Guild Wars 2

Seera.5916:

amp.7926:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

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.

Once again, I’m not saying remove the, as you put it, MULTIPLAYER.

Having it present and forcing it are not the same, and there’s no set of logical steps that explains why a multiplayer game should force multiplayer. If that’s what you perceive, okay then, but it’s not an argument.

When I log in, I’m not forced to find a group to play the game. If I wish to do some aspects of the game, I am forced to find a group. And that’s pefectly acceptable for an MMO.

It’s perfectly fine for an MMO to have content that requires players to play together.

Saying that it’s fine doesn’t make it fine, and saying that it’s a multiplayer game doesn’t make it fine either.

Conversely, saying that it’s not fine, doesn’t make it not fine.

And yes, saying that a multiplayer game is just fine in requiring group play for some things does make it fine.

No, it really doesn’t make it fine, and if you can’t see that, I don’t know what else to say. Conversely saying it’s not fine doesn’t make it not fine, that’s true. Which is why we’re offering several actual arguments, something you’re not doing. The community would benefit from more choice, the players would benefit from more choice. Unforced social interaction, organic social interaction, is always going to be better than forcing it, etc.

We’ve made several points, but you’re just ignoring them with your fingers in your ears saying “but it’s an MMO, and one of the M’s means multiplayer, so it’s ok”

I literally can’t see how someone would expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it to not have any content that requires one to play with other people. And I haven’t seen a reason that explains how one would expect that.

So until someone can explain that, there’s no way you’re going to get me to agree that having content that requires group play is not fine for an MMO.

You don’t consider player choice and the organic forming of social interactions good reasons. Alright.

That doesn’t explain how someone would expect a multiplayer game to not have aspects of the game that require grouping.

It explains having aspects of the game that require group play and aspects that don’t at the same time. It doesn’t explain a multiplayer game not requiring group play at all.

All aspects should be soloable because it has no negative consequences, and only positive ones. People who like soloing can solo more, people who don’t can still play in a group. There’s no good reason not to do it, and the M in MMO is not a reason not to do it.

You still haven’t explained to me how a player can expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it could expect to never be required to play with other people.

multiplayer just means multiple people on one integrated server or setting, so since the world’s data even instanced is live fed to the main server technically GW 1 would fit that criteria to you, and so would any flash game hosted on the internet. And the vast majority of flash games, are in fact soloable. consider it defined for ya

When the discussion is in regards to whether an MMO should or should not have content that requires multiple players, a CORPG is not a good example to bring up to support your claims.

And no, that does not explain how one could expect a multiplayer game to not have ANY aspects that require playing with others.

This “expectation” issue isn’t an argument. The bottom line is if it’s a good change or a bad change, and no one has offered any good reason as to why it’s a bad change, they’ve just said it shouldn’t happen because… M

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

amp.7926:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

I hope people aren’t asking for Open World Group Content to be able to be completed with Hero-type NPCs. Would one then be able to have a party of, say, 9 of these ‘Heroes’? Can one imagine the population cap on the maps, then? Only 5 to 10 players per map? Or would we see ‘Heroes have been hidden due to rising population’ in the middle of a Group Event? Lol, bet that would go over well.

Also, I hated micro-managing my Heroes, but that was just me, I guess. Was bad enough just outfitting them and setting builds, etc.

If it’s only for Dungeons/Raids/Fractals, I suppose it would be ok, but it would certainly change the player-interaction dynamics, just as it did in GW1.

tis only for raids dungeons and fracs, open world just needs its scaling fixed in HoT for mapping but thats been addressed recently in other threads to it wasn’t a main point here

Hmm…a bit confusing, then, because the OP talks about the ‘Group’ Content in HoT, which is all Open World, with the exception of Raids.

As long as other players are in the map, I’m pretty sure one can solo the event; solo, as in no need to party/squad/group up. I just did Dragon Stand, start to finish, earlier today, without being in any kind of ‘group’.

If the OP means there should be no content that requires multiple players on the map, or no events that require more than 1 person, I would find that rather boring….something akin to the Renown Hearts or Starter Level Map events.

I hope the Devs don’t change GW2 so drastically; I imagine it would be difficult, anyway, or we would have been presented with instanced Living Story Season One by now.

OP is talking about Mapping requiring moreplayers than one for Hero points, and Raids/ fracs/dungeons

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

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.

Once again, I’m not saying remove the, as you put it, MULTIPLAYER.

Having it present and forcing it are not the same, and there’s no set of logical steps that explains why a multiplayer game should force multiplayer. If that’s what you perceive, okay then, but it’s not an argument.

When I log in, I’m not forced to find a group to play the game. If I wish to do some aspects of the game, I am forced to find a group. And that’s pefectly acceptable for an MMO.

It’s perfectly fine for an MMO to have content that requires players to play together.

Saying that it’s fine doesn’t make it fine, and saying that it’s a multiplayer game doesn’t make it fine either.

Conversely, saying that it’s not fine, doesn’t make it not fine.

And yes, saying that a multiplayer game is just fine in requiring group play for some things does make it fine.

No, it really doesn’t make it fine, and if you can’t see that, I don’t know what else to say. Conversely saying it’s not fine doesn’t make it not fine, that’s true. Which is why we’re offering several actual arguments, something you’re not doing. The community would benefit from more choice, the players would benefit from more choice. Unforced social interaction, organic social interaction, is always going to be better than forcing it, etc.

We’ve made several points, but you’re just ignoring them with your fingers in your ears saying “but it’s an MMO, and one of the M’s means multiplayer, so it’s ok”

I literally can’t see how someone would expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it to not have any content that requires one to play with other people. And I haven’t seen a reason that explains how one would expect that.

So until someone can explain that, there’s no way you’re going to get me to agree that having content that requires group play is not fine for an MMO.

You don’t consider player choice and the organic forming of social interactions good reasons. Alright.

That doesn’t explain how someone would expect a multiplayer game to not have aspects of the game that require grouping.

It explains having aspects of the game that require group play and aspects that don’t at the same time. It doesn’t explain a multiplayer game not requiring group play at all.

All aspects should be soloable because it has no negative consequences, and only positive ones. People who like soloing can solo more, people who don’t can still play in a group. There’s no good reason not to do it, and the M in MMO is not a reason not to do it.

You still haven’t explained to me how a player can expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it could expect to never be required to play with other people.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter. If this change has positive results, and no negative ones, it should be done, regardless of the semantics of the word multiplayer.

It risks making players who do want to group not be able to find a group every time they want to because those who do want to group don’t play at the same time as they do every time. Especially those who already have a lower pool due to not playing during their region’s prime time.

Then you have players who want to group to do content who can’t because no one is available to do the content with.

Whereas now, that’s hard to run into for content that’s required to have a group (provided ANet’s not nerfed the rewards to kingdom come or made it too hard to do, even for a zerg).

“It risks making players who do want to group not be able to find a group every time they want to because those who do want to group don’t play at the same time as they do every time. "

The alternative to that is coercion, forcing people into a game mode they don’t want to be in. If so few people are left to run group content, sorry but that just means they didn’t want to run it to begin with. But I think with group content having more efficient rewards, you’re still going to be able to find a group.

Nothing is all good or all bad.

ANet has the details to decide on which of the two options is the lesser of two evils in their eyes.

Since they haven’t come out with easily able to be soloed dungeons and have gone on to make group content that requires play with more players than dungeons and fractals do, I would imagine ANet doesn’t feel that required group play is the greater evil.

And like I said earlier, if ANet wants to make content that is able to be soloed out of group content (like different versions) with scaled down rewards, that would be fine with me. Just as long as things like legendary armor stuff from raids doesn’t get put into the solo raid. The legendary piece should require you to actually participate in the group version.

That being said, they should eventually make another legendary armor skin and make it be acquired through other means (which could include means that are solo only).

So if you want the current legendary armor skin, you would have to do the group content, but you could still get legendary armor without grouping. Just not the group raid skin.

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

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.

Once again, I’m not saying remove the, as you put it, MULTIPLAYER.

Having it present and forcing it are not the same, and there’s no set of logical steps that explains why a multiplayer game should force multiplayer. If that’s what you perceive, okay then, but it’s not an argument.

When I log in, I’m not forced to find a group to play the game. If I wish to do some aspects of the game, I am forced to find a group. And that’s pefectly acceptable for an MMO.

It’s perfectly fine for an MMO to have content that requires players to play together.

Saying that it’s fine doesn’t make it fine, and saying that it’s a multiplayer game doesn’t make it fine either.

Conversely, saying that it’s not fine, doesn’t make it not fine.

And yes, saying that a multiplayer game is just fine in requiring group play for some things does make it fine.

No, it really doesn’t make it fine, and if you can’t see that, I don’t know what else to say. Conversely saying it’s not fine doesn’t make it not fine, that’s true. Which is why we’re offering several actual arguments, something you’re not doing. The community would benefit from more choice, the players would benefit from more choice. Unforced social interaction, organic social interaction, is always going to be better than forcing it, etc.

We’ve made several points, but you’re just ignoring them with your fingers in your ears saying “but it’s an MMO, and one of the M’s means multiplayer, so it’s ok”

I literally can’t see how someone would expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it to not have any content that requires one to play with other people. And I haven’t seen a reason that explains how one would expect that.

So until someone can explain that, there’s no way you’re going to get me to agree that having content that requires group play is not fine for an MMO.

You don’t consider player choice and the organic forming of social interactions good reasons. Alright.

That doesn’t explain how someone would expect a multiplayer game to not have aspects of the game that require grouping.

It explains having aspects of the game that require group play and aspects that don’t at the same time. It doesn’t explain a multiplayer game not requiring group play at all.

All aspects should be soloable because it has no negative consequences, and only positive ones. People who like soloing can solo more, people who don’t can still play in a group. There’s no good reason not to do it, and the M in MMO is not a reason not to do it.

You still haven’t explained to me how a player can expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it could expect to never be required to play with other people.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter. If this change has positive results, and no negative ones, it should be done, regardless of the semantics of the word multiplayer.

It risks making players who do want to group not be able to find a group every time they want to because those who do want to group don’t play at the same time as they do every time. Especially those who already have a lower pool due to not playing during their region’s prime time.

Then you have players who want to group to do content who can’t because no one is available to do the content with.

Whereas now, that’s hard to run into for content that’s required to have a group (provided ANet’s not nerfed the rewards to kingdom come or made it too hard to do, even for a zerg).

“It risks making players who do want to group not be able to find a group every time they want to because those who do want to group don’t play at the same time as they do every time. "

The alternative to that is coercion, forcing people into a game mode they don’t want to be in. If so few people are left to run group content, sorry but that just means they didn’t want to run it to begin with. But I think with group content having more efficient rewards, you’re still going to be able to find a group.

Nothing is all good or all bad.

ANet has the details to decide on which of the two options is the lesser of two evils in their eyes.

Since they haven’t come out with easily able to be soloed dungeons and have gone on to make group content that requires play with more players than dungeons and fractals do, I would imagine ANet doesn’t feel that required group play is the greater evil.

And like I said earlier, if ANet wants to make content that is able to be soloed out of group content (like different versions) with scaled down rewards, that would be fine with me. Just as long as things like legendary armor stuff from raids doesn’t get put into the solo raid. The legendary piece should require you to actually participate in the group version.

That being said, they should eventually make another legendary armor skin and make it be acquired through other means (which could include means that are solo only).

So if you want the current legendary armor skin, you would have to do the group content, but you could still get legendary armor without grouping. Just not the group raid skin.

Anet hasn’t done anything yet because they work mostly based on community feedback, which, I would imagine, is the point of this thread. If you want to be fine with being excluded, then be fine with it. But just because you accept it doesn’t mean everyone else should.

Muketsu.1572:

And as I’ve said several times now, multiplayer =/= forced multiplayer, so just because it’s an MMO doesn’t mean you can say we should have to group up.

Yes. Yes it does equal forced multiplayer. Being required to play with or against other players is what makes it a multiplayer game rather than a game with the option of multiplayer.

Basketball is a multiplayer game

I can walk outside with my basketball. The hoop is there. However I can not play basketball. Basketball requires other players. It is a multiplayer game.

Assuming I could create a bunch of robots, then I could play something very much like basketball. It isn’t basketball though. It’s me being an unimportant participant in a game mostly decided by robots pretending to play basketball because I programmed them to. I am now accounting for 1/10th of the game, while it is mostly playing itself.

There being ten people on the court is what makes it basketball as much as there being ten people is what defines a raid.

Again, there is nothing wrong with NPCs. I play a lot of games where I command around a lot of NPCS. They’re great fun. They’re also specifically tunes and designed around that concept.

You are attempting to fit a square peg in a round hole just because you refuse grind the square peg until it is round.

The argument that you can’t find other people to play with will be made even worse by adding NPC replacements for players. They’ll do what they’re supposed to. They will replace players and by doing so severely limit the pool of players, like yourself, actively seeking others to join them.

The argument that you won’t find other people to play with because you don’t want to isn’t a problem with the design of the game. It’s a personal desire to “finish” content without being willing to do what is clearly required of you to do so.

It’s not a matter of “can” we do this. It’s a matter of “should” we do this.

In my personal opinion, no, we should not.

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

Muketsu.1572:

Seera.5916:

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.

Once again, I’m not saying remove the, as you put it, MULTIPLAYER.

Having it present and forcing it are not the same, and there’s no set of logical steps that explains why a multiplayer game should force multiplayer. If that’s what you perceive, okay then, but it’s not an argument.

When I log in, I’m not forced to find a group to play the game. If I wish to do some aspects of the game, I am forced to find a group. And that’s pefectly acceptable for an MMO.

It’s perfectly fine for an MMO to have content that requires players to play together.

Saying that it’s fine doesn’t make it fine, and saying that it’s a multiplayer game doesn’t make it fine either.

Conversely, saying that it’s not fine, doesn’t make it not fine.

And yes, saying that a multiplayer game is just fine in requiring group play for some things does make it fine.

No, it really doesn’t make it fine, and if you can’t see that, I don’t know what else to say. Conversely saying it’s not fine doesn’t make it not fine, that’s true. Which is why we’re offering several actual arguments, something you’re not doing. The community would benefit from more choice, the players would benefit from more choice. Unforced social interaction, organic social interaction, is always going to be better than forcing it, etc.

We’ve made several points, but you’re just ignoring them with your fingers in your ears saying “but it’s an MMO, and one of the M’s means multiplayer, so it’s ok”

I literally can’t see how someone would expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it to not have any content that requires one to play with other people. And I haven’t seen a reason that explains how one would expect that.

So until someone can explain that, there’s no way you’re going to get me to agree that having content that requires group play is not fine for an MMO.

You don’t consider player choice and the organic forming of social interactions good reasons. Alright.

That doesn’t explain how someone would expect a multiplayer game to not have aspects of the game that require grouping.

It explains having aspects of the game that require group play and aspects that don’t at the same time. It doesn’t explain a multiplayer game not requiring group play at all.

All aspects should be soloable because it has no negative consequences, and only positive ones. People who like soloing can solo more, people who don’t can still play in a group. There’s no good reason not to do it, and the M in MMO is not a reason not to do it.

You still haven’t explained to me how a player can expect a game in a genre with the word multiplayer in it could expect to never be required to play with other people.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter. If this change has positive results, and no negative ones, it should be done, regardless of the semantics of the word multiplayer.

It risks making players who do want to group not be able to find a group every time they want to because those who do want to group don’t play at the same time as they do every time. Especially those who already have a lower pool due to not playing during their region’s prime time.

Then you have players who want to group to do content who can’t because no one is available to do the content with.

Whereas now, that’s hard to run into for content that’s required to have a group (provided ANet’s not nerfed the rewards to kingdom come or made it too hard to do, even for a zerg).

“It risks making players who do want to group not be able to find a group every time they want to because those who do want to group don’t play at the same time as they do every time. "

The alternative to that is coercion, forcing people into a game mode they don’t want to be in. If so few people are left to run group content, sorry but that just means they didn’t want to run it to begin with. But I think with group content having more efficient rewards, you’re still going to be able to find a group.

Nothing is all good or all bad.

ANet has the details to decide on which of the two options is the lesser of two evils in their eyes.

Since they haven’t come out with easily able to be soloed dungeons and have gone on to make group content that requires play with more players than dungeons and fractals do, I would imagine ANet doesn’t feel that required group play is the greater evil.

And like I said earlier, if ANet wants to make content that is able to be soloed out of group content (like different versions) with scaled down rewards, that would be fine with me. Just as long as things like legendary armor stuff from raids doesn’t get put into the solo raid. The legendary piece should require you to actually participate in the group version.

That being said, they should eventually make another legendary armor skin and make it be acquired through other means (which could include means that are solo only).

So if you want the current legendary armor skin, you would have to do the group content, but you could still get legendary armor without grouping. Just not the group raid skin.

Anet hasn’t done anything yet because they work mostly based on community feedback, which, I would imagine, is the point of this thread. If you want to be fine with being excluded, then be fine with it. But just because you accept it doesn’t mean everyone else should.

Like I said at the end of the post you quoted:

I do not mind if they create solo-versions of dungeons/fractals/raids if they are mindful of the rewards and keep exclusive rewards to each type, just as long as the exclusive rewards aren’t unique because of stats or rarity level.

Open world, short of the organized map-wide metas and the harder world bosses, 99% should not require you to play with others. And of that 1% that requires playing with others, not more than 90% should require playing with others.

I do think there is a difference between two players silently doing a harder hero challenge together because they coincidentally ended up there and two players deciding to run around and do hero challenges together before they start playing.

PopeUrban.2578:

Muketsu.1572:

And as I’ve said several times now, multiplayer =/= forced multiplayer, so just because it’s an MMO doesn’t mean you can say we should have to group up.

Yes. Yes it does equal forced multiplayer. Being required to play with or against other players is what makes it a multiplayer game rather than a game with the option of multiplayer.

Basketball is a multiplayer game

I can walk outside with my basketball. The hoop is there. However I can not play basketball. Basketball requires other players. It is a multiplayer game.

Assuming I could create a bunch of robots, then I could play something very much like basketball. It isn’t basketball though. It’s me being an unimportant participant in a game mostly decided by robots pretending to play basketball because I programmed them to. I am now accounting for 1/10th of the game, while it is mostly playing itself.

There being ten people on the court is what makes it basketball as much as there being ten people is what defines a raid.

Again, there is nothing wrong with NPCs. I play a lot of games where I command around a lot of NPCS. They’re great fun. They’re also specifically tunes and designed around that concept.

You are attempting to fit a square peg in a round hole just because you refuse grind the square peg until it is round.

The argument that you can’t find other people to play with will be made even worse by adding NPC replacements for players. They’ll do what they’re supposed to. They will replace players and by doing so severely limit the pool of players, like yourself, actively seeking others to join them.

The argument that you won’t find other people to play with because you don’t want to isn’t a problem with the design of the game. It’s a personal desire to “finish” content without being willing to do what is clearly required of you to do so.

It’s not a matter of “can” we do this. It’s a matter of “should” we do this.

In my personal opinion, no, we should not.

Basketball is a multiplayer game with required multiplayer. Horse is a game with optional multiplayer. The basketball video games are games with optional multiplayer. GW1 was a game with optional multiplayer. If you can’t understand this basic concept that a multiplayer game doesn’t have to be an exclusively multiplayer game, then all I can say is I hope you never develop a video game.

Muketsu.1572:

PopeUrban.2578:

Muketsu.1572:

And as I’ve said several times now, multiplayer =/= forced multiplayer, so just because it’s an MMO doesn’t mean you can say we should have to group up.

Yes. Yes it does equal forced multiplayer. Being required to play with or against other players is what makes it a multiplayer game rather than a game with the option of multiplayer.

Basketball is a multiplayer game

I can walk outside with my basketball. The hoop is there. However I can not play basketball. Basketball requires other players. It is a multiplayer game.

Assuming I could create a bunch of robots, then I could play something very much like basketball. It isn’t basketball though. It’s me being an unimportant participant in a game mostly decided by robots pretending to play basketball because I programmed them to. I am now accounting for 1/10th of the game, while it is mostly playing itself.

There being ten people on the court is what makes it basketball as much as there being ten people is what defines a raid.

Again, there is nothing wrong with NPCs. I play a lot of games where I command around a lot of NPCS. They’re great fun. They’re also specifically tunes and designed around that concept.

You are attempting to fit a square peg in a round hole just because you refuse grind the square peg until it is round.

The argument that you can’t find other people to play with will be made even worse by adding NPC replacements for players. They’ll do what they’re supposed to. They will replace players and by doing so severely limit the pool of players, like yourself, actively seeking others to join them.

The argument that you won’t find other people to play with because you don’t want to isn’t a problem with the design of the game. It’s a personal desire to “finish” content without being willing to do what is clearly required of you to do so.

It’s not a matter of “can” we do this. It’s a matter of “should” we do this.

In my personal opinion, no, we should not.

Basketball is a multiplayer game with required multiplayer. Horse is a game with optional multiplayer. The basketball video games are games with optional multiplayer. GW1 was a game with optional multiplayer. If you can’t understand this basic concept that a multiplayer game doesn’t have to be an exclusively multiplayer game, then all I can say is I hope you never develop a video game.

I agree.

This is not GW1, and there’s no reason to attempt to shoehorn an unneccessary system in to it to turn the game in to something it is not

All I require of a game is entertainment, not some bizarre socialization experiment.

Yes, spot on.
All a MMO requires is lots of players in the game.
Theres no requirement of any kind which dictates what the players have to do.
Certainly no requirement that everything has to be doable by everybody.
If you donr like HOT then you DONT have to go there.

[Disclaimer: All opinions and personal experiences contained below are just that: opinions and personal experiences. While some things may be worded harshly, no offense is intended.]

As a mostly solo player, I am confused by the discussion in this thread. What, exactly, are solo players being denied that they – as players who have actively chosen to not play with others – deserve to have? Further, is it worth developer time and resources to give it to them?

With the right professions, build/gear/utility choices, patience, and skill, most things in this game intended for ‘groups’ can already be done by a single player. Many dungeon paths, several low-level fractals, nearly all champion-level enemies, and most supposed “group events” are provably soloable. For the things that aren’t – be they via timers or hard number gates like the lasers in all the CoE paths – the question I’ve yet to see answered sufficiently is, “Why do you want to solo these so badly?”

And no, “Buh Buh I could in Guild Wars 1!!!” isn’t a sufficient answer. This is Guild Wars 2. It is a game that is in a completely different genre than Guild Wars 1 was, so it’s nearly apples to oranges there. You can deny it all you want, but Guild Wars 1 is an Action RPG/CORPG. Guild Wars 2 is an MMORPG. Take a look at the listed genre(s) on both’s Wikipedia pages. Yes, I have played it.

So what is it? Are you wanting to see the story of the raids/fractals/what-have-you? If you’re adamant about never ever having to group with other players, the community maintains a fairly thorough wiki. Further, there are countless Youtube videos detailing all those yummy lore bits.

Are you wanting the rewards out of the group content? Then you need to be honest and say that’s what the real issue is.
- As far as I have experienced, there is nothing a non-soloable ‘group event’ offers that any other event does not, unless it is a world boss/meta/required for precursor crafting.^1
- If you want dungeon rewards out of a dungeon that has no soloable paths, you can earn them via the reward tracks in PvP and WvW.^2
- If you want fractal rewards, you can slowly earn relics and such by doing the low-level soloable ones.
- I do agree that locking certain stat combination ascended pieces behind the raid was a mistake, but that is going to be addressed if the AMA held on reddit is to be believed. I advise patience.
This leaves only high-level fractal rewards (skins) and raid rewards (skins, legendary armor that doesn’t even exist yet). The proposal is to make all currently group-only content soloable by either scaling it down or adding npc allies. And perhaps this is not such a bad thing…as long as the rewards are nowhere near the same.

Part of the skill set in a multiplayer game – like it or not – is learning to cooperate with other players. You can choose to not do so, but in doing so you are choosing to not have access to the content that literally cannot be done by a single player. That also means you will not get the rewards from that content. Just as players who actively chose to not do solo-only content never completed the Queen’s Gauntlet, and will never get the mastery points from Adventures. And that’s perfectly fine.

There is nothing wrong with having content in a multiplayer game that cannot be done solo. There is also nothing wrong with having content in a multiplayer game that is solo-only. The idea is to have a variety of content for all type of players, with different rewards therein, which this game (more than any other I have ever played) does. People have already detailed the possible negative outcomes of making all content soloable, so I will not get into that; this post is quite long enough.

I will just leave one final comment: people on this thread keep talking about more choices (“scaling would be a choice!”, “using npcs would be a choice!”), when they seem to have forgotten that choices have consequences. Like, for example, the choice to play exclusively solo having the consequence of not being able to do group-only content.

^1. I guess it has to be discussed what ‘solo’ means. You will rarely ever find yourself alone at a world boss, a map-wide meta, or an event that drops something needed for precursor crafting. Playing alongside others without actively cooperating with them as you would in a dungeon or such is still, to me, being solo. If the content is not solo to you until you are the only player visible on the screen, then I don’t know what to tell you, other than this:
You are never forced to group to play this game. You can get full ascended gear with nice, fashionable skins without ever having been in a party, whilst actively running away from any other player you encounter. Why you’d choose to play an MMORPG at all if you detested playing at least concurrently with others, I do not know.
^2 ‘ermahgerd that’s not solo content!’ There are plenty of PvP rooms – aptly named ‘daily servers’ – where people come together to get their PvP dailies done as quickly as possible so they can go do something else. For the most part, every person involved is playing solo, treating the other players as NPCs – means to an end. And for WvW, taking camps and sentries is completely doable on your own. Is there a chance that enemy players may find you and stop you? Yes, of course. But there’s also a chance you may beat them, and get loot for it.

Muketsu.1572:

This “expectation” issue isn’t an argument. The bottom line is if it’s a good change or a bad change, and no one has offered any good reason as to why it’s a bad change, they’ve just said it shouldn’t happen because… M

It fragments the player base, and goes against the design ethos of Guild Wars 2’s open world. If you want as solo open world, ESO and Skyrim are thataway. The developers of GW2 have stated repeatedly that their design of the open world for Guild Wars 2 is to draw players together and have them self-coordinate to overcome the challenges presented. The open tagging and lack of an endorsed gearcheck and active DPS meter (As in in-raid/dungeon, not that golem) aren’t there to have players just ignore each other, but instead to not have any barriers between teaming up.

Muketsu.1572:

Once again, I’m not saying remove the, as you put it, MULTIPLAYER.

Having it present and forcing it are not the same, and there’s no set of logical steps that explains why a multiplayer game should force multiplayer. If that’s what you perceive, okay then, but it’s not an argument.

Simple, by not putting any pressure to make the multiplayer game actually multiplayer, even minor discrepencies in player schedules can cause massive, multiplayer-wrecking Chasms (See – everything in Guild Wars 1 except Urzog). Guild Wars 1 has henchman and heroes because it’s the lesser of two evils – Either a way to fragment the player base through having people resort to soloing, or waiting and spamming LFG instead of actually playing. Guild Wars 2’s open world

Anet hasn’t done anything yet because they work mostly based on community feedback, which, I would imagine, is the point of this thread. If you want to be fine with being excluded, then be fine with it. But just because you accept it doesn’t mean everyone else should.

And on that note, my feedback is “Please give us back the pressure to group up in the open world to overcome challenges. And give me back the fun that was the original Barradin’s Crypt! ;_;”

Seera.5916:

Open world, short of the organized map-wide metas and the harder world bosses, 99% should not require you to play with others. And of that 1% that requires playing with others, not more than 90% should require playing with others.

I think that your “99%” should be “60%” at most, barring ease of travel to get to the content and other players. And it would be even lower if it weren’t for the reality of . And of that 60%, about 50% of it should be designed to draw people to and hold them around the areas where they need to team up to take on greater challenges for greater rewards (While also being rewarding on their own). Of course, of the 40% of the content that should require at least two people to be working together, only 30% should require more than 5, and only 10% should require more than the barest coordination. But your “99%” should go die in a crypt somewhere.

And yes, I keep mentioning Barradin’s crypt – because that was the event that initially sold me on how awesome the game was. I’m trying to think of how to put it to words, but being too hard for a single player to handle on their own, while also being designed to draw people to it were all critical to the appeal. Of course, I can also understand why they had to nerf it, as the playing community changed (Lower new charr density as people learned that Anet didn’t give a kitten about the game’s mascot race, and the rewards got devalued with inflation from the game’s economy settling).

Sartharina.3542:

Muketsu.1572:

This “expectation” issue isn’t an argument. The bottom line is if it’s a good change or a bad change, and no one has offered any good reason as to why it’s a bad change, they’ve just said it shouldn’t happen because… M

It fragments the player base, and goes against the design ethos of Guild Wars 2’s open world. If you want as solo open world, ESO and Skyrim are thataway. The developers of GW2 have stated repeatedly that their design of the open world for Guild Wars 2 is to draw players together and have them self-coordinate to overcome the challenges presented. The open tagging and lack of an endorsed gearcheck and active DPS meter (As in in-raid/dungeon, not that golem) aren’t there to have players just ignore each other, but instead to not have any barriers between teaming up.

Muketsu.1572:

Once again, I’m not saying remove the, as you put it, MULTIPLAYER.

Having it present and forcing it are not the same, and there’s no set of logical steps that explains why a multiplayer game should force multiplayer. If that’s what you perceive, okay then, but it’s not an argument.

Simple, by not putting any pressure to make the multiplayer game actually multiplayer, even minor discrepencies in player schedules can cause massive, multiplayer-wrecking Chasms (See – everything in Guild Wars 1 except Urzog). Guild Wars 1 has henchman and heroes because it’s the lesser of two evils – Either a way to fragment the player base through having people resort to soloing, or waiting and spamming LFG instead of actually playing. Guild Wars 2’s open world

Anet hasn’t done anything yet because they work mostly based on community feedback, which, I would imagine, is the point of this thread. If you want to be fine with being excluded, then be fine with it. But just because you accept it doesn’t mean everyone else should.

And on that note, my feedback is “Please give us back the pressure to group up in the open world to overcome challenges. And give me back the fun that was the original Barradin’s Crypt! ;_;”

Seera.5916:

Open world, short of the organized map-wide metas and the harder world bosses, 99% should not require you to play with others. And of that 1% that requires playing with others, not more than 90% should require playing with others.

I think that your “99%” should be “60%” at most, barring ease of travel to get to the content and other players. And it would be even lower if it weren’t for the reality of . And of that 60%, about 50% of it should be designed to draw people to and hold them around the areas where they need to team up to take on greater challenges for greater rewards (While also being rewarding on their own). Of course, of the 40% of the content that should require at least two people to be working together, only 30% should require more than 5, and only 10% should require more than the barest coordination. But your “99%” should go die in a crypt somewhere.

And yes, I keep mentioning Barradin’s crypt – because that was the event that initially sold me on how awesome the game was. I’m trying to think of how to put it to words, but being too hard for a single player to handle on their own, while also being designed to draw people to it were all critical to the appeal. Of course, I can also understand why they had to nerf it, as the playing community changed (Lower new charr density as people learned that Anet didn’t give a kitten about the game’s mascot race, and the rewards got devalued with inflation from the game’s economy settling).

Able to be done solo, is different from actually done solo. And my 99% excludes events that are designed and scaled around needing a zerg or map full of other players.

I play solo 99% of the time. There are other players attacking what I do a lot of the time.

Edit: I also consider things that can be done solo if you’ve got the skill in that 99%. I don’t think all content that can be done solo needs to be a push over to do solo. It can be designed and scaled for a small group and still be able to be soloed by players who have the skill. I consider that content part of the 99%.