Please Consider Adding a Solo Version of Forged Alliances

[yeldarbnotned]

So, you're saying that a good number of people would prefer to play solo if given the option? A big enough number that the people who prefer to group, would find it harder to find people to group with? You may be right...but in that case, why cater to the minority of people who prefer grouping?

 

If less people would do it...then, so what? No loss. The people who genuinely want to do it still could. There's no downside to less people playing in groups, if it's something they'd rather not do.

 

I just always find it interesting that "If there were a solo option, everyone would pick that!" is used as an argument against having a solo option. Seems more like an argument in favor of it.

 

This seems like wisdom.

[ScarletBlaze]

_NovaBlast_;7719087]

 

"the best rewards should only be for insane mode players becase we are elite" show their true personality traits .

 

(FYI My normal response to that is insane mode is an Optional part of the game if you're doing it "just for the challenge" why do think you deserve better rewards than everyone else who choose not to or don't find that option "enjoyable" ?)

 

I don't group that much other than my boyfriend and guild but I do think the better rewards (which is higher gear) should be reserved for Hard Modes Flashpoint, Operations and NM Operations.

 

(1) Solo these on story mode do not have the need for the higher gear as since it is a story mode you can use the story gear (156 or 162) and will be just fine doing them on story or solo mode.

 

(2) Hard Modes require higher gear just to get through them. 168 is the bare minimum for Hard Mode I would say though some have probably done it on 162.

 

(3) Nighmare operations need 180 for the most part to get through as they are harder to get through.

 

This is why the higher gear/comms should be reserved for hard modes flashpoints/operations and nightmare operations. It is not that they are being elite it is actually something they need to get through those flashpoints and operations.

 

So you may not agree with it but I can understand why they need the higher gear in those. I haven't done those as I don't have the gear for it. A friend of mine has 180 gear but she does the content that she needs them. I don't have 180 gear but I am not doing that content so I don't see the need for it. If I want the gear she has I will earn the credits or I will do the harder ones and get the gear for it. I don't expect to get the gear like that in story or solo modes as it is not needed for those.

 

If you truly want the 180 or 168 you can purchase them from the GTN at about 2-3million but I see no reason for that gear to drop from story or solo modes as it is not something needed to get through those flashpoints and operations.

Edited October 9, 2014 by ScarletBlaze

[DomiSotto]

I am pretty much with Scarlet -I am happy with the gear that gets me through the core of the game that do not require any particular skill.

[theUndead]

Alright, I'll give, it might be slightly detrimental to some of the many players. But please remember that you are not all the players. To other players, this would provide a huge benefit. Do they not also deserve the time of the devs?

 

As for altering mechanics, it would change them, for the solo-option only. Not for any existing difficulties. That, at least, is the point I've tried to get across.

 

Regarding time, then yes, it will take some time. But since everything but the solo-mechanics are already in place, far less so, than creating new content will. And to a lot of players it might provide them with content equally as good, if not better, than new content aimed specifically at grouping.. For far less work on the dev's behalf.

 

As for 'less people will group, if they don't have to': That is an argument about forcing players to act in a way that YOU want them to, rather than how they prefer to play the game. That is wrong in so many ways, I cannot even begin to describe them. And I do in fact enjoy grouping.. Would I do that less, if I could enjoy the story of ops on a soloable basis? No. I would still group up for the gear. In fact, I prefer running group instances to soloing. But I am not the only player on TOR and everybody has a right to play his or her own way. Would some people group less? Most likely yes and they have every right to do so. The way you or I prefer to play is in no way more right, than the way they prefer to play. And they should not be limited because of it.

 

First of al when did I say I was all players? And when did I ever in any of my responses imply I wish to force anyone into anything? I know very well that this game attracts a diverse crowd of people. This includes; hardcore raiders, hardcore pvpers. rper's and story/rpg lovers. Yeah good wonderful glad you find something you enjoy.

 

I did not say that the they don't deserve time of the devs, but what I am saying is that yes if the devs feel it is worthwhile to change instances into solo alternatives then that's on them. Would I agree with it? No but that is just me and I am one voice out of many. I also don't think you understand how much anger would ensue if say an update was delayed for several months because the devs want to change Explosive Conflict to allow for solo play. You seem to play down the the fact, that it will only take a few resources and would not be too hard. Again neither of us or at least I am not a software developer. But, I can tell you that changing the way an entire mechanic of a game as complex as an MMO will take lots of time. Period.

 

The devs have to manage expectations and feelings and it seems to me that if what your'e suggesting was a good idea to them, they would have done so in the beginning. Now, what exactly do you mean when you say that in order to help alleviate the stress of a new content philosophy they devs should not make content with groups in mind? Are you saying that catering to what this game is...an MMO and group heavy content is somehow a bad thing?

 

For the last time, I am NOT dictating how people should play or enjoy themselves. All I am doing is responding to an issue that I perceive. That issue, is that I do not agree that every group activity should be made soloable. I feel this takes away from the MMO aspect of the game. However, should solo content get some sort of attention? Yes. But not at the expense of Ops.

 

That is just my OPINION. I am not FORCING anyone to feel the same way or play the same way. It is just how I feel.

[Hrco]

While you're at that why not add Seeker/binoc missions to the to-do list.

 

This please.

 

Or. at least, add them to the group finder so we can have an easier time of finding a group for them, instead of spamming general chat on the fleet.

[AshlaBoga]

This please.

 

Or. at least, add them to the group finder so we can have an easier time of finding a group for them, instead of spamming general chat on the fleet.

 

Seeker heroic on Ilum isn't that bad (easily 2 manned), but the mechanics in the Macro heroic mean you need 4 people. That one is a pain to do on more than 4 toons.

[Hrco]

So, will we be able to finish the main storyline in 3.0 without having to group with anyone?

I'm hoping tha the main storyline in SoR will be soloable, just like RotHC was. If it's not, then I at least hope we get to finish it in a tactical flashpoint and not an operation..

[DomiSotto]

For the last time, I am NOT dictating how people should play or enjoy themselves. All I am doing is responding to an issue that I perceive. That issue, is that I do not agree that every group activity should be made soloable. I feel this takes away from the MMO aspect of the game. However, should solo content get some sort of attention? Yes. But not at the expense of Ops.

 

I really agree with you. The only 3 instances were I felt there was a problem with game content not available solo were the 3 sets of Flashpoints: Jedi Prisoner combo; Ilum Story Finale combo and Forged Alliances (and only AFTER all the follow up solo content was announced to heavily depend on it).

 

In the first case, I am not a big fan of Revan, so I did not care much about never seeing it on the Imperial side, until, again, Forged Alliances came along and became all about Revan. But if I were a character I cared about (say, it were a chance to meet Bao-Dur!), I would be heartbroken.

 

Note, that I am NOT asking for Jedi/Ilum in a solo mode - with the levels we have now the first one is doable, and the second one seem to be Okay on L55 with only one other person.

 

It's the content on a level that assumes a person who played FPs a lot before that scares me, after that one run of KYD on L55

Edited October 9, 2014 by DomiSotto

[Gleneagle]

...I did sigh (irl), because it takes the game in a direction I don't necessarily agree with. I didn't join an MMO to play with myself (). What it says about me is that I prefer team content (which is why I joined, and continue to play a MMO), and would prefer that the game not be made into a solo play game.

 

I understand when you said you don't care what I think about your /sigh, but your lack of concern for the sentiments of others may point toward the more general root cause of the problem.

 

If your /sigh was really because it takes the game in a wrong direction as you wrote, but adapting an instance to be soloable doesn't affect your group content whatsoever, then your /sigh would be incongruous.

 

Since you rely on your group to accomplish anything anyway it would not affect your game in any way for someone else to accomplish the mission independently. Such a change would only open up that option to independent players.

 

What your /sigh said is that your preference to play reliant on your team is what you prefer, and because it was a /sigh rather than a /meh or /cheer the implication is that independent play is less than optimal in your constellation of personal values. I'm all for your right to have and express your personal values within the bounds of the ToS. But I also expect you should uphold that liberty for others, even if they disagree with you.

 

Different playstyles for other people are, or by rights should be just as valid as yours are. If adding the option doesn't harm your play, and proves to be a cost effective way to increase content for another playstyle then it should further prove a beneficial proposition for the game as a whole, increasing and retaining more players and thus more useful revenue, part of which could benefit the development of even more content.

 

It hurts you not in the least, except that there is allowance for different playstyles. Yet you /sigh, and that points at a problem with your position.

[Elfa]

A one man version ins't a terrible idea as long a it isn't permanent.

 

Then again, I think all story mode FP should be tactical and there should even be a 4-man story mode version of current operations, but not tactical, trinity of course.

[Gomla]

Would love the option to play through a solo story version with no rewards.

 

Haven't really been able to enjoy a single fp since the game launched due to having to space bar my way through and not getting the conversation I wanted due to bad luck with rolls.

 

As has been said, story and group play really don't work well together.

[Lord_Robert]

First of al when did I say I was all players? And when did I ever in any of my responses imply I wish to force anyone into anything? I know very well that this game attracts a diverse crowd of people. This includes; hardcore raiders, hardcore pvpers. rper's and story/rpg lovers. Yeah good wonderful glad you find something you enjoy.

 

Your comment about less people grouping, if they don't have to, to me, stated that you prefer people being grouped, regardless of whether that is to their preference or not. I may not have understood it in the way you mean it, and if so, I apologize, but that is what it implied, when I read it.

 

I did not say that the they don't deserve time of the devs, but what I am saying is that yes if the devs feel it is worthwhile to change instances into solo alternatives then that's on them. Would I agree with it? No but that is just me and I am one voice out of many. I also don't think you understand how much anger would ensue if say an update was delayed for several months because the devs want to change Explosive Conflict to allow for solo play. You seem to play down the the fact, that it will only take a few resources and would not be too hard. Again neither of us or at least I am not a software developer. But, I can tell you that changing the way an entire mechanic of a game as complex as an MMO will take lots of time. Period.

 

I am saying, that compared to making new content, adapting existing things, should take comparatively less time. And for those players, who would gain access to existing content because of such a feature, it would be new content. If that causes a delay of some months for other content, then personally I can live with it. Though I understand perfectly well, that there would be heated arguments about it. To me it is all about giving and getting. I don't mind giving to the soloist, even if I have to wait a bit longer for new content myself. There might even be a few flashpoints I'd get to explore more in depth with such a feature. Though not many.. But this is my personal opinion and I respect fully, that we will always disagree.

 

 

The devs have to manage expectations and feelings and it seems to me that if what your'e suggesting was a good idea to them, they would have done so in the beginning.

 

All games evolve, even TOR. And while it might not have seemed a good idea to the DEVs in the beginning, why should they not, at some point, change their point of view? Plenty of other games developers have.

 

Now, what exactly do you mean when you say that in order to help alleviate the stress of a new content philosophy they devs should not make content with groups in mind? Are you saying that catering to what this game is...an MMO and group heavy content is somehow a bad thing?

 

I am not sure where exactly you got this from. But you understood it from something I wrote and so, I'll address it.

Of course there should be new content focused around groups. I just hope that that same content would also be accessible to soloists. One does not exclude the other, if the content is instanced and provided with different settings and thus a possibility for different mechanics.

 

As for being a MMO, the very idea of MMOs seem to be changing these years from catering to hardcore players and primarily grouped play, to a more casual-friendly approach, with cooperative and solo play in the focus. (Note a distinguish between group-play and cooperative play. ESO and GW2 are great examples of that difference)

More and more players seem to fall into the casual category, just as more and more players seem to prefer an abundance of solo content. Because of that, more and more devs cater to these types of players, since apparently, this is where the money is. I do not think this wrong, in fact I like the change.. And yes, we will probably disagree on that as well. I'm perfectly alright with that.

 

Should there not be group content then? Of course there should. There will always be a lot of players, who prefer such content, even if they/we, in time, are no longer the majority. But content can be made available to both soloists, group-casuals and group-hardcores at the same time. That is the approach I'm advocating. Will it take somewhat longer to make? It might, in fact it probably will.. Is the delay worth it, to let the content be available to a wider range of players? I strongly believe so.

 

For the last time, I am NOT dictating how people should play or enjoy themselves. All I am doing is responding to an issue that I perceive. That issue, is that I do not agree that every group activity should be made soloable. I feel this takes away from the MMO aspect of the game. However, should solo content get some sort of attention? Yes. But not at the expense of Ops.

 

That is just my OPINION. I am not FORCING anyone to feel the same way or play the same way. It is just how I feel.

 

I apologize, if I offended you, but again, you implied that more solo content would make people group less and that this is a bad thing. I perceived and still perceive this as an attitude, where players should be forced to group, even if they would prefer not to.

 

As for Ops being more important than solo content, then we must agree to disagree. To me they are of equal importance. Not that I don't want more Ops, I do, I just wish for them to be made in such a way that the lowest difficulty settings can be available to soloplayers, or even 2-4 man groups with companions. (For Ops, that might be a compromise, even the soloists would agree with) FPs should not have mechanics, on the lowest difficulties, that bar soloists at all. Such mechanics should be reserved for higher difficulties. And it is not impossible to make such diverse mechanics, even if doing so would take longer. It would appeal to a wider range of players, and that in itself makes it worthwhile.

 

Again, I am not primarily a soloist. I enjoy multiple aspects of this game. But I recognize fully, that I do not represent all players and that the way I prefer to play is no better or should receive any more attention than any other preference. The game should be open to all and no content should get preferential treatment. That is the only way, in my opinion, to treat everybody fairly.. Will that conflict with the game being a MMO? Not really. It all depends on ones personal view of what an MMO is. Not what it was, but what it is and what the current movement on the game market will make it into in the future.

[Jaedelyia]

You're already getting FA solo mode, now you want ops solo too? Man when will you people ever be happy. Understand that maybe FPs might eventually get a solo mode. But it will never happen with Ops. Ever.

What are you rambling about ? I never said I want ops doable in solo, mate. It's group content, designed to be done with multiple people. I think doing them solo would defeat the purpose / design.

 

What I'm saying is that : If people cry for group content to be redone in solo version (which I'm personnaly don't asking, I don't know where you read that), they should expect little to no loot. End of line. However, I'm fine with them asking that, it doesn't bother me. If they want to to group stuff in solo, fine, good for them, I think it's less fun because some mechanics would be dumbed down, but fine. But they shouldn't expect fat lootz for doing a dumbed-down version of the content.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Jaedelyia

[Gleneagle]

You are taking valuable dev time away from creating new content.

It will take much less time and cost far less money to adjust the difficulty of an encounter making it accessible to the independent player than it would be to make a whole new encounter, and given the market share of players would add content for independents for a fraction of the cost/time. This is more bang for the buck. It would increase player retention.

I'm sorry but to me you simply can't have your cake and eat it too. You see while you think it won't change mechanics, in fact it most certainly will because the bosses would have to scaled and redesigned, the puzzles would have be to redone and most importantly the AI for the companions which is rather complex would have to be redone to work with the player.

I doubt companion AI has to change a bit. As to that last the idea, at least as I envision it, is that group content remains group content, otherwise unchanged. It is only that someone not in a group, or in a duo, could be provided an equivalent-difficulty version of the same encounter. That means increased scalable content for a fraction of the cost to the developer.

How long do you think this would take?

To scale existing content difficulty to the number of players? Relatively little.

How long do you think expansions and updates would be delayed because of this?

Much less time than you appear to think. In many cases it is an Excel exercise, though granted some puzzles would present a challenge that might not be worth it. I would expect the devs will identify those quickly and efficiently.

Yes, I realize you pay your sub like I do and yes you have a right to content too. However, because this is an MMO you simply can't or shouldn't at least have access to everything group orientated if you not willing to group.

Why not?

The reason? Because if this because a staple that there is a "solo option" then that would make the incentives for group content less attractive. and thus less people would do it

Let's look at that a minute in a different way than has been done (that I have seen). If the only reason people group for content is that it can't be done solo, what does that say about grouping? If the only reason you group is because the game cannot be played otherwise, and if the consequence of removing the incentives to group would result in no one grouping, then grouping itself is a problem. Is that what you really want us to take away from your argument? IF the developer has to provide the enticement of greater rewards to get people to group, then is grouping something that players would choose to do without those enticements? Doesn't sound like it. Bioware makes the carrots bigger to offset the chastisement of the stick involved in grouping. That means that Bioware is fully aware what a PITA grouping can be. Edited October 9, 2014 by Gleneagle
correcting html

[LordArtemis]

Some folks seem threatened by theUndead's opinion. I think he is entitled to his opinion like anyone else.

 

He is not exactly a resounding majority voice on the matter.

[Gleneagle]

Some folks seem threatened by theUndead's opinion. I think he is entitled to his opinion like anyone else.

 

He is not exactly a resounding majority voice on the matter.

Where did you get the 'threatened' part? Or was that your invention? Edited October 9, 2014 by Gleneagle

[LordArtemis]

Where did you get the 'threatened' part? Or was that your invention?

 

I didn't invent the english language. As to the comment, the constant argument lends credence to the idea that folks are challenged by his opinion.

 

But it's likely you knew that.

[Gleneagle]

I didn't invent the english language. As to the comment, the constant argument lends credence to the idea that folks are challenged by his opinion.

 

But it's likely you knew that.

In other words people who disagree with his opinion in your world don't have good reasons and can be ignored because they are merely weak people who feel threatened?

[keitzy]

Back on the subject and purpose of this thread.

 

I think it is great that we should be able to queue or do the Forged alliances content solo.

Edited October 9, 2014 by keitzy

[LordArtemis]

In other words people who disagree with his opinion in your world don't have good reasons and can be ignored because they are merely weak people who feel threatened?

 

If your going to use other words, make sure they are derivative of the point made instead of hyperbole.

 

My point was clear. Some folks seem threatened. The qualifying criteria? A constant argument back and forth when a person has made it pretty clear it is just how they feel and it is not likely to change.

 

That is usually a reasonable indicator that that particular forum member gives credence to the opinion they are railing against, and therefore must fight either to change it or discredit it. Naturally the manner of the discussion is indicative, as is the excessive amount of response and repeat. That is not all that argue a point, nor even if they do so more than once. It is obvious, IMO, who the folks are that are threatened by opinions they do not agree with.

 

And yes...I perceive that as absolute weakness, as well as an example of a lack of self respect.

 

Naturally, this is just my opinion, which, like his, means next to nothing.

 

Obviously, folks know deep down if they are threatened or not...and those that are not, well then this contention does not apply.

Edited October 9, 2014 by LordArtemis

[Gleneagle]

If your going to use other words, make sure they are derivative of the point made instead of hyperbole.

Did I not use other words I would be unable to form a differing sentence. I disagree that the only words available should be those quoted.

My point was clear. Some folks seem threatened. The qualifying criteria? A constant argument back and forth when a person has made it pretty clear it is just how they feel and it is not likely to change.

That seems an odd view of dialog and conversation. If we engage in conversation we generally reply to one another. Should I take it that because you keep responding you must feel threatened? I didn't think so. How is it then that you think others would not respond to him where they disagree?

 

Tell you what: why don't you respond to my questions asked above. If grouping is so wonderful, whence comes this fear that if grouping is made optional fewer would group up? Second, if grouping is so wonderful, why does Bioware offer incentives for players who endure grouping?

Edited October 9, 2014 by Gleneagle
corrected a misattribution

[Clarian]

If grouping is so wonderful, whence comes this fear that if grouping is made optional fewer would group up? Second, if grouping is so wonderful, why does Bioware offer incentives for players who endure grouping?

Good questions. It is interesting that so many people say, "I don't care about the loot, I just want to be able to run things solo and really see the story." No extra incentives required.

 

(Personally, I think higher difficulty levels should offer better rewards - but in principle, 'solo' doesn't mean 'less difficult'. On the other hand, I would definitely run solo versions just for the story even if they offered no loot at all.)

[Gleneagle]

Good questions. It is interesting that so many people say, "I don't care about the loot, I just want to be able to run things solo and really see the story." No extra incentives required.

 

(Personally, I think higher difficulty levels should offer better rewards - but in principle, 'solo' doesn't mean 'less difficult'. On the other hand, I would definitely run solo versions just for the story even if they offered no loot at all.)

Me too, though as you point out if the mission difficulty scales it should be about as difficult. In fact it might be even more difficult since you don't have a trinity backing you up. I'd certainly rather also get the rewards but I'm selfish like that .

[LordArtemis]

Did I not use other words I would be unable to form a differing sentence. I disagree that the only words available should be those quoted.

That seems an odd view of dialog and conversation. If we engage in conversation we generally reply to one another. Should I take it that because you keep responding you must feel threatened? I didn't think so. How is it then that you think others would not respond to him where they disagree?

 

Since I do not wish to explain your errors, and I do not see how continuing this part of the discussion would be productive, I will simply say fair enough on both points and leave it at that.

 

Tell you what: why don't you respond to my questions asked above. If grouping is so wonderful, whence comes this fear that if grouping is made optional fewer would group up? Second, if grouping is so wonderful, why does Bioware offer incentives for players who endure grouping?

 

I will remove the hyperbole from your questions to keep this high road, if you dont mind. I am paraphrasing, so if I did not get the meaning of your question, please let me know.

 

1) If grouping is an attractive option, why worry that changes to group content may reduce participation?

 

I don't think grouping is an attractive or unattractive option. As far as the concern you allude to...I do not think the proper incentives exist at present to encourage grouping properly. I also do not think that creating solo versions of group content will help or hurt that situation in any meaningful way.

 

The problems that exist with grouping rest with the community, not the game IMO. That was not always the case in the past IMO.

 

2) If grouping is an attractive option, why does Bioware seem to offer incentives to promote group participation?

 

See answer one.

 

Now, hopefully that is the end of this silly exchange. I have little interest in arguing the merits or pitfalls of group participation and the impact that solo play may or may not have on the group dynamic.

 

The entire premise is beyond silly IMO.

Edited October 9, 2014 by LordArtemis

[Drockter]

no, you prefer to have people forced to play with you, IF they want to see the story prepared for this game.

Is this your understanding of team play? People that have no other option than to group, form a "team" to see their stories?

 

Not exactly, no... but yes I prefer that some content be team required.

 

And at the same time I bet you wouldn't want to have anything to do with the story -you just want to be fed with your comms.

 

Actually, quite enjoy the story. Including the team based story content. I also enjoy a challenge. Making FP's and Ops soloable, reduces the challenge for a team of players.

 

no thank you, I'd rather see my Star Wars story with my character playing the star without your involvement.

If I wish to play with a team, I'll find like minded people, preferably in a guild. Hoping they will want play with me BECAUSE they prefer it this way, not because there's no other option.

 

As I said, different strokes for different folks... not see why you are getting so upset... you prefer solo, I prefer team... we both advocate for what we want to see the game be. No need to become upset.