Soloability...The Movement Forward.
By
Aett_Thorn,
Posted on: 2010-10-06 07:29 in Suggestions and Ideas
Quote:
Signed/ AND SIGNED/|
Originally Posted by Bill Z Bubba
I don't *need* to play this game. I don't *need* to solo AVs. You don't know what's going to be gated and what isn't going to be. The point is that the less that is gated, the better, because more people will find it accessible.
I don't even care if it's flat out impossible to solo as long as the access is there. Blocking access for no other reason but to force teaming is now and forever will be the stupidest design decision ever made. |
There is no real reason for the player community to decry it either. Speaking in unison, AND ASKING FOR THEM TO TRY IT ON TEST, affect nobody in the game, and allows for all of us to each personally judge what I'm asking for them to do in game.
Let's all join together to get more QoL. Why is it a bad thing to see if this would work. How about stepping up and adding your voice to something that is trying to be changed for positive effect. At least, if there was a concerted effort then progress could be made, and then ALL imput could be heard, considered, and amended to as necessary.
Again, I don;t know what steps it would take to try to escalate this..if that's possible. I'm sure I'll get the golden title of persetering if that's the case...or the boot.
I'll get an email that simply says "Go play Champions. Goodbye."
But whatevs. Let's get this moving. Open minds people. Open minds.
Don;t make me have to pull a mass Jedi Mind trick on all of you. I hate the migraines.
One other point to make. Basically, what you are asking for is to take away my convenience to boost yours.
As it stands, I can get on any TF I want, usually in a couple of hours. I like to team and there are plenty of teams running this content at most times of the day.
You don't like to team. You want to start a TF whenever you want.
This MAY (and in my opinion likely will) reduce the number of teams running this content. So for your convenience, I now have to wait weeks to get on that same team I could have in a matter of hours or at worst a day or so.
That, for me, is the negative impact. Obviously, if you solo, there is no negative impact at all.
Quote:
So you are saying for your convienience, I should only ba able to run team required content when I am on vacation, once or twice a year? That is if my Wife has not made plans for me. Your couple weeks trumps that easily. Its bad enough that I have had to resign myself to limited content, now you need to rub my nose in it?|
Originally Posted by Torrynt
One other point to make. Basically, what you are asking for is to take away my convenience to boost yours.
As it stands, I can get on any TF I want, usually in a couple of hours. I like to team and there are plenty of teams running this content at most times of the day. You don't like to team. You want to start a TF whenever you want. This MAY (and in my opinion likely will) reduce the number of teams running this content. So for your convenience, I now have to wait weeks to get on that same team I could have in a matter of hours or at worst a day or so. That, for me, is the negative impact. Obviously, if you solo, there is no negative impact at all. |
Besides, In my experience, people are constantly looking for teams, and not just for TFs either. So if the difficultly slider hasn't destroyed teaming, how can you say that being able to solo TFs will?
Quote:
I too back you in spirit too, The _Britisher.|
Originally Posted by Bill Z Bubba
So, as much as I back you in spirit, give up now. Save your energy for other things.
|
I am just glad, and thankful, that we can solo 90-95% of this game depending on AT.
My husband dragged me kickin' and screamin' into this game. If it were not the great soloability I would not have lasted as long as I have.
Hugs.
Lisa.
So don't wait for heroes, do it yourself
You've got the power
winners are losers
who got up and gave it just one more try
***Dennis DeYoung
Another way to spin this, for you pro-solo extremists: We (I say "We" for those of us who are against making the game too solo-friendly) aren't trying to force you to play the game in a way that best suits an opposite-minded portion of the player population. We are trying to force you to recognize that some content might forever stay team-specific as the development team intended.
I can't get my head around how anyone can buy the game, pay the monthly fee, and then say they don't want to play the game they paid for. If I buy a Kia, I can't later go to Kia and demand that they put a Maserati engine in it for me. (Totally unreleated and over-the-top example, I know -- you're welcome!)
Am I totally wrong? Should I be demanding that my Blaster get +4000 base HP and crazy +Def buffs in the next issue so I can solo +4/x8? Or should I accept my glass cannon as-is and play within the game's limits until it changes?
Pinnacle
@Mr.Catastrophe
Quote:
We'll start here. As I've already stated, I'm fully aware that arbitrary minimum team size requirements will remain in place for those events with them currently in place. So what's the point of your statement?| We are trying to force you to recognize that some content might forever stay team-specific as the development team intended. |
Quote:
| I can't get my head around how anyone can buy the game, pay the monthly fee, and then say they don't want to play the game they paid for. If I buy a Kia, I can't later go to Kia and demand that they put a Maserati engine in it for me. (Totally unreleated and over-the-top example, I know -- you're welcome!) |
Quote:
| Am I totally wrong? Should I be demanding that my Blaster get +4000 base HP and crazy +Def buffs in the next issue so I can solo +4/x8? Or should I accept my glass cannon as-is and play within the game's limits until it changes? |
Be well, people of CoH.
Quote:
Wow, never been called an extremist before. I dont think ANY of the "extremists" asked to be able to solo all content in this game. In fact, The OP specifically stated he did not have that expectation.|
Originally Posted by Catastrophe
Another way to spin this, for you pro-solo extremists: We (I say "We" for those of us who are against making the game too solo-friendly) aren't trying to force you to play the game in a way that best suits an opposite-minded portion of the player population. We are trying to force you to recognize that some content might forever stay team-specific as the development team intended.
I can't get my head around how anyone can buy the game, pay the monthly fee, and then say they don't want to play the game they paid for. If I buy a Kia, I can't later go to Kia and demand that they put a Maserati engine in it for me. (Totally unreleated and over-the-top example, I know -- you're welcome!) Am I totally wrong? Should I be demanding that my Blaster get +4000 base HP and crazy +Def buffs in the next issue so I can solo +4/x8? Or should I accept my glass cannon as-is and play within the game's limits until it changes? |
Your Kia, how many seats does it have? Do you wait till all the seats are filled before you go anywhere? What if you are driving at 4:30 am, and only to the corner store for a pack of condoms?
As I said, I realise I can't play all the new content, and have been okay with this for the past 3 years. It doesnt quite make me a sad Keanu however, I cant see how it would be a bad idea to perhaps selfishly want to play some of it if I had the chance.
Talk to Silverado about being able to solo content with a glass cannon.
Quote:
I thought you were interested in soloing TF's and/or other content, both current and future, that is restricted to teams. If not, I've misunderstood your side in all of this.|
Originally Posted by Bill Z Bubba
We'll start here. As I've already stated, I'm fully aware that arbitrary minimum team size requirements will remain in place for those events with them currently in place. So what's the point of your statement?
|
Quote:
| I'll use small words: Who said they don't want to play the game they pay for? I want to have access to ALL of the content I pay for, regardless of whether I'm teamed. |
Quote:
| Do I really have to spell out the difference between removing arbitrary gates to content and requesting an archetype change that would obviously break the existing xp per hour/archetype balance structure? I hope not. |
Your turn!
Pinnacle
@Mr.Catastrophe
Another way to look at this is that these TF's are already being soloed... you just have to jump through a hoop and tie up someone else's pc for a while to do it.
Quote:
No, you choose not to run team based content for the rest of the year. We are talking about TF/SF based content. You already have the time. That is not your barrier to entry. Don't tell me you want to run them solo and have time for that but can only manage 1-2 a year if you are forced to team. That's ludicrous.|
Originally Posted by SinisterDirge
So you are saying for your convienience, I should only ba able to run team required content when I am on vacation, once or twice a year? That is if my Wife has not made plans for me. Your couple weeks trumps that easily. Its bad enough that I have had to resign myself to limited content, now you need to rub my nose in it?
Besides, In my experience, people are constantly looking for teams, and not just for TFs either. So if the difficultly slider hasn't destroyed teaming, how can you say that being able to solo TFs will? |
The fact is that people advocating this position do not want to be bothered to form a team. That I can understand. However, what I do not understand is that they can get the same rewards from doing everything else in the game that is geared to solo play. There is nothing wrong with having some variety in content, in fact I'd say it's healthy. If you were barred from getting advancement because of it, then there is a problem.
As for the difficulty slider, it absolutely has in one respect. People running high end teams in PI. Before, if they wanted to farm at any reasonable rate they needed teammates. It was an almost instant thing to seeing Fire/Kin lft in PI. That is gone. Yes, you can find teams there, but nothing like what it was. Why? The people who ran those teams just crank it to x8 no boss and solo on their own. The rewards are better and they didn't need those people before anyway.
Were they good teams? No. However, the same thing will happen with TFs. The people forming those teams will just do them solo leaving a pittance of teams left compared to what there was. At least with the TFs no expects you to be door sitters, so it is good content for teams.
You can get 1-50, do everything a team based player can and get all of the rewards short of Hami-Os. You are advocating taking away the best team based content the game has. That is a really negative aspect for me.
I just ticked two years and I've done exactly two TFs. They made very little sense story wise, and was about following the directions of people who had done them countless times. I would have much rather solo'd them, so I could have enjoyed the content instead of following directions and shooting everything in the order called out by the leader.
That is just me though.
Quote:
Why do you pay $15 a month for a game that is constantly changing? |
Originally Posted by Catastrophe
To me, saying that you want solo access to team-restricted content is asking the game to do something it does not do.
|
Many of the changes were QOL changes that the playerbase asked for.
Quote:
Bromley, this is one of the first compelling arguments on this subject that I have heard. I would grant that in a heartbeat as too many people don't want to know or care about the actual content.|
Originally Posted by bromley
I just ticked two years and I've done exactly two TFs. They made very little sense story wise, and was about following the directions of people who had done them countless times. I would have much rather solo'd them, so I could have enjoyed the content instead of following directions and shooting everything in the order called out by the leader.
That is just me though. |
Which makes me think this is more about rewards/hour rather than content. However, that's just me.
Quote:
Right on, and most of the time I agree with the changes, but sometimes I hate them (I'm looking at you, New Defiance and new Sonic Resonance animations). But I keep paying my $15 and playing in the limits of what's there.|
Originally Posted by SinisterDirge
Many of the changes were QOL changes that the playerbase asked for.
|
This topic seems to be one of the many dead horses beaten regularly. I just assume there's a reason the devs haven't changed this yet, so I do my best to make arguments in their favor since I "agree" with the current state.
But you know what happens when you assume... a donkey gets its wings. Or something.
Pinnacle
@Mr.Catastrophe
Quote:
| I thought you were interested in soloing TF's and/or other content, both current and future, that is restricted to teams. If not, I've misunderstood your side in all of this. |
Quote:
| To me, saying that you want solo access to team-restricted content is asking the game to do something it does not do. You want something other than what is offered. Some of the content you pay for is restricted to teams. ... and I don't know if I would consider "regardless" a small word. Should probably keep it to two syllables. |
Quote:
|
Who decides whether it's arbirtary? I let the devs set the rules. Your turn! |
No one is choosing whether the min team size requirement is arbitrary. It IS arbitrary regardless of one's opinion. The proof of that comes from the fact that if the min team size requirement was NOT arbitrary, then it would always take at least that number of players to accomplish the task. The ONLY time the minimum team size requirement is NOT arbitrary is when it matches the number of simultaneous glowies that must be clicked.
Be well, people of CoH.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Britisher
Also, I probably won't be reading too many replies on here as there have been many bad experiences with trolls, close-minded replies in the past to ideas/topics that should have open discussion/consideration.
Again, just getting the word out. More features are always more preferrable then less. You never know when you might be in a similar situation. |
I think you have completely proved your point re: the forums, or more accurately the forums have proved it for you.
As to soloing, people do this anyway, the only difference your proposal would make, is the soloist would not have to bother other people to do their thing. So the people who are arguing for not allowing tfs to be soloed directly are actually saying they want soloists bothering people to fill.
Either that or they are just arguing to argue.
Quote:
I would love to run a TF/SF solo without having to tie up someone else for a week from playing their toon. That is asking alot of someone I dont know.|
Originally Posted by Torrynt
No, you choose not to run team based content for the rest of the year. We are talking about TF/SF based content. You already have the time. That is not your barrier to entry. Don't tell me you want to run them solo and have time for that but can only manage 1-2 a year if you are forced to team. That's ludicrous.
|
I would love to run one without having to drop the TF after two mish's and perhaps ruin the experience for teammates that expected me to be there for the whole TF/SF
What is ludicrous about that?
Quote:
| The fact is that people advocating this position do not want to be bothered to form a team. That I can understand. However, what I do not understand is that they can get the same rewards from doing everything else in the game that is geared to solo play. There is nothing wrong with having some variety in content, in fact I'd say it's healthy. If you were barred from getting advancement because of it, then there is a problem. |
I dont ever think I would advocate getting all 304 merit awards for running a solo STF set on 8 people. Even though it would take longer to solo and therefore should theoretically reward more. But its all based on averages, so I am fine with the 38 merits, thanks. Not sure how that is broken.
Quote:
| As for the difficulty slider, it absolutely has in one respect. People running high end teams in PI. Before, if they wanted to farm at any reasonable rate they needed teammates. It was an almost instant thing to seeing Fire/Kin lft in PI. That is gone. Yes, you can find teams there, but nothing like what it was. Why? The people who ran those teams just crank it to x8 no boss and solo on their own. The rewards are better and they didn't need those people before anyway. |
Quote:
| You can get 1-50, do everything a team based player can and get all of the rewards short of Hami-Os. You are advocating taking away the best team based content the game has. That is a really negative aspect for me. |
XP gain is too slow solo. SG are only necessary for teleporting. PUGs are where it's at. For soloability they would need to quintuple the XP received.
Quote:
There are better rewards/hour than soloing TF/SF's trust me.
|
Originally Posted by Torrynt
Which makes me think this is more about rewards/hour rather than content. However, that's just me.
|
Quote:
The "bad thing" is the theory that having too much solo-friendly content will kill a lot of the MMO feel of the game by decreasing the emphasis on teaming. The popular opinion seems to be that MMO players WANT team-oriented content, thus they're playing the MMO and not Legend of Zelda.
|
Originally Posted by SinisterDirge
Unsure how allowing more players experience more content is a bad thing for the game.
|
Pinnacle
@Mr.Catastrophe
Quote:
Bill, that is bullsh*t and you know it. Granted, some of the minimum team sizes are higher than they need to be, however, that does not mean that the only way to have those minimum team sizes not be arbitrary are when there are multiple simul-clickies. The Devs could very well have come together and decided that they wanted people to come together and team certain content (i.e., not individual discretion). They could have decided that the minimum team sizes were there so that even if some people did drop, there would be enough people left on the team to be able to finish (i.e., not a random choice). They knew at the time that the TFs came out, or at least after ED happened, for sure, that a large majority of people couldn't solo AVs, and that almost all of the TFs out there end in an AV, and they didn't want people getting to the end only to find out that they couldn't finish it (i.e., based on objective distinction). None of that sounds arbitrary to me.|
Arbitrary: Based on individual discretion or judgment; not based on any objective distinction, perhaps even made at random; Determined by impulse rather than reason No one is choosing whether the min team size requirement is arbitrary. It IS arbitrary regardless of one's opinion. The proof of that comes from the fact that if the min team size requirement was NOT arbitrary, then it would always take at least that number of players to accomplish the task. The ONLY time the minimum team size requirement is NOT arbitrary is when it matches the number of simultaneous glowies that must be clicked. |
Just because you don't agree with them, and have built your character to such a degree as to make team-oriented content capable of being soloed doesn't mean that those restrictions are arbitrary.
Even if the Devs decided together that they wanted the TF to require a team size that was larger than they knew was enough to finish it, just in case people dropped or quit, then it was not an arbitrary number.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Quote:
So 95% soloability has broken the game? Or that is okay, but 96% is going way too far? Please explain.
|
Originally Posted by Catastrophe
The "bad thing" is the theory that having too much solo-friendly content will kill a lot of the MMO feel of the game by decreasing the emphasis on teaming. The popular opinion seems to be that MMO players WANT team-oriented content, thus they're playing the MMO and not Legend of Zelda.
|
Quote:
I'd actually argue that the TFs should not allow you to solo them at all. Certainly, this should not always be done with simul-clickes, as that hinders the ability of people to finish the TF if people get disconnected or try to grief TFs, but I'm sure that they can think of something. The problem is, it's not just about increasing the difficulty of the end mob. Bill's character might be able to stand up to a power-increased AV at the end, but a regular PUG might not. But there must be a way.
|
Originally Posted by Another_Fan
I think you have completely proved your point re: the forums, or more accurately the forums have proved it for you.
As to soloing, people do this anyway, the only difference your proposal would make, is the soloist would not have to bother other people to do their thing. So the people who are arguing for not allowing tfs to be soloed directly are actually saying they want soloists bothering people to fill. Either that or they are just arguing to argue. |
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Quote:
If that is true then allowing soloability would not be an issue because they would not pursue it.
|
Originally Posted by Catastrophe
The "bad thing" is the theory that having too much solo-friendly content will kill a lot of the MMO feel of the game by decreasing the emphasis on teaming. The popular opinion seems to be that MMO players WANT team-oriented content, thus they're playing the MMO and not Legend of Zelda.
|
total kick to the gut
This is like having Ra's Al Ghul show up at your birthday party.
Edit: I get that you're passionate about this. That's fine. However, saying this is how it is over and over, contrary to historical evidence in the game is kind of pointless. You can argue that the reduction of teams will not hurt the game as much as letting more solo content in. That's a position I can at least respect. However, burrying your head in the sand and telling us there is no negative impact is silly especially when you are telling people to open their minds.