GW2: A Community Spoiled by Solo? Help me understand.

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"Raizel.8175" said:

> -sigh-

>

> This topic. Again.

>

> I'm not against single-player-friendly MMORPGs. That's fine. But GW2 burns me out lately because it feels too much like a single-player-game and because it probably is the least sociable MMORPG I've ever played. I miss the sense of community and meaningful social interaction a lot lately. It feels like GW2 doesn't have a real sense of community though. Due to game-design, social interaction and community-building is quite strongly suppressed (no benefits for actually teaming up with other people, no world-chat, no server-identity due to megaserver-architecture, no guild-browser, a very rudimentary LFG-system, with exception of a few crucial or heavily bashed classes: no class-identity, "community" too fractured between game-modes, etc.).

>

> I do think that some more focus on actual multiplayer-experience would be welcomed. I also think that it's good game-design that crucial content requires people to team up (like HPs in HoT-maps and stuff like that). At the very least, they could implement a decent guild-browser to make it easier to find statics for team-based content like raids, fractals or stuff like WvW (which will be necessary anyway with the upcoming guild-based WvW-system), since that's really hard with the current methods ANet offers (ingame-mechanisms, forum).

>

> Another aspect I don't really like about GW2s "solo-friendlyness" is, that - in a certain sense - it's not necessarily solo-friendly, but rather too faceroll. I'd be ok with soloable content if it would teach people basic gameplay. Most open-world- and story-content isn't though. Plus, content that forces people to learn the basics of GW2s combat-system gets nerfed really fast. Best example here would be the Eater of Souls in the PoF-storyline. There should be a clear distinction between soloable/solo-friendly content on one side and faceroll-content on the other side and people should also accept that a healthy and well-made MMORPG always should teach its players basic gameplay to set a minimum skill-level.

 

It seems to me that the storyline is very much based on forcing players to pay attention and utilize the mechanics. In fact, it's almost a signature of storyline content since HoT. How many battles are a straight up fight where all you do is stay alive and maybe do a breakbar on the phase change? Almost none. Instead, they introduce mechanics during the storyline that you need to defeat the boss. And the storyline content these days is not exactly "easy". Even a good player can be killed if they don't pay attention to the mechanics because there is generally a lot more going on in these encounters compared to earlier content and they can hit quite hard.

 

Open world is choose your own adventure. PoF had a great idea: Make HPs pretty easy, but give us plenty of other challenges for those who want them. For instance, you can zerg bounty bosses if you want to. Or you can solo them. Some are so difficult that I imagine even the best player in the game could never defeat them with currently available builds (I can only do about 75% of them solo myself).

 

Raids? Fractal CMs? These aren't tough enough?

 

The way I see it, there is plenty of challenge for those who want it, but GW2 does a good job of making most of the game accessible for those who aren't up to that level of difficulty.

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Poseidon.3852" said:

> EDIT: I just want to make it clear that my rant is really, really... reaaaally is not about the game and that I want the game to be anything else than it is. Guild Wars 2 is great! I love nearly everything about it and all my complaints about the actual game are rather minor balancing issues and such, rather than its mechanics in general. I am just, or rather I was, flabbergasted by the general attitude of the community with which I felt, and feel, disconnected because of a different approach to MMO gaming. I was out of it for nearly ten years, and I just wanted somebody to help me catch up with ideas prevalent in the current MMO-World, so that I may not remain ignorant about it all. That is all. Really.

>

> Hi everyone...

>

> I am kind of new-ish to GW2. I've actually been in the closed beta, but I have only started playing GW2 more seriously in the past few weeks. Before that, I played just for a few and would go on month-long hiatuses, never diving into the community or the forums properly. Before GW2 I played WoW until the Lich King and ended my WoW journey there, more because of life and its obligations, than the game itself.

>

> Welp, I haven't been part of any online community since then, even tho that was the biggest allure of WoW to me. The game mechanics and everything else came only second to being part of a community, both in-game (guild, friends etc) and on forums.

>

> Now, I found that GW2 has an excellent community with great guilds and is full of helpful player. Naturally, not everybody is like that (and is not expected to!), but a lot are, which is great.

>

> However, it may be just me, maybe I only see what I want to see or whatever, but it seems that a major part of the player-base is complaining A LOT (or mostly) about content not being solo-able, or actually needing group coordination as opposed to just a gathering of people in one place.

>

> Like I said, I haven't been part of an MMO community since early 2010, and I have no clue how and in what ways the world has changed. Back then. not solo-able content was the norm, i.e. you expected that you HAD TO group up, you expected that you had to coordinate with your party to clear anything major... and that is actually why you played stuff. You chose to play an MMORPG because you wanted to group up to clear content; otherwise, you would just play an Ego-Shooter or whatever. But first of all, 80% of all Guild Wars 2 content is solo-able or doable without any group coordination. Yet, a seemingly major part of the community seems to complain about A LOT about the 20% of the game that is not...

>

> Could somebody help me to understand this and how the times have changed? I fail to even possibly fathom this behavior in an MMORPG. I mean... if you want a single-player experience, what the heck are you doin' in an MMO? And then you even have the audacity to complain about a staple mark of MMORPGs?! Why? What is wrong with you?

>

> Sorry for the rant, but I feel disconnected and more than that, I fear that the devs of ANet (and any other current or future MMO) will listen more to that player-base and that every future MMO will just turn into a glorified single-player experience with optional grouping up. That is a really scary thought for me.

>

> I mean, raids are supposed to be super-hard and have story and substance to them, fractals need coordination and be somehow gated, PvP requires coordination and not every spec is supposed to be able to go 1vs1 with every other spec (this incentives group play!). If every profession can do everything, that was is your place in a party? How do you coordinate with others and for what reason if you just have to dish out a lot of DPS with no regards to playing with your team? There needs to be some structure, some NEED to rely on your team and others and play coordinated and enjoy it, for a good MMORPG.

>

> Am I... outdated with such philosophy? Are MMORPGs just not for me anymore?...

 

“MMO” stands for “Massively Multiplayer Online”, which is designed to allow for hundreds, or thousands, of players to play simultaneously on a server. “MMO” doesn’t stand for “forced grouping through the entire game world”.

 

Different games are different, so you can’t go assuming a “staple” for one game must be a “staple” for another.

 

I feel that you are assuming too much. I cannot summon an example of any game in the genre of GW2 that forces grouping for every area of game.

 

Join, or make, a guild, and do everything this game has to offer with people in your guild if that’s your preference. Other players will play how they want with their game time.

[Glacial.9516]

I am typically a solo player in MMOs and I tend to get frustrated at Devs when they implement 'forced' grouping in content. Now by this I don't at all mean content that is designed and balanced for 5, 10, 50 players and thus is difficult or impossible to do solo. That is fine. That is expected. That is good. What I dislike is the (often arbitrary) decision to lock a dungeon or content behind a number of players. ie. FF14 used to require a full group to even enter a dungeon. This meant that while it would have been difficult and inefficient (if not impossible for some classes) to solo a dungeon, you couldn't even try it! The solo option they implemented isn't great, but it's there. It's enough. And I was content with it when I played.

 

Luckily GW2 doesn't do this often and I like that a lot. There are only a few places I can think of off-hand - certain fractals and dungeon paths and open-world events with multiple lanes. I do think some of the dungeon or fractal designs could be changed (it seems irrelevant to require multiple switches to be pressed at once) but I have no qualms needing to gather/activate/kill things in a period of time that is unrealistic alone. I'd try Mesmer or Thief and portal/blink/shadow trap to see if it's possible, or maybe someone will discover a neat way to do it. Open-world is also more than fine. If I don't have time to do all 3 lanes of Maw of Torment so be it (I'm lucky if I can solo one!) but I really like that I can go with 2 others and we can each solo a lane if the map is dead.

 

Some of my most memorable and enjoyable experiences in MMOs have been trying to complete 5-10 player content in solo or small group settings. There are a lot of different reasons for this. Sometimes I'm too shy or inexperienced to join strangers and would rather enter solo to get a feel for the layout, the mobs, the relative danger and such. Sometimes (when drops are not separate) I don't want to compete with others to roll for an item. Sometimes I just want to see if I can do it and often need to make use of under-utilized skills or classes to avoid or survive mechanics that in a group are ignored or dps'd through, it can become a puzzle of sorts. I wholly understand that most content is not designed to be solo and in an MMO I would almost never expect for it to be (story content is probably the exception). But I dislike when a game tells me I can't even try without 4 other bodies being there.

 

 

[saye.9304]

in my opinion mmos including gw2 must encourage players to play together and group up rather than forcing them to do it, for example if you do content in group you get exclusive rewards like mount skins,armor and weapon skins and achievement, more money etc but if you go through those content as solo player you get little reward, this will encourage you to group up but at same time all the content in the game is available to you and nothing is behind any kind of wall, you can do it solo for story or whatever reason you have but if you want good stuff or high end gear then you better become social and team up with people.

[joneirikb.7506]

> @"saye.9304" said:

> in my opinion mmos including gw2 must encourage players to play together and group up rather than forcing them to do it, for example if you do content in group you get exclusive rewards like mount skins,armor and weapon skins and achievement, more money etc but if you go through those content as solo player you get little reward, this will encourage you to group up but at same time all the content in the game is available to you and nothing is behind any kind of wall, you can do it solo for story or whatever reason you have but if you want good stuff or high end gear then you better become social and team up with people.

 

In principle agree with the idea that the game should rather reward you for grouping.

 

But by adding greater rewards to grouping, you're just going to make the majority of players consider grouping "forced" anyways, because without it you get punished for loot. (Especially putting mount skins behind it...)

 

TBH, I don't have any better ideas on how to reward grouping though, that is a very tricky thing to get right, with many slippery slopes.

[Zaklex.6308]

> @"juhani.5361" said:

 

>

> FWIW, there are some projects in the works and in the wilds that require hardcore grouping. Solo players definitely aren't the intended audience for a lot of the stuff that's in the works. I'm dreading when games like GW2 reach their end, because none of what's in the pipeline is friendly for my play style. [see Saga of Lucimia (sp?), Shroud of the Avatar, etc.]. Heck, look at Bioware's recent project, Anthem, or Sea of Thieves. Open world, online, game as service, difficult to play solo-- these are the new trends even in the "single player" marketplace.

>

Thought I'd reply to this, if I where you I'd remove Anthem from that statement as BioWare has specifically stated the game is playable solo, which would make it available to a larger player base than say a Destiny or others. Not all games as service have to be multi-player, look at the upcoming Fallout 76, it's specifically designed to be solo with the option of doing it in a group format, and you can even avoid the PvP if you don't want. In order for developers to make sufficient money in today's world to support either their existing game(s) or to make future games/content they need a large player base, so they have to cater to both those that want to be social and those that want to group up...Anthem does just that, now if there's content that you have to group up for, so be it, but at this point it doesn't look like it. GW2 is almost the same way, they want to cater to a very large player base, and to do that you offer multiple types of content, soloable(which includes all of the story instances, regardless of what some people claim). Even the PoF maps aren't as bad as people claim they are, you just can't go running through them and not pay attention to what you're doing or were you're going...a lot of the problems I see are peoples lack of spatial awareness, which I think is just a product of our society, not having to pay attention to your surroundings and be vigilant. There's a distinct difference between the games as service marketplace and single player marketplace...someone else said they where thrown for a loop by Pillars of Eternity/Pillars of Eternity 2, both of which have been made in the old style of single player RPG's like Baldur's Gate, with AI followers, I find them to be quite good. but then I also like a game such as Fallout or Skyrim, as long as I can play it for hours and hours(preferably thousands) without getting bored of the content, then I'm happy.

 

 

[Glacial.9516]

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > @"saye.9304" said:

> > in my opinion mmos including gw2 must encourage players to play together and group up rather than forcing them to do it, for example if you do content in group you get exclusive rewards like mount skins,armor and weapon skins and achievement, more money etc but if you go through those content as solo player you get little reward, this will encourage you to group up but at same time all the content in the game is available to you and nothing is behind any kind of wall, you can do it solo for story or whatever reason you have but if you want good stuff or high end gear then you better become social and team up with people.

>

> In principle agree with the idea that the game should rather reward you for grouping.

>

> But by adding greater rewards to grouping, you're just going to make the majority of players consider grouping "forced" anyways, because without it you get punished for loot. (Especially putting mount skins behind it...)

>

> TBH, I don't have any better ideas on how to reward grouping though, that is a very tricky thing to get right, with many slippery slopes.

 

Precisely. I don't see a need to incentivize grouping with bonus rewards because it's already the most efficient method of doing content - You get the same loot but finish much faster (or do less work). There are exceptions of course. For example some open-world events that I find easy with 1-5 people can become overwhelming when 40 players have the mobs upscaled so much that I can no longer kill them before I run out of dodges/CCs. Verdant Brink night defense comes to mind here (in which it's greatly preferred to have players spread out anyway for more coverage). In these cases I think grouping is very helpful because it lets you see just how many people are at each camp and decide where you're needed (or not needed). ...But does joining a squad so you can see other dots and spread out into small (or solo) groups for coverage actually count as playing with others? I do not know!

[Julischka Bean.7491]

Ok. It is late and I should be in bed because I work in the morning, but, I couldn't sleep so I turned on my light and started to read the forums on my phone...this thread found me staggering downstairs and turning on my computer.

 

I solo.

 

I solo not because I am antisocial but because I am a clutz. I have poor hand-eye coordination, and this game helps with that, but teams are made up of five people..if one of those five is subpar, that brings down the rest of the group.

 

Plus, I work full time, and when I am not there, I am caring for my mom who has Dementia so my free time is not my own. I can play while she is reading, or puttering about the house, but when she needs me, I leave the game in an instant which is not group friendly behavior.

 

So why do I play an MMO? This is a changing, colorful world. I like reading chat, I like anticipating what is next, I like assisting people when I can..HP's and orange circle group events...things I can do.

 

And...being honest here...I hate the living story which is supposedly made to solo, but has Bosses at the end which are soloable only for the young whippersnapper players with great hand eye coordination. I never understood this. The living story which takes us to new lands should should be soloable enough for the uncoordinated among us to be able to get to these new lands. I am not asking to Raid, PVP, WWW, or do other things which require coordination of all it's group members...I just want to be able to get to the Sandswept island or whatever it is called...it is late at night and my memory is foggy.

 

And no, I am not in a guild. All the guilds I see advertised in Map chat all do Raids and PVP and WWW.

 

And, while I am getting things off my chest, is it just me, or do the ones here howling against soloing seem like they have their own agenda? To me, they sound like they are (1) looking for a group because they cannot do the activity solo and want to be carried.

(2) They want others to see what a truly wonderful, and awesome, player they are...they need an audience which they will not get solo.

 

I wish, oh how I wish, that this game had a difficulty selector for the personal story. I think everyone would be happy then. Easy for those of us who just want to enjoy the story and finish it in our own time, and in our own way, with our own builds. Difficult for the groups who thrive on that sort of thing. By all means give them better rewards. Yes, I think a difficulty selector would solve many, many problems.

 

(1) Easy-Boss is a pushover. The reward at the end is being able to get to the end, and being able to enter the new land/zone

 

(2) Medium-Boss is not a pushover, but a solo player with Skillez can do it. Nice little reward at end.

 

(3) Hard- Need a group, seriously need a group. Great rewards at end.

 

If wishes were fishes.

Anyway here is my contribution to the thread.

Night all.

Lisa.

 

 

 

 

[Julischka Bean.7491]

> @"saye.9304" said:

> in my opinion mmos including gw2 must encourage players to play together and group up rather than forcing them to do it, for example if you do content in group you get exclusive rewards like mount skins,armor and weapon skins and achievement, more money etc but if you go through those content as solo player you get little reward, this will encourage you to group up but at same time all the content in the game is available to you and nothing is behind any kind of wall, you can do it solo for story or whatever reason you have but if you want good stuff or high end gear then you better become social and team up with people.

 

Yes, but do you really want a clutz like me in your group??????? Force the folks who solo to group, and, we will either quit the game, or do as you say and group, and a lot of us play solo because we are bad players, or have to leave game at moment's notice. But.... if you want to play with the likes of me in your groups....

[Julischka Bean.7491]

"WIW, there are some projects in the works and in the wilds that require hardcore grouping. Solo players definitely aren't the intended audience for a lot of the stuff that's in the works. I'm dreading when games like GW2 reach their end, because none of what's in the pipeline is friendly for my play style. [see Saga of Lucimia (sp?), Shroud of the Avatar, etc.]. Heck, look at Bioware's recent project, Anthem, or Sea of Thieves. Open world, online, game as service, difficult to play solo-- these are the new trends even in the "single player" marketplace."

 

Juhani-I cannot find your original post. Sit and watch. Those harcore grouping games will most likely fail. People say they want grouping, but saying and doing are two different turkeys ...

[Ashantara.8731]

@OP: 2010? That must have been GW1 then, not GW2. I agree, though, as I miss grouping up with people for missions, too. It was one of the fun parts of GW1.

[mauried.5608]

GW2 has 2 differant types of group content.

One is the traditional type where you need certain number of players more than one to defeat some monster, but the number of players is strictly defined.

The other is the world event type where you still need more players than one , but the number of players is not defined.

This mode seems to be unique to GW2.

I play mostly solo and I also do the 2nd type where the number of players isnt defined as even if I stuff up, I wont get abused for doing so, which sadly isnt the case in the traditional type.

There seems to be a mindset in this game and many others which is "I can do this , so therefore so can you."

ie all players have exactly the same skill set.

 

[SunTzu.4513]

 

> Another aspect I don't really like about GW2s "solo-friendlyness" is, that - in a certain sense - it's not necessarily solo-friendly, but rather too faceroll. I'd be ok with soloable content if it would teach people basic gameplay. Most open-world- and story-content isn't though. Plus, content that forces people to learn the basics of GW2s combat-system gets nerfed really fast. Best example here would be the Eater of Souls in the PoF-storyline. There should be a clear distinction between soloable/solo-friendly content on one side and faceroll-content on the other side and people should also accept that a healthy and well-made MMORPG always should teach its players basic gameplay to set a minimum skill-level.

 

So much this! I never played a MMO where the skillcap of the playerbase is this far away from each other in terms of more or less skilled like in GW2. Imo you have one big part of the playerbase wich mostly play open world and a lot of these people struggle with LS Storybosses or mechaniks ( to be honest a few of them are pretty hard compared to ow). Then you have an other large group wich plays content like t3 fractals and upwards, wich faceroll trough anything what ANet throw at them in ow, LS and low tier fractals. I've done Eater of Souls prenerf within 5 Chars a few of them with half yellow gear before i even reconized on the forums some ppl have heavy issues with it.

Personally i think ANet should step up with the difficultylevel in OW overall. Everything should be doable solo. But the difficultygap between ow and story should be better balanced.

 

[Julischka Bean.7491]

> @"SunTzu.4513" said:

>

> > Another aspect I don't really like about GW2s "solo-friendlyness" is, that - in a certain sense - it's not necessarily solo-friendly, but rather too faceroll. I'd be ok with soloable content if it would teach people basic gameplay. Most open-world- and story-content isn't though. Plus, content that forces people to learn the basics of GW2s combat-system gets nerfed really fast. Best example here would be the Eater of Souls in the PoF-storyline. There should be a clear distinction between soloable/solo-friendly content on one side and faceroll-content on the other side and people should also accept that a healthy and well-made MMORPG always should teach its players basic gameplay to set a minimum skill-level.

>

> So much this! I never played a MMO where the skillcap of the playerbase is this far away from each other in terms of more or less skilled like in GW2. Imo you have one big part of the playerbase wich mostly play open world and a lot of these people struggle with LS Storybosses or mechaniks ( to be honest a few of them are pretty hard compared to ow). Then you have an other large group wich plays content like t3 fractals and upwards, wich faceroll trough anything what ANet throw at them in ow, LS and low tier fractals. I've done Eater of Souls prenerf within 5 Chars a few of them with half yellow gear before i even reconized on the forums some ppl have heavy issues with it.

> Personally i think ANet should step up with the difficultylevel in OW overall. Everything should be doable solo. But the difficultygap between ow and story should be better balanced.

>

 

Trouble is...if you step up the difficulty in open world...some players who are playing now, may not be able to handle this increased difficulty due to physical problems and quit. If these players are those who normally buy gems in gemstore with real life money, and quit the game, Anet is out some money.

 

I think, I think, I can handle increased difficulty even with my hand-eye coordination like it is...who knows..I might even be a good player if I ever sucked up my courage and teamed to find out. Yes, I admit it, I am sensitive, some unseen person behind the keyboard telling me I am so awful I need to quit and go home would shake me up.

 

Every single one of my characters are all geared in Berserker Exotics, and Berserker trinkets from the laurel store and I die only when I am not paying too much attention or when my attention craving cat jumps on the keyboard...I got off of topic... back to topic...yes, the difficulty gap should be more balanced, but why is it open world that needs a difficulty raise???? I think it is "The dratted living story" that needs it's difficulty lowered.

 

Actually, I think "The dratted living world story" needs a difficulty slider :)

 

Lisa.

[Julischka Bean.7491]

Edit-Rereading my post, I meant to say my characters share their laurel store trinkets.

[sorudo.9054]

my biggest problem is communication, i ones did a dungeon i never ever did and ppl expect me to know it from the start.

they never talked about paths or what not to attack, they just assume i know everything.

with the allowed time to play this game i have no time to wait an hour just to make a group, only to disappointed with the lack of common sense.

what is wrong with just planning ahead of time so ppl know what to do, talk roles, talk paths and go.

[SunTzu.4513]

>Trouble is...if you step up the difficulty in open world...some players who are playing now, may not be able to handle this increased difficulty due to physical problems and quit. If these players are those who normally buy gems in gemstore with real life money, and quit the game, Anet is out some money.

 

Valid point. For me ANet could also tone the LS down. Honestly i will have no problem to finish it even if they would increase it to a new hight of difficulty.

 

> yes, the difficulty gap should be more balanced, but why is it open world that needs a difficulty raise?

 

My intention to increase ow is that you can bring soften mechaniks from LS bosses into a few vets/champs, so player can discover them in an more forgiving envoirement.

I'm leading a lot of ow meta events and stuff like bountys over the last few years. I often see that ppl, even experienced players, have no clue how cc on this ominous blue bar works. Sometimes i have the feeling even reading bounty mechniks is to much. From my point of view ow would be a little bit more interresting if the most of the content is not an auto attack fiesta. Also this would help to tone down the toxicness in terms by the clash of skilllevels when the ''aa ow guys'' meets the '' Meta playing elitists'' in mid tier endgame content.

 

[juhani.5361]

> @"saye.9304" said:

> in my opinion mmos including gw2 must encourage players to play together and group up rather than forcing them to do it, for example if you do content in group you get exclusive rewards like mount skins,armor and weapon skins and achievement, more money etc but if you go through those content as solo player you get little reward, this will encourage you to group up but at same time all the content in the game is available to you and nothing is behind any kind of wall, you can do it solo for story or whatever reason you have but if you want good stuff or high end gear then you better become social and team up with people.

 

Maybe I'm weird, but what I'm getting out of this is that grouping is so antithetical to having fun that you have to break one of the fundamental principles of gaming* to encourage it. I know that's not the intent here, but it sure seems like it.

 

*Do the work, get the reward.

 

For the record, I have grouped in other games-- and this one-- and I've had both tons of fun and tons of frustration. The biggest drawback for me--aside from the social pressure with chatting, etc.-- is pacing. I like toodling around and taking my time. I heal up completely between encounters, I farm stuff, I take breaks to admire the scenery, etc. Fast pacing stresses me out, while my more laid back style is probably just as stressful the other way. There's only so much "spacebar pls" I can take before my soul dies a little.

 

> @"Steve The Cynic.3217" said:

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > I suspect you are not mindful of just how good you are at the game when you say this, compared to the experience of a new player. You are too far through the "git gud" stage to be challenged by what are almost insurmountable walls to other players, and who would benefit from a gentler ramp through the learning process.

>

> I wanted to give you a thumbs up AND a helpful just for this, but the forum won't let me do that. That said, the rest of your post was very good, and I agree with pretty much the whole analysis. I have direct experience of a "Guild Directory" feature in an MMORPG. It failed miserably for exactly the reason you cited. It was just a huge list of guilds with almost nothing useful available to distinguish them, and no way to search or anything.

 

Seconded. I have no experience with guild directories, but the Wildstar analysis was dead on. There are a lot of games being released into the MMO-space that are slowly suffering from the same problem. You know, the cute little animated hardcore survival gankboxes that are half of my Steam recommendations these days. But devs keep cranking them out because they're cheap and they think that slapping PVP aspects onto everything means they can pass on developing real content because the players provide "emergent gameplay."

 

I disagree a little about the "server identity" thing-- I totally get it. RP servers definitely have their own vibe, a lot of times for the good. They tend to have nice, close-knit communities and cultivate a sense of immersion that's missing for me in this game. SWTOR's, specifically, bred amazing communities-- I never played on the old Ebon Hawk, but BC's community was friendly, courteous, and laid back. Reading some smuggler telling his/her tales in Nar Shaddaa general chat made me feel like I was in a different reality. Then there were the fun little RP moments I had, like one Imperial Agent on DK who decided to play a customs officer. I had a little RAWR I AM SITH I NEED NO DOCUMENTS convo with him that kept me snickering on and off for a few hours after. OTOH, the megaserver here has created a general sense of civility that permeates the whole game. ESO's megaserver does something similar-- the community's pretty great there too as a whole. It's a shame that server merges destroyed those little enclaves of immersion and courtesy in SWTOR.

 

> @"Julischka Bean.7491" said:

> Juhani-I cannot find your original post. Sit and watch. Those harcore grouping games will most likely fail. People say they want grouping, but saying and doing are two different turkeys ...

 

Yeah, and in a lot of ways that's too bad. Bioware's taking a huge gamble with Anthem. Probably with its entire existence. What happens when we lose talented top-end developers? I'm not sure I want to see them fail. I just want to play their games, and for those games to have something in them that I'll have fun with. I'm not really that picky ;) The E3 updates on Anthem broke my heart. One of the key points was the new refrain, "You can play it solo, but you'll have a real challenge." Ugh. I had a blast with ME:A's jump jet mechanics, and knowing that most of Bioware's best writers had been shifted to the project made me cautiously optimistic about the story too.

 

> @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> > @"juhani.5361" said:

>

> >

> > FWIW, there are some projects in the works and in the wilds that require hardcore grouping. Solo players definitely aren't the intended audience for a lot of the stuff that's in the works. I'm dreading when games like GW2 reach their end, because none of what's in the pipeline is friendly for my play style. [see Saga of Lucimia (sp?), Shroud of the Avatar, etc.]. Heck, look at Bioware's recent project, Anthem, or Sea of Thieves. Open world, online, game as service, difficult to play solo-- these are the new trends even in the "single player" marketplace.

> >

> Thought I'd reply to this, if I where you I'd remove Anthem from that statement as BioWare has specifically stated the game is playable solo, which would make it available to a larger player base than say a Destiny or others. Not all games as service have to be multi-player, look at the upcoming Fallout 76, it's specifically designed to be solo with the option of doing it in a group format, and you can even avoid the PvP if you don't want. In order for developers to make sufficient money in today's world to support either their existing game(s) or to make future games/content they need a large player base, so they have to cater to both those that want to be social and those that want to group up...Anthem does just that, now if there's content that you have to group up for, so be it, but at this point it doesn't look like it. GW2 is almost the same way, they want to cater to a very large player base, and to do that you offer multiple types of content, soloable(which includes all of the story instances, regardless of what some people claim). Even the PoF maps aren't as bad as people claim they are, you just can't go running through them and not pay attention to what you're doing or were you're going...a lot of the problems I see are peoples lack of spatial awareness, which I think is just a product of our society, not having to pay attention to your surroundings and be vigilant. There's a distinct difference between the games as service marketplace and single player marketplace...someone else said they where thrown for a loop by Pillars of Eternity/Pillars of Eternity 2, both of which have been made in the old style of single player RPG's like Baldur's Gate, with AI followers, I find them to be quite good. but then I also like a game such as Fallout or Skyrim, as long as I can play it for hours and hours(preferably thousands) without getting bored of the content, then I'm happy.

>

>

 

Fallout 76's current stated mechanics encourage grouping and ganking. We'll see if their no-PvP flagging system works. I'm guessing, though, that your average solo player/PvE person is going to have to wait to purchase or rent a private server down the line to avoid ganking or griefing. This game has never been on my radar-- I had enough of pure open world forever with Skyrim. TBH, that's what I like about ESO-- it's the RPG Skyrim almost was. Anthem, the devs said could be played solo, but only if you liked a real challenge. Same refrain with Sea of Thieves. I suck too much for those games. I'm also the Pillars of Eternity (Kickstarted it, even) person-- and I got shocked out of my shoes with its difficulty. I like games for some interactivity with lots of happy fun story time. PoE's story was amazing, but I had to give up because it was too hardcore on "Casual." I tried the BG2 reboot, only to die repeatedly in the tutorial basement. Cyberpunk 2077, which I really was counting on, is going to be first-person. I get motion sickness.

 

Being one of the "some people" who had issues with the desert maps' difficulty-- well, yeah, you need situational awareness. You also need a constant tolerance for adrenaline, ambushes, stuns, and excessive respawn rates. I have neither ;) I've been able to make it through most of the maps solo, but it was one heck of a lot more stressful than I liked. LW S3 maps are weirdly a lot friendlier. Same with HoT now that I have my bunny. The thing is, a little pacing, a little scaling, and a lot fewer Veteran enemies would make those maps fun. As it is, they're weirdly tedious because the challenge level never varies and never stops for a single second. I feel like I'm watching that stupid Hobbit action sequence with the barrels or the slidefest on the river of gold that went on and on for 20+ minutes. Too much action is boring and numbing after a while.

 

> @"SunTzu.4513" said:

> >Trouble is...if you step up the difficulty in open world...some players who are playing now, may not be able to handle this increased difficulty due to physical problems and quit. If these players are those who normally buy gems in gemstore with real life money, and quit the game, Anet is out some money.

>

> Valid point. For me ANet could also tone the LS down. Honestly i will have no problem to finish it even if they would increase it to a new hight of difficulty.

>

> > yes, the difficulty gap should be more balanced, but why is it open world that needs a difficulty raise?

>

> My intention to increase ow is that you can bring soften mechaniks from LS bosses into a few vets/champs, so player can discover them in an more forgiving envoirement.

> I'm leading a lot of ow meta events and stuff like bountys over the last few years. I often see that ppl, even experienced players, have no clue how cc on this ominous blue bar works. Sometimes i have the feeling even reading bounty mechniks is to much. From my point of view ow would be a little bit more interresting if the most of the content is not an auto attack fiesta. Also this would help to tone down the toxicness in terms by the clash of skilllevels when the ''aa ow guys'' meets the '' Meta playing elitists'' in mid tier endgame content.

>

 

The problem too is you have a gear gap going. The people who really need ascended gear-- aside from the raiders-- are us sort of mediocre players. On my two mains, I have the full set of S3 trinkets, and the difference it makes is astounding. Any little bit of margin gear gives you is a moment you have to calmly assess what's going on in an encounter vs. flailing and flipping around like a madwoman so you don't go splat *raises hand*

 

Then there are learning style differences. Some people learn by being under stress. Others can't learn that way (raises hand). You need space to think and see and react. Some learn by video, and for others videos are useless (raises hand again).

 

Bounties also have another problem-- flashy bling bling that keeps you from reading what any random commander might be typing into "say." Had this happen more than once. I could see that there was a chat bubble, but too many effects flying around made the text unreadable. Meanwhile I had to keep flailing around to avoid CC spam from all the adds.

 

Weird mechanics are just weird. Balthazar's nautilus-shaped spam mechanic is the same one used by White Mantle mesmers in Lake Doric and Bloodstone Fen. I still have no idea what to do with it, TBH, even though it's had a "soft" introduction. Merely introducing new mechanics in the open world does nothing to train you on how to deal with them. Because I don't know how to deal with them, I avoid those maps like the plague.

 

I honestly can't see how you'd ever close that gap. Toxic people will be toxic no matter what. The best thing would be instance difficulty settings so if you're a klutzy weenie like me, you can learn mechanics while still keeping your sanity and making it to the easier map content on the other side.

 

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Glacial.9516" said:

> Precisely. I don't see a need to incentivize grouping with bonus rewards because it's already the most efficient method of doing content - You get the same loot but finish much faster (or do less work).

Yes. basically, the GW2 system of drops (where drops are generated independently for each player, instead of the whole group needing to share as was the industry standard before) on its own is a massive incentive to grouping. You lose nothing by having other players help you, it gets easier, and those players get rewarded for it as well. So, basically, everyone profits.

 

That's of course when assuming scaling won't kitten you over, which is known to happen in some cases.

[Poseidon.3852]

All amazing answers! I hope that @Julischka Bean.7491 got some sleep before work!

 

Anyway, it is perfectly clear to me now why so many play GW2 solo nearly exclusively. I also want to take the chance and say once again that I do not critique GW2 in this discussion at all. I love it! I love the single-player aspects too. It has its own flaws, which in my opinion are more based on a shortage of staff in certain teams (balancing, for example), and so on than at its core mechanics. I am fine with it not forcing us to team up, but I find it unfortunate that a whole part of the community got "spoiled" (maybe a milder word on the same line would be more appropriate; don't get offended!) by all the content that is solo-able.

 

In what way? I do not mean in the way that they will never touch group content... while unfortunate for them, it is not unfortunate for anybody else. It is their choice, and is at times understandable... but, and some of you complained about this word that I chose, how can such people have the _audacity_ to complain about the existence of group content? The complaints of the community that I perceived not to be just a minor vocal group, where what baffled me personally. Of course, I also did not know a lot about how the industry changed and so on and a lot of you folks made me realize what happened over the years, and that devs started advertising their MMOs more and more as single-player experiences with optional multi-player content, and that solo players came to the genre then.

 

I was ignorant about the motives of the average solo-player, which you guys helped me understand, too! Lastly, my own complaints are also, mostly, aimed at those parts of the community that do want to play group content but are seemingly unable to properly socialize in an MMORPG. I mean those players that complain that group composition in PvP is actually important and those players that essentially complain that they can't carry a game alone no matter how good they are and fail to coordinate with their team-mates. I mean those players who go through all tiers of fractals without uttering a word or try to properly coordinate, and then go and complain about how the game has these grouping elements. I mean those players that ask that everything that is available to group content should also be available to solo players. Last but not least, I mean those players who never even think about solving a problem by grouping up, but go straight to "Huuurrrr, NERF This!"... Like you all kindly pointed out, GW2 does not force you to group up, yet it NEVER hinders you to do so... Why not take advantage of that when content seems to be hard?

 

And this is what I ultimately meant with "spoiled". A big part of the community does not even think about grouping up to solve problems anymore. Instead, they complain, ask for nerfs, they get offended and so on... The mentality that used to permeate MMOs that... you are not alone, and that content that you can't handle alone you will just group up for is missing... but not from the game! The game always gives you the chance to do so... it's missing from the community. Of course, one can argue that it is missing because of certain faulty game mechanics that never "forced" the player to take advantage of the positive grouping up mechanics the game has to offer, thus they never took that mindset into consideration... but I believe that the issue is more fundamental and has nothing to do with MMOs, but the general zeitgeist of our times.

 

[foozlesprite.8051]

I'm an unashamed filthy casual solo/duo player that used to be a hardcore raider in other games, so here's my 2 cents. More like 2 dollars, because I talk a lot.

 

I think a lot of it is just that people want to be able to solo story and non-boss open-world content. Heart of Thorns (particularly hero points) put that out of a lot of people's reach. That was a major spike in difficulty, and the hero points especially felt like a slap in the face because they're required to attain the basic goal of having skills. Path of Fire has cut that back a bit, but most people will still need at least one other person to do a hero point. That's a strong difference from the 25+ people most people had to take to kill the Mushroom Queen.

 

I raided hardcore for years in Everquest 2, and I'm completely over it. I'm grown up, I have a job, I have a spouse, I have more responsibilities that make it harder for me to commit to a consistent schedule despite wanting to get all the lore that's locked behind them. And a lot of MMO players are in their mid 20s and 30s now, if not older, so many have families as well. (Some of them are able to game in groups with said families and some aren't.) It seems like you are one of those people as well from some of your earlier comments, and I commend you for being able to balance the game into your life as group content, but not everyone can.

 

As for dungeons and fractals: I'd be interested if I had a group I was comfortable with. I have some past trauma and mental disorders that make me really sensitive to criticism, and can lead to a breakdown if I'm given reason to feel like I'm 'not good enough,' so doing PUGs when I don't know the mechanics or am not pumping out the 40k DPS a weaver is 'supposed' to be doing nowadays is a surefire way to get me to break down despite wanting to enjoy that content. And that's not Anet's fault at all, but that is personally a reason why I'm not as interested in fractals. I would have to find a group of people that I was comfortable with that was willing to hold my hand through teaching me the mechanics of each fractal (and there are so many to remember now, all with unique fights!). But I want to contribute, not be carried through a zone, so hand-holding would make me feel bad even if it was just once or twice per each new fractal.

 

And then the last and probably most important reason for me: it's a game. I want to have fun. I want to mix up elements and leap around with the sword Anet finally lets me use, but people look at you funny in group content if you're a Weaver that actually uses a sword, if forums and build sites are anything to go by. I don't mind switching back to staff or whatever, for groups. I don't mind using a meta build for group content instead of the stuff I get to have fun with in the open world. But Anet doesn't make that easy. If they would add an out-of-battle weapon swap function for elementalist (and engineer, while we're at it) so I don't worry about absentmindedly salvaging my Bolt when I switch to staff and it drops into my inventory, and a build template so I can switch between open-world and group builds, I would be _much_ more likely to engage in group content.

 

Why do I play despite my personal aversions to group content? I love the lore. I love the characters. I love open-world group metas and bounties. I love the _uniqueness_ of the game's mechanics. The community, while toxic at times, is much better than most. Each class actually feels substantially different. I can do it with my spouse. There are regular content updates. I already have significant progress. There are so many personalized, special details and so much love poured into it, from the unique abilities and 'feel' of each mount to the race/class-based text differences in stories. If I purchase one expansion every few years I get substantial updates every few months instead of being nickel-and-dimed for DLC. I like reading people's silly character and guild names. I like watching hilarious conversations in map chat and catching out-of-context snippets of RP as I walk by that make me wonder what in the world is going on over there. And taken as a whole, it's just not something you can _get_ in a single-player game.

[starlinvf.1358]

> @"mauried.5608" said:

> GW2 has 2 differant types of group content.

> One is the traditional type where you need certain number of players more than one to defeat some monster, but the number of players is strictly defined.

> The other is the world event type where you still need more players than one , but the number of players is not defined.

> This mode seems to be unique to GW2.

> I play mostly solo and I also do the 2nd type where the number of players isnt defined as even if I stuff up, I wont get abused for doing so, which sadly isnt the case in the traditional type.

> There seems to be a mindset in this game and many others which is "I can do this , so therefore so can you."

> ie all players have exactly the same skill set.

>

 

Thats not the mind set most people have. There are multiple aspects to the game that set it apart from typical MMO game design. One of its strongest is the inherent flexibility of its buildcraft. This allows for multiple solutions to "combat challenges", which is further amplified by the addition of group dynamics. Most content tends to be a simple DPS race, which is why damage focused builds are most effective in Core Tyria. HOT introduced the requirement to also manage defenses, and nerfed endurance regeneration to reduce the availability of the universally powerful nullification offered by dodge rolls. Both of these came on the tail end of several experiments to expanding difficulty though mob designs....... and if you remember the insanity of Silverwaste when it was first released, it took cheese levels of every counter mechanic in the game just to make the player feel any kind of threat. The attempt had a lot of problems in execution, and largely fell on the fact that Core specs have extremely poor access to CCs.

 

Anyway.... the main source of push back in threads about these topics is how multiple solutions exist to most problems. And of those solutions, the majority have extremely loose requirements for meeting them. Whenever any buildcraft topic comes up, the one thing that will always be asked is "what are you trying to do?". As in "what problem or role are you trying to find a solution to?". When you ask this question from a perspective of mechanics, each class has some kind of approach that will work..... some are usually more effective then others, but in any match up that isn't about "the greater of 2 performance peaks" (ie PvP or Benchmarks), all you have to do is figure out what will met a certain threshold, and how much work it takes to prepare a build for it.

 

In the case of the OP, and other threads that get the most push back, threads about how their current approach is failing, therefore the game must be doing something wrong. I've seen people point out that "play the way you want" motto doesn't mean "I can do anything and win"...... and it is a sorely unappreciated phrase by too many players. What its trying to say is "there isn't one 'right' solution that you have to use", but there exists vast gradients of performance that will get the job done. The Devs usually only interfere with PvE balance when players abuse an option thats too safe, or if too many players are failing something because the requirements are too strict. For instance, the Eater of Souls fight required a large amount of CC in a narrow window, and players were failing because it was consistently outhealing damage, and not falling into its burn phase. So they made the fight easier. I did that story step with a Holosmith running a half tank build.... damage was okish, but I could kite for forever. I got beat up a few times during the fight, but didn't take long figure out what it wanted me to do.

 

The reason for the struggle was pretty simple.... despite it having an obvious still rotation, and Holo being a CC heavy class, there was contention being created by having to switch between ranged kiting and melee in order to avoid its attacks, and then get in close enough to unload enough CCs to break it.... there simply wasn't enough time to do this, since it was following a big hitter belly flop that forced you change positions. There was also a minor misalignment in cooldowns, so it went into breakbar phase slightly faster then my skill were recovering. For a while I was wondering if I was missing something else, given its similarities to Mouth of Zhaitan, and that fight having an object you could use as a weapon to counter it. I could change setup for damage, but ultimately the short fall was the fact that I needed more CCs on an Espec where I was already capping out on Hard CCs to bring to the fight. I was in the instance with 2 friends as ghosts, so we figured out how to cheese the life steal, and just worked it down as best I could. Half the time I could break it, the other half I couldn't..... but it wasn't like it was intentionally designed to be stupidly hard, it was just badly tuned or the base line build they used to test it had more CCs then a Holosmith (which is scary if you think about it). I've seen this situation maybe 4 times over the life of the game; and in most cases, the fight gets adjusted to make the target threshold easier to reach. Once that break/counter phase is working properly, the fights immediately start to feel very easy. The Arah story path is another example of changing the threshold to make it easier to beat. In the case of that dungeon, its mainly because set piece battles were setup to have a team of players split up some tools or jobs, so they'd all have something to do..... but a single player would have trouble juggling them all at the same time. Its not that it was impossible before without a group.... simply it being too much for one person to manage without being extremely good at a lot of things.

 

 

So again.... people aren't responding that way because they don't understand. They are like that because the OP's entire argument is built on a false assumption (that no solution exists), and is demanding a change with no regard for the far reaching ramifications that will result from it (ie, underminding the entire achievement aspect of mastery points acquisition, and the consequence of it being reduced to another generic exp grind requirement). And if you really wanted to glance over previous arguments over the mastery system, the Exp requirement is actually THE LEAST liked aspect of it. Many then go on to explain why it adds nothing but arbitrary delay to the process, because the Achievements/Mastery Point acquisition is a pretty strong gating mechanism to begin with. Now add to that the OP not showing any desire to understand the existing system, and is antagonizing it on no other justification then the game not complying with some obtuse demand, and/or not having the foresight to predict a specific disability case, and thus failing to design the game around accommodating it. That is what people are getting hung up on.

[mauried.5608]

All true, but this game more so than others has so many differant variables that are involved when customizing your character that it becomes a very time consuming process to figure them all out , and to find out which is best for which scenerio.

This means that players who have the luxury of being to play the game for many hours a day every day will be far advanced of players who can only play for a few hours a week.

Obtaining mastery points is clearly a lot easier for players who play the game a lot , compared to players who dont play as much.

Or is the game simply designed to reward hard core players, ie those who play for many hours a day every day?

 

[Zaklex.6308]

> @"foozlesprite.8051" said:

> I'm an unashamed filthy casual solo/duo player that used to be a hardcore raider in other games, so here's my 2 cents. More like 2 dollars, because I talk a lot.

>

> I think a lot of it is just that people want to be able to solo story and non-boss open-world content. Heart of Thorns (particularly hero points) put that out of a lot of people's reach. That was a major spike in difficulty, and the hero points especially felt like a slap in the face because they're required to attain the basic goal of having skills. Path of Fire has cut that back a bit, but most people will still need at least one other person to do a hero point. That's a strong difference from the 25+ people most people had to take to kill the Mushroom Queen.

>

> I raided hardcore for years in Everquest 2, and I'm completely over it. I'm grown up, I have a job, I have a spouse, I have more responsibilities that make it harder for me to commit to a consistent schedule despite wanting to get all the lore that's locked behind them. And a lot of MMO players are in their mid 20s and 30s now, if not older, so many have families as well. (Some of them are able to game in groups with said families and some aren't.) It seems like you are one of those people as well from some of your earlier comments, and I commend you for being able to balance the game into your life as group content, but not everyone can.

>

~snip~

 

I snipped the rest of this because I want to comment directly on these three points, the first being the casual has MULTIPLE definitions depending on the person you talk to, I consider myself a casual player, even though I can sit and play for upwards of 10 hours or more on my days off. It's no longer possible to just say someone is a casual player or hardcore because the definitions are so fluid.

 

Your second point, at least you specifically mentioned the Mushroom Queen, that was the only HoT HP that I had to wait for a group to do, and I play the way I want with the gear I want...I don't recall any of the others being unsoloable, unless you wanted to finish them in 5 minutes or less. I don't mind taking 10 - 20 minutes to kill something by myself because the whole point of playing this game for me is escapism.

 

Third point is all about setting your priorities in life, there are those people that are married, have children work, etc., and still set out the time to raid because they want to have that wind down time from the real world. For those that are younger and still single it's one of those things that needs to be discussed if you're planning on getting married and having a family. Hopefully your future partner understands that you're a gamer and you play games to relax and get away from it all, if people think that's being selfish and you're not putting the time into the family, I say what's better, a bitter disgruntled person that's not doing the things they like to do or someone that's happy because they still do their own thing...as long as you still share the household workload and one or the other isn't overwhelmed I don't see a problem with playing games for 3 or 4 hours a night once you have a family.

 

 

[AliamRationem.5172]

25 players to kill the Mushroom Queen? I think HoT's reputation for difficulty is getting a little overblown at this point! This is clearly small group content. She only has about 750k health. For reference, PoF bounty champions have twice this much or more plus healing and other damage mitigation abilities on the same 10 minute timer and none of them require 25 players either!

 

Now if you want to argue that HPs should all be solo content, it seems the devs agree. PoF gave us veteran HPs, and even more challenging (both in number and difficulty!) champions on demand for those of us who really enjoyed that aspect of HoT. It's the best of both worlds in that sense!