Showing Posts For amp.7926:
Was able to find a group last week to do Urzog, and for some just casual conversations, which GW1 are you playing mate?
This is a really awkward conversation, been doing urgoz all week long with 11 live players. Not 100% sure but think he hasn’t realized that its a faction area so if he is expecting to player with other live players well then he would have to be part of an alive faction.
I also help and play with allaince members working on their titles or doing dungeons alot too. Yup alot of the outpost are all but abadoned which is why they allowed the hero limit to go from 3 to 7. i dont really know what he expecting of an older generation game o.0
players wanting solo content in gw2 isn’t really created by h/h in gw1 but rather as a result of 2 things. 1st being that they got tired of dealing with pugs. the 2nd being they want additional challange- unfortunately alot of stuff has been toned done not leaving stuff for the players that don’t mind dying over and over again. I really miss the upscaled champion risen wraith of shetler camp in cursed shore – it was hilarious seeing whole zergs getting instantly wiped by him LMFAO
I use the Urzog scolls, and still have my old active alliance granted the guilds all but dead, but serves enough to go sight seeing when I want.
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
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
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?
Yes. I do it all the time. I’m one of those players who prefers to play solo.
However, their doctor may want them to actually do content together.
And at some point in their treatment, content that may actually create a disagreement to see how well the patient has progressed. To see if the patient doesn’t have as much anxiety. Or can at least control their response to the anxiety better.
When group content is required, people become a means to an end. It would not be good for a person with a mental disorder to be treated and talked to like a tool by random strangers wanting their currency in an optimal timeframe.
Of course, if group content wasn’t required, those kinds of people are less likely to be there, and the experience would be a lot more relaxed. Disagreements would be respectable instead of venomous.
Players don’t suddenly become 100% nice 100% of the time just because they aren’t required to group together.
Please find me a study that proves this and I’ll give you the point.
Name me one well known MMO that does not have any content that requires group play (well known so that one could expect enough doctors to know about it to “prescribe” to patients).
The most well known MMO is WoW. Which I believe does have content that requires groups to play. So tell me why a doctor would “prescribe” MMO play to a patient they didn’t feel was ready for what could happen when they play an MMO, when the most widely known MMO has content that requires group play?
I didn’t say it would be 100% one way or 100% another, but it would certainly make a difference.
And I highly doubt these doctors, with their up to 20 hour work days actually know the intricacies of the way MMOs work, and how the group content is structured, so just because they recommend a game with social interaction doesn’t mean they’re intending their patients to be put into nasty, cutthroat social situations.
And most MMOs requiring group content doesn’t mean they should. Just because something is a certain way doesn’t mean it’s the best way for it to be.
Like I said in the post, name a well known MMO that doesn’t require group play. I’m not saying that there isn’t an MMO out there that doesn’t require group play, but if it’s not well known, then I wouldn’t expect more than a handful to know about it.
And the younger doctors would. The ones just getting out of school and starting in the field. The ones who grew up with WoW having already been released and well known.
Plus, with google being pretty a commonly used resource, I’m sure a reputable doctor would do some research on MMO’s before telling a patient to play it. Just like they would read studies and/or listen to reps discuss a drug before writing prescriptions for them to their patients.
name one soloable Everquest heralded as the first MMO, and yeah they looked some up I chose guild wars out of the list.
If by guild wars, you mean GW1, that’s not an MMO, that’s a CORPG.
Fair enough on their being MMO’s that don’t require grouping.
But since GW2 has required grouping since day continuously for some content, I would not consider the doctor to be a good one if they recommended GW2 to a patient who was not ready for all possible types of interactions with players.
That would be like a doctor prescribing Drug A to their patient without looking into it at all and it having a known bad reaction of Drug B, which that doctor had prescribed to the patient at the same visit.
was GW1, and during development for 2 we weren’t told it wasn’t soloable, didn’t find that out until BWE’s and those lucky to Test at PAX so at the time if it hadn’t been out but in development based off info from its prequel, would have stood to wager as good as the other. And the drug a vs drug b thing, happens alot clinicians aren’t as well trained at pharmaceuticals in most countries as they should be when it comes to mental health.
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.
Was able to find a group last week to do Urzog, and for some just casual conversations, which GW1 are you playing mate?
Of course you’re able to find people to do Urzog. Its one of the few areas in the game that you can’t fill the entire party with heroes and still get a fast clear because if you do you’re using a party of 8 rather than 12. You’re literally shooting youerself in the foot without at least one other player. You can limp to the finish line with your shot up foot, but it’s not an ideal experience there.
If anything you’re confirming my stance. The place you found a group was the place people aren’t allowed a full hero party.
But it’s still doable with heroes as you just said.
By that logic, dungeons are already soloable, fractals are already soloable, and the group events people complain aren’t soloable are, by and large, already soloable.
It’s just harder, requires specific characters, specific play patterns, and more effort and time for the same reward.
No by this logic, with NPC help hard things can be done, and I find it odd that no one has brought up an issue with soloable open world HoT maps?
Okay so since defining an MMO is lost on people let’s look at the starting point Everquest, a completely group oriented game, that when faced with declining players added merc NPC’s to do group content, same for everquest two, in WoW old content is made soloable after a certain amount of time. In Aion and Liniage, low level and old content made soloable. These games were at one time or another forerunners, and what did they all do, they made things soloable, to keep players invested in the world, atm Anet, is down in player count, and monetarily not doing the best, so what should they probably do, well let’s look to see how many of the aforementioned games are closed… none. should probably add in something to keep us invested and playing. And soloing seems to work great in this genre as a hook, gimmick and marketing strategy.
…can you cite an example of an MMO that, like GW2, doesn’t have it’s ‘old content’ maps become a wasteland with the release of each new map?
Everquest, WoW, Aion, Lineage, etc. all have old content become soloable because there’s no incentive for veteran players to go back and play that content. The population on any map is heavily restricted to the very few players who happen to fall into that map’s level range at that time. Guild Wars 2 does not have that problem.
we saw a similar issue with dungeons when raids came out, instead the bumped the rewards, same for WvW which they made simi soloable and give rewards from dungeons.
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?
Yes. I do it all the time. I’m one of those players who prefers to play solo.
However, their doctor may want them to actually do content together.
And at some point in their treatment, content that may actually create a disagreement to see how well the patient has progressed. To see if the patient doesn’t have as much anxiety. Or can at least control their response to the anxiety better.
When group content is required, people become a means to an end. It would not be good for a person with a mental disorder to be treated and talked to like a tool by random strangers wanting their currency in an optimal timeframe.
Of course, if group content wasn’t required, those kinds of people are less likely to be there, and the experience would be a lot more relaxed. Disagreements would be respectable instead of venomous.
Players don’t suddenly become 100% nice 100% of the time just because they aren’t required to group together.
Please find me a study that proves this and I’ll give you the point.
Name me one well known MMO that does not have any content that requires group play (well known so that one could expect enough doctors to know about it to “prescribe” to patients).
The most well known MMO is WoW. Which I believe does have content that requires groups to play. So tell me why a doctor would “prescribe” MMO play to a patient they didn’t feel was ready for what could happen when they play an MMO, when the most widely known MMO has content that requires group play?
I didn’t say it would be 100% one way or 100% another, but it would certainly make a difference.
And I highly doubt these doctors, with their up to 20 hour work days actually know the intricacies of the way MMOs work, and how the group content is structured, so just because they recommend a game with social interaction doesn’t mean they’re intending their patients to be put into nasty, cutthroat social situations.
And most MMOs requiring group content doesn’t mean they should. Just because something is a certain way doesn’t mean it’s the best way for it to be.
Like I said in the post, name a well known MMO that doesn’t require group play. I’m not saying that there isn’t an MMO out there that doesn’t require group play, but if it’s not well known, then I wouldn’t expect more than a handful to know about it.
And the younger doctors would. The ones just getting out of school and starting in the field. The ones who grew up with WoW having already been released and well known.
Plus, with google being pretty a commonly used resource, I’m sure a reputable doctor would do some research on MMO’s before telling a patient to play it. Just like they would read studies and/or listen to reps discuss a drug before writing prescriptions for them to their patients.
name one soloable Everquest heralded as the first MMO, and yeah they looked some up I chose guild wars out of the list.
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.
Was able to find a group last week to do Urzog, and for some just casual conversations, which GW1 are you playing mate?
Of course you’re able to find people to do Urzog. Its one of the few areas in the game that you can’t fill the entire party with heroes and still get a fast clear because if you do you’re using a party of 8 rather than 12. You’re literally shooting youerself in the foot without at least one other player. You can limp to the finish line with your shot up foot, but it’s not an ideal experience there.
If anything you’re confirming my stance. The place you found a group was the place people aren’t allowed a full hero party.
But it’s still doable with heroes as you just said.
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.
Okay so since defining an MMO is lost on people let’s look at the starting point Everquest, a completely group oriented game, that when faced with declining players added merc NPC’s to do group content, same for everquest two, in WoW old content is made soloable after a certain amount of time. In Aion and Liniage, low level and old content made soloable. These games were at one time or another forerunners, and what did they all do, they made things soloable, to keep players invested in the world, atm Anet, is down in player count, and monetarily not doing the best, so what should they probably do, well let’s look to see how many of the aforementioned games are closed… none. should probably add in something to keep us invested and playing. And soloing seems to work great in this genre as a hook, gimmick and marketing strategy.
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.
Was able to find a group last week to do Urzog, and for some just casual conversations, which GW1 are you playing mate?
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?
thriving wasn’t necessarily the right word, well it was just not in that context, thriving as in not closed for good
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
(edited by amp.7926)