Single player raids / dungeons / fractals / strike missions

[Sobx.1758]

8 minutes ago, Xenn.1602 said:

more interesting solo content, fractals, dungeons, raids, are the most epic / immersive pve content the game has to offer, as in my other reply; now i'm just hopping from boss to boss making and testing my builds. So the build part is fun, the soloing the bosses was also fun at first, but hopping from boss to boss all over tyria is not immersive at all, so I wish the game had more to offer here, and it can be done rather easily when anet only need to rework existing content a bit, unlocking a lot of new game play as it requires different builds and tactict than dungeons currently do in a team.

I think you might have misunderstood something here, what I meant is: you can just go alone into current dungeons, fractals, drms with cms, strikes and have the solo content on the harder difficulty level that you want. You don't need to chase OW bosses.

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[Xenn.1602]

17 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

I think you might have misunderstood something here, what I meant is: you can just go alone into current dungeons, fractals, drms with cms, strikes and have the solo content on the harder difficulty level that you want. You don't need to chase OW bosses.

 

many of them the mechanics don't allow for single player to go through and also it often takes way way longer to complete, so like I said, the trade off can be that it would take a little longer hence making the profit a bit less vs a group run, but yea I've seen vids of real pro players that do fractals cm solo and only the final boss already takes 50 minutes to complete on a good dps build with near 0% mistakes.. Yes for something as extemely challanging as this you will only find a hand full of players. I'm talking about as hard as raids in a team, or maybe a little harder, but solo. For normal dungeons, yes please just rework it so the mechanics allow it, and just up the reward a little, the boss levels in normal dungeons many of them are fine for solo play. So needs rework for mechanics and some adjustments so it's possible for solo within a reasonable time frame and still give decent loot, so it's still worth your while to come back to it now and then.

[vilkanor.3072]

6 hours ago, thehipone.6812 said:

This is really the core of the issue for me too.  A lot of things in this game, even open world stuff, have been trending towards needing longer and longer uninterrupted blocks of time to get the most out of it.  And any "overhead" time spent waiting on lfg, group set up, replace someone who quit, etc. is really undesirable when playtime is limited or easily interrupted.  I don't want to waste peoples time by needing to jump up and afk in the middle of a fight, so I don't do instances. 

well said. I wonder if any future game will take different lifestyles into account...

[Rinagal.9235]

34 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

I think you might have misunderstood something here, what I meant is: you can just go alone into current dungeons, fractals, drms with cms, strikes and have the solo content on the harder difficulty level that you want. You don't need to chase OW bosses.

 

Your argument that game already have difficult soloable content is meaningless. Many encounters in group content is indeed soloable due to different design issues, but it doesn't change the fact that content like raids, strikes, fractals and dungeons were designed with intention to be completed by a group of players, not by one. If some content is soloable it doesn't make it solo content, i can turn this argument 180 degree and ask you why would you want more raids/strikes if you can gather in a raid of 10 people and go kill idle mobs in open world, all open world content is "raidable", so what we need raids for, we already have tons of raidable content. There are players that want to get enjoyment by playing game in a way that was intended by game designers, not by finding weak points in game design and breaking it, and you refused to see it throughout all your posts in this topic.

 

 

 

 

[Sobx.1758]

12 minutes ago, Rinagal.9235 said:

Your argument that game already have difficult soloable content is meaningless. Many encounters in group content is indeed soloable due to different design issues,

You think "it's soloable due to design issues"? What exactly do you mean by that?

 

Quote

but it doesn't change the fact that content like raids, strikes, fractals and dungeons were designed with intention to be completed by a group of players, not by one.

No, not really. If they were supposed to be unsoloable, they'd have mechanics or high numerical values that made them unsoloable. But a lot -if not most- of them don't.

Also if you pay attention to the bit you've quoted, I'm not saying anything about raids here.

 

Quote

If some content is soloable it doesn't make it solo content,

Nah, if it's soloable, it's soloable. It's harder solo and it's supposed to be harder solo. "Harder" content is also what OP wanted. And that's what it is.

 

Quote

i can turn this argument 180 degree and ask you why would you want more raids/strikes if you can gather in a raid of 10 people and go kill idle mobs in open world, all open world content is "raidable", so what we need raids for, we already have tons of raidable content. There are players that want to get enjoyment by playing game in a way that was intended by game designers, not by finding weak points in game design and breaking it, and you refused to see it throughout all your posts in this topic.

If they gave the players control over zergs, so they can limit the number of participants to 5-10 (like, you know, in instanced content) and introduce more meaningful mechanics like the encounters in question have then maybe. But in the current form? No, not at all. You're grasping for straws with terribly irrelvant comparisons.

And no, in most of those encounters nobody needs to "break the game design". I couldn't "refuse to see it" as nobody mentioned it in "my" comment chain (if anywhere) and most importantly nothing like that is needed to play through it solo. So what exactly are you even talking about right now?

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[mindcircus.1506]

1 hour ago, Xenn.1602 said:

many of them the mechanics don't allow for single player to go through and also it often takes way way longer to complete, so like I said, the trade off can be that it would take a little longer hence making the profit a bit less vs a group run, but yea I've seen vids of real pro players that do fractals cm solo and only the final boss already takes 50 minutes to complete on a good dps build with near 0% mistakes.. Yes for something as extemely challanging as this you will only find a hand full of players. I'm talking about as hard as raids in a team, or maybe a little harder, but solo. For normal dungeons, yes please just rework it so the mechanics allow it, and just up the reward a little, the boss levels in normal dungeons many of them are fine for solo play. So needs rework for mechanics and some adjustments so it's possible for solo within a reasonable time frame and still give decent loot, so it's still worth your while to come back to it now and then.

TLDR make it easier and give me better loot.

This was never about buildcraft and you just outted yourself.

[Xenn.1602]

1 minute ago, mindcircus.1506 said:

TLDR make it easier and give me better loot.

This was never about buildcraft and you just outted yourself.

way to twist my words, i said as hard as raids or a bit harder, fractals can be a bit harder, solo lvl 100 cm currently is extremely hard and is only for a hand full of people, that doesn't make any sence at all to call that solo content, normal dungeons most of them you can solo if the mechanics allow it already, but take longer hence better loot for normal dungeons IF the bosses remain the same, because if you downscale most normal dungeon bosses, they become very boring. except a few. But let me take that back. On normal dungeons just drop some hp levels where needed so the entire dungeon would take no more than 20 to 30% longer vs a team fight. loot can stay the same I NEVER said solo should be easier and give more loot, I said make solo content which is the same or harder than current dungeons in group play.

[mindcircus.1506]

5 minutes ago, Xenn.1602 said:

way to twist my words, i said as hard as raids or a bit harder, fractals can be a bit harder, solo lvl 100 cm currently is extremely hard and is only for a hand full of people, that doesn't make any sence at all to call that solo content, normal dungeons most of them you can solo if the mechanics allow it already, but take longer hence better loot for normal dungeons IF the bosses remain the same, because if you downscale most normal dungeon bosses, they become very boring. except a few. But let me take that back. On normal dungeons just drop some hp levels where needed so the entire dungeon would take no more than 20 to 30% longer vs a team fight. loot can stay the same I NEVER said solo should be easier and give more loot, I said make solo content which is the same or harder than current dungeons in group play.

Buildcraft as a challenge means "how can I beat X using Y" ?

"How do I beat (a Desert Bounty) using (Celestial Ranger)?"
"How do I beat (Molten Boss fractal) using (Marshall's Holosmith)?"

It does not mean:

"How do I beat (Deimos) using (a build with no synergy and the Official Forums)?"

 

The solo challenges are out there. Even some of the harder Dungeon bosses like Lupi are being burned down by solo players doing actual buildcraft to get the results you think you should be getting playing 'whatever you like"

You are still clinging to the fact that you should be able to play your snowflake build  and blaming the developers when you don't get the same results as those who come up with solid builds and burn these bosses that you struggle with downing in an acceptable amount of time.

You are indeed asking for things to be made easier

You have indeed asked to be better rewarded for your time.

There was zero twisting of your words.

[Rinagal.9235]

7 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

You think "it's soloable due to design issues"? What exactly do you mean by that?

Power creep, broken specs, unpredicted interactions between player's character abilities and encounter mechanics, flawed encounter design in general, intended lower numbers/easier mechanics for the sake of being available for larger audience.

 

23 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

No, not really. If they were supposed to be unsoloable, they'd have mechanics or high numerical values that made them unsoloable. But a lot -if not most- of them don't.

There are many encounters in game with mechanics that can be skipped or completely ignored. You try to present developers as flawless beings in that sense if something possible in game it was intended by design, with mounts i can reach outside side of textures on many maps, was it intended by developers, and if not why wouln't they place invisible walls so i couln't do so? In a Vale Guardian encounter there is green circle mechanic that ussually is a signature for players to step in, though players ussualy completely ignore this mechanic, does it mean developers intended players to ignore this mechanic and if not why wouldn't they increase damage of this ability so it for sure kill raid? I can keep on examples and would like to read your explanation on such things.

 

51 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Nah, if it's soloable, it's soloable. It's harder solo and it's supposed to be harder solo. "Harder" content is also what OP wanted. And that's what it is.

 

OP wanted harder solo content than he already has, he didn't say he wanted drasticaly harder experince than what players experience in a group/squad.

[Raknar.4735]

The responses to this thread and similiar other threads/suggestions make it abundantly clear why instanced niche content, especially raids, are at their current state. You reap what you sow 😉.

Tough luck OP, the usual suspects hijacked the thread and turned it into something it originally wasn't about. It even got moved into the "Instanced Group Content"-section, even though the suggestion has nothing to do with groups or group content.

 

Maybe there'll be new solo content in EoD, close to what you wish for OP, as Anet has experimented with 1-5 scaling for instanced content during DRMs.

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Raknar.4735

[Vilin.8056]

2 hours ago, Raknar.4735 said:

The responses to this thread and similiar other threads/suggestions make it abundantly clear why instanced niche content, especially raids, are at their current state. You reap what you sow 😉.

So much for bestowing hatred while promoting bots. *shrug*

Edited August 4, 2021 by Vilin.8056

[Fangoth.4503]

some hard content that cannot be bought would definitively be a good thing 🙂

[ButterPeanut.9746]

I don't really see how the desire for more challenging solo content that is explicitly designed to be solo'd could be seen as a bad thing. Now whether you think it's worth spending time on compared to other things they could work on is a different question. 

[Krzysztof.5973]

42 minutes ago, ButterPeanut.9746 said:

I don't really see how the desire for more challenging solo content that is explicitly designed to be solo'd could be seen as a bad thing. Now whether you think it's worth spending time on compared to other things they could work on is a different question. 

I like having the Multiplayer aspect in my MMOs but that's just me. 

[Fangoth.4503]

one doesn't exclude the other
but having some encounter that can only be done in solo that are dps check, mech heavy, could be a way to prove youlself worthy 🙃

[ButterPeanut.9746]

22 minutes ago, Krzysztof.5973 said:

I like having the Multiplayer aspect in my MMOs but that's just me. 

Who said there wouldn't also be multiplayer aspects? Again if you want to argue about resource prioritization, that's one thing. But arguing that adding new solo challenging would be inherently bad is just short sighted IMO. To be clear, I also don't think they should add more solo challenging content, but not because I think it would be bad for the game. I don't think they should strictly because I believe their time is better spent elsewhere. 

[Sobx.1758]

19 hours ago, Rinagal.9235 said:

Power creep, broken specs, unpredicted interactions between player's character abilities and encounter mechanics, flawed encounter design in general, intended lower numbers/easier mechanics for the sake of being available for larger audience.

Most of this is subjective, not a "design issue" and definitely nothing like "unpredicted interactions between player's character abilities and encounter mechanics" is needed. Just like with your completely irrelevant comparison in your previous post, you seem to be throwing broadly generalized claims that don't have much to do with reality in hopes that something sticks.

"flawed encounter design in general"? Like what? And what exactly would hint you at the idea future content won't have similar issues? Maybe instead of these generalized claims, it would be better for you to start pointing out the exact issues that would need to be fixed or at the very least not repeated in the future iterations of the content?

 

Quote

There are many encounters in game with mechanics that can be skipped or completely ignored.

There are even more where nothing like that is needed or possible, so I fail to see the relevance?

If OP wants to make his own builds and then ACTUALLY have an encounter to figure out by himself, but instead uses skips and cheap tricks to abuse mechanics if/when possible, then whose fault is it? Does OP really want to play through those encounters or just take a shortcut someone found? The sheer "theoretical possibility of abuse of mechanics in certain singled out encounters" is irrelevant to anything here or to anything that OP is looking for (and can already find in the game).

 

Quote

OP wanted harder solo content than he already has, he didn't say he wanted drasticaly harder experince than what players experience in a group/squad.

There are already harder encounters he can complete solo, in which he can pick/adjust the difficulty as he prefers. Do you understand this? Do you think this is false for some reason?

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[Rinagal.9235]

43 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Most of this is subjective

I would argue with that, power creep has been a thing that many players discussed over years by now, there maybe even the way to find some metrics like dps grows for example that players has been able to push and for progression system that claims to be horizontal, power creep is design issue for sure. "Unpredicted interactions between player's character abilities and encounter mechanics" is not a requirements for many soloable fights, but it's a thing that exists and makes many encounters soloable therefore fall into your category of soloable content and it's for sure a design issue. "Flawed encounter design in general" is when you literally write on ability that it must be absorbed, but nobody cares, you can't make your own design work properly. So no, i don't think it's subjective.

 

1 hour ago, Sobx.1758 said:

There are even more where nothing like that is needed or possible, so I fail to see the relevance?

You fail to see the relevance because you lost a track of what i was arguing with in my commentary. I didn't try to prove that OP has always to break the game to make some content soloable, my commentary argued with your claim that if developer's intention was  to some content be a group content, they would take any needed action to make it unsoloable. Intentionaly or not, you tried to mislead conversation to the direction of OP "uses skips and cheap tricks to abuse mechanics" which my comment was nothing about. You have yet to give any argument to prove your point that if some content is soloable, then it meant to be so by design.

 

1 hour ago, Sobx.1758 said:

There are already harder encounters he can complete solo, in which he can pick/adjust the difficulty as he prefers. Do you understand this? Do you think this is false for some reason?

I agreed with this statement in my first post, my point was that this is not an argument against OP's request. You sticked with this formalized idea of OP wants just harder content that he can beat solo and you don't want to see any further because in this case your " hard soloable content is already in game" argument stops working. OP wants not just just hard soloable content (OP can correct me if i'm not right), he wants challengable, enjoyable solo content, there is a big difference between two. And when you suggest OP to go try solo some group content, there is not any garantee that it won't just turn in some frustrating experience because content wasn't design for solo in first place, and it's out of matter if it possible to complete it solo or not. You don't want to deal with this complexity in OP's request, most probably because it doesn't favors your interests.

[Sobx.1758]

1 hour ago, Rinagal.9235 said:

I would argue with that, power creep has been a thing that many players discussed over years by now, there maybe even the way to find some metrics like dps grows for example that players has been able to push and for progression system that claims to be horizontal, power creep is design issue for sure.

Power creep in mmos is something pretty normal, hardly anything unintended or a design issue when the balance patches still consider the new builds within the old content. I wasn't arguing whether or not it's there.

Quote

 "Unpredicted interactions between player's character abilities and encounter mechanics" is not a requirements for many soloable fights, but it's a thing that exists and makes many encounters soloable therefore fall into your category of soloable content and it's for sure a design issue.

Except I'm very clearly not talking about the content that needs to be somehow willingfully "exploited" around, so it's irrelevant to what is being said in this thread.

 

Quote

 "Flawed encounter design in general" is when you literally write on ability that it must be absorbed, but nobody cares, you can't make your own design work properly. So no, i don't think it's subjective.

Ok, I understnad what you mean here. Except same as above -just because individual cases like that exist (where the player makes a conscious decision to use skips/unintended interactions to complete the content), doesn't change the fact they're not what we're talking about here and it doesn't somehow nullify the rest of the harder soloable content. None of these are even close to the majority in the listed encounters.

 

Quote

You fail to see the relevance because you lost a track of what i was arguing with in my commentary. I didn't try to prove that OP has always to break the game to make some content soloable, my commentary argued with your claim that if developer's intention was  to some content be a group content, they would take any needed action to make it unsoloable. Intentionaly or not, you tried to mislead conversation to the direction of OP "uses skips and cheap tricks to abuse mechanics" which my comment was nothing about. You have yet to give any argument to prove your point that if some content is soloable, then it meant to be so by design.

So you understand you're cherry picking irrelevant borderline cases that would need OP consciously do things he doesn't want to do in the first place, just to pretend there's no soloable content? Huh. you understand those individual cases doesn't change what I said and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing right now, right?

And if they wanted to change the -possibly unintended- interactions, they could do that in most cases. If they didn't, it means they're fine with those interactions in more cases than they're not.

 

Quote

I agreed with this statement in my first post

Cool, so you're just arguing for the sake of arguing even when I was correct in the very core of what I said that was actually relevant to the thread/OP, got it.

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[Katary.7096]

Considering that Anet has consistently struggled to provide proper support for the dungeons, fractals, raids and strike missions the game already has/ had, I don't know where they would find the time and resources to commit to this suggestion.

[Linken.6345]

2 minutes ago, Katary.7096 said:

Considering that Anet has consistently struggled to provide proper support for the dungeons, fractals, raids and strike missions the game already has/ had, I don't know where they would find the time and resources to commit to this suggestion.

 

Well they would have to cut back on story, open world and the other stuff were you can play solo ofcourse.

[Obtena.7952]

13 hours ago, Katary.7096 said:

Considering that Anet has consistently struggled to provide proper support for the dungeons, fractals, raids and strike missions the game already has/ had, I don't know where they would find the time and resources to commit to this suggestion.

Depends on it's potential to make them money; theoretically, if 100% of the people wanted it, it fit the game and they had some indication of high ROI on it, you don't think they could create a group to do it? I do. 

[Astralporing.1957]

On 8/4/2021 at 3:18 PM, Krzysztof.5973 said:

I like having the Multiplayer aspect in my MMOs but that's just me. 

Exactly, that's you. Some for example like the Multiplayer part of the name for the purely social aspect, not for the grouping restrictions.

 

I , as a different example, like the "massively" adverb that precedes it. And yet i don't point the existence of that word to people that ask for small group instanced content (and often go around showing their disdain for the "massively multiplayer" aspect).

 

So, if we can already admit that one can ignore one word from the genre definition, and see no problem with it, why can't we ignore a different one?

Edited August 5, 2021 by Astralporing.1957

[Krzysztof.5973]

11 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Exactly, that's you. Some for example like the Multiplayer part of the name for the purely social aspect, not for the grouping restrictions.

 

I , as a different example, like the "massively" adverb that precedes it. And yet i don't point the existence of that word to people that ask for small group instanced content (and often go around showing their disdain for the "massively multiplayer" aspect).

 

So, if we can already admit that one can ignore one word from the genre definition, and see no problem with it, why can't we ignore a different one?

Yes it's very social to ask the devs to spend time on making single player modes to everything in an MMO that's already so easy that if you're good enough you can already do it. 
While we are at it let's stop "pointing out the existence" of "O" for Online. Make GW2 offline experience with just online chat and add bots to the game, some people would never notice the difference. 

[Astralporing.1957]

42 minutes ago, Krzysztof.5973 said:

Yes it's very social to ask the devs to spend time on making single player modes to everything in an MMO that's already so easy that if you're good enough you can already do it. 
While we are at it let's stop "pointing out the existence" of "O" for Online. Make GW2 offline experience with just online chat and add bots to the game, some people would never notice the difference. 

See how easy that was? All it took was to ignore the Massive part to start the ball rolling.