why is there no solo end-game content?

[Sobx.1758]

34 minutes ago, soul.9651 said:

Sure.. and it also says guild run and its likely most of the squad will be at the discord comunicating with each other and beeing able to carry the rest of the pugs who joins.

How does it matter that it's a guild run, when they're looking for 1hfb and 4 dps, which adds up to... HALF OF THE SQUAD? (there goes your "most of the squad" claim at the same time btw) How does it matter that YOU SUSPECT most (nope) of them will be on discord? Even if they were (which you don't know), what does it change about literally anything written in the posts above?

It's a guild training run, which means out of those 5 people already in the squad, at least some are there specifically to train. Your theory seems like a hopeless shot series of shots in the dark that have more of a chance to be completely wrong than correct. And it doesn't even address or change anything you wrote in your previous posts. (unless I'm missing something, then absolutely explain it to me)

34 minutes ago, soul.9651 said:

Plus some pugs especially if its a training run just dont listen and keep dying to the same things or even worse. I can make fract cms lfg with "know what to do" aswell to watch absolute the opposite happening if someone new joins.

You need to pick a lane. Is your complaint here (in this very same post) about "5 people carrying pugs too hard" or "pugs not listening and keep dying to the same things anyways"?

Was your main/initial complaint about "x content being popular/unpopular" or was it about "not being able to join groups without LI" or maybe now it's somehow turning into "but pugs might fail"? Seriously, this seems to be going all over the place and I suspect it's mostly because you understand your initial claims were mostly wrong. Or maybe there's a different reason I'm, again, missing? I'm actually confused about this whole exchange now because you seem to be changing what you're arguing about every few posts.

I mean first you claimed only raiders play that content, but now you're complaining about possibility of new players joining your squad and how that's... a bad thing? Wasn't "new players being able to join" your goal in the first place? And that's exactly the point: they can and they do.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[soul.9651]

25 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

 

Was your main/initial complaint about "x content being popular/unpopular" or was it about "not being able to join groups without LI" or maybe now it's somehow turning into "but pugs might fail"? 

Yes it was about "beeing not as popular" as you think it is and i added li to the context as an example that the same people who are raidding will be doing most of strikes, and keeping in mind that the population in this game who raids isnt the biggest one out there... This was not about if anyone can join those groups or not(this isnt about gatekeeping), but just to show the main population of lfg(if you join the groups with kp people in those squads will most likely gonna have experience in raidding aswell). Now i understand that during the day depending on time the view of lfg will be different, but i was mentioning my personal view when most of the squads i see are asking for kp(ibs + daily eod/250li; or eod cms xkp and so on; sure you can see something like"3 easy ibs" or daily NM eod strikes without kp, but for me the majority of lfgs are people wanting 4 eod strike cms or ibs + eod daily cm so all of them will have people who are wanting the kp and are the same ones who are raidding). You gave other examples of screenshots where 1)maybe most of the people already did their clears and lfg was looking different, like someone said during the day the view of lfg will be different depending when most of the people are free 2)i have no idea maybe you are from NA and this is you usual view of the lfg.

You can say that im wrong all you want based on your experience of lfg and in what time you do your clears or even with what squads as you were mentioning joining "training" runs but its all you point of view nothing more based on what you saw just like im basing my view from what im seeing when i log in..

[Sobx.1758]

22 minutes ago, soul.9651 said:

Yes it was about "beeing not as popular" as you think it is and i added li to the context as an example that the same people who are raidding will be doing most of strikes, and keeping in mind that the population in this game who raids isnt the biggest one out there... This was not about if anyone can join those groups or not(this isnt about gatekeeping), but just to show the main population of lfg(if you join the groups with kp people in those squads will most likely gonna have experience in raidding aswell). Now i understand that during the day depending on time the view of lfg will be different, but i was mentioning my personal view when most of the squads i see are asking for kp(ibs + daily eod/250li; or eod cms xkp and so on; sure you can see something like"3 easy ibs" or daily NM eod strikes without kp, but for me the majority of lfgs are people wanting 4 eod strike cms or ibs + eod daily cm so all of them will have people who are wanting the kp and are the same ones who are raidding).

But it is popular and you responded nothing to what I initially said about it. Your reasoning about "li always required so it's the same people" was already disproven, if only because your base for that claim is clearly false. Whether or not "most people ask for kp" (and at this point I'll just put aside whether or not it's true anyways) is irrelevant to whether or not it's popular. You understand that, right? It's not about "whether or not new players can join", but if new players join, it makes those players not the same as the previous raiders, which again goes against your initial theory.

22 minutes ago, soul.9651 said:

You gave other examples of screenshots where1)maybe most of the people already did their clears and lfg was looking different, like someone said during the day the view of lfg will be different depending when most of the people are free

Whether or not "most people did their clear" is irrelevant to anything either, since in what way would that be supposed to be changing anything written in my previous posts?

Is this really some kind of an attempt to say "most people did their clear so there are still squads doing those anyways so it's.... unpopular"? I don't understand how that's supposed to be making any sense. SPECIFICALLY explain what you're trying to address with that, because from my perspective it doesn't seem to be addressing anything again.

22 minutes ago, soul.9651 said:

2)i have no idea maybe you are from NA and this is you usual view of the lfg.

Nope. And the screenshots were literally taken when I said I took them, which means you can check the time of the post I mentioned them in the first place.

22 minutes ago, soul.9651 said:

You can say that im wrong all you want based on your experience of lfg and in what time you do your clears or even with what squads as you were mentioning joining "training" runs but its all you point of view nothing more based on what you saw just like im basing my view from what im seeing when i log in..

It's not "just my point of view", it's a factual state of lfg, you literally got it screenshotted at the time known to you and you'll still try pretending it's somehow just "my point of view"? Am I somehow reading those squads' descriptions in a different manner, so they're somehow not a fact, but just some subjective way I think they are (a.k.a "my point of view")? 😐 Obviously it's not the same at all times, but -again- it doesn't change anything about them being popular. If you check lfg "at weird times" (so to speak), ALL of it will be pretty much empty, not just strikes. I guess it makes the whole game unpopular or something.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[soul.9651]

15 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

 

Nope. And the screenshots were literally taken when I said I took them, which means you can check the time of the post I mentioned them in the first place.

It's not "just my point of view", it's a factual state of lfg.

You beeing serious rn? You think your one random screenshot "clearly" shows the "factual state of lfg"? XD 

 

 

"li always required so it's the same people" i said li always requeired in organized groups, the same groups which are doing several or one strike cms in their runs, the same groups which are the majority of lfg when i log in, i dont have in mind nor mentioning any training runs u seems to like so much.

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by soul.9651

[Sobx.1758]

22 minutes ago, soul.9651 said:

You beeing serious rn? You think your one random screenshot "clearly" shows the "factual state of lfg"? XD 

It's not "just one random screenshot". I tell you that it's clear what lfg looks like if you're actually participating in that content. That one screenshot was just an off-hand example of it and it's way more of a proof than you have for any of your claims.

22 minutes ago, soul.9651 said:

"li always required so it's the same people" i said li always requeired in organized groups, the same groups which are doing several or one strike cms in their runs, i dont have in mind nor mentioning any training runs u seems to like so much.

And it's not always required. It's also a weird way to see an "organized squad" where it's somehow a requirement to complete everything in one sweep. Since when is this what "organized squad" means? What do you mean you don't have in mind any training runs? Is it because those training runs show not the same people keep running that content? So your claim is that "it's ran by the same people" BUT only if we "dismiss those who are not the people/squads you're talking about"? So overally... you understand what you said is simply false since you need to "not consider certain squads/players" in order to "make all players specifically who you want them to be here for the sake of this discussion"?

You've missed most of the post btw, still many things I don't understand about your approach to this discussion, so I really have a hard time "connecting the dots" here. This is in no way sarcastic, I don't understand the way you're trying to connect your current reasoning with your initial claims. Your claim is that the content is not popular.... because only raiders play it... and that's supposed to be true because you only count some specific squads and not the others, including the training ones? Like... what?

 

And btw no, you did not say "li always required in organized groups". You've said:

2 hours ago, soul.9651 said:

Well people say "raids are done by the minority in this game", you say "strikes are rly popular". So one of the 2 is false. Plus raid lfg is more alive. Fractal one aswell depending on time of the day. To me it looks like the same population who raid is doing strikes aswell as a side thing, and if the same population by others is called the "minority" can u then say that the content "strikes" is that popular then?

You were claiming raid lfg is more popular (but still unpopular) and same population of raiders is doing strikes as a side thing. Now you're moving the goalposts into some unspecified "organized squads" and you're not talking about the other squads, including training ones. If you need to cut players/squads from lfg in order for you initial claim to even have a leg to stand on, then it should be clear at this point you understand what you said is baseless.

And with that, I think I'm done with this comment chain.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[Krzysztof.5973]

5 minutes ago, soul.9651 said:

i said li always requeired in organized groups,

What's the minimal requirement for a group to be "organized"?

[DarcShriek.5829]

It's called an MMO for a reason.  If you want a single player experience, buy a single player game.  Don't buy a guitar, if you want to play a saxophone.

[DexterousGecko.6328]

1 hour ago, DarcShriek.5829 said:

It's called an MMO for a reason.  If you want a single player experience, buy a single player game.  Don't buy a guitar, if you want to play a saxophone.

Actually, despite the name, most players spend the majority of their time in an mmo doing solo activities. 90% of the content in Guild Wars 2 is essentially solo content. The entire story is solo content. You can pretend all you want that "it says MULTIPLAYER right in the name" means something other than 'there are multiple players all in the same game world', but you'd be wrong.

[Brandon Uzumaki.1524]

A "Queen Pavilon 2.0", with a lot more new, and re-used bosses, more challenges and gambits, extra achievements and prizes, maybe with leaderboards and time challenges would be cool, need to be always available of course, but i don't think that would be a problem.

And since it's solo, everyone can benefit, casual players that don't want to deal with group pressure (and they can just not use gambits and challenges), and the more hardcore players that want some new and challenging content to play.

[Doggie.3184]

if Super Adventure Box was taken seriously.

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

9 hours ago, DexterousGecko.6328 said:

Actually, despite the name, most players spend the majority of their time in an mmo doing solo activities. 90% of the content in Guild Wars 2 is essentially solo content. The entire story is solo content. You can pretend all you want that "it says MULTIPLAYER right in the name" means something other than 'there are multiple players all in the same game world', but you'd be wrong.

Yeah, I don't know why people feel so restricted by the "MMO" bit.  Yes, it's an MMO, but that doesn't mean it has to be restricted to a specific formula.  If you can attract Open World, Instanced Group, Competitive PvP, WvW, Fashion Wars, Lore Addict players etc. then why would you suddenly decide to reject people who want to spend part of their time enjoying the mechanics and their characters in a solo instanced context (which is a huge proportion of the story anyway)?

 

People spends dozens/hundreds/thousands of hours investing in MMOs, and they become attached to the game, the world and their characters.  Adding variety to what they can do in game is an obvious way to keep them engaged (and the game is absolutely full of side activities and solo content already).

 

Also, the exact same argument could be said for instanced group content, which ignores the first "M".  It just happens to traditionally be a feature of MMOs.  If you want cooperative group content, you could go play Left 4 Dead (or many, many other games).

Edited January 7, 2023 by CrashTestAuto.9108

[Bladestrom.6425]

To summarise, the thread is called why is there not solo content - it has has been clarified that 90% of the game is soloable. 

 

Poster  went on to target strikes, they want strike content to be soloable.  Well solo strike content is equivalent to an instanced dungeon or fractal with a single room with a single boss with limited attack patterns for a single player.  Terrible content that would take away develop resource from more popular content. 

 

Poster went on to refer to dead souls and Elden ring, but what makes that game interesting is the journey, and encountering bosses on that journey ands as far as i can tell there is zero calls for  Elden ring bosses to be available in a room on demand so it can be repeatedly fought with for loot.

 

Don't think the opening poster really understands what he wants.

[Gendalfs.7521]

Solo instances isnt right thing to do. Imagine farming that precious fractal or strike currency with your 632 alts? 

[Silent.6137]

1 hour ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

Yeah, I don't know why people feel so restricted by the "MMO" bit.  Yes, it's an MMO, but that doesn't mean it has to be restricted to a specific formula.  If you can attract Open World, Instanced Group, Competitive PvP, WvW, Fashion Wars, Lore Addict players etc. then why would you suddenly decide to reject people who want to spend part of their time enjoying the mechanics and their characters in a solo instanced context (which is a huge proportion of the story anyway)?

Also, the exact same argument could be said for instanced group content, which ignores the first "M".  It just happens to traditionally be a feature of MMOs.  If you want cooperative group content, you could go play Left 4 Dead (or many, many other games).

What's the definition of MMO? Definitely not single player. Yes, there are many contents that you can solo in GW2 but every single one of them provide the ability to group up with any of the first "M" in the game. Even solo Story Journals. It's not meant to be so restricted such that there's no possibility of teaming up.

You seemed obsessed with closed solo instanced game mode when there are already many Instanced game mode that you can solo if you wanted to. DRMs, certain Strikes and some Fractals. Wouldn't it make more sense to practice your skills and rotations there so it can be applied when you're engaged in team-play?

Am I against closed solo instanced per se? Not really. But as many has opined, it really doesn't make much sense for Anet to invest in it. Reasons? Plenty of them. You just need to scroll through all the counter-arguments in all these pages so I won't bother to repeat them. There really doesn't seem to be much support for it so it'll be  pretty much dead in the water from the get-go. Unless you can convince enough players to champion the idea, I truly doubt Anet would even consider it.

[AliamRationem.5172]

37 minutes ago, Silent.6137 said:

What's the definition of MMO? Definitely not single player. Yes, there are many contents that you can solo in GW2 but every single one of them provide the ability to group up with any of the first "M" in the game. Even solo Story Journals. It's not meant to be so restricted such that there's no possibility of teaming up.

You seemed obsessed with closed solo instanced game mode when there are already many Instanced game mode that you can solo if you wanted to. DRMs, certain Strikes and some Fractals. Wouldn't it make more sense to practice your skills and rotations there so it can be applied when you're engaged in team-play?

Am I against closed solo instanced per se? Not really. But as many has opined, it really doesn't make much sense for Anet to invest in it. Reasons? Plenty of them. You just need to scroll through all the counter-arguments in all these pages so I won't bother to repeat them. There really doesn't seem to be much support for it so it'll be  pretty much dead in the water from the get-go. Unless you can convince enough players to champion the idea, I truly doubt Anet would even consider it.

Another problem with solo instanced content is that no matter how easy you make it half the players in the game will insist that it's designed for groups (see story instances).  But unlike story instances, solo content won't allow you to bring friends if you need help.

[Sobx.1758]

14 hours ago, DexterousGecko.6328 said:

Actually, despite the name, most players spend the majority of their time in an mmo doing solo activities. 90% of the content in Guild Wars 2 is essentially solo content. The entire story is solo content. You can pretend all you want that "it says MULTIPLAYER right in the name" means something other than 'there are multiple players all in the same game world', but you'd be wrong.

Not exactly true. Sure, story content is solo content, but it can also be attented in groups. Even if it was strictly solo content without possibility to participate in it within groups (which, admittedly I do not do and, really, almost surely most people just solo it), that in no way consists of being "majority" of the content or player time. Open world is ""played solo"" as in most of the time the players might not be directly grouping up within squads or parties, but I'd go as far as straight up say that majority of events are most probably not completed solo (even though they're scaling and are soloable), but still in random -even if non squad, non party- groups of players who happen to be doing the same thing. As a result, majority still seems to be multiplayer and support that "mmo" side of the game.

 

5 hours ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

Yeah, I don't know why people feel so restricted by the "MMO" bit.  Yes, it's an MMO, but that doesn't mean it has to be restricted to a specific formula.  If you can attract Open World, Instanced Group, Competitive PvP, WvW, Fashion Wars, Lore Addict players etc. then why would you suddenly decide to reject people who want to spend part of their time enjoying the mechanics and their characters in a solo instanced context (which is a huge proportion of the story anyway)?

 

People spends dozens/hundreds/thousands of hours investing in MMOs, and they become attached to the game, the world and their characters.  Adding variety to what they can do in game is an obvious way to keep them engaged (and the game is absolutely full of side activities and solo content already).

 

Also, the exact same argument could be said for instanced group content, which ignores the first "M".  It just happens to traditionally be a feature of MMOs.  If you want cooperative group content, you could go play Left 4 Dead (or many, many other games).

And I in turn don't know why people striving for that souls like or elden ring solo gameplay won't just play those games for their singleplayer needs, but instead attempt to turn an mmorpg into those. (...then again, just go solo bounties or similar content if that's what you want)

Edited January 7, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[scrumsome.7198]

GW2 forum is strange!
OP (and others) express hope for repeatable, soloable, challenging content outside of the non-repeatable story.
They are, almost immediately, "beat down" with the arguments:

1. "This is an mmo go play another game."
2. "If Anet spends ressources on this, then MY preferred content may suffer."
3. "90-99% of the game is already soloable".  (Combine that with point 1 for a mild laugh)

It seems that whenever a (possibly) new player airs: "Hey, I think it would be nice if we could have this!" - The  GW2 forum defense league immediately goes to DEFCON 2. 
Seriously: WTF? Try to apply a modicum of the reason you slap the OP with and EXPLAIN (opposed to kneejerk "this is mmo" or "Anet earnings") why you are certain the OP's idea would be so terrible.
 

More options are not inherently bad. Not even if you are a NC-Soft shareholder (as some forum warrs seem to be).

Oh BTW: I am not going to complain (or post) about reactions of the natives. I consider them literally. Example:: Confused = Short span of attention, gullible, easily sidetracked. 😉 

[Linken.6345]

4 minutes ago, scrumsome.7198 said:

GW2 forum is strange!
OP (and others) express hope for repeatable, soloable, challenging content outside of the non-repeatable story.
They are, almost immediately, "beat down" with the arguments:

1. "This is an mmo go play another game."
2. "If Anet spends ressources on this, then MY preferred content may suffer."
3. "90-99% of the game is already soloable".  (Combine that with point 1 for a mild laugh)

It seems that whenever a (possibly) new player airs: "Hey, I think it would be nice if we could have this!" - The  GW2 forum defense league immediately goes to DEFCON 2. 
Seriously: WTF? Try to apply a modicum of the reason you slap the OP with and EXPLAIN (opposed to kneejerk "this is mmo" or "Anet earnings") why you are certain the OP's idea would be so terrible.
 

More options are not inherently bad. Not even if you are a NC-Soft shareholder (as some forum warrs seem to be).

Oh BTW: I am not going to complain (or post) about reactions of the natives. I consider them literally. Example:: Confused = Short span of attention, gullible, easily sidetracked. 😉 

Maybe read the thread abit more instead of skim it and you would understand why this specific request is shot down and with good reason.

[Ashantara.8731]

To me, in a MMO, map metas and anything accessible via LFG is "solo" endgame content, because it's easy to hop in and doesn't require you to do much other than chill and play the game (provided that you are somewhat experienced). That's as "solo" as any multiplayer game will ever get, because the MMO genre by definition brings players together one way or another.

The only real solo content in GW2, as already mentioned by others, consists of story and story achievements, and in my humble opinion there is a lot of that to keep solo players happy.

[scrumsome.7198]

6 minutes ago, Linken.6345 said:

Maybe read the thread abit more instead of skim it and you would understand why this specific request is shot down and with good reason.

Read the first 2 pages. I still find the kneejerk reactions on this forum strange.
And no: I am not going to analyze every post over 12-13 pages because a person expressed that he would LIKE something (not a demand!) in this game. The replies just seems strange!

 

[Silent.6137]

45 minutes ago, scrumsome.7198 said:

Read the first 2 pages. I still find the kneejerk reactions on this forum strange.

By just reading the first 2 pages and to come to a conclusion as you did with your comments, is just as much a kneejerk reaction as you accused those who offers criticisms.

There are some who would state "This is an mmo go play another game." but those comments are very few. All ideas are and should be subjected to criticisms since most of them are seldom fleshed out. They are mere ideas and suggestions and even the very good ones  are never perfect. With the points and counterpoints, it can be changed to something maybe a majotiry would like and can support.

Many have offered good reasons why the subject is not a great idea. That's not to say that it is a bad idea. Some of the arguments for the idea just doesn't make much sense (the same can be said for some of those against it). And although I'd never say it since it's their game and money, sometimes you do wonder why someone would play this game if they find so many things and flaws to dislike about it. Here, I'm speaking in general regarding some of the criticisms of the game in this forum. This may be a reason why comments like that exists because some people may be less tolerant if they deem these requests just doesn't make very much sense at all.

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

23 hours ago, Silent.6137 said:

What's the definition of MMO? Definitely not single player. Yes, there are many contents that you can solo in GW2 but every single one of them provide the ability to group up with any of the first "M" in the game. Even solo Story Journals. It's not meant to be so restricted such that there's no possibility of teaming up.

 

In my ideal world, I'd actually prefer for strikes and dungeons to just scale from 1-5 (with some difficulty increases other than bigger health pools).  As I've said, I enjoy group content, I just also want it to be available solo.  This is the issue.  You are correct that story intances don't restrict you to a set number of players, but strike missions etc. do. (to a degree)

 

23 hours ago, Silent.6137 said:

You seemed obsessed with closed solo instanced game mode when there are already many Instanced game mode that you can solo if you wanted to. DRMs, certain Strikes and some Fractals. Wouldn't it make more sense to practice your skills and rotations there so it can be applied when you're engaged in team-play?

"Obsessed" is a bit strong.  It's the focus of my discussion in a thread specifically about solo endgame content, but what else would I be taking about?

 

The problem with the things you listed is that they're boring.  Strikes and Fractals because of health pools not scaling and DRMs because of just horrible design (unfortunately).  If the health pools scaled in Strikes, it wouldn't be my ideal, but it would basically resolve my request (as I've said).

23 hours ago, Silent.6137 said:

Am I against closed solo instanced per se? Not really. But as many has opined, it really doesn't make much sense for Anet to invest in it. Reasons? Plenty of them. You just need to scroll through all the counter-arguments in all these pages so I won't bother to repeat them. There really doesn't seem to be much support for it so it'll be  pretty much dead in the water from the get-go. Unless you can convince enough players to champion the idea, I truly doubt Anet would even consider it.

Honestly, please do bother to repeat them.  A bullet pointed list of the arguments you think are most compelling in this thread would be great.  (It would be good for someone who thinks there are good counter-arguments to summarise, because for the vast majority of this thread I actually think scrumsome's summary above is pretty accurate.

 

For what it's worth, the most compelling argument I've seen is probably balancing and some mechanics not working, but that is a tiny fraction of what has been posted.

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

On 1/7/2023 at 10:55 AM, vesica tempestas.1563 said:

To summarise, the thread is called why is there not solo content - it has has been clarified that 90% of the game is soloable. 

 

This seems weirdly disingenuous.  The title of this thread is "why is there no solo end-game content".  Surely you don't think it is compelling to just ignore the word end-game.  Everyone knows the majority of the game is soloable, so no one on either side of the fence should think this addresses the issue.

 

On 1/7/2023 at 10:55 AM, vesica tempestas.1563 said:

Poster  went on to target strikes, they want strike content to be soloable.  Well solo strike content is equivalent to an instanced dungeon or fractal with a single room with a single boss with limited attack patterns for a single player.  Terrible content that would take away develop resource from more popular content. 

At least in the current phrasing, this criticism would apply equally to group strikes.  Though I have absolutely no objection (and would like) solo dungeons and fractals, I just went with strikes because I think they're the easiest and cheapest thing to do.

 

On 1/7/2023 at 10:55 AM, vesica tempestas.1563 said:

Poster went on to refer to dead souls and Elden ring, but what makes that game interesting is the journey, and encountering bosses on that journey ands as far as i can tell there is zero calls for  Elden ring bosses to be available in a room on demand so it can be repeatedly fought with for loot.

Okay... but even assuming you've summarised the entire playerbase (and potential player base) of those games, boss rushes are a thing, and they aren't limited to multiplayer games.  Moreover, you could have made that exact argument against group strikes in GW2 before they were released.  

[Bladestrom.6425]

21 minutes ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

 

This seems weirdly disingenuous.  The title of this thread is "why is there no solo end-game content".  Surely you don't think it is compelling to just ignore the word end-game.  Everyone knows the majority of the game is soloable, so no one on either side of the fence should think this addresses the issue.

 

everything is 'end-game' in GW2, perhaps you have come from a game like WOW with the hardest instanced  content is endgame, So yes 95% of end game content is solable. Group strikes is popular because group content is more interesting than solo content.  Its been explained over and over in this thread that the opportunity cost of solo content is prohibitive. 

again, if you sat down and thought about it,  a solo strike is simple an dungeon with 1 room 1 with boss with limited attack patterns to suit 1 player.  dull dull dull.

Edited January 8, 2023 by vesica tempestas.1563

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

9 minutes ago, vesica tempestas.1563 said:

 

everything is 'end-game' in GW2, perhaps you have come from a game like WOW with the hardest instanced  content is endgame, So yes 95% of end game content is solable. Group strikes is popular because group content is more interesting than solo content.  Its been explained over and over in this thread that the opportunity cost of solo content is prohibitive. 

again, if you sat down and thought about it,  a solo strike is simple an dungeon with 1 room 1 with boss with limited attack patterns to suit 1 player.  dull dull dull.

Okay, well I think this conversation will make more sense to you if you interpret "end-game" in a more traditional sense.  Or even just a more contextually coherent one.  Yes, if you class 95% of GW2 as end-game then there's loads of solo end-game, but that really doesn't do anything to further the discussion.

 

The rest of your comment seems to just assume that what you find interesting is the same as what everyone else finds interesting?