Please Consider Adding a Solo Version of Forged Alliances

[Darth_Advent]

With all of this talk of solo content options and class missions I'd almost think that the developers were trying to make me feel appreciative and optimistic.

 

This is a strange, strange feeling.

[DomiSotto]

I assume the climax of the Revan storyline will be told in opses.

 

I hope it's more like Makeb, when there is an Op that comes up close to the end, but doesn't prevent you from finishing the story.

 

@ScarletBlaze: if indeed the comms got kicked up one notch, and basic --> 168 that would be great. Just maybe need to max out the wz comms since they probably will be then purchasing the 162 w expertise.

 

Familiarization with OPS is best done on Story Mode, which is why it exists. It is easy to beat, and the mechanics are simple. Not to mention, almost every mechanic would not work in solo mode at all (which would turn the combat into mind-numbingly boring tank and spank), which would kill any training potential. If someone wants to see how is it done, there are videos that allow it.

 

That's one thing I strongly dislike about the elite group content - as a new player you are basically required to be spoiled on the whole thing through watching and learning before going in.

 

If they are "easy to beat", why are there all those gates on equipment, why things have to be 'explained' and why people recruit with all the scrutiny of NASA recruiting astronauts? Easy to beat, is when you walk right up to it, and kill 'em. Mechaniques, when everyone needs to do their thing.... is not 'easy to beat'. I mean, the guides that describe rotations used in those things... I am sorry, I consider myself an intelligent person, but memorizing those sequences to be able to do your thing is not something I can manage, seeing I can't even understand those sections past the opening rotation I am happy when the simplest things proc or stack!

 

And it's so many people! That alone makes it crazy. If it that many people to handle the content, just how bad the opponents have to be to challenge a 16-people team?! How many of those?! I can't imagine a run taking less than 2-3 hours.

 

For a while I thought I should try it, even joined a guild, to hopefully do it, but once I started looking into it, it sounds completely hopeless thing to approach. I have a friend that I think had tried a run of one Ops numerous times, and never did the final battle because the leader won't allow the party to do it due to the equipment.

Edited October 8, 2014 by DomiSotto

[Aries_cz]

That's one thing I strongly dislike about the elite group content - as a new player you are basically required to be spoiled on the whole thing through watching and learning before going in.

 

If they are "easy to beat", why are there all those gates on equipment, why things have to be 'explained' and why people recruit with all the scrutiny of NASA recruiting astronauts? Easy to beat, is when you walk right up to it, and kill 'em. That's 'easy to beat'. And it's so many people! That alone makes it crazy.

 

I have yet to see someone demanding anything close to "know tactics" or "have gear" for group finder operations.

Group Finder operations have bolster, meaning that you no longer need minimum level of gear. And you get pretty decent pieces from Oricon solo story.

Story Modes are easy to beat, but they require a tactic, not just mindless tank and spank (you call it "walk right up to it, and kill 'em"). Discovering those tactics is part of the fun, if you and your friends want to do it for yourself. Also, most of the story is told you BEFORE you even enter the instance, so you know what are you fighting against. So seeing just the combat is not really much of a story spoiler.

[Gleneagle]

You make good points. I actually have no problem with people who enjoy the story leisurely. I also don't have a problem with flashpoints or tacticals being solo able.

 

My problem is that when one element of the game is announced that has a solo option, everyone then asks for EVERYTHING to be solo able. I said this before, I'm glad the strory lovers get some new avenues, I really do. But, just because you get one thing doesn't give you the right to ask for things like Ops to be made solo able.

 

That is my only point. I'm not the enemy here. I'm just saying that it is unfair and selfish to me, if after getting something new one demands more.

If you bother to look, roughly half the community simply expressed appreciation for the consideration of making more content we could enjoy without having to deal with the whims of total strangers who only wanted to race through, or subject us to their narrow-minded myopic political beliefs, or expect everyone to serve their ego, or put up with their prejudicial racial obsessions, or make choices we wouldn't have made, or subjected us to an application process whereby they could approve our mods, or stand there, waiting interminably for someone to deem us worthy of their precious time. Then came all these loud elitist posts with their dismissive, better-than-thou attitudes urging Bioware to believe that there are too many ways for independent people to avoid being dependent on them, to avoid servitude, to escape those political biases and overblown egos.

 

What is the problem for you if other people wish to play independent of the vagaries of the group finder? What is the problem if I don't want to be needy? What good is there for anyone in belittling those who think differently from you, dehumanizing others, putting them down, dismissing them as weak or less-than-human? Why in the universe would you imagine that anyone would esteem people who did those things and why do you imagine we would not respond negatively?

[Lord_Robert]

@ Aries_cz:

 

I'll give you pretty much every point. And my example may not have been the best one.

 

The basis of what I tried to say though, is that story should be available to everyone, regardless of skill-level and play-style. And I don't see such a concept detracting anything from those players, who, like myself, enjoy grouping, or even from the far more hardcore players, who enjoy ever more challenging content. As long as the rewards fit the difficulty of obtaining them. That's what difficulty settings are all about.

 

It may be virtually impossible to allow soloists access to Op story-lines and while I can see that, I find it sad. Why hamper those players, who prefer to go at it alone? They don't harm the rest of us, rather, their subs and/or CC purchases aid in keeping the game alive. There should be room for everybody and in an optimal game, in my opinion, the story should be open to all.

[Aries_cz]

Well, they are "harming" the game by "wasting" developer time on things that should not even be needed, because they are playing a multiplayer game.

In my opinion, it is extremely easy to ignore other people's demands for "skip, skip, skip, skip, skip, skip, skip, skip", or just interacting with them and saying "First time here, watching cutscenes, deal with it". That solves flashpoint problems.

And demanding that Operations not require anything beyond coming up to a boss and whacking it over its head is just as "harmful". Hell, even singleplayer games usually require some sort of "advanced" tactic on bosses. As for the story, Operation Story is pretty much told outside the instance, or told after, when nobody cares what you do anymore.

 

TLDR, I think that interacting with people should be expected when you go play in a social environment such as online game.

[Gleneagle]

TLDR, I think that interacting with people should be expected when you go play in a social environment such as online game.

The problem isn't with interacting with people. The problem is in the requirement to interact with random people, even those who, from all appearances, truly and deeply dislike not only you but the horse you rode in on without the first clue of even who you are. I do not think playing any MMO should evaluate to or even be comparable with involuntary servitude.

 

So I anticipate the response that if I was already grouped with friends then I wouldn't have to put up with the random element. My response is that I should not be put into a position of dependency by a game whether it is an MMO or single player. Excessive social dependency is not healthy, and though every social human being is to some measure dependent on their society (you didn't build that ALONE), social dependency should not be imposed by our entertainment media.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Gleneagle

[Jaedelyia]

The problem isn't with interacting with people. The problem is in the requirement to interact with people, even those who, from all appearances, truly and deeply dislike not only you but the horse you rode in on without the first clue of even who you are. I do not think playing any MMO should evaluate to or even be comparable with involuntary servitude.

I'm fine with everything to be able to be done in Solo. Just don't put the same reward for group & solo (and that's coming from a player that play solo way more than in group).

 

In game, solo is often way easier than having to deal with a group, and than having tactics requiring at least a tiny bit of coordination. Therefore, reward should be bigger for group. Solo enjoy the storyline, have a shiny item or two, but group ops/FP should drop best gear, imo.

[theUndead]

I'm fine with everything to be able to be done in Solo. Just don't put the same reward for group & solo (and that's coming from a player that play solo way more than in group).

 

In game, solo is often way easier than having to deal with a group, and than having tactics requiring at least a tiny bit of coordination. Therefore, reward should be bigger for group. Solo enjoy the storyline, have a shiny item or two, but group ops/FP should drop best gear, imo.

 

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.

[Aries_cz]

So I anticipate the response that if I was already grouped with friends then I wouldn't have to put up with the random element. My response is that I should not be put into a position of dependency by a game whether it is an MMO or single player. Excessive social dependency is not healthy, and though every social human being is to some measure dependent on their society (you didn't build that ALONE), social dependency should not be imposed by our entertainment media.

 

Well, that sort of response is pretty obvious, isn't it? If you hate random people, play with people you know.

 

However, lot of people like you have probably never even tried playing with real people, right? Some of the horror stories you people say sound pretty preposterous. That, or you are playing in a very obnoxious community.

In my experience, almost nobody inspects or kicks people for gear (unless there are constant wipes for no apparent reason or that person has 7k health as level 55), or for not skipping cutscenes.

 

To be honest, expecting a multiplayer game to have all its content available for solo players is not realistic.

 

How about just giving people like you just the whole 5 minutes of cutscenes per flashpoint, and be done with it? No need to play or get rewards, right?

[LordArtemis]

I think that, not only is this great news, it is a smart move considering that the likely majority of players falls into the solo PVE casual crowd.

 

Since they likely pay the bills, they should have full story access....as long as the original form, IE the flashpoints, is not effected. There is no need to dumb down or remove current content...this can be done as a supplement, not a replacement.

 

A solo mode if you will, with drastically reduced rewards naturally.

[Lord_Robert]

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.

 

And in what way could or would it ever do any harm to you, your chars, your play or anything else, to allow soloists access to operation story-lines?

 

I'm not saying it is technically possible, nor that ops should, by definition not have group-oriented mechanics. But I'd love for there to be a solo-difficulty on everything, where the mechanics centered around a single player with a companion, thus allowing said player to enjoy the story.. and maybe earn a a few comms (a few mind, one either a daily or one-off basis).

 

Why should that be a problem to anyone else? It wont alter the mechanics of the group-oriented difficulties and while it would take some developer-time to implement, on the other hand, it might make more soloists join or even keep the ones we have around for longer, thus providing a greater incentive (Read subs, and CC purchases) for Bioware to make new content for the game..

 

I simply cannot see how that is detrimental to group play or those players, like myself, who prefer to run instanced group content.

[Gleneagle]

Well, that sort of response is pretty obvious, isn't it? If you hate random people, play with people you know.

 

However, lot of people like you have probably never even tried playing with real people, right? Some of the horror stories you people say sound pretty preposterous. That, or you are playing in a very obnoxious community.

In my experience, almost nobody inspects or kicks people for gear (unless there are constant wipes for no apparent reason or that person has 7k health as level 55), or for not skipping cutscenes.

 

To be honest, expecting a multiplayer game to have all its content available for solo players is not realistic.

 

How about just giving people like you just the whole 5 minutes of cutscenes per flashpoint, and be done with it? No need to play or get rewards, right?

This post you made is dismissive and belittling, and I am sure you don't consider yourself very obnoxious. You want me to want you to group, but this is what you offer me as my reward. Get a grip on the handrail, buddy: You are the problem.

[Aries_cz]

And in what way could or would it ever do any harm to you, your chars, your play or anything else, to allow soloists access to operation story-lines?

I said it before, adding solo content for everything drains dev time that could be used on something else (one of the reasons behind Disciplines is to get rid of wasted time spent on rebalancing untold tree combinations with every change)

 

I'm not saying it is technically possible, nor that ops should, by definition not have group-oriented mechanics. But I'd love for there to be a solo-difficulty on everything, where the mechanics centered around a single player with a companion, thus allowing said player to enjoy the story...

 

"Mechanics focused on player and companion". Hmm, do tell, what kind of mechanic you think the AI could handle so that it would not make the said mechanic pointless.

If AI avoids all red circles automatically without failing, why even have red circles? If it was based on a random dice throw, it is unbalanced and players could get screwed over by random number generator.

The truth is, all possible "player+comp" mechanics available would either require massive amounts of micromanagement of companions (something people have no idea how to do, in my experience, even the simple "put on passive to avoid the circle" mechanic), or reducing the tactics to tank and spank (not fun).

[Aries_cz]

This post you made is dismissive and belittling, and I am sure you don't consider yourself very obnoxious. You want me to want you to group, but this is what you offer me as my reward. Get a grip on the handrail, buddy: You are the problem.

 

Yes, it was dismissive, because many stories I hear from proponents of solo game sound unrealistic, when compared to experience I and people around me have. I was not trying to attack you or anybody.

 

If you group, I offer you the same rewards as everybody gets, because these rewards are for doing the content, and managing even barest amounts of coordination. But if you are not willing to run the content, and you just want to see the story, why should you be rewarded?

[Lord_Robert]

I said it before, adding solo content for everything drains dev time that could be used on something else (one of the reasons behind Disciplines is to get rid of wasted time spent on rebalancing untold tree combinations with every change)

 

Of course it would take dev time, I do not disagree with that. But the solo players pay subs / purchase CC too.

Everyone has an equal claim on dev time spent developing game content. Be it solo or group players.

 

"Mechanics focused on player and companion". Hmm, do tell, what kind of mechanic you think the AI could handle so that it would not make the said mechanic pointless.

If AI avoids all red circles automatically without failing, why even have red circles? If it was based on a random dice throw, it is unbalanced and players could get screwed over by random number generator.

The truth is, all possible "player+comp" mechanics available would either require massive amounts of micromanagement of companions (something people have no idea how to do, in my experience, even the simple "put on passive to avoid the circle" mechanic), or reducing the tactics to tank and spank (not fun).

 

Since a lot of this game is balanced around solo play already, I'd imagine the experiences from designing that, would serve the devs, if they designed a solo difficulty for FPs and Ops. That said, solo-oriented mechanics should naturally be limited to appear in the solo-difficulty. Just like the mechanics differ somewhat between SM,HM and NiM already. The regular difficulties should not, in any way, be designed around solo-play. Some might be soloable eventually, but they should not be designed with that in mind.

 

As for old heroics and old content in general, requiring multiple participants just to complete a specific mechanic though, they ought to rework that. In the case of heroics, by altering the mechanic, so it's soloable and in the case of operations, by adding harder difficulties with higher-tier rewards.. Thus, giving the end-game players a wider selection of content to enjoy... The idea of optimizing content for a specific group of players shouldn't solely center around the soloists. It could go both ways and I would love it, if it did.

[Gleneagle]

Yes, it was dismissive, because many stories I hear from proponents of solo game sound unrealistic, when compared to experience I and people around me have. I was not trying to attack you or anybody.

 

If you group, I offer you the same rewards as everybody gets, because these rewards are for doing the content, and managing even barest amounts of coordination. But if you are not willing to run the content, and you just want to see the story, why should you be rewarded?

I understand you didn't try to attack me personally, but your evaluation of realism in opposing arguments is hardly unbiased as you just demonstrated above.

 

You don't have a natural problem with your own attitude, and because you see no problem with your attitude then nobody should have a problem with your attitude. I think most of us are like that, to include me.

 

I'm sure if you thought you were wrong you would try to change, so naturally either you are conflicted or you aren't wrong in your worldview. I'm not wrong to me either. That isn't a fault, but it goes far to explan why some folks don't want to group up: just about everyone thinks they are right, and very few question deeply whether they might be wrong. That human tendency can lead to problems, among them fractionalizing the community in group vice solo just like PvP vice PvE does. We are supposed to be individuals like that, right?

 

But to work well, as humans who cooperate and coordinate, it has been proven that we must tolerate one another's differences or else live in chaos and war. To me that means you have to generously allow that it is okay for us to viably co-inhabit the same MMO with you who would prefer that we had to depend on grouping, but without requiring us to group.

 

Yes of course I group, though not now, having just returned to merged servers where my old guilds are gone. I don't know who is on my server anymore. It will take time. It isn't something I don't care about but it has underscored to me the problem of this group/solo conundrum.

 

But to get back to my earlier point, what is the attraction you imagine there is to grouping for independent players in a virtual world where people who are devoted to grouping don't even consider there might be a real reason so many prefer to solo? Does it not even occur to you that maybe it is about clashing personalities that simply gets in the way of enjoyment?

 

It isn't at all that we don't group with 'real' people, whatever that was supposed to mean, and trying to not take it as just another useless destructive insult.

 

If the social experience must involve you dismissing things I say, avoiding who I am as a person, and not caring a whit about my objectives; if it means only considering your own preferences, then why on any namable planet would an independent want to group with you? I'm not talking about drops, I'm talking about social interaction. And if there isn't a good reason to want to socialize with you, then why should the game require me to depend on you and your group? (edited to drop a long string of unhelpful predicates affecting the noun 'group')

Edited October 8, 2014 by Gleneagle

[freeoftime]

I have grouped. most of the times it was incredibly unenjoyable and i only bothered for the rewards, from diva tanks that refused to play properly the moment someone suggested that maybe guard on the healer might not be the greatest thing to ever do to people insisting on being passive aggressive jerks for the rest pf the FP because god beware someone needs to brb for a mere minute to snipers apparently under the impression they're operatives and feeling the need to pull whole rooms and attack a boss at half health because hey, the healer is gonna do his thing and keep us up anyway, right?

 

i'm not here because i like group content. i'm not here because i like multiplayer. i don't. i've come to the conclusion that it can be fun to play with my significant other and on occasion other people as well, but by and large? i just wanna play on my own, be able to run off for an hour in the middle of a cutscene or esc out as many times i want to test out all the dialogue options and get all the screencaps i could possibly want. i'm playing because unfortunately, instead of another singleplayer KoTOR, there's an MMO. fortunately, that MMO has some rather nice and fun storytelling of its own and even more fortunately, i can enjoy most of that without dealing with all of the above.

 

"But making things for you to solo takes away resources from group content for us!" you say. but well, you see... those ~€400 i spent on the game over the last year (sub and expansion for two people and a whole lot of cc cause i have no self control)? i've accepted the fact they'll pay for exclusively group oriented content that i may never get to see. i've accepted that they might pay for pvp content that i have even less interest in. i have, therefore, accepted that the money i've spent for this game may very well end up used for content i literally do not care about -- but i must not hope -- much less ask or god forbid, expect -- for that money to be spent on content i *am* interested in? it is so impossible for any of you to accept that money may be spent on content that those who aren't you are interested in? really?

 

i'll group when i want to, either because i want the rewards i get for it -- and by all means, keep the good things like the high level comms and gear drops group only, harder content = better rewards makes perfect sense after all -- or because it's one of those rare times i have the energy and feel good enough to be social (hopefully not immediately destroyed by people who can't be bothered waiting another 30 seconds for my partner to load before pulling the first group of mobs or people feeling the need to throw slurs around or people yelling at the healer because he couldn't heal through their own stupidity and terrible playing.) But that's not when I want to enjoy the story and not deal with hearing some strangers character i don't care about saying the exact opposite of what i chose because i lost some roll.

[Aries_cz]

Since a lot of this game is balanced around solo play already, I'd imagine the experiences from designing that, would serve the devs, if they designed a solo difficulty for FPs and Ops.

Ah, see, this is were we are probably going to disagree. I believe that solo play does not have any mechanics outside of tank and spank (note that though it is call tank and spank, it does not need tank, it means one party member has aggro, while the other shoots/heals) and maybe use a interrupt on a final boss. I don't remember any boss from any soloable content that needed anything more.

The absence of mechanics is there because companions have very rudimentary AI, so to avoid micromanagement, you cannot have anything that would require them to do anything else but stand around and shoot/heal. For example, you cannot have red circles, because companions cannot avoid them without micromanagement, and you cannot program for the target avoiding companion as AoE target, because people would cheese the system by standing on their companions.

[LordArtemis]

Although it would be nice to have solo mode for end game content, I would not campaign for this sort of thing. I think there needs to be some kind of incentive to group for at least SOME content.

 

That said, any direct story content SHOULD have a solo option IMO. That means story content that is directly tied to your storyline in the game, or any storyline provided by the game in normal solo content.

 

Note that Heroics exist on every planet as a supplement to the story, but not as a component in most cases. False Emperor, IMO, is an example of a flashpoint that SHOULD have a solo version since it is the conclusion of a storyline. But not all flashpoints are direct parts of the game story, and therefore should remain as they are IMO.

 

Creating solo versions of Forged Alliances is a wise move IMO. I also think creating solo versions of Flashpoints like False Emperor would be a wise move. But most of the Flashpoints and Operations should remain as they are...at MOST they could perhaps have tactical versions offered.

 

But I would say that should be the extent. Hard content should, in most cases, remain content for those that choose to put in the work to experience that content IMO.

[Aries_cz]

/snip

 

/snip

 

Hey, I am all for tolerating people's differences, as long as those people are willing to adapt their habits and behavior to whatever environment they are in (this is my general world view, from games to politics about immigration and religious demands).

If someone gets into a game that is designed around the idea of people playing together, expecting everything to be soloable is not realistic.

 

Now, sure, lot of people play the game because it is the "next KOTOR", but, finding a group of like-minded people should not be that difficult, if there are so many of them.

 

I can understand that people sometimes behave like r-tards in groups, but, judging from my experience, there are very few of those "divas" or people incapable of waiting through a cutscene, especially when you say you want to watch it.

[LordArtemis]

The MMO market has changed dramatically in the last 10 years. At one time hardcore players dominated the market, now the casuals generally rule the day.

 

Solo play in MMOs is becoming the norm, not the exception. The multiplayer part of MMO is changing to community involvement instead of group play....chat, commerce, role play, occasional group play as opposed to hardcore raiding or PVP.

 

It makes sense to provide plenty of content for solo oriented players in the modern market IMO...in fact, Wildstar is suffering at the moment, IMO, from doing the exact opposite and arrogantly opposing the casual player at their own peril.

 

Hardcore players are moving over to games that represent modern hardcore play, like the CoD and Battlefield series. The multiplayer online communities for these types of games is growing in leaps and bounds, while traditional MMOs have shrinking playerbases. Games like WoT and LoL are now ruling the day, while WoW continues to shrink as its hardcore base leaves the game.

 

For a game to compete in the modern market, it must accept the realities of that market, and that means, IMO, accept the idea that casual players make up the majority of your potential playerbase.

 

And that means story access for solo players.

 

Just my view.

[Lord_Robert]

Ah, see, this is were we are probably going to disagree. I believe that solo play does not have any mechanics outside of tank and spank (note that though it is call tank and spank, it does not need tank, it means one party member has aggro, while the other shoots/heals) and maybe use a interrupt on a final boss. I don't remember any boss from any soloable content that needed anything more.

The absence of mechanics is there because companions have very rudimentary AI, so to avoid micromanagement, you cannot have anything that would require them to do anything else but stand around and shoot/heal. For example, you cannot have red circles, because companions cannot avoid them without micromanagement, and you cannot program for the target avoiding companion as AoE target, because people would cheese the system by standing on their companions.

 

Heh, as a matter of fact no, we do not disagree. And I grant you that point graciously.

The difference lies, I believe, in whether we see it as a problem or not.

 

If someone wants to experience the story only, I say let them. If that means adding a solo-casual mode (or even several difficulty-modes for soloers), I'm absolutely fine with that. As long as the group modes are not changed to allow them to be soloable. Adding new modes = good, changing existing ones = bad.

 

And the rewards should reflect the effort to get them, of course. On that I assume we are in perfect agreement.

[freeoftime]

Hey, I am all for tolerating people's differences, as long as those people are willing to adapt their habits and behavior to whatever environment they are in (this is my general world view, from games to politics about immigration and religious demands).

If someone gets into a game that is designed around the idea of people playing together, expecting everything to be soloable is not realistic.

 

Now, sure, lot of people play the game because it is the "next KOTOR", but, finding a group of like-minded people should not be that difficult, if there are so many of them.

 

I can understand that people sometimes behave like r-tards in groups, but, judging from my experience, there are very few of those "divas" or people incapable of waiting through a cutscene, especially when you say you want to watch it.

 

"Judging from your experience" is all well and good, but my experience with grouping with strangers has been negative (and those were just some examples) about... 80% negative. That's judging from *my* experience. (And the use of an ableist slur is... really not going to convince me that your experience is so much more accurate tbqh).

 

And a group of like minded people doesn't address the problem where those people want to experience and enjoy the story at their own pace, in their own way, without having someone else's characters choices interfere with their own. It doesn't address the problem where... if someone doesn't want to group, why in the world should finding other people that don't want to group help with grouping? all you get is a bunch of people that don't want to group and you tell them to go and group with all these other people that don't want to group. it solves, exactly, nothing.

 

Heck, it's not even just that, finding anyone i want to hang out with in game is difficult enough as is (by which i mean, i've found exactly no one on my own. sometimes my sigoth finds people i like well enough, and even then i still want to spend the majority of my time alone, or things happen like yesterday where i didn't want to switch to a chat tab without guild chat in case i miss something addressed at me or something important, but just wanted to be on my own. result? closing the game and going to bed instead.). People are terrifying, complete strangers, game or not, even more so and most of the time i just end up either horribly anxious or horribly annoyed. (and no, yelling to grow a thicker skin is not going to make my social anxiety or depression go away, and i literally do not care about any ableist "but i don't care about your ~inadequacies wehhhhh~ bs. general you here, btw.)

 

One of the games main selling points, which is why so many solo people play (and pay to play) the game in the first place, is its story and a lot of these people want to enjoy this story on their own. You don't actually gain anything by alienating these people -- yes, sure, some resources might have gone into developing solo versions of story heavy or important group content, but if these people stop playing and with that stop paying, you just lose resources all the same (and perhaps even more). So really, what's the point in arguing against them getting access to their story content? You literally gain nothing and only stand to lose things -- the resources are gonna end up gone anyway and people who might have actually grouped with you for whatever reason -- and if it was just deciding the rewards are worth it to try the group version after all -- leave because what the game offers them isn't worth their money to them any more.

[Darth_Wicked]

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.

 

It's Bioware fault, no one else's truth be told.

 

If you give a rat a cookie...

He'll want a glass of milk.

 

Edited October 8, 2014 by Darth_Wicked