Designing With Solo in Mind.

[Blackmoon.6837]

I think it's time to adjust the way you design things.

The emphasis on large community events sounds great on paper, yet in practice we get overly complicated and bloated events (Convergences) that are prone to fail and make you feel like you've done nothing but waste your time. (I'm grumpy because our map just failed right now @ the end boss D:) (feels bad)

Part of the problem also stems from the fact that when scaled up, everyone's abilities essentially become the same and nothing feels individual or unique.

There's no reason you can't innovate on your thinking, using a solo perspective first and then elevating to scale. This is especially important as we move into the future with the potential for something like Guild Wars 3 - GW2 servers dying down and many scaled events being locked out.

A good start may be to rework all of the original dungeons to be solo focused. Give some new loot, new achievements and adjust gameplay/story as needed. See how those turn out.

[Sobx.1758]

There's content for solo, small groups and large groups of players. If you don't want to participate in either of those then just don't. Your idea of a "total solution" where only one type of content is created because you want that for yourself is self-centered and bad. Maybe try playing single player games if solo content is all you want.

Edited June 6 by Sobx.1758
"a"

[Kinurak.5307]

10 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

There's content for solo, small groups and large groups of players. If you don't want to participate in either of those then just don't. Your idea of a "total solution" where only one type of content is created because you want that for yourself is self-centered and bad. Maybe try playing a single player games if solo content is all you want.

Technically, any idea proposed BY PLAYERS on the forums stems from a selfish desire. some are good, some are bad. but we all make suggestions we think are good for the game.
saying to play solo games seems a little rude to me. we all play the game for our own enjoyment. so naturally all suggestions made, come from the "Me" perspective. not every ME suggestion is bad per say. it all depends on how Anet implements said idea for the larger player base.

[Zera.9435]

I was going to talk about how convergences are like raids and it forces you to be overly dependent on other players, but they are entirely optional. I only did convergences because of the buff they give to speed up my essence farming when I was working on the obby armor. I'm glad I only had to deal with Umbriel maybe once or twice and am glad to be completely done with convergences.
That being said, I can understand the desire for solo-friendly content (not that we don't have it already), but the idea of making the original dungeons a solo content is a little odd. On the one hand, dungeons aren't really a primary focus for most players so making them solo content might be fine. On the other hand, dungeons and the like exist to give players the sense of teamwork and accomplishment with other players (friends, usually). The game is meant to be social. I suppose they can make the story portion of the dungeons solo, and keep the explorable versions as the 5-man group content it already is.

[Blackmoon.6837]

30 minutes ago, Zera.9435 said:

I was going to talk about how convergences are like raids and it forces you to be overly dependent on other players, but they are entirely optional. I only did convergences because of the buff they give to speed up my essence farming when I was working on the obby armor. I'm glad I only had to deal with Umbriel maybe once or twice and am glad to be completely done with convergences.
That being said, I can understand the desire for solo-friendly content (not that we don't have it already), but the idea of making the original dungeons a solo content is a little odd. On the one hand, dungeons aren't really a primary focus for most players so making them solo content might be fine. On the other hand, dungeons and the like exist to give players the sense of teamwork and accomplishment with other players (friends, usually). The game is meant to be social. I suppose they can make the story portion of the dungeons solo, and keep the explorable versions as the 5-man group content it already is.

This is why I use the word innovate.

I believe there are ways to design that start as a solo base, but still facilitate outward growth for community and building friendships.

Top down, collective as a starting point, has been the leading theory and we're not seeing improvements. We're seeing clusters of confusion and mass devaluing. In fact, it may even be working against 'building community'. Everyone is focused on nabbing the loot and disappearing, so who cares and why stick around? Spam the dps, dodge the aoe, get the loot and disappear. That's the current way. 

Something needs to adjust here.

[Bladestrom.6425]

13 minutes ago, Blackmoon.6837 said:

This is why I use the word innovate.

I believe there are ways to design that start as a solo base, but still facilitate outward growth for community and building friendships.

Top down, collective as a starting point, has been the leading theory and we're not seeing improvements. We're seeing clusters of confusion and mass devaluing. In fact, it may even be working against 'building community'. Everyone is focused on nabbing the loot and disappearing, so who cares and why stick around? Spam the dps, dodge the aoe, get the loot and disappear. That's the current way. 

Something needs to adjust here.

I dont think it does.  95% of all content in GW2 'start as a solo base, but still facilitate outward growth for community and building friendships'   Anet basically nailed that approach. with a small part of the content such as convergences and the like designed for large groups to start.

[Sobx.1758]

5 hours ago, Kinurak.5307 said:

Technically, any idea proposed BY PLAYERS on the forums stems from a selfish desire. some are good, some are bad. but we all make suggestions we think are good for the game.
saying to play solo games seems a little rude to me. we all play the game for our own enjoyment. so naturally all suggestions made, come from the "Me" perspective. not every ME suggestion is bad per say. it all depends on how Anet implements said idea for the larger player base.

I don't see how saying "if you want strictly single player content, maybe consider playing single player games" is supposed to be rude in any way. Is OP wanting the game to be made just for him -by focusing just on solo content in an mmorpg- not rude and is supposed to be a friendly/open minded proposal?
And yeah, nowhere I said "every ME proposal is bad", I'm saying "make the game just for me" (or more accurately: "Your idea of a "total solution" where only one type of content is created") is bad. If he doesn't like mid-large scale content, he can avoid it and play some of the -already plentiful- soloable content instead. If he ONLY wants solo content, why even bother playing multiplayer games. Play solo games and maybe log into gw2 to stand in city maps to interact with people whenever he wants that need to be fulfilled.

Hope it clears up what I actually said -and, again, I don't see how any of it was/is supposed to be "rude".

Edited June 3 by Sobx.1758

[kharmin.7683]

36 minutes ago, Blackmoon.6837 said:

Something needs to adjust here.

Why?

[Cuks.8241]

I see mmorpgs and many other multy player games as having 2 components.

First is the game itself, in-game mechanical obstacles to overcome.

Second is the social aspect. Playing with and against other players which presents its own obstacles and rewards.

For example Convergences. There is a "social" solution. Private squad.

[Zera.9435]

5 hours ago, Blackmoon.6837 said:

This is why I use the word innovate.

I believe there are ways to design that start as a solo base, but still facilitate outward growth for community and building friendships.

Top down, collective as a starting point, has been the leading theory and we're not seeing improvements. We're seeing clusters of confusion and mass devaluing. In fact, it may even be working against 'building community'. Everyone is focused on nabbing the loot and disappearing, so who cares and why stick around? Spam the dps, dodge the aoe, get the loot and disappear. That's the current way. 

Something needs to adjust here.

I imagine that the most significant adjustment should be done by the player base, not the developers. That behavior you describe is a player behavior and an active choice people make. That might stem from people's "I want it now!" mentality. The idea of working on something over time is viewed as a crime against humanity by some on here. Personally I'm fine with something taking months of work to complete, so long as the associated material cost isn't also over the top (for example the 11,000 ectos needed for 18 gifts of expertise on top of the huge time investment, but we're not specifically talking about obby armor here, so I digress).

There really isn't much innovation that I can think of that would change the player's instant gratification mentality. Can you?

[Orthonen.9470]

MORE SOLO CONTENT? I am sick and tired of just being gated to doing events where hundreds of people join or just doing things alone. Strikes don't even fill my need to do something different than being reduced to some damage meter in a raid party.  

You want more solo content? Do your own personal achievements.

The biggest mistake this game has is that there's no form of vertical progression at all, so everything that's rewarding is just tied to skins. The social aspect of the gameplay that in strategizing or coordinating with people to take down a boss is prominently irrelevant. There's literally no need for guilds. And one can argue fractals, but the problem with fractals is they're just so repetitive, and compared to open world a lot less rewarding.

[kharmin.7683]

1 hour ago, Orthonen.9470 said:

The biggest mistake this game has is that there's no form of vertical progression at all

I agreed with the first part of your post, and then came to this point.  I hardly believe that the lack of vertical progression was the biggest mistake.  It's probably the largest reason that many people play (and continue to play) GW2.

[Zera.9435]

9 hours ago, kharmin.7683 said:

I agreed with the first part of your post, and then came to this point.  I hardly believe that the lack of vertical progression was the biggest mistake.  It's probably the largest reason that many people play (and continue to play) GW2.

That's definitely why I kept playing for all these nearly 12 years. It's so nice to never have to be on a gear treadmill. I have played other MMOs that did have a gear grind, and the only reason I stopped playing them was because, you guessed it, I had to step away from the raiding scene for a bit due to real life/work schedules. Suddenly it was nearly impossible to catch up because no one wants to take the time to take you through older content to get geared. kitten vertical progression.

[Ashen.2907]

On 6/3/2024 at 7:36 AM, Kinurak.5307 said:

any idea proposed BY PLAYERS on the forums stems from a selfish desire. 

Perhaps, but there is a difference between asking for something new to be added for, potentially, all to enjoy and asking that something that already exists be taken away from others so that you (you in the generic sense, not you personally) can have it to your desire for yourself, which is what was requested here. At least 90% of the game is designed for solo players, asking that the tiny minority of content designed for those seeking an engaging group experience be redesigned for solo play is selfish beyond any comparison to a request for something new.

Edited June 6 by Ashen.2907

[perilisk.1874]

On 6/3/2024 at 7:20 PM, Zera.9435 said:

There really isn't much innovation that I can think of that would change the player's instant gratification mentality. Can you?

Well, people tend to socialize because socializing itself is enjoyable. So, I guess something would need to happen to make socializing enjoyable enough for its own sake that some people want to hang around after a boss and chat about whatever instead of moving on to the next thing.

As far as the loot and scoot mentality, I think the game pretty much has two modes of play: Easy solo or OW, and hard group. Easy solo/OW tends to ignore difficulty and so it gates rewards behind grind, thus people feel like they have to squeeze maximum grind out of their time and rush around. For hard group content, you tend to either need to make firm social commitments to groups, or else spend a lot of time trying to find a group just so you can learn the ropes and practice so as not to be a burden when you play for real with better groups. Both hard group approaches tend to making socializing stressful and burdensome, since it's for the sake of getting something rather than for the fun of working together, and personal failure affects others so much. Both easy and hard modes suck for a competent casual -- easy OW isn't really "casual" due to the massive time sink nor does it help develop skill, and hard group isn't casual due to the need to make commitments to others and the inability to just practice mechanics before trying it with others.

What they really need (as others have said, to some extent suggestions like this will come from selfish motivations) is to (1) balance rewards to favor individual action rather than group success, and (2) balance rewards to favor competence over grind. Despite their hostility to DPS meters, something like that is what they really need -- or rather, something in between that and adventures.

Rather than the vague "participation" metric in newer metas, or the super lenient participation metric for typical DEs where smacking an enemy two or three times gets you gold, they should actually build an adventure-like scoring metric into DEs, especially meta bosses. There should be some scoring aspects that are common to most encounters and reflect basic combat competency (average DPS, CC damage to bars, healing, boon uptime, rezzes, times downed/killed, etc.). There should be some that are related to mastering the specific mechanics of the fight (e.g. how many times did you get hit with the big telegraphed attack, how many times did you help stop the add from healing the boss, whatever). Scoring should be clear enough that players can get a good idea of where to improve, and also get feedback on average performance of other players in the fight or target levels.

In general, the balancing of scores should be such that your average competent player in decent endgame gear should hit silver until they master the fight, but even fairly poorly performing players can at least get bronze if they are making a good faith effort throughout the whole fight and not just afking. However, the balancing of rewards should be such that gold is substantially better than silver, and the same for bronze. Trying to get rewards at bronze tier should basically be a large time sink, to push people to at least hit silver. Gold should cut large amounts of the grind to get rewards, though if they balance it right, you probably already put some time in to learn the fight before you can actually get gold.

[bq pd.2148]

14 minutes ago, perilisk.1874 said:

There should be some scoring aspects that are common to most encounters and reflect basic combat competency (average DPS, CC damage to bars, healing, boon uptime, rezzes, times downed/killed, etc.). There should be some that are related to mastering the specific mechanics of the fight (e.g. how many times did you get hit with the big telegraphed attack, how many times did you help stop the add from healing the boss, whatever). Scoring should be clear enough that players can get a good idea of where to improve, and also get feedback on average performance of other players in the fight or target levels.

making rewards depending on such a score is very difficult or rather it would be difficult to make the score difficult for everyone to the same degree and that would have effects on the representation of the roles, especially if higher participation score is to get significantly better rewards.

for example
if a boon dps is a difficult to get gold with as a pure dps, then those boons dont account for too much.
that would mean a healer would need to get quite some participation from heals.
but there are no heals happening if there are too many healers or someone is spamming aegis / projectile hate etc. to negate incoming damage, so that a healer might be obsolete in that moment. that could lead to less/no healers in OW
ofc one could then give participation for potential heals but that again might be a much more efficient way to max rewards sitting there in full minstrel, leading to too many healers.

 

[Vayne.8563]

On 6/4/2024 at 12:13 AM, Blackmoon.6837 said:

I think it's time to adjust the way you design things.

The emphasis on large community events sounds great on paper, yet in practice we get overly complicated and bloated events (Convergences) that are prone to fail and make you feel like you've done nothing but waste your time. (I'm grumpy because our map just failed right now @ the end boss D:) (feels bad)

Part of the problem also stems from the fact that when scaled up, everyone's abilities essentially become the same and nothing feels individual or unique.

There's no reason you can't innovate on your thinking, using a solo perspective first and then elevating to scale. This is especially important as we move into the future with the potential for something like Guild Wars 3 - GW2 servers dying down and many scaled events being locked out.

A good start may be to rework all of the original dungeons to be solo focused. Give some new loot, new achievements and adjust gameplay/story as needed. See how those turn out.

The flaw in your thinking is that they can't make solo stuff where you can't survive. Failure has to happen sometimes or there's no point to even playing. At some point you need to be tested.

The entire original personal story was solo content, until you got to Arah at least at the very end, and you couldn't actually fail any of it. You just chip away until it's done if you're not very good, but that didn't happen for me very often at all. So I could get through the entire personal story and felt like it was a waste because my skill didn't matter. But once you start making solo stories where skill does matter, and it's happen a bit, you start getting complaints from the solo players who want to never die, and there are plenty of them. Some people never want to fail, some people never want to die, some people never want to play the game at all, and just want to look at the pretty graphics and feel like a hero.

Why doesn't Anet pick any of the other solo groups, instead of the one you want?

There are plenty of solo games out there. But Anet does one thing better than every other MMO and that's these big group events. And they should change how they approach them?

Convergences can fail, that's true. But Dragon Storm is a similar instance that never fails. Triple Trouble can fail quite easily, but unless you're in a very very late map of Tequatl that never fails.  There are harder and easier open world events. You can just do Rifts and farm those and skip Convergences. Convergences give you that currency with more challenge. You get it faster, but there's a cost to getting it faster. I'm not sure what's wrong with that.

This is an MMO and some people want big group content that's a bit harder and the percentage of those instances compared to the crap you can just rock up to and win is very small. Are you suggesting that solo players should take away the fewer harder (and in the case of convergences not that much harder) instances so that other players can have it all? Seems unfair to me.