Why Was Oricon Never Made Solo-Friendly?

[DieAlteHexe]

It is evident that they're putting up strawman arguments just so they can counter this thread and disagree with it. It's indeed the solo-players who are more story-focused in this game that maintain their subscriptions (taking myself as a prime example of it). But again, people are generalising solo-players in this game. Aye, I am more solo-focused when playing story etc, but when it comes to PvP I am very active in it. So there isn't one type of soloplayer, there are all kinds of them. Just like there are raiders who like to do everything from A to B and raiders who speedrun everything and take shortcuts to the bosses. Nothing wrong with either, the same going for solo players.

 

PvP and I just don't get on. I enjoyed it in a couple games but due to circumstances, I cannot be depended upon (same goes for raiding/OPs). No biggie, really, I'm a content solo/duo player and muddle along at my own rate. Alt-itis extends to enjoyment.

 

You're right though, trying to fit folks into neat niches, especially to prove a point, usually falls flat. It's part and parcel of 'Net "debate".

[Ylliarus]

PvP and I just don't get on. I enjoyed it in a couple games but due to circumstances, I cannot be depended upon (same goes for raiding/OPs). No biggie, really, I'm a content solo/duo player and muddle along at my own rate. Alt-itis extends to enjoyment.

 

You're right though, trying to fit folks into neat niches, especially to prove a point, usually falls flat. It's part and parcel of 'Net "debate".

 

Everyone their own playstyle, but that is the beauty of MMO's, all the playstyles are represented in this game. Soloplayer? We got you covered! Multiplayer? We got your covered! Hybrid of the two! Boy are you lucky... we got you completely covered. So I don't get this "us against them" that raiders seem to have and exhibit. We simply requested to have the same access to the story content raiders have in the Oricon arc through a solo alternative. I repeat, solo alternative. We are not asking for the operations being removed, we are not asking for a solo mode in operations. We just ask for a solo alternative, no more no less.

 

I repeat, the raiders just want to prove us wrong and throw counter arguments at us that have no weight at all but create the illusion of being strong. And then they wonder why people don't support them as much when they demand more group content... had they supported us for once then we could have been supporting their requests. But no, they prefer to delude themselves with "us against them" while we're all players of SWTOR.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Ylliarus

[Slowpokeking]

Lol it isnt "main". The OP consists of you killing the Dread Masters and the mission giver saying "Thanks, good job". Done, thats it. Next, this is an MMO. I havent done Ops since 4.0 launched due to everyone grinding solo content, and Im on a different timezone to everyone (im on bergeren colony, timezone is Australia) so as you can imagine I can rarely ever find anyone. Hence, why I don't sub anymore. The focus on solo content is killing this game.

 

Solo should be a proving ground to teach you important mechanics to prepare you for group content. Oricon is the absolute perfect example of this. If you want single player....go play a single player RPG and stop ruining this MMO with solo only requests.

 

It is a main story.

 

The Dread Master served as the main story after your class story's ending. Even Makeb's Hutt Cartel were manipulated by them.

 

This is a MMO, but MMO is not about YOU MUST GROUP but you have the option to group for better rewards.

[Slowpokeking]

Applying level sync and bolster was fairly easy. There even were bugs right at start and tricks how you could avoid getting level synced. They are able to turn it off with ease, same for level scaling in ops.

 

If it's easy, then just drop the old ops to their original level when you choose the option and make some minor changes.

[Tsillah]

The real question is, how likely is it that BW can fix this for you in Oricon withou breaking 20 other things?

 

As a general rule though, companies tend to look forward rather than backward. Making something new always trumps fixing something old from a management point of view.

[DieAlteHexe]

The real question is, how likely is it that BW can fix this for you in Oricon withou breaking 20 other things?

 

As a general rule though, companies tend to look forward rather than backward. Making something new always trumps fixing something old from a management point of view.

 

True enough. At this point, I'd be grateful if they just didn't do that again (stick an OP in the middle of a solo quest line or at least make it clear at the initial quest that you'll be needing to do an OP).

[fushnchips]

True enough. At this point, I'd be grateful if they just didn't do that again (stick an OP in the middle of a solo quest line or at least make it clear at the initial quest that you'll be needing to do an OP).

 

This is an MMO and the content should be group focused not single player content

[DieAlteHexe]

This is an MMO and the content should be group focused not single player content

 

Incorrect. MMO simply means that there is the ability for many people to play simultaneously. It does NOT mean "must group". EQ tried that and had to back-pedal it.

 

The wise dev houses learned from EQs experience to provide content for SOLO and GROUP. So let's not be trotting out that fallacy. It's dead for nearly a decade if not longer.

 

BOTH.

[Ratajack]

This is an MMO and the content should be group focused not single player content

 

Please show us where in the definition for MMO it says "MUST group" or "all content should be group focused".

 

That is not to say that all content should be single player content, though.

 

There should be a mix of different types of content to try to encompass all types of players.

[fushnchips]

Please show us where in the definition for MMO it says "MUST group" or "all content should be group focused".

 

That is not to say that all content should be single player content, though.

 

There should be a mix of different types of content to try to encompass all types of players.

 

Stop trying to pick the last bit of chicken off the bones Rata

[Ylliarus]

This is an MMO and the content should be group focused not single player content

 

This is how Wikipedia describes a massive-multiplayer online game:

 

"A massively multiplayer online game (MMOG or MMO) is an online game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, simultaneously in the same instance (or world).[1] MMOs usually feature a huge, persistent open world, although some games differ. These games can be found for most network-capable platforms, including the personal computer, video game console, or smartphones and other mobile devices.

 

MMOs can enable players to cooperate and compete with each other on a large scale, and sometimes to interact meaningfully with people around the world. They include a variety of gameplay types, representing many video game genres."

 

Please tell me where does it stand that a focus on group content is a must? Please, by all means, show me where it stands in the description of an MMO by Wikipedia, a credible source, that group content is the focus of MMO's? Raiders keep screaming it without thinking, without looking at the real definition of an MMO.

 

Also, here is what the game developers themselves consider to be a major focus of the game:

 

"A major focus in the game is on developing characters' individual stories[14] and, in October 2008, BioWare considered this game to have more story content than all of their other games combined."

 

An MMO is an online game with an open environment in which players CAN group up to do content together, not MUST, but CAN. It is optional, it is a possibility for you to choose, it is not the focus, it is one of many focuses. MMO accomodate to a number of playstyles, not just one, when will you raiders finally learn and stop screaming your empty "this is an MMO it's multiplayer not solo".

Edited September 4, 2017 by Ylliarus

[DieAlteHexe]

...

 

An MMO is an online game with an open environment in which players CAN group up to do content together, not MUST, but CAN. It is optional, it is a possibility for you to choose, it is not the focus, it is one of many focuses. MMO accomodate to a number of playstyles, not just one, when will you raiders finally learn and stop screaming your empty "this is an MMO it's multiplayer not solo".

 

This argument has been going on since at least 2000, if not 1999. IOW, never. Some folks just won't process that MMO is the environment (as, back then, contrasting to games that could support maybe a dozen or so).

 

So, if it hasn't sunk in by now...

[fushnchips]

This is how Wikipedia describes a massive-multiplayer online game:

 

"A massively multiplayer online game (MMOG or MMO) is an online game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, simultaneously in the same instance (or world).[1] MMOs usually feature a huge, persistent open world, although some games differ. These games can be found for most network-capable platforms, including the personal computer, video game console, or smartphones and other mobile devices.

 

MMOs can enable players to cooperate and compete with each other on a large scale, and sometimes to interact meaningfully with people around the world. They include a variety of gameplay types, representing many video game genres."

 

Please tell me where does it stand that a focus on group content is a must? Please, by all means, show me where it stands in the description of an MMO by Wikipedia, a credible source, that group content is the focus of MMO's? Raiders keep screaming it without thinking, without looking at the real definition of an MMO.

 

An MMO is an online game with an open environment in which players CAN group up to do content together, not MUST, but CAN. It is optional, it is a possibility for you to choose, it is not the focus, it is one of many focuses. MMO accomodate to a number of playstyles, not just one, when will you raiders finally learn and stop screaming your empty "this is an MMO it's multiplayer not solo".

 

So you class anyone who is firm on group content in an mmo as a raider *** ?

[Ylliarus]

So you class anyone who is firm on group content in an mmo as a raider *** ?

 

A taste of your own medicine for generalising us as well. Not all of us soloplayers keep to themselves and hiss at social interaction, which is how you depict us. I for example PvP daily and am very active there, others I know run flashpoints or heroics with groups daily but simply don't do operations.

 

But, from the fact that you do not respond to the content of my post regarding the true meaning of an MMO but only pick on that little insignificant part signifies to me you are unable to counter the argument or debunk it.

 

This argument has been going on since at least 2000, if not 1999. IOW, never. Some folks just won't process that MMO is the environment (as, back then, contrasting to games that could support maybe a dozen or so).

 

So, if it hasn't sunk in by now...

 

Well, maybe if we hammer long enough we'll eventually reach some rationality or sense

Edited September 4, 2017 by Ylliarus

[MeNaCe-NZ]

You do realize that at launch the game had millions of subs due to the fact that people expected this to be competition to WoW, or whatever. Whatever it was that the players expected of the game they didnt get it cause the game lost most of its players 2-3 months after launch.

 

That clearly shows that people took time to level up toons and then realized there is nothing to do (no raids) and left the game!! Those millions of subs wanted group content, which they didnt get and that is why swtor is struggling until now!

 

You can't say that all those players left because there was no group content, they no doubt left for am ultitude of reasons and that being one for a subset of those that left.

 

Others would leave because they finished their story and didn't feel like doing another at that time.

Others plain didn't like the grindyness of an MMO after expecting Kotor 3 and decided this wasn't the star wars game for them.

 

It's silly just assuming everyone left because of no group content. This is also supported by the fact that when they did add in a lot more MMO content the millions DID NOT flood back.

Some did sure, but nowhere near the numbers that left. Also interesting that the highest player count in recent times came from a story based expansion but then suffered the same decline straight after supporting that regardless of how much "MMO" content there is - casual story players not committed to this game will still move on.

 

Net result is you need to cater to all play types with content which locked out operations ideally don't do even though they are a good idea into trying to force people to raid.

They could still endeavor to do something like that but make an even easier mode of story mode like a 4 person with heal stations *shrug* ... maybe once people tried that and realized it's not the end of the world to group they could push through for the more demanding 8 person+ content.

[Ylliarus]

It's silly just assuming everyone left because of no group content. This is also supported by the fact that when they did add in a lot more MMO content the millions DID NOT flood back.

Some did sure, but nowhere near the numbers that left. Also interesting that the highest player count in recent times came from a story based expansion but then suffered the same decline straight after supporting that regardless of how much "MMO" content there is - casual story players not committed to this game will still move on.

 

Exactly! They added a ton of operations after the initial launch and we didn't see all those players returning who had supposedly left because of no group content. There is a flawed logic in assuming people left due to no operations after the launch of the game, because the facts surrounding players coming back contradict that notion.

 

As the quoted poster said in his entire post, the people who left had likely other reasons for leaving the game than the lack of group content. As a matter of fact a lot of people I know or was friends with in the game that left, left because of things like problems with the community, the direction of the story, lack of Republic vs Empire, dead servers etc etc and barely anyone named a lack of operations as a main reason they left the game.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Ylliarus

[MeNaCe-NZ]

It is evident that they're putting up strawman arguments just so they can counter this thread and disagree with it.

 

What is the strawman argument being made exactly? Honestly I can't be bothered going back over the whole thread but I've seen it used a couple of times incorrectly so far.

 

A strawman argument is not an argument without evidence or substance (as it seems some are implying but perhaps I'm mistaken) but when you are arguing against a position the other person never took up in the first place.

 

For a hypothetical example - you argue that solo players are the primary factor that can save the game and keep it alive to which I argue that you are saying group players are worthless and killing the game. You never actually made that statement but the strawman will try and turn it around as though you did.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

This is an MMO and the content should be group focused not single player content

 

Why should it be one or the other or is this just your opinion? Justifying it because "it's an MMO" isn't much of a justification either way.

 

I've been having fun doing solo dailies lately and found it more interesting from the amount of people around even though I'm not actively grouping with them. So discussion occurs, some interactions and it just feels more pleasant overall.

 

That is me enjoying an MMO for a part of the MMO concept (multiple players online) whilst doing solo content.

 

The reason no "MMO" has solely gone group content only is because it's a stupid idea and it would fail instantly.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

This argument has been going on since at least 2000, if not 1999. IOW, never. Some folks just won't process that MMO is the environment (as, back then, contrasting to games that could support maybe a dozen or so).

 

So, if it hasn't sunk in by now...

 

Yes I recall. Ever since WoW - the first MMO ever made came out amirite?

[Ylliarus]

What is the strawman argument being made exactly? Honestly I can't be bothered going back over the whole thread but I've seen it used a couple of times incorrectly so far.

 

A strawman argument is not an argument without evidence or substance (as it seems some are implying but perhaps I'm mistaken) but when you are arguing against a position the other person never took up in the first place.

 

For a hypothetical example - you argue that solo players are the primary factor that can save the game and keep it alive to which I argue that you are saying group players are worthless and killing the game. You never actually made that statement but the strawman will try and turn it around as though you did.

 

The argument was that the soloplayers were on and off subscribers and don't contribute to the game's revenue so they don't care about the game at all and only want to appease their wants at the moment. I never stated such a thing nor any of the others yet the poster seemed to pretend we had said we don't care about the game and just want appeasement in the here and now. Hence why I said it was a strawman argument but perhaps I used it too freely in that case.

 

But various other posters keep making up stuff we supposedly said in the thread which we even didn't remotely think of and completely debunk it with arguments they want to present but no one said that specific thing so they couldn't bring it up.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Ylliarus

[MeNaCe-NZ]

The argument was that the soloplayers were on and off subscribers and don't contribute to the game's revenue so they don't care about the game at all and only want to appease their wants at the moment. I never stated such a thing nor any of the others yet the poster seemed to pretend we had said we don't care about the game and just want appeasement in the here and now. Hence why I said it was a strawman argument but perhaps I used it too freely.

 

I guess it's a thin line in that if the poster is implying you made that argument yourself or that it is their stance on what they think of solo players if you know what I mean?

 

If it is purely their view then it is not a strawman argument.

 

Likewise it becomes even muddier when they make an emotional assumption of what "you" want solely because you made a statement around a type of content you want.

By this I mean they are more stereotyping you by saying you don't care about the game and just want "appeasement in the here and now" based on their opinion of solo players rather than them outright implying that was an argument you made.

 

Either way imo they aren't really making a logical fallacy because they never made a counter argument in the first place in such an example and are just more giving off an emotional rant.

[ImmortalLowlife]

You can't say that all those players left because there was no group content, they no doubt left for am ultitude of reasons and that being one for a subset of those that left.

 

Others would leave because they finished their story and didn't feel like doing another at that time.

Others plain didn't like the grindyness of an MMO after expecting Kotor 3 and decided this wasn't the star wars game for them.

It's silly just assuming everyone left because of no group content. This is also supported by the fact that when they did add in a lot more MMO content the millions DID NOT flood back.

Some did sure, but nowhere near the numbers that left. Also interesting that the highest player count in recent times came from a story based expansion but then suffered the same decline straight after supporting that regardless of how much "MMO" content there is - casual story players not committed to this game will still move on.

 

Net result is you need to cater to all play types with content which locked out operations ideally don't do even though they are a good idea into trying to force people to raid.

They could still endeavor to do something like that but make an even easier mode of story mode like a 4 person with heal stations *shrug* ... maybe once people tried that and realized it's not the end of the world to group they could push through for the more demanding 8 person+ content.

 

I'd be willing to bet that THIS was a major reason a lot of early players left. I know that's why I did (along with the toxic reception I received). I was here for as the devs promoted "it'll be like Kotor 3-8!" I was one of those who didn't want an MMO.....I wanted another Kotor. I still do. But I came back a few months later because I watched the class stories on YouTube and wanted to experience em for myself. It took me over a year to finish my 1st class story, but I've been here every since.

 

This game will never get back everyone that left. But I think it'll be around for a while as long as the devs make an effort to appease all the different types of players. PvE, PvP, GSF, and Story.

[Ylliarus]

I guess it's a thin line in that if the poster is implying you made that argument yourself or that it is their stance on what they think of solo players if you know what I mean?

 

If it is purely their view then it is not a strawman argument.

 

Likewise it becomes even muddier when they make an emotional assumption of what "you" want solely because you made a statement around a type of content you want.

By this I mean they are more stereotyping you by saying you don't care about the game and just want "appeasement in the here and now" based on their opinion of solo players rather than them outright implying that was an argument you made.

 

Either way imo they aren't really making a logical fallacy because they never made a counter argument in the first place in such an example and are just more giving off an emotional rant.

 

Again, I might have used the term strawman too loosely, I don't exclude that possibility. But the point I tried to make was that the people opposing this thread and suggestion put up arguments that don't add to the discussion but simply are put up to bash both the request for Oricon to get a solo-alternative as well as the players supporting the notion. They resort to ridicule and spitting upon what they call solo-players, I admit, that isn't putting up strawman arguments by default but some posts did cross the line of what is and isn't a strawman argument. Again, the point is however that the people opposing this idea simply want to oppose it due to their own views, which is fine everyone has their own view, but it crosses the line when they tell me or someone else thinking like me we play the game wrong because they think and said so. Using that as an argument isn't a sensible addition to the discussion, it quickly starts a fight of "you are wrong, no you are wrong, no you!" while my intent was to set up a reasonable and mature discussion regarding this subject.

[psandak]

The problem is that BW learned from the mistake that was Oricon, but have never been able to find a balance since.

 

They wanted to encourage large group play, and the plan backfired. At release, DF/DP was some of the hardest content to date - even in story mode - because it was so mechanics heavy (there was no way to overgear it) and players struggled to complete the operations and therefore the story as well. Even then, a significant segment of the population wanted an alternative to complete the story.

 

As some have pointed out, dev teams rarely look back; they learn from their errors and implement new features in new content. Which leads into the SOR two pronged story ending. Most players, even the most hardcore raiders, probably chose the quicker/easier "do a bunch of dailies" path to complete the story expeditiously...especially considering the bugs in ToS on release.

 

Which in turn lead to a confirmation bias: given a solo and a group option most players chose the solo path for story. This was probably a driving factor in the implementation of KOTFE/KOTET - single player story with NO ops content at all...and a lot of players left the game because of no ops content.

 

Now they are finally trying to give us both - operations content and story - but both are just a trickle...simply too little new content at any given time to appease a majority of the population. When a new ops boss or a new chapter is released everyone does it at least once and maybe a handful of times and then goes back to what they were doing which in too many cases is playing another game.

 

The answer to the OP's titular question is simple: devs do not look back; if errors are made in design, dev teams tend to leave those mistakes and make changes in future content. This is what has happened between Oricon and SOR and beyond.

 

To the "this is an MMO, suck it up and group up" crowd: as others have pointed out MMO =/= MUST group. I played EQ1 when grouping was required to get anything done and looking back it was painful; having to dedicate hours of time to a play session dragged on me. I LOVED it when I switched to WoW and I could feel like I could get something accomplished in a 20 minute session. And I love the fact that I can sign in to SWTOR play solo OR group up.

 

That said...to those in the "I want a solo mode for everything" crowd: this game - like all MMOs - is designed with grouping in mind; at some point all players are supposed to find a group to play with. Yes a lot of content has been updated to provide for solo play, but not all..."Colicoid War Games" ring a bell. There is certain group content that does not lend itself to solo play, operations being front and center; there are simply too many mechanics in operations where teammates have to do different things at the same time and there is no way strip those mechanics away so that a single player can complete them without gutting the content (most FP mechanics are "get out of stupid" or switch targets, so solo mode versions still have most of the mechanics in tact). It is impossible to rework fights like Raptus, or Tyrans, or Brontes, or even Nefra without turning them into "tank and spank" which removes the epicness of the content.

 

So the next logical question is: "what about an alternative path, like SOR?" Again as others have pointed out: SOR was designed with the solo option in mind; the story had you go through missions and THEN do dailies. To implement some sort of solo path for Oricon or any other operations they would have to add that path in...unless you are OK with just running the same daily missions three (or more) times and you're done: once to get to the point of having to enter DF, once in place of DF, and once in place of DP?

[IoNonSoEVero]

Oricon has been hopping this week with the CXP increase, to the point of people waiting in line for a few of the bosses. If nothing else, maybe that would help the Powers That Be realize that there *is* an interest in the older areas of the game, and that if people feel there's an incentive to go back, they will.

 

SWTOR was created as eight solo stories, followed by several expansions that were all designed to be completed solo. That's the bottom line. If people want to feel it's antisocial to play solo, it's their prerogative, but the fact remains that the backbone of the game is solo play. Adding a way to get to the Oricon cut scene and complete the planet does not harm Ops players or raiders; they can still complete the content as they choose.