why is there no solo end-game content?

[Sobx.1758]

25 minutes ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

Yes, but those responses obviously didn't convince me, so re-reading them isn't a good use of my time.  Specifically they tended to do what you do here, and suggest playing something else (either Open World, which obviously everyone asking for solo endgame content knows exists, and it isn't addressing their concern), or another game entirely.

Those repsonses didn't convince you, so you're just repeating the same thing you already said before, which also didn't convince anyone else? What's the point of doing that?

25 minutes ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

And again, I was responding to responses.  You just chose to address me specifically for some reason.

I don't see the reason to respond to people above who I agree with. How would I be supposed to do it anyways? Quote them and say that "yes, yes, that's right"? I simply don't see the point of doing that most of the time, but if that will somehow make me look better in your eyes because I'll be suddenly responding to more people -and not just the ones I disagree with here- then I can start doing it.

25 minutes ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

Anyway, as you've noted, we've had this conversation before, and it was unproductive.  Therefore you can assume any posts I'm making here are not directed at you (unless I'm quoting you), and you don't need to worry about them.  It just tends to derail threads otherwise, which hopefully isn't your intention.

It's not just about the discussion between the two of us. It's about repeating same things that were already responded to. Just as explained above: you say you're repeating it because you were not convinced. But your posts clearly didn't convince anyone either, so why would re-typing them suddenly... convince those unconvinced players?

 

And you've completely avoided this for some reason: "OW, trying out builds, quickly accessed, low commitment, has rewards... Do bounties I guess."  ?

...as well as didn't bother how "trying out new builds" was somehow supposed to influence availability of the content, which from what I understand was another one of your claims in the post above?

Edited January 5, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

9 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Those repsonses didn't convince you, so you're just repeating the same thing you already said before, which also didn't convince anyone else? What's the point of doing that?

I don't see the reason to respond to people above who I agree with. How would I be supposed to do it anyways? Quote them and say that "yes, yes, that's right"? I simply don't see the point of doing that most of the time, but if that will somehow make me look better in your eyes because I'll be suddenly responding to more people -and not just the ones I disagree with here- then I can start doing it.

It's not just about the discussion between the two of us. It's about repeating same things that were already responded to. Just as explained above: you say you're repeating it because you were not convinced. But your posts clearly didn't convince anyone either, so why would re-typing them suddenly... convince those unconvinced players?

 

And you've completely avoided this for some reason: "OW, trying out builds, quickly accessed, low commitment, has rewards... Do bounties I guess."  ?

...as well as didn't bother how "trying out new builds" was somehow supposed to influence availability of the content, which from what I understand was another one of your claims in the post above?

Noted.  Let's end our direct interaction there.

[Sobx.1758]

17 minutes ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

Noted.  Let's end our direct interaction there.

Or maybe lets get response to the answers to your requests/arguments, which -to make it as short as possible- were already mentioned above:

And you've completely avoided this for some reason: "OW, trying out builds, quickly accessed, low commitment, has rewards... Do bounties I guess."  ?

...as well as didn't bother how "trying out new builds" was somehow supposed to influence availability of the content, which from what I understand was another one of your claims in the post above?

 

Since, you know, there's a difference between "not being convinced" and "dodging answers", at least from my understanding of how discussions work.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[Schimmi.6872]

21 minutes ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

I totally agree for raids.  But strikes are based on story missions, which are already soloable.  The amount of effort is scalable depending on how much work it would actually take and the perceived benefit (e.g. you could literally just copy paste the story missions to a strike format, or you could adjust numbers to e.g. damage and health, or you could actually add new/group/CM mechanics).  Rewards could then also be scaled accordingly. 

They share some assets and mechanics and I'm not sure, if it's not already the other way round, so the story instances are already the solo-mode of strikes, because at least for earlier CMs a dev once explained that they start with the hardest version and rescale the enemies and remove mechanics for the easier ones. Don't know, if it's the same for EoD-strikes, because at least the HT-instance is very different.

The problem I see is that a (large) part of the challenge in group content comes from the group mechanics, if you remove all of them, without adding new ones targeted at solo players, it may just end like a hard hitting story story-boss without interesting (at least in my opinion) mechanics.

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

18 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Or maybe lets get response to the answers to your requests/arguments, which -to make it as short as possible- were already mentioned above:

And you've completely avoided this for some reason: "OW, trying out builds, quickly accessed, low commitment, has rewards... Do bounties I guess."  ?

...as well as didn't bother how "trying out new builds" was somehow supposed to influence availability of the content, which from what I understand was another one of your claims in the post above?

 

Since, you know, there's a difference between "not being convinced" and "dodging answers", at least from my understanding of how discussions work.

You and I are the two highest posting people in this thread.  Obviously this conversation is unproductive, and frankly not enjoyable.  I do not understand why you are invested in this (either the topic itself, which has little to no effect on you, or discussing it with me specifically), but I am trying to be polite in saying that I do not wish to speak to you.

 

Please can we end this as I am invested in this topic, and don't wish to derail it further.  I won't respond to you again.

[The Boz.2038]

Something something solo DRMs.

inb4 "not like that!"

[Sobx.1758]

4 minutes ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

You and I are the two highest posting people in this thread.  Obviously this conversation is unproductive, and frankly not enjoyable.  I do not understand why you are invested in this (either the topic itself, which has little to no effect on you, or discussing it with me specifically), but I am trying to be polite in saying that I do not wish to speak to you.

 

Please can we end this as I am invested in this topic, and don't wish to derail it further.  I won't respond to you again.

The amount of posts is irrelevant to anything here. If you're striving for an echo chamber, you clearly won't get it here and -which should be absolutely apparent by now, including the very recent posts from last 2 pages- it's not somehow just about me, specifically.

You say you're retyping all of this "because you were not convinced". Well, as far as discussions work, there's a difference between "not being convinced" and "dodging answers", so if you want to continue this thread, here are some of the responses you keep avoiding:

And you've completely avoided this for some reason: "OW, trying out builds, quickly accessed, low commitment, has rewards... Do bounties I guess."  ?

...as well as didn't bother explaining how "trying out new builds" was somehow supposed to influence availability of the content, which from what I understand was another one of your claims in the post above?

Edited January 5, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

Just now, Schimmi.6872 said:

They share some assets and mechanics and I'm not sure, if it's not already the other way round, so the story instances are already the solo-mode of strikes, because at least for earlier CMs a dev once explained that they start with the hardest version and rescale the enemies and remove mechanics for the easier ones. Don't know, if it's the same for EoD-strikes, because at least the HT-instance is very different.

The problem I see is that a (large) part of the challenge in group content comes from the group mechanics, if you remove all of them, without adding new ones targeted at solo players, it may just end like a hard hitting story story-boss without interesting (at least in my opinion) mechanics.

I agree with you that this needs to be considered.  Though I can't think of many mechanics (at least from Normal Mode) where this would be a huge issue.  e.g. the sniper mechanic in AH would be fine solo (and actually require people to look at the map, rather than the commander).  A lot of other mechanics might even get more interesting because you couldn't just rely on the healer while you tank the damage of a mechanic.

 

As has been said, a lot of strikes are actually soloable already, so you could just adjust the health pools to make them less boring for solo players in a worst case scenario (not my preference, but viable).

[The Boz.2038]

7 minutes ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

As has been said, a lot of strikes are actually soloable already, so you could just adjust the health pools to make them less boring for solo players in a worst case scenario (not my preference, but viable).

The result of this will be, naturally, them becoming solofarm objectives, and there are no good outcomes to that.

55-monk is that way 
* points at distant past *
and it should say there

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

29 minutes ago, The Boz.2038 said:

The result of this will be, naturally, them becoming solofarm objectives, and there are no good outcomes to that.

55-monk is that way 
* points at distant past *
and it should say there

I'm not sure if you have something specific in mind with this, but attracting solo farming players is a good outcome, if they spend money on the game.  Even if it wasn't, it would arguably be worthwhile if it was giving lots of other players something they enjoyed (and then they spent money on the game).

If the concern is damaging the economy, or draining players from other content, then that would only happen if the strikes were spammable (which strikes tend not to be, due to daily/weekly rewards) and the individual rewards weren't calibrated properly (e.g. if they were for some reason better than doing them as a group).

[The Boz.2038]

3 minutes ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

attracting solo farming players is a good outcome, if they spend money on the game

The but doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Historically, optimized solo farmers are not the people who spend the money on the game. Quite the opposite...

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

1 minute ago, The Boz.2038 said:

The but doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Historically, optimized solo farmers are not the people who spend the money on the game. Quite the opposite...

I suppose that makes sense, if they're farming enough to not need to buy gems.  Fair point.

 

Though I'm not sure how this would be a problem given the other points - why would this be more damaging than group strikes?  If the worry is draining players from other areas, then just calibrate the rewards to be a bit lower than group versions, or have both rewards available each day - you might even see an uptick in group players because more people have tried them through solo and feel confident to jump into group (or you might not, but that would indicate that a lot of players actually want solo content specifically).

[Schimmi.6872]

1 hour ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

I agree with you that this needs to be considered.  Though I can't think of many mechanics (at least from Normal Mode) where this would be a huge issue.  e.g. the sniper mechanic in AH would be fine solo (and actually require people to look at the map, rather than the commander).  A lot of other mechanics might even get more interesting because you couldn't just rely on the healer while you tank the damage of a mechanic.

 

As has been said, a lot of strikes are actually soloable already, so you could just adjust the health pools to make them less boring for solo players in a worst case scenario (not my preference, but viable).

If we take AH as example, yes, the sniper mechanic from the NM would work, the version from the CM would be useless, but other mechanics would be useless too, like the orange and the green circle in the add-phase. The lighning-mechanic isn't so important if you are solo, just one more AoE. So it would be like the story-mode with one more mechanic.

 

If solo-modes would be more common and rewarding, I also see another problem that may appear nearly instantly - balancing.

As soon as you need specific skills like frequent boon-remove or reflects (if we imagine a solo-version of raid-bosses), or have no chance to flank (because there is no tank), or classes with a very limited boon-generation for themself etc., you may have a much more limited variety of good builds for this content / bosses.

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

1 hour ago, Schimmi.6872 said:

If we take AH as example, yes, the sniper mechanic from the NM would work, the version from the CM would be useless, but other mechanics would be useless too, like the orange and the green circle in the add-phase. The lighning-mechanic isn't so important if you are solo, just one more AoE. So it would be like the story-mode with one more mechanic.

 

So without actually knowing the development side of this, I can only speculate on the best approach here, but I think the lightning would be fine (been a while since I did the CM, but it's just a place and drop right?).  If so then tweaking the frequency/duration of the effect could add challenge by forcing you to place them carefully.  The green circle I agree is currently useless, but they could use the Vale Guardian version where it spawns in a specific location, rather than on the player.

 

Yes, not all of the mechanics would work, but there's no reason to treat the solo-CM and group-CM as equals.  In fact they shouldn't.  Give the solo version different rewards as appropriate.  If it's easier, just give less.  At minimum, the titles and achievements should be totaly separate.

2 hours ago, Schimmi.6872 said:

If solo-modes would be more common and rewarding, I also see another problem that may appear nearly instantly - balancing.

As soon as you need specific skills like frequent boon-remove or reflects (if we imagine a solo-version of raid-bosses), or have no chance to flank (because there is no tank), or classes with a very limited boon-generation for themself etc., you may have a much more limited variety of good builds for this content / bosses.

So this is a point I assume the devs do have info on, and I guess is the reason Liadri is so unrewarding.  I'm honestly not sure if this is an issue or not.  So long as there is at least one build per class (or ideally specialisation) that is capable of winning the fight reasonably, then I don't really see why this would be an issue.  If it isn't, then just drop the difficulty to the point that it is, and the rewards appropriately.  This isn't something huge that the game needs to be designed around (unless it does become really popular), just something for players to do when they only have a limited amount of time to play/way to cater to the players who want to do instanced content but really don't want to group up (which is a lot of players).

[yoni.7015]

25 minutes ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

for players to do when they only have a limited amount of time to play/way to cater to the players who want to do instanced content but really don't want to group up (which is a lot of players).

These players already have open world, which is 90% of the game and the content that gets the most attention. 
If this is really an issue for a lot of players as you claim, then we would see way more threads like this. 

Edited January 5, 2023 by yoni.7015

[Silent.6137]

8 hours ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

In terms of how many people would play it, obviously that data is hard to get.  I can confidently say "At least one", being myself.  However, as has been noted, this topic is discussed a lot, so clearly there is interest.  Similarly, we can look at the success of one player games, especially difficult ones like the Souls series and Elden Ring, to show that there is a market for this kind of gameplay.

If they ever do implement solo game modes like that, obviously quite a few will at least try it out. However, judging from the trend, I doubt it'll ever be very popular. People plays MMOs so they can participate in group dynamics. Of course, that doesn't means mutually exclusivity. The same players will play both types but they are here to play and interact with others.

As a developer, would you risk investing in something so niche? The resources may not be huge but it'll still be very significant to change, test and tweak. Nothing is ever simple since they will have to consider more than just changing a few fight mechanics. There's rewards adjustments, UI, etc., etc.

And especially knowing that the number who participate in Instanced contents is very limited in comparison.

26 minutes ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

We've already agreed it is unproductive for the two of us to discuss this, I don't know why you're continuing to reply to me.

I know you're replying to someone else but it takes two to tango. If it's unproductive, there's no reason for you to respond either.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Silent.6137

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

12 minutes ago, Silent.6137 said:

If they ever do implement solo game modes like that, obviously quite a few will at least try it out. However, judging from the trend, I doubt it'll ever be very popular. People plays MMOs so they can participate in group dynamics. Of course, that doesn't means mutually exclusivity. The same players will play both types but they are here to play and interact with others.

 

This is only anecdotal, but in my experience I don't think your premise is entirely correct here.  Yes a big draw of MMOs is group content, but most players I have interacted with do huge amounts of solo gameplay (probably more than they do instanced).  I'm also not even sure it's true that every does some group content.  The world of GW2 and the accessibility is a big selling point, and a lot of people might play just to adventure, and maybe chat with guildies/friends, or not at all.

Obviously a lot of players do enjoy group content, at least some of the time.  But the number of people who log in and farm Drizzlewood whilst streaming in the background, or whatever, has to be comparable.

Also, people might want to play with guildies/statics/friends, but they also want to be able to log in in their own time (most guilds I'm aware of run events at specific times, on specific days, leaving most of the week for people to do other things.

29 minutes ago, Silent.6137 said:

As a developer, would you risk investing in something so niche? The resources may not be huge but it'll still be very significant to change, test and tweak. Nothing is ever simple since they will have to consider more than just changing a few fight mechanics. There's rewards adjustments, UI, etc., etc.

And especially knowing that the number who participate in Instanced contents is very limited in comparison.

Yes, I don't mean to oversimplify this.  But speaking relatively (e.g. compared to building a new raid, which requires new assets, new mechanics, new rewards etc.) this is still relatively low.

I really don't think it would be that niche though.  These threads do occur pretty often in my view.  I know a lot of players killed Liadri (which is not rewarding, requires building up to, and is kind of hidden and obtuse to access, whilst being unavailable most of the year).  We know one player games are popular.

Even if it isn't something people log in every day to play (some would), I think it would at least fill a gap for a lot of people when they log in and think "what should I do", or when LFG is empty. 

32 minutes ago, Silent.6137 said:

I know you're replying to someone else but it takes two to tango. If it's unproductive, there's no reason for you to respond either.

Yes I know, and I am sorry for my contributions to this.  I don't want to get involved in a separate discussion about this, but let's just say I've tried the "ignore them and they'll go away" approach and it hasn't been very successful.

[Silent.6137]

35 minutes ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

This is only anecdotal, but in my experience I don't think your premise is entirely correct here.  Yes a big draw of MMOs is group content, but most players I have interacted with do huge amounts of solo gameplay (probably more than they do instanced). 

From what you quoted me: People plays MMOs so they can participate in group dynamics. Yes, group dynamics. It doesn't have to be doing events with other players. Even solo farming but interacting with the group dynamics of the map. Not solo play where the only person you see is yourself. Or isolated in an Instanced content where you don't experience the group dynamics.

There are countless great solo games available. People search for MMOs not because they are interested in solo play.

[Ashen.2907]

As stated previously, repeatedly, the premise of the titular question is false.

There is solo endgame content available. 

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

6 minutes ago, Silent.6137 said:

From what you quoted me: People plays MMOs so they can participate in group dynamics. Yes, group dynamics. It doesn't have to be doing events with other players. Even solo farming but interacting with the group dynamics of the map. Not solo play where the only person you see is yourself. Or isolated in an Instanced content where you don't experience the group dynamics.

There are countless great solo games available. People search for MMOs not because they are interested in solo play.

I agree that people choose MMOs largely for group dynamics, but I don't think what follows is true.  Plenty of people do for example map completion because they enjoy it regardless of whether they see someone else.

 

Also, players are invested in their characters and the game.  Even if they are primarily there to play with friends, they will spend time outside of that farming or levelling (or whatever).  Choosing an MMO for the group dynamics doesn't equate to all, or even most of the play time being based on that.

 

You can even have a really group dynamics focussed reason to play solo content.  Say you love decorating a guild hall (which is hugely expensive), and need to farm up the gold to pay for it.

 

Again, I'm not arguing that solo content should be introduced to replace group content.  I'm saying that it would be good to add the option for players who log in and either their usual friends aren't on, or LFG is empty, or they want to play instanced content but don't enjoy grouping, or they want to practice a new build/class, or they just want to play a boss and actually figure out the fight for themselves...  I really don't think this is a niche issue.

[Ashen.2907]

21 minutes ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

, I'm not arguing that solo content should be introduced to replace group content

You kind of are doing just that.

The vast majority of the content of the game is solo, or non-group oriented events where you do not join a group but are working toward the same goal as others on the map. This is unlikely to change, so resources to be spent on additional solo content such as you advocate for would need to come from somewhere else. If we are talking about scalability for strikes, raids, or other instanced content then the release cadence for such content would be slowed.

So yes, the addition of solo specific options for strikes (for example) would mean fewer group strikes.

[Bladestrom.6425]

1 hour ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

I agree that people choose MMOs largely for group dynamics, but I don't think what follows is true.  Plenty of people do for example map completion because they enjoy it regardless of whether they see someone else.

 

Also, players are invested in their characters and the game.  Even if they are primarily there to play with friends, they will spend time outside of that farming or levelling (or whatever).  Choosing an MMO for the group dynamics doesn't equate to all, or even most of the play time being based on that.

 

You can even have a really group dynamics focussed reason to play solo content.  Say you love decorating a guild hall (which is hugely expensive), and need to farm up the gold to pay for it.

 

Again, I'm not arguing that solo content should be introduced to replace group content.  I'm saying that it would be good to add the option for players who log in and either their usual friends aren't on, or LFG is empty, or they want to play instanced content but don't enjoy grouping, or they want to practice a new build/class, or they just want to play a boss and actually figure out the fight for themselves...  I really don't think this is a niche issue.

 

As others have said this is a niche/non issue.  Currently you can find decent solo challenges in pvp/wvw/open world champs (for example night bosses HOT) / Dungeons/Low level fractals (and see how high you can go).   The only gap for your niche is hard mode strikes/raids/hard fractals. Bear in mind you can also pug everything else with any build for practice.  So you are left with niche high-tuned content designed specifically for highly coordinated groups that you cant solo which represents less than 5% of the game content as it is.  Note as well that hard mode mechanics are setup for groups, so 'practicing' would be pointless unless the fight was entirely different for solo, and this is therefore where the opportunity cost lies that would take away developer resource from other content.

Edited January 5, 2023 by vesica tempestas.1563

[Smoky.5348]

This pro on YouTube solo'd all the Dungeons and even a few Strike Missions, so obviously there's plenty of soloable content.

As per usual, most of you aren't even trying to engage with the other party, you're just dismissing them and saying the first thing that pops into your mind. If you think solo content means taking on a challenge that wasn't designed for a solo player, then you're not really using your head. If these things were reasonably scaled for solo play, no one would be asking for solo content in the first place!

15 hours ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

As has been said, a lot of strikes are actually soloable already, so you could just adjust the health pools to make them less boring for solo players in a worst case scenario (not my preference, but viable).

This right here is the easiest answer. The only reason the average player can't play such content solo, or even with a few friends, is because of arbitrary HP bloat and swarms of enemies in a single spot. The game has dynamic event scaling in open world, so just configure it for the instanced contents that don't actually rely on multiple players. Proper solo content should not be a test in sustainability and mob luring. Obviously, a more elaborate solution would be ideal, but we're talking about ANET here. I needn't explain that.

But, then people will only play the solo versions because it's easier!

That's what rewards are for. The multiplayer content needs more people, so have it give out more rewards and currency than the solo content. Make the multiplayer content worth it with positive reinforcement (which also means not to make it too exclusive). I've seen it plenty of times; people want to play something, but the rewards aren't worth the time. It just needs to be worth it.

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

9 hours ago, vesica tempestas.1563 said:

 

As others have said this is a niche/non issue.  Currently you can find decent solo challenges in pvp/wvw/open world champs (for example night bosses HOT) / Dungeons/Low level fractals (and see how high you can go).   The only gap for your niche is hard mode strikes/raids/hard fractals. Bear in mind you can also pug everything else with any build for practice.  So you are left with niche high-tuned content designed specifically for highly coordinated groups that you cant solo which represents less than 5% of the game content as it is.  Note as well that hard mode mechanics are setup for groups, so 'practicing' would be pointless unless the fight was entirely different for solo, and this is therefore where the opportunity cost lies that would take away developer resource from other content.

I agree that high end group content is a small proportion of the game, and to be clear, I like high end group content and hope they add more of it.

That said, I don't think your argument holds up.  You could just as easily say that groups of players could get together to take on open world champs without armour if they want a challenge.  Soloing champs isn't an acceptable solution for the same reason you don't see many players doing that.  It's long, probably boring, and unrewarding, so it feels like a waste of time.

Also, pugging really isn't a solution for the problem.  Pug groups might not be demanding, but you can't play at your own pace, jump in to whatever you want whenever you want, experiment with different strategies etc. (I actually don't think I've seen all the mechanics in several strikes because the group tactic of "stack and hit" ignores them).   Again, I use LFG, and I enjoy pugging (enough), but this simply is not a replacement for the kind of gameplay I'm talking about.

So the niche that's missing is, basically exactly what you said - strikes/raids/hard fractals, which is less than 5% of the game for groups, and zero percent for solo players.  And I'm not even asking for fractals and raids.

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

10 hours ago, Ashen.2907 said:

You kind of are doing just that.

The vast majority of the content of the game is solo, or non-group oriented events where you do not join a group but are working toward the same goal as others on the map. This is unlikely to change, so resources to be spent on additional solo content such as you advocate for would need to come from somewhere else. If we are talking about scalability for strikes, raids, or other instanced content then the release cadence for such content would be slowed.

So yes, the addition of solo specific options for strikes (for example) would mean fewer group strikes.

That feels like a stretch.  "Replace" would mean that group content didn't exist any more.  Yes there would be some lost development time on other things, but I have specifically looked for the lowest possible resource solution to this.  Also, the solo strikes, if popular, would use most of the resources of group strikes anyway, so actually help justify investing in instanced content over open world and story by adding a new player base for it.