Guild Wars 2

The issue of soloability in MMO’s is as old as the genre, and after thinking of how it applies the the Guild Wars franchise, these are my thoughts:

MMO a genre that at it’s basics means, “Massively Multiplayer Online”, now this has been interpreted as a game that is only played in and by groups. But the basic definition means only a game with a large populace playing at once.
Guild Wars One, however strayed from this, content was almost entirely solo-able, group play was an addition, adding friends because you wanted them in the party, not because you needed them.
Guild wars 2 however, as the spiritual successor has fallen short of it’s prelude in this aspect. The core of the base game was for the most part solo-able, all but a few events that could be missed without noticing anything. But now with heart of thorns it seems all content is locked down to only groups. map completion, per new map takes anywhere from 3-7 group challenges, not including the Meta events required to reach them.
And then we have dungeons raids and fractals, things that in all other mmo’s require group play. In guild wars one special thought was taken to make these possible for solo players, via AI. In guild wars 2, such a feat could be done, using the scaling mechanics, and adding NPC’s of New Destinies edge/old destinies edge to these events if a solo/scaling path is included.
While group play has its merits coordination, etc. solo play should also be allowed for those who cannot get a group to play with, some groups, have a hard time scheduling when to do raids, dungeons or fracs, and a solo mode would allow all players to beat these and receive some of the rewards.
This would also help add a since of immersion to the Legendary Masteries, in the mail your character receives he/she is told that it is THEIR journey, but when it comes time to start it, you are asked to join groups. doing this you can also make it to where Solo variants of dungeons have a decreased drop rate(meaning not zero but not as high as group versions). Now some will say, “but soloable group content means less people to do the group content in groups” which, really makes no sense. Those who want to do it in groups, will do it in groups for the increased reward rate, where as others, will do it solo, for the sake of experiencing the content, content including atmosphere, story, rewards, and mechanics. At the core of the group vs solo debate lies a contrast in mentalities, as a life long introvert, group content makes me anxious, making a lot of it lose it’s appeal.
Many others, share these sentiments, but choose to play MMO’s due to the fact that the worlds are far richer than most other game worlds, and the occasional social interaction is welcomed. But when we go to do group content, the first thing we encounter are Meta players barking how the game “should be played” and how to run every build, not to mention those that limit party joins based on trivial facts like mastery, AP, and game time. Now while group content can be fun with friends, it is often hard to find a time when all of your friends can actually be online to do things like Raids, Dungeons or Fracs. I would like to thank whomever has actually read this for taking the time out of their day.
This isn’t a Solo only thing, this is a compromise, one that I feel both sides of the debate will be okay with. In conclusion this compromise would allow solo players to experience the full world of tyria, group players would still be better off than soloers at drop rates, and the immersion of game play would feel more as if your character is the hero, not everyone else is your sidekick.

Ouch – wall of text. Perhaps breaking that into a few paragraphs would have made it easier to traverse.

I really don’t see this ever happening. Scaling content that’s designed for a group down to a single player would change the very nature of the content. Raids specifically revolve around players taking certain roles through the fight. That would be impossible by yourself.

Most of HoT can be done solo except for group events and those with champs. About half of the hero points can be done solo. The story can be done solo.

If you don’t want to play with people who prefer those to play a certain way and wear certain gear, start your own group.

The vast majority of the game can be done solo.

I agree, being able to play in a group or solo was what made Guild Wars 1 such a great game, and Guild Wars 2 has really lost that. The vast majority of max level content does require a group and it’s alienating to people with unpredictable schedules. They really should implement scaling or bring back AI parties to the game.

While I agree that soloability is rather important in gaming, it has points wherein there’s a need for the freedom while others need the dynamics of player groups.

Honestly implementing this would be a great idea but expecting it verywhere isn’t realistic.

Overall I’d say this could work and let the devs sort out the scale.

+1

P.S. foooorrrmaaaaat

Muketsu.1572:

I agree, being able to play in a group or solo was what made Guild Wars 1 such a great game, and Guild Wars 2 has really lost that. The vast majority of max level content does require a group and it’s alienating to people with unpredictable schedules. They really should implement scaling or bring back AI parties to the game.

I think GW1’s soloability is somewhat overstated. You did have henchmen, but some missions were particularly difficult with henchmen. Even with heroes, I stalled out three missions from the end of Eye of the North because they couldn’t help me drop powder kegs on a boss. (I’m sure better players can solo this, but it’s not soloable for everyone like most of GW2’s solo parts.)

Redenaz.8631:

Muketsu.1572:

I agree, being able to play in a group or solo was what made Guild Wars 1 such a great game, and Guild Wars 2 has really lost that. The vast majority of max level content does require a group and it’s alienating to people with unpredictable schedules. They really should implement scaling or bring back AI parties to the game.

I think GW1’s soloability is somewhat overstated. You did have henchmen, but some missions were particularly difficult with henchmen. Even with heroes, I stalled out three missions from the end of Eye of the North because they couldn’t help me drop powder kegs on a boss. (I’m sure better players can solo this, but it’s not soloable for everyone like most of GW2’s solo parts.)

Why does it matter if it’s harder to do it alone? I actually think it should be harder to do alone so that the people in groups have an incentive to play with others. But the point is it should be possible.

That’s the thing, it’s an MMO. One should not expect an MMO to not have anything in game that does not require grouping to achieve.

Most dungeons are soloable if you have the skill. The only ones that aren’t are the ones with logistical things that require multiple players to do.

As to meta requirements for dungeons, fractals, and raids: read the LFG and only join the ones that you meet the requirements of or make an LFG saying anyone is welcome (and then get the ones who try to dictate kicked from the group).

Go and try to solo Urgoz or The Deep.

Leon de Damasco.8105:

Go and try to solo Urgoz or The Deep.

An actual solo with just the player.

Everything in GW1 has been done with heroes which is why I added this.

Ayrilana.1396:

Leon de Damasco.8105:

Go and try to solo Urgoz or The Deep.

An actual solo with just the player.

Everything in GW1 has been done with heroes which is why I added this.

It’s still soloing when you use heroes.

Muketsu.1572:

Ayrilana.1396:

Leon de Damasco.8105:

Go and try to solo Urgoz or The Deep.

An actual solo with just the player.

Everything in GW1 has been done with heroes which is why I added this.

It’s still soloing when you use heroes.

It’s not an MMO at that point, it’s a single player RPG like Baldur’s Gate.

Astraea.6075:

Muketsu.1572:

Ayrilana.1396:

Leon de Damasco.8105:

Go and try to solo Urgoz or The Deep.

An actual solo with just the player.

Everything in GW1 has been done with heroes which is why I added this.

It’s still soloing when you use heroes.

It’s not an MMO at that point, it’s a single player RPG like Baldur’s Gate.

If it was single player only, you’d be correct. This is why options are important, but most group content players want that way to be the only way to play.

Redenaz.8631:

Muketsu.1572:

I agree, being able to play in a group or solo was what made Guild Wars 1 such a great game, and Guild Wars 2 has really lost that. The vast majority of max level content does require a group and it’s alienating to people with unpredictable schedules. They really should implement scaling or bring back AI parties to the game.

I think GW1’s soloability is somewhat overstated. You did have henchmen, but some missions were particularly difficult with henchmen. Even with heroes, I stalled out three missions from the end of Eye of the North because they couldn’t help me drop powder kegs on a boss. (I’m sure better players can solo this, but it’s not soloable for everyone like most of GW2’s solo parts.)

Ah, but Maw is a perfect example of GW1 build flexibility and planning ahead. Hard if you brute forced it with kegs, easy if you brought a couple of Lifesteal Heroes and a good prot monk. Flag the lifestealers out, support them with monks/rit, profit.

Flexibility this game has very little of. Hard when your bag of tricks is a very very small one.

The ability to group with other players never left GW1. It became the least chosen method. Heroes did what they were told, did not question your gear or build, did not complain about speed, did not rage quit, did not blame you. They are reliable. They equip how you want, with the skills you want, and do their jobs without Drama.

It is pretty hard to accept a forced pug game after that.

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Redenaz.8631:

Muketsu.1572:

I agree, being able to play in a group or solo was what made Guild Wars 1 such a great game, and Guild Wars 2 has really lost that. The vast majority of max level content does require a group and it’s alienating to people with unpredictable schedules. They really should implement scaling or bring back AI parties to the game.

I think GW1’s soloability is somewhat overstated. You did have henchmen, but some missions were particularly difficult with henchmen. Even with heroes, I stalled out three missions from the end of Eye of the North because they couldn’t help me drop powder kegs on a boss. (I’m sure better players can solo this, but it’s not soloable for everyone like most of GW2’s solo parts.)

Ah, but Maw is a perfect example of GW1 build flexibility and planning ahead. Hard if you brute forced it with kegs, easy if you brought a couple of Lifesteal Heroes and a good prot monk. Flag the lifestealers out, support them with monks/rit, profit.

Flexibility this game has very little of. Hard when your bag of tricks is a very very small one.

The ability to group with other players never left GW1. It became the least chosen method. Heroes did what they were told, did not question your gear or build, did not complain about speed, did not rage quit, did not blame you. They are reliable. They equip how you want, with the skills you want, and do their jobs without Drama.

It is pretty hard to accept a forced pug game after that.

Exactly, optional group play is fine, but both options need to be available, and if most people choose solo play, it just means group play isn’t all that good after all.

Before Heroes, it was pretty difficult to ‘solo’ some/many of the Missions in GW1. Heroes actually killed the grouping-up-aspect of GW1. Sad, sad day, indeed.

You have it backward. GW1 was designed to be completely unsoloable. Henchmen were put there to fill gaps in a roster. They were never intended (until population dropped with GW2 and they added a cash shop option to field more than 3 heroes) to allow for solo play. They were there to allow you to fill a few spots in a group if you were only a couple players short.

Heroes were added later, largely as a narrative device. That’s why the player was limited to 3. They were never intended to enable solo play. They were intended to make a game designed completely around grouping easier to fill groups for in less than ideal conditions.

PopeUrban.2578:

You have it backward. GW1 was designed to be completely unsoloable. Henchmen were put there to fill gaps in a roster. They were never intended (until population dropped with GW2 and they added a cash shop option to field more than 3 heroes) to allow for solo play. They were there to allow you to fill a few spots in a group if you were only a couple players short.

Heroes were added later, largely as a narrative device. That’s why the player was limited to 3. They were never intended to enable solo play. They were intended to make a game designed completely around grouping easier to fill groups for in less than ideal conditions.

Wrong.

I did all of Proph with hench. Solo. Vanquished most of the world with Hero/hench, solo.

You were never forced to group with others if you did not choose to, beyond the noob rez sig quest or hiring a lever puller in Pre.

Also, Mercenary Heroes were added in 2011.

Off topic, how do you get away with using the name of an Historical Religious RL person/persons?

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Before Heroes, it was pretty difficult to ‘solo’ some/many of the Missions in GW1. Heroes actually killed the grouping-up-aspect of GW1. Sad, sad day, indeed.

If players are presented with a choice between solo and group play, and they choose solo play, then that just proves they never wanted to do group play to begin with. If people genuinely enjoy playing in a group, they will do it even when they don’t have to. If they don’t enjoy it, then it’s wrong to try to force them to just so you have a full roster.

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

PopeUrban.2578:

You have it backward. GW1 was designed to be completely unsoloable. Henchmen were put there to fill gaps in a roster. They were never intended (until population dropped with GW2 and they added a cash shop option to field more than 3 heroes) to allow for solo play. They were there to allow you to fill a few spots in a group if you were only a couple players short.

Heroes were added later, largely as a narrative device. That’s why the player was limited to 3. They were never intended to enable solo play. They were intended to make a game designed completely around grouping easier to fill groups for in less than ideal conditions.

Wrong.

I did all of Proph with hench. Solo. Vanquished most of the world with Hero/hench, solo.

You were never forced to group with others if you did not choose to, beyond the noob rez sig quest or hiring a lever puller in Pre.

Also, Mercenary Heroes were added in 2011.

Off topic, how do you get away with using the name of an Historical Religious RL person/persons?

Yes. You did all of that with a group.

Of NPCs.

Designed to fill in for actual players.

The game was not designed as a solo experience. The NPCs were designed to make the game playable without strictly requiring you to fill a full party.

Is that clearer?

As for my name, I don’t find it remarkable. Plenty of historical/pop culture/mythology references are used as handles, character names, and other identifiers. It’s the internet. I’m certain if Anet feels its inappropriate they’ll ask me to change it.

PopeUrban.2578:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

PopeUrban.2578:

You have it backward. GW1 was designed to be completely unsoloable. Henchmen were put there to fill gaps in a roster. They were never intended (until population dropped with GW2 and they added a cash shop option to field more than 3 heroes) to allow for solo play. They were there to allow you to fill a few spots in a group if you were only a couple players short.

Heroes were added later, largely as a narrative device. That’s why the player was limited to 3. They were never intended to enable solo play. They were intended to make a game designed completely around grouping easier to fill groups for in less than ideal conditions.

Wrong.

I did all of Proph with hench. Solo. Vanquished most of the world with Hero/hench, solo.

You were never forced to group with others if you did not choose to, beyond the noob rez sig quest or hiring a lever puller in Pre.

Also, Mercenary Heroes were added in 2011.

Off topic, how do you get away with using the name of an Historical Religious RL person/persons?

Yes. You did all of that with a group.

Of NPCs.

Designed to fill in for actual players.

The game was not designed as a solo experience. The NPCs were designed to make the game playable without strictly requiring you to fill a full party.

Is that clearer?

As for my name, I don’t find it remarkable. Plenty of historical/pop culture/mythology references are used as handles, character names, and other identifiers. It’s the internet. I’m certain if Anet feels its inappropriate they’ll ask me to change it.

Wasn’t your original point that Guild wars 1 was designed to be unsoloable when it’s primary selling slogan was “We let you play with your friends or Ours, join friends or play solo with a hand of skilled henchmen” and if you will note halfway through my post, there is a segment about using already pre exsisting NPC’s in lore to act functionally in said solo content. Solo in GW1 was harder than groups as it should be in 2

Astraea.6075:

Muketsu.1572:

Ayrilana.1396:

Leon de Damasco.8105:

Go and try to solo Urgoz or The Deep.

An actual solo with just the player.

Everything in GW1 has been done with heroes which is why I added this.

It’s still soloing when you use heroes.

It’s not an MMO at that point, it’s a single player RPG like Baldur’s Gate.

Second line, defines an MMO at no point does the term Group oriented or any word defining that appear.

amp.7926:

PopeUrban.2578:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

PopeUrban.2578:

You have it backward. GW1 was designed to be completely unsoloable. Henchmen were put there to fill gaps in a roster. They were never intended (until population dropped with GW2 and they added a cash shop option to field more than 3 heroes) to allow for solo play. They were there to allow you to fill a few spots in a group if you were only a couple players short.

Heroes were added later, largely as a narrative device. That’s why the player was limited to 3. They were never intended to enable solo play. They were intended to make a game designed completely around grouping easier to fill groups for in less than ideal conditions.

Wrong.

I did all of Proph with hench. Solo. Vanquished most of the world with Hero/hench, solo.

You were never forced to group with others if you did not choose to, beyond the noob rez sig quest or hiring a lever puller in Pre.

Also, Mercenary Heroes were added in 2011.

Off topic, how do you get away with using the name of an Historical Religious RL person/persons?

Yes. You did all of that with a group.

Of NPCs.

Designed to fill in for actual players.

The game was not designed as a solo experience. The NPCs were designed to make the game playable without strictly requiring you to fill a full party.

Is that clearer?

As for my name, I don’t find it remarkable. Plenty of historical/pop culture/mythology references are used as handles, character names, and other identifiers. It’s the internet. I’m certain if Anet feels its inappropriate they’ll ask me to change it.

Wasn’t your original point that Guild wars 1 was designed to be unsoloable when it’s primary selling slogan was “We let you play with your friends or Ours, join friends or play solo with a hand of skilled henchmen” and if you will note halfway through my post, there is a segment about using already pre exsisting NPC’s in lore to act functionally in said solo content. Solo in GW1 was harder than groups as it should be in 2

Solo in GW2 IS harder than groups. The only places where you require a group are parts specifically labeled as group content. That content is a minority of the available content.

What you fail to address, however, is the corrosive effect the hero system, and to a lesser extent the henchman system has on the multiplayer viability of a game explicitly designed for multiplayer PvE.

I’ll break it down for you. Lets say you add “heroes” for fractals. Are you under the impression that people will consider other players a viable option for grouping at that point? Fractals will go the way of GW1. A place where the only way for a new player to find others to play with is by doing only the most popular content of the month, or bringing existing friends with them.

That’s not a healthy design for a game where central selling point is that there’s a world of players t team up with, or a genre where the core of its design is that players play content with other players

Soloability in MMOs is a necessary evil to ensure that players have some activities to do in the absence of others. However, balancing the game so that the majority of it is completable solo is contrary to that basic design.

If you want to play a single player game, you are much better served in terms of story, player agency, and the way the world reacts to your actions by doing so. It’s just as bad to tack on cooperative multiplayer to a single player design as it is to tack on solo-enablers to a multiplayer design. Either way dilutes the intended experience by shoehorning something in to it that doesn’t mesh at beast and actively harms at worst the intended method of play.

Keep in mind GW1 was not an MMO, went out of its way to distance itself from the MMO genre, and was functionally a very lage co-op RPG with 3d lobbies.

GW2’s core design purpose was and is to be a “living world” that is persistant, full of players, and designed to make it painless and fun for those players to WANT to help one another through systems like personal XP, personal loot, lack of mob tagging, and so on. Soloability is as antithetical to the core design principles of MMOs as you can get. The only place where it’s appropriate is in your personal story, which is already instanced, and in routinely expanded by the s2 method of living story.

There is a minority of content that, yes, requires a player to assemble a group of players to complete in advance, just like there’s a minority of content specifically designed to discourage players from bringing any extra help. The vast majority, however, is designed to naturally push players in to organically helping one another without any first party requirements or adversarial relationships about who “owns” a mob, event, spawn, or ore node.

Redenaz.8631:

Muketsu.1572:

I agree, being able to play in a group or solo was what made Guild Wars 1 such a great game, and Guild Wars 2 has really lost that. The vast majority of max level content does require a group and it’s alienating to people with unpredictable schedules. They really should implement scaling or bring back AI parties to the game.

I think GW1’s soloability is somewhat overstated. You did have henchmen, but some missions were particularly difficult with henchmen. Even with heroes, I stalled out three missions from the end of Eye of the North because they couldn’t help me drop powder kegs on a boss. (I’m sure better players can solo this, but it’s not soloable for everyone like most of GW2’s solo parts.)

I never really encountered much difficulty with soloing, even before the increase to 7 heroes. But I would also plan way ahead and balance out my own build and my heroes to accommodate for what I knew I’d be facing, granted alot of things took me several tries (figuring out NPC’s, Mechanics, etc.) but that was part of the fun of it, getting knocked down after breezing through 6 missions, and getting right back up and charging in headlong.

PopeUrban.2578:

amp.7926:

PopeUrban.2578:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

PopeUrban.2578:

You have it backward. GW1 was designed to be completely unsoloable. Henchmen were put there to fill gaps in a roster. They were never intended (until population dropped with GW2 and they added a cash shop option to field more than 3 heroes) to allow for solo play. They were there to allow you to fill a few spots in a group if you were only a couple players short.

Heroes were added later, largely as a narrative device. That’s why the player was limited to 3. They were never intended to enable solo play. They were intended to make a game designed completely around grouping easier to fill groups for in less than ideal conditions.

Wrong.

I did all of Proph with hench. Solo. Vanquished most of the world with Hero/hench, solo.

You were never forced to group with others if you did not choose to, beyond the noob rez sig quest or hiring a lever puller in Pre.

Also, Mercenary Heroes were added in 2011.

Off topic, how do you get away with using the name of an Historical Religious RL person/persons?

Yes. You did all of that with a group.

Of NPCs.

Designed to fill in for actual players.

The game was not designed as a solo experience. The NPCs were designed to make the game playable without strictly requiring you to fill a full party.

Is that clearer?

As for my name, I don’t find it remarkable. Plenty of historical/pop culture/mythology references are used as handles, character names, and other identifiers. It’s the internet. I’m certain if Anet feels its inappropriate they’ll ask me to change it.

Wasn’t your original point that Guild wars 1 was designed to be unsoloable when it’s primary selling slogan was “We let you play with your friends or Ours, join friends or play solo with a hand of skilled henchmen” and if you will note halfway through my post, there is a segment about using already pre exsisting NPC’s in lore to act functionally in said solo content. Solo in GW1 was harder than groups as it should be in 2

Solo in GW2 IS harder than groups. The only places where you require a group are parts specifically labeled as group content. That content is a minority of the available content.

What you fail to address, however, is the corrosive effect the hero system, and to a lesser extent the henchman system has on the multiplayer viability of a game explicitly designed for multiplayer PvE.

I’ll break it down for you. Lets say you add “heroes” for fractals. Are you under the impression that people will consider other players a viable option for grouping at that point? Fractals will go the way of GW1. A place where the only way for a new player to find others to play with is by doing only the most popular content of the month, or bringing existing friends with them.

That’s not a healthy design for a game where central selling point is that there’s a world of players t team up with, or a genre where the core of its design is that players play content with other players

Soloability in MMOs is a necessary evil to ensure that players have some activities to do in the absence of others. However, balancing the game so that the majority of it is completable solo is contrary to that basic design.

If you want to play a single player game, you are much better served in terms of story, player agency, and the way the world reacts to your actions by doing so. It’s just as bad to tack on cooperative multiplayer to a single player design as it is to tack on solo-enablers to a multiplayer design. Either way dilutes the intended experience by shoehorning something in to it that doesn’t mesh at beast and actively harms at worst the intended method of play.

Keep in mind GW1 was not an MMO, went out of its way to distance itself from the MMO genre, and was functionally a very lage co-op RPG with 3d lobbies.

GW2’s core design purpose was and is to be a “living world” that is persistant, full of players, and designed to make it painless and fun for those players to WANT to help one another through systems like personal XP, personal loot, lack of mob tagging, and so on. Soloability is as antithetical to the core design principles of MMOs as you can get. The only place where it’s appropriate is in your personal story, which is already instanced, and in routinely expanded by the s2 method of living story.

There is a minority of content that, yes, requires a player to assemble a group of players to complete in advance, just like there’s a minority of content specifically designed to discourage players from bringing any extra help. The vast majority, however, is designed to naturally push players in to organically helping one another without any first party requirements or adversarial relationships about who “owns” a mob, event, spawn, or ore node.

In GW1 and other games that have used the NPC assistance mechanics, not only have players still done things in base groups, but the group part of it was alot more laid back. So I don’t see how it’s corrosive when it helps the community?

PopeUrban.2578:

amp.7926:

PopeUrban.2578:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

PopeUrban.2578:

You have it backward. GW1 was designed to be completely unsoloable. Henchmen were put there to fill gaps in a roster. They were never intended (until population dropped with GW2 and they added a cash shop option to field more than 3 heroes) to allow for solo play. They were there to allow you to fill a few spots in a group if you were only a couple players short.

Heroes were added later, largely as a narrative device. That’s why the player was limited to 3. They were never intended to enable solo play. They were intended to make a game designed completely around grouping easier to fill groups for in less than ideal conditions.

Wrong.

I did all of Proph with hench. Solo. Vanquished most of the world with Hero/hench, solo.

You were never forced to group with others if you did not choose to, beyond the noob rez sig quest or hiring a lever puller in Pre.

Also, Mercenary Heroes were added in 2011.

Off topic, how do you get away with using the name of an Historical Religious RL person/persons?

Yes. You did all of that with a group.

Of NPCs.

Designed to fill in for actual players.

The game was not designed as a solo experience. The NPCs were designed to make the game playable without strictly requiring you to fill a full party.

Is that clearer?

As for my name, I don’t find it remarkable. Plenty of historical/pop culture/mythology references are used as handles, character names, and other identifiers. It’s the internet. I’m certain if Anet feels its inappropriate they’ll ask me to change it.

Wasn’t your original point that Guild wars 1 was designed to be unsoloable when it’s primary selling slogan was “We let you play with your friends or Ours, join friends or play solo with a hand of skilled henchmen” and if you will note halfway through my post, there is a segment about using already pre exsisting NPC’s in lore to act functionally in said solo content. Solo in GW1 was harder than groups as it should be in 2

Solo in GW2 IS harder than groups. The only places where you require a group are parts specifically labeled as group content. That content is a minority of the available content.

What you fail to address, however, is the corrosive effect the hero system, and to a lesser extent the henchman system has on the multiplayer viability of a game explicitly designed for multiplayer PvE.

I’ll break it down for you. Lets say you add “heroes” for fractals. Are you under the impression that people will consider other players a viable option for grouping at that point? Fractals will go the way of GW1. A place where the only way for a new player to find others to play with is by doing only the most popular content of the month, or bringing existing friends with them.

That’s not a healthy design for a game where central selling point is that there’s a world of players t team up with, or a genre where the core of its design is that players play content with other players

Soloability in MMOs is a necessary evil to ensure that players have some activities to do in the absence of others. However, balancing the game so that the majority of it is completable solo is contrary to that basic design.

If you want to play a single player game, you are much better served in terms of story, player agency, and the way the world reacts to your actions by doing so. It’s just as bad to tack on cooperative multiplayer to a single player design as it is to tack on solo-enablers to a multiplayer design. Either way dilutes the intended experience by shoehorning something in to it that doesn’t mesh at beast and actively harms at worst the intended method of play.

Keep in mind GW1 was not an MMO, went out of its way to distance itself from the MMO genre, and was functionally a very lage co-op RPG with 3d lobbies.

GW2’s core design purpose was and is to be a “living world” that is persistant, full of players, and designed to make it painless and fun for those players to WANT to help one another through systems like personal XP, personal loot, lack of mob tagging, and so on. Soloability is as antithetical to the core design principles of MMOs as you can get. The only place where it’s appropriate is in your personal story, which is already instanced, and in routinely expanded by the s2 method of living story.

There is a minority of content that, yes, requires a player to assemble a group of players to complete in advance, just like there’s a minority of content specifically designed to discourage players from bringing any extra help. The vast majority, however, is designed to naturally push players in to organically helping one another without any first party requirements or adversarial relationships about who “owns” a mob, event, spawn, or ore node.

I actually did address the so-called corrosive effect of the heroes system. You’re basically saying that if people can solo, no one would ever play in a group. But if presented with that choice everyone chooses solo content, then obviously they all actually prefer solo content and coercing them into a group isn’t doing anyone any favors.

I don’t even think that offering more rewards for group content is a problem, or making it easier in a group, but it’s not good design to take away the option entirely.

The selling point is that there is world of players to team up with, and solo mode content wouldn’t change that. You’d still encounter people in the outdoor world, you could still make friends organically rather than through a group finder, and you can still play in a group to socialize and earn rewards more efficiently, but the idea that offering content both ways is contrary to the core of the game is just not true.

And as for playing a single player game, there are lots of reasons to play an MMO even if you like solo content. You can play with your friends when your schedules match, you can make new friends, the game receives regular updates and is not finite, etc. So no, most of us wouldn’t be better served playing a single player game, we’d be better served playing a game that is flexible and supports multiple play styles.

And saying Guild Wars 1 wasn’t an MMO is just silly. It did instance most of the content but it was an online game with persistent world areas and multiple players that allowed for organic socializing.

Finally, “There is a minority of content that, yes, requires a player to assemble a group of players” is a vast understatement.

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.
I feel the people who think that are probably the same people who think their idiotic political, sexual or just plain banine babble and smalltalk is enjoyable to others.

Carpboy.7145:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.
I feel the people who think that are probably the same people who think their idiotic political, sexual or just plain banine babble and smalltalk is enjoyable to others.

you sir, get what I’m saying

Carpboy.7145:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

This.

However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.

Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.

Seera.5916:

Carpboy.7145:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

This.

However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.

Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.

Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?

The grandfather of all western “Group up or Die” mmo’s, the original Everquest, now has Mercenaries. So does Everquest 2. The very fabric of the MMO Universe did not unravel.

MMO meaning forced group play is a ship that has largely sunk. No point clinging to it. All it is today is an option, as it should be for most content.

Casual players who are sick and tired of the drama and hassle of forced Pugs have incomes and free time. It would be very stupid for any company today to re-roll the 2000 model of MMO grouping designs.

GW1 is ample proof that pug grouping is not really the preferred choice when given an option not to. Grouping died there because of Player Choice.

Seems to be a lesson Management forgot.

Seera.5916:

Carpboy.7145:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

This.

However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.

Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.

Second Line, defines a MMO, and again players should have the options and choices. 1 because of immersion and 2 because some people have issues actually doing group things due to mental disorders (social anxiety anthropohobia agoraphobia, etc.), but are recommended they play MMO’s by clinicians as a form of management and therapy, if they pay 60$ for the game they should be allowed to play all of it and the mental issues should be accommodated.

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Carpboy.7145:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

This.

However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.

Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.

Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?

His first point:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.

I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.

His second point:

Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.

This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.

His third and final point:

There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.

So I agreed with his post.

And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.

Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.

And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.

amp.7926:

Seera.5916:

Carpboy.7145:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

This.

However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.

Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.

Second Line, defines a MMO, and again players should have the options and choices. 1 because of immersion and 2 because some people have issues actually doing group things due to mental disorders (social anxiety anthropohobia agoraphobia, etc.), but are recommended they play MMO’s by clinicians as a form of management and therapy, if they pay 60$ for the game they should be allowed to play all of it and the mental issues should be accommodated.

Did it ever occur to you that the fact that MMO’s have content that requires group play may be one of the reasons that clinicians recommend playing MMO’s to those types of players?

100% of content of MMO’s does not need to be able to be done solo. Which is what GW2 has. Some content that can be done solo and some content that requires a group.

Muketsu.1572:

And saying Guild Wars 1 wasn’t an MMO is just silly. It did instance most of the content but it was an online game with persistent world areas and multiple players that allowed for organic socializing..

False. There were no persistant world areas. it didn’t instance most of the content. it instances all of the content and that is a very important distinction. The only places where one could encounter other players without being invited to do so were lobbies with no playable content outside of vendors.

Towns in GW1 would have functioned exactly the same if they were 2d user interfaces with lists of names.

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Carpboy.7145:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

This.

However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.

Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.

Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?

His first point:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.

I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.

His second point:

Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.

This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.

His third and final point:

There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.

So I agreed with his post.

And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.

Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.

And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.

But you of course ignored the fast that most of the end game content is group only, and the majority of items related to progression are group only, so you can’t really viably play solo.

You don’t agree with his point if you’re saying that you should have to join a group to progress.

Muketsu.1572:

I agree, being able to play in a group or solo was what made Guild Wars 1 such a great game, and Guild Wars 2 has really lost that. The vast majority of max level content does require a group and it’s alienating to people with unpredictable schedules. They really should implement scaling or bring back AI parties to the game.

If I remember, Guild Wars 1 was not designed for soloability at all. Henchmen and later Heroes were only added as a band-aid.

Some content that requires grouping, sure.

Common Hero Points… please. Open world besides boss events should be soloable, period.

Seera.5916:

amp.7926:

Seera.5916:

Carpboy.7145:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

This.

However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.

Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.

Second Line, defines a MMO, and again players should have the options and choices. 1 because of immersion and 2 because some people have issues actually doing group things due to mental disorders (social anxiety anthropohobia agoraphobia, etc.), but are recommended they play MMO’s by clinicians as a form of management and therapy, if they pay 60$ for the game they should be allowed to play all of it and the mental issues should be accommodated.

Did it ever occur to you that the fact that MMO’s have content that requires group play may be one of the reasons that clinicians recommend playing MMO’s to those types of players?

100% of content of MMO’s does not need to be able to be done solo. Which is what GW2 has. Some content that can be done solo and some content that requires a group.

when coping with something like that, it is best to have social interaction casually and by choice, but alot of people with these issues, get sucked into groups and get told they are playing wrong which makes matters worse, this can also help them learn the game, which in turn can prevent said issue from occuring. once they are confident they may even want to do group content.

PopeUrban.2578:

Muketsu.1572:

And saying Guild Wars 1 wasn’t an MMO is just silly. It did instance most of the content but it was an online game with persistent world areas and multiple players that allowed for organic socializing..

False. There were no persistant world areas. it didn’t instance most of the content. it instances all of the content and that is a very important distinction. The only places where one could encounter other players without being invited to do so were lobbies with no playable content outside of vendors.

Towns in GW1 would have functioned exactly the same if they were 2d user interfaces with lists of names.

If you want to confuse cities with lobbies, you can play with semantics as long as you want. But they were persistent areas that offered exploration, lore dialogue, vendors, repairs, etc. and were far more engaging than a basic lobby. If you don’t consider city activities play, that’s your prerogative, but I disagree and so do others, so you can’t just blanketly say it’s not an MMO because you personally didn’t find anything to do in cities.

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Carpboy.7145:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

This.

However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.

Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.

Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?

His first point:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.

I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.

His second point:

Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.

This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.

His third and final point:

There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.

So I agreed with his post.

And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.

Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.

And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.

But you of course ignored the fast that most of the end game content is group only, and the majority of items related to progression are group only, so you can’t really viably play solo.

I didn’t ignore it.

GW2 has content for players who absolutely refuse to play in the nearby vicinity of other players even if they aren’t actually playing together.

I play 99.9% solo. I don’t particularly enjoy to a huge degree group events since it’s just a press 1 and don’t have to worry about anything because if I go down, someone will get me up.

I’m the player the game going 100% able to be solo would completely benefit. Yet, I realize that that’s an absurd request for an MMO and I’m completely fine with some parts of the game, I have to get over my introvert and shy nature and group with people. I had to do it for the one of the Tier 1 collections for Storm. Had to do the snowblind fractal and I’m not good enough to solo it.

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Carpboy.7145:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

This.

However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.

Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.

Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?

His first point:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.

I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.

His second point:

Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.

This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.

His third and final point:

There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.

So I agreed with his post.

And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.

Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.

And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.

But you of course ignored the fast that most of the end game content is group only, and the majority of items related to progression are group only, so you can’t really viably play solo.

I didn’t ignore it.

GW2 has content for players who absolutely refuse to play in the nearby vicinity of other players even if they aren’t actually playing together.

I play 99.9% solo. I don’t particularly enjoy to a huge degree group events since it’s just a press 1 and don’t have to worry about anything because if I go down, someone will get me up.

I’m the player the game going 100% able to be solo would completely benefit. Yet, I realize that that’s an absurd request for an MMO and I’m completely fine with some parts of the game, I have to get over my introvert and shy nature and group with people. I had to do it for the one of the Tier 1 collections for Storm. Had to do the snowblind fractal and I’m not good enough to solo it.

No one has explained why it’s absurd request for an MMO. I’m not proposing we remove multiplayer, so there’s no contradiction with the core of the genre. You might be fine with being left out of content, but a lot of others aren’t.

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Some content that requires grouping, sure.

Common Hero Points… please.

All common hero points can be done solo. HoT’s problem is a complete absence of common hero points. But even then, the number of super hero points that can be soloed is still more than enough to max out an elite spec traitline.

Open world besides boss events should be soloable, period.

Citation needed.

You don’t have to join a group. You can simply stumble across one that’s already there, then go do your own thing. “Play Solo” was never a Guild Wars 2 design philosophy. "No barriers to aiding others (Mob tagging, no need to party up, natural ability interaction, etc) was.

amp.7926:

Seera.5916:

amp.7926:

Seera.5916:

Carpboy.7145:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

This.

However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.

Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.

Second Line, defines a MMO, and again players should have the options and choices. 1 because of immersion and 2 because some people have issues actually doing group things due to mental disorders (social anxiety anthropohobia agoraphobia, etc.), but are recommended they play MMO’s by clinicians as a form of management and therapy, if they pay 60$ for the game they should be allowed to play all of it and the mental issues should be accommodated.

Did it ever occur to you that the fact that MMO’s have content that requires group play may be one of the reasons that clinicians recommend playing MMO’s to those types of players?

100% of content of MMO’s does not need to be able to be done solo. Which is what GW2 has. Some content that can be done solo and some content that requires a group.

when coping with something like that, it is best to have social interaction casually and by choice, but alot of people with these issues, get sucked into groups and get told they are playing wrong which makes matters worse, this can also help them learn the game, which in turn can prevent said issue from occuring. once they are confident they may even want to do group content.

Or the player could just never ever do group content at all because it’s not required for them to play and the therapeutic benefits aren’t achieved because their doctor wanted to actually group with other players intentionally.

I don’t have a degree in psychology of any level, so unless you do and can prove it, neither of us can say for sure what all the reasons clinicians have for “prescribing” MMO play to their patients. I can’t think of a single MMO that doesn’t require group play for parts of the game. GW1 is a CORPG, not an MMO.

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Carpboy.7145:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

This.

However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.

Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.

Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?

His first point:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.

I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.

His second point:

Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.

This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.

His third and final point:

There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.

So I agreed with his post.

And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.

Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.

And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.

But you of course ignored the fast that most of the end game content is group only, and the majority of items related to progression are group only, so you can’t really viably play solo.

I didn’t ignore it.

GW2 has content for players who absolutely refuse to play in the nearby vicinity of other players even if they aren’t actually playing together.

I play 99.9% solo. I don’t particularly enjoy to a huge degree group events since it’s just a press 1 and don’t have to worry about anything because if I go down, someone will get me up.

I’m the player the game going 100% able to be solo would completely benefit. Yet, I realize that that’s an absurd request for an MMO and I’m completely fine with some parts of the game, I have to get over my introvert and shy nature and group with people. I had to do it for the one of the Tier 1 collections for Storm. Had to do the snowblind fractal and I’m not good enough to solo it.

And yet when other MMO’s have done just this they have thrived. I have gotten over alot of my introvert issues but I just cannot handle groups on some days, and I know of afew people far worse off than myself, so if anyone it benefits them completely.

Seera.5916:

amp.7926:

Seera.5916:

amp.7926:

Seera.5916:

Carpboy.7145:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

This.

However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.

Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.

Second Line, defines a MMO, and again players should have the options and choices. 1 because of immersion and 2 because some people have issues actually doing group things due to mental disorders (social anxiety anthropohobia agoraphobia, etc.), but are recommended they play MMO’s by clinicians as a form of management and therapy, if they pay 60$ for the game they should be allowed to play all of it and the mental issues should be accommodated.

Did it ever occur to you that the fact that MMO’s have content that requires group play may be one of the reasons that clinicians recommend playing MMO’s to those types of players?

100% of content of MMO’s does not need to be able to be done solo. Which is what GW2 has. Some content that can be done solo and some content that requires a group.

when coping with something like that, it is best to have social interaction casually and by choice, but alot of people with these issues, get sucked into groups and get told they are playing wrong which makes matters worse, this can also help them learn the game, which in turn can prevent said issue from occuring. once they are confident they may even want to do group content.

Or the player could just never ever do group content at all because it’s not required for them to play and the therapeutic benefits aren’t achieved because their doctor wanted to actually group with other players intentionally.

I don’t have a degree in psychology of any level, so unless you do and can prove it, neither of us can say for sure what all the reasons clinicians have for “prescribing” MMO play to their patients. I can’t think of a single MMO that doesn’t require group play for parts of the game. GW1 is a CORPG, not an MMO.

You do realize you can have social interactions in an MMO without participating in forced group content, right?

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Carpboy.7145:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

This.

However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.

Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.

Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?

His first point:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.

I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.

His second point:

Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.

This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.

His third and final point:

There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.

So I agreed with his post.

And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.

Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.

And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.

But you of course ignored the fast that most of the end game content is group only, and the majority of items related to progression are group only, so you can’t really viably play solo.

I didn’t ignore it.

GW2 has content for players who absolutely refuse to play in the nearby vicinity of other players even if they aren’t actually playing together.

I play 99.9% solo. I don’t particularly enjoy to a huge degree group events since it’s just a press 1 and don’t have to worry about anything because if I go down, someone will get me up.

I’m the player the game going 100% able to be solo would completely benefit. Yet, I realize that that’s an absurd request for an MMO and I’m completely fine with some parts of the game, I have to get over my introvert and shy nature and group with people. I had to do it for the one of the Tier 1 collections for Storm. Had to do the snowblind fractal and I’m not good enough to solo it.

No one has explained why it’s absurd request for an MMO. I’m not proposing we remove multiplayer, so there’s no contradiction with the core of the genre. You might be fine with being left out of content, but a lot of others aren’t.

Massively MULTIPLAYER Online.

I can’t think of a single multiplayer game that I’ve played in any genre that didn’t require me to actively play with other players. Intentionally. So to me, that any part of MMO’s is able to be done solo is a gift and I treat it as such.

amp.7926:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Carpboy.7145:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

This.

However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.

Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.

Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?

His first point:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.

I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.

His second point:

Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.

This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.

His third and final point:

There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.

So I agreed with his post.

And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.

Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.

And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.

But you of course ignored the fast that most of the end game content is group only, and the majority of items related to progression are group only, so you can’t really viably play solo.

I didn’t ignore it.

GW2 has content for players who absolutely refuse to play in the nearby vicinity of other players even if they aren’t actually playing together.

I play 99.9% solo. I don’t particularly enjoy to a huge degree group events since it’s just a press 1 and don’t have to worry about anything because if I go down, someone will get me up.

I’m the player the game going 100% able to be solo would completely benefit. Yet, I realize that that’s an absurd request for an MMO and I’m completely fine with some parts of the game, I have to get over my introvert and shy nature and group with people. I had to do it for the one of the Tier 1 collections for Storm. Had to do the snowblind fractal and I’m not good enough to solo it.

And yet when other MMO’s have done just this they have thrived. I have gotten over alot of my introvert issues but I just cannot handle groups on some days, and I know of afew people far worse off than myself, so if anyone it benefits them completely.

What MMOs are thriving at the moment?

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Carpboy.7145:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

This.

However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.

Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.

Yes, one should expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. You said you agreed with the comment who was saying that MMO doesn’t mean forced group play, but then you said not everything should be soloable because it’s an MMO. Which is it?

His first point:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.

I play solo. There’s something nice about playing with others, but not playing with others.

His second point:

Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless.

This is true regardless of what percentage of the game is able to be done solo or not. I agree. So not sure how you would get that that means I’m being ambiguous on whether I want 100% ability to solo or not.

His third and final point:

There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

Doesn’t mean that grouping with others is no longer a valid reason to play an MMO.

So I agreed with his post.

And then I went “However”. Which typically means that I’m about to give a counter argument.

Which was that just because what he said is true, doesn’t mean that the game should not have anything that requires group play.

And went on to say that GW2 has content for all types of players. Those that never want to group with others, those that sometimes want to group with others, and those who want to always group with others.

But you of course ignored the fast that most of the end game content is group only, and the majority of items related to progression are group only, so you can’t really viably play solo.

You absolutely can viably play solo if all you ever intent to play is the solo content. The “progression” you’re after is staged as group content because it is designed for groups

Nobody’s arguing that there shouldn’t be any solo content. What we’re saying is that it’s a really bad idea to embrace a philosophy in an MMO that all content is soloable.

At that point you are designing a very different game. You are limiting design choices based on the “solo potential” of content. You are functionally unable to design certain types of content, like raids and dungeons.

The entire design of the open world is the most soloable MMO in existiance and specifically designed to organically push players together in to mutually benefical temporary alliances to complete group events

GW2 does a fantastic job for solo players already, above and beyond any other game. The places where it doesn’t are a minority of the content, instanced raids, dungeons, and fractals. Furthermore _the rewards from that content are not in any way required for progression, and only reward in a cosmetic or monetary nature based upon the heightened difficulty of coordinating humans that are not perfectly tuned AI.

The fact is that GW1 henchmen and heroes had unintended consequences for the game. They made it more difficult to find groups, and eroded the social nature of the game. In structured group content that is explicitly designed as a social experience, and that is the minority of the content in the game this is a huge problem. We already saw it in fractals with the whole “lets roll swamps” situation before the latest patch.

Do you honestly think the game as a whole, not you personally, but the game as a whole would be better served by letting each player opt to walk in to what’s intended to be the most difficult content in the game with no expectation of teamwork, group strategy, or incentive to find new people to play with?

That’s the GW1 I remember at the end. It’s the same GW1 you’ll find if you log in today. A wasteland of content that doesn’t have the option of soloing, but the requirement to solo because there’s no need to find a group. No groupmates to later become good friends, and no socialization in a game designed primarily as a social experience.

Seera.5916:

amp.7926:

Seera.5916:

amp.7926:

Seera.5916:

Carpboy.7145:

The argument that not wanting to play in a group means you should just play a single player game drives me so nuts.
Not wanting to group to perform tasks doesn’t mean that the robust interactive world and economy of a MMO is worthless. There is a great many reasons to play in a mmo other then to group with others.

This.

However, when one plays an MMO, one should not expect everything in the game to be able to be done solo. It is an MMO after all.

Some things in GW2 let you play solo and not group up. Some things are easier done in a group but can be done solo if you’ve got the skill. Some things require a group.

Second Line, defines a MMO, and again players should have the options and choices. 1 because of immersion and 2 because some people have issues actually doing group things due to mental disorders (social anxiety anthropohobia agoraphobia, etc.), but are recommended they play MMO’s by clinicians as a form of management and therapy, if they pay 60$ for the game they should be allowed to play all of it and the mental issues should be accommodated.

Did it ever occur to you that the fact that MMO’s have content that requires group play may be one of the reasons that clinicians recommend playing MMO’s to those types of players?

100% of content of MMO’s does not need to be able to be done solo. Which is what GW2 has. Some content that can be done solo and some content that requires a group.

when coping with something like that, it is best to have social interaction casually and by choice, but alot of people with these issues, get sucked into groups and get told they are playing wrong which makes matters worse, this can also help them learn the game, which in turn can prevent said issue from occuring. once they are confident they may even want to do group content.

Or the player could just never ever do group content at all because it’s not required for them to play and the therapeutic benefits aren’t achieved because their doctor wanted to actually group with other players intentionally.

I don’t have a degree in psychology of any level, so unless you do and can prove it, neither of us can say for sure what all the reasons clinicians have for “prescribing” MMO play to their patients. I can’t think of a single MMO that doesn’t require group play for parts of the game. GW1 is a CORPG, not an MMO.

Having been on the recieving end of this treatment, I can assure you of what they said “socially interact, but avoid anything that can cause stress or tension” my case being mild, I cannot imagine in a worse case it being a sound idea the point of the MMO therapy is to get them around people without having to see faces, or hear voices or anything that can cause sensory overload, and when you have people telling you exactly how to play, well it happens anyways.