping rant-

 

And I have absolutely no problem with all that you've said

 

 

 

So long as I never see you create a thread and complain that the game's not catering to your single-player experience.

Edited August 31, 2014 by ValeGreiger

[mudmobile]

You are aware of what "massively MULTIPLAYER ONLINE" means, right? This is not a solo game.

I am aware of its meaning but apparently you don't.

 

Where in the definition of those 3 words you have quoted does it say group only gameplay?

 

MMOs are simply games that allow many people from around the world on them all at the same time, letting them interact through means as simple as chat up to group gameplay. Group gameplay is only apart of it not the soul purpose, though yes many think otherwise.

 

Sigh this person writes a thread that makes solo players look bad and now I get put in defensive mode to try and clean up his mess .

Edited August 31, 2014 by mudmobile

[Drudenfusz]

You do have options. There is plenty of content in this game that is incredibly solo friendly. I just hate people that get pissy when they find out they have to group up to end game content. You have your content we have ours, dont get mad when you cant solo our content because you fail to understand that the prominent feature of the genre is multiplayer and grouping up with players. I especially hate the solo players that get pissy that they cant get the top tier gear by soloing. Solo players should NEVER have access to the top tier gear. It would defeat the entire purpose of group content and raiding.

And there I thought raids are about the challenge and not about the gear, if it is just the gear that makes the elder game content worth playing then I pity your gaming experience. I for my part don't mind when solo players would get the top tier gear too. Don't get me wrong, they also should do something to get it, but to mandate they never should get it seems to me rather fanatical, and them having that gear without raiding wouldn't deminish your raiding in no way, or how would that impact you? I prefer a approach that different playstyle should be valid, and that this would be the true meaning of Multiplayer, that different playstyles can lead to a fulfilling game experience not just your rather boring raiding.

 

I think SWTOR works well enough for solo players, so I don't share the assessment of the OP that BioWare would hate solo players, but I also don't think BioWare should not care about those players like some of you guys here with your misguided interpretations what multiplayer means.