Best duo paring?

[Rasix]

Just a FYI, Nebu, I don't know how far you'll get duoing instances.  Granted, with a non optimal trio of shaman/shaman/mage we were able to do most of Zul'Farrak in Tanaris, but Uldaman was mostly too swarmy.   More succinctly, you'll run dry around level 40-50.

Ahh, or yah, from reading an earlier post of yours in this thread: you'll just have to massively outlevel everything. Which means the drops you do end up getting are worthless when you get them.  Outland will exacerbate this.

[Nebu]

So basically, it's what I suspected all along.  That solo/duo groups are considered second class citizens and aren't allowed access to a large portion of the endgame even though they've paid for it.  I guess it's my own fault for not hopping on the WoW train at release.  DAoC was similar in that if you didn't have a dedicated group of 8, most of the game was just blah... but at least you could find a nice solo sub-game nestled underneath. 

So my choices are to find a guild and play the game as it has been dictated or just do what I can solo and be happy with the fact that there will be a large number of things that I won't be able to experience.  Meh.

[Paelos]

<XXX> aren't allowed access to a large portion of the endgame even though they've paid for it. 

Sorry, but if I never heard about this point about MMOGs again, it would be too soon. It just always sounds whiney no matter how you say it.

[Nebu]

<XXX> aren't allowed access to a large portion of the endgame even though they've paid for it. 

Sorry, but if I never heard about this point about MMOGs again, it would be too soon. It just always sounds whiney no matter how you say it.

Yes... because you never vent about things that piss you off.  Thanks for the input. 

[Jayce]

<XXX> aren't allowed access to a large portion of the endgame even though they've paid for it.

Sorry, but if I never heard about this point about MMOGs again, it would be too soon. It just always sounds whiney no matter how you say it.

Yes... because you never vent about things that piss you off.  Thanks for the input. 

You can actually see it without paying for it.  There are videos and pictures and screenshots and whatnot scattered all over the internet. 

Yes, I know it's a reductio ad absurdum argument, but think of what you are asking.  Access to all the game's content solo or with two people?  Surely you realize that isn't what an MMOG is about.  There are single player and duo/coop games out there, but this isn't one of them.  You're asking an apple to turn into an orange.

[Rasix]

So basically, it's what I suspected all along.  That solo/duo groups are considered second class citizens and aren't allowed access to a large portion of the endgame even though they've paid for it. I guess it's my own fault for not hopping on the WoW train at release.  DAoC was similar in that if you didn't have a dedicated group of 8, most of the game was just blah... but at least you could find a nice solo sub-game nestled underneath.

So my choices are to find a guild and play the game as it has been dictated or just do what I can solo and be happy with the fact that there will be a large number of things that I won't be able to experience.  Meh.

Heh, one of the main reasons I quit this time around.  I had a duo partner for a while, but we ran out of stuff to do, and he got bored and disappeared for a long time  (only knew him in game).   There's a decent amount of stuff to do solo at any level and more at 70, but the difference in shinies and content available to people without my restrictions just really started to grate on me.  Once I got completely bored with my lazer turkey, I was just done in a flash.  Didn't even bother to say goodbye to my guild. 

<XXX> aren't allowed access to a large portion of the endgame even though they've paid for it.

Sorry, but if I never heard about this point about MMOGs again, it would be too soon. It just always sounds whiney no matter how you say it.

I'd wager you're too involved with the status quo to have any sort of objective look at this.  When I was doing bleeding edge raiding I somewhat snickered at the plight of folks trying to enjoy the game at the sub raid level.  Similarly, folks that have no problem getting 5-10 people together at any time, tend to baffle at the struggles of the person that has to rely on PUGs or extremely sub-optimal grouping conditions.

Although Blizzard considers their solo friendly exp climb just "accessibility" and a gateway to the end game (raiding), for some (like me currently) it's the most attractive aspect of the game.  There's no reason they can't apply "accessibility" to the rest of the game instead of just sprinkling it on the carrot, outside of pure stubbornness and/or resource limitations.

The game is what it is (my favorite saying that means nothing). I ran out of fun stuff "for me" with a still large portion of the game unexperienced.

[murdoc]

My 'toon sees more content then I do, since I'm lucky to be in a guild of RL friends who have no problem logging me in and running me through instances. For example, I logged on Monday AM to see that my 26 rogue had been run through a couple instances and quests so that he had a a full level and a half of xp, two new blue weapons, and all new enchants. Turns out a husband/wife combo wanted to do some low level BG and decided to twink out my rogue a bit so I could join them.

Gotta love that.

[Nebu]

I'd wager you're too involved with the status quo to have any sort of objective look at this.  When I was doing bleeding edge raiding I somewhat snickered at the plight of folks trying to enjoy the game at the sub raid level.  Similarly, folks that have no problem getting 5-10 people together at any time, tend to baffle at the struggles of the person that has to rely on PUGs or extremely sub-optimal grouping conditions.

Although Blizzard considers their solo friendly exp climb just "accessibility" and a gateway to the end game (raiding), for some (like me currently) it's the most attractive aspect of the game.  There's no reason they can't apply "accessibility" to the rest of the game instead of just sprinkling it on the carrot, outside of pure stubbornness and/or resource limitations.

The game is what it is (my favorite saying that means nothing). I ran out of fun stuff "for me" with a still large portion of the game unexperienced.

Thank you for saying what I could not.  I just need to learn to be "ok" with what I can do and then move on to something else.  I apologize for ranting... I realize that there's really no point in it beyond just venting. 

[Jayce]

I'd wager you're too involved with the status quo to have any sort of objective look at this.

I can't speak to how involved Paelos is with the status quo, but I'm not, and I agree with him. There was a time when I had enough time to raid, and though it wasn't bleeding edge, it was fun and it took a lot of time and people and all that.

Since then I have never had time to raid, but never ran out of things to do either.  I've been playing for the better part of three years, and still have only had 3 max-level (for their time) characters, still have never had a high level enchanter, tailor, engineer, blacksmith, leatherworker or jewelcrafter, never been to the majority of the BC dungeons, never done a daily quest, never done a heroic, don't have an epic flyer, never maxed fishing... the list goes on.

I think the problem is sort of self-fixing to some extent. If you have enough time, there are definite time sinks.  If you're casual, you will never run out of casual things to do.  Now if you don't like (or get tired of) most of the casual or other things to do, that's a whole different problem.

[Nebu]

Regardless of my whining, I do appreciate the input from everyone here.  It seems that my choices are to just do what encounters I can or wade through a sea of pugs to find 3 additional people to group with.  Either way, I have been enjoying the content that I missed in beta as well as the newer stuff.  Even if I only last another month , it has been a fun experience. 

[Xanthippe]

There are plenty of things to do without ever instancing at all.   There's plenty to do without raiding at all.

It's annoying though, for someone who can't raid, that Blizzard has focused so much of the game on raiding, and that raiding is necessary to get the great equipment.  I very much like the recent moves toward reputation as a means toward epics (Ogri'la et al.).

I'm a hardcore casual.  I put plenty of hours in the game, but I can't put the hours in when people raid, and I often can't instance because I can't play uninterrupted for 3 or 4 hours at a time.

I can get welfare epics (aka arena loot) and battleground epics, but I likely won't see high level raiding instances.  I'd like to but the days of old guild MCs and BWLs are over.  (It's interesting to me how some predicted just this turn of events - I didn't think it would happen.)

If this sounds whiny, then you're an elitist jerk.

[Merusk]

I can get welfare epics (aka arena loot) and battleground epics, but I likely won't see high level raiding instances.  I'd like to but the days of old guild MCs and BWLs are over.  (It's interesting to me how some predicted just this turn of events - I didn't think it would happen.)

Not sure what you mean by, "... the days of old guild MCs and BWLs are over."

[Rasix]

Regardless of my whining, I do appreciate the input from everyone here.  It seems that my choices are to just do what encounters I can or wade through a sea of pugs to find 3 additional people to group with.  Either way, I have been enjoying the content that I missed in beta as well as the newer stuff.  Even if I only last another month , it has been a fun experience. 

You seem to be of a similar vein to myself regarding this game.  The BC experience will be worth it to you, although it may end up making you feel a bit sad at what the game could be if it chose to.    There's a lot of fun solo/duo stuff in Outland zones, and you can find ample ways to challenge yourself on the way to 70.  I think you'd really enjoy the entire Nagrand zone.

[tkinnun0]

Access to all the game's content solo or with two people?  Surely you realize that isn't what an MMOG is about.

You are wrong. I am a casual soloer and I'm hijacking the MMOG acronym. If you don't like it, go play Vanguard.

[ajax34i]

So my choices are to find a guild and play the game as it has been dictated or just do what I can solo and be happy with the fact that there will be a large number of things that I won't be able to experience.  Meh.

Eh.  On this last run of WoW, 4 months, I spent 2 months levelling a toon to 70, Horde-side (which was new to me), to join a friend.  Lots of solo quests, some of which were fun.  Small PUGs here and there to complete some of the elite quests.  Then I spent about a month getting faction and unlocking keys, which was mostly solo-grinding for cash to buy faction items (600 sunfury signets) or random PUGs for non-heroic instances, and more quests.  Then I spent a month raiding; saw Karazhan the first time, the other 3 were kinda boring, same with Gruul's.  Voidreaver, clearing to him was tougher than the actual boss fight.  Lurker Below, meh.  At'al, we attempted and didn't get him.

Then guild drama happened, friend disbanded, so did I.  Don't feel like logging on; one raid dungeon is the same as any other, you read the strat, you try to follow, you finally figure it out, and it's just choreography.  Meh.  I don't really care to see SSC or BT or whatever; what's gonna be different?  The textures and animations, pretty much it.  We did an ad-hoc run through Zul'Aman on the test server; first try we got the first boss, cleared past the hut with the repair guy, attempted that cat boss a couple times.  Don't really feel like going back there.

Anyway, I think that my point is, this content that you think you're missing, the end-game raid zones, it takes like 8 hours to see each tier, and then you have to repeatedly grind it for a month or more before you can go to the next tier.  8 hours is not "a large number of things".  It's a small number of things that you're just forced to do over and over and over for a large amount of time.

It's not a large portion of the game.

Unfortunately, you've already seen the large portion of the game that is the rest of the game, so...

[Jayce]

2 months to 70?  Wow.  My best has been about 1.5-2 months to 60.  First time it took me a year to 60, then 6 months to 60, then 3 months to 60, another month or two to 70.

[Paelos]

Well, as far as me being deep in the status quo, I run one raid a week now on one day a week, and that's SSC. I wouldn't say I'm bleeding edge anymore now that I'm going to school again full time, but at the same time I can still do what I like in the game in a shorter time frame. Why? Because at some point I realized that this is a purely social game, and if you don't play it like that, you'll never get anywhere.

Networking, people. I know a lot of you hate it, but it's about meeting people, making new friends, and forming alliances. Hell, most of life is about getting to know people so it improves your experiences. This game is no different in that respect. I worked my ass off to get a raiding alliance off the ground by leading raids, but I could have just quit and walked away. The reality is that over time that leading became fun for me and stopped being work, and it's what I enjoy.

Some people don't want to play the game by expanding their social group and would rather just stick with 1-2 people they like. That's perfectly fine up to a point. If you want to play that way but still want to get the rewards, I'm here to tell you right now that your goals are totally in conflict with the design and unrealistic in this gaming format. If you want to goof around and don't give a shit about upper tier rewards, you wouldn't be in this thread.

[Merusk]

Elitist Jerk.  :-D

(They nuked the "just kiddin'" smiley. Bastards.  )

[ajax34i]

Yeah, 2 months, I was in a hurry cause she was already at 70 and in a raiding guild, so I hauled ass.  Only the most time-effective quests, done in an efficient order, no tradeskills, no instances, upgrades every 5 levels from the AH (I started with like 300g which I managed to slowly spend then I made back once I was 70).

RE: it being a social game, yes it is.  Every time I had fun in WoW was cause I was in a good guild.  Every time I didn't even feel like logging in, like now, was cause I wasn't, and the prospects of finding another good guild were bleak or required too much work.  Good guilds don't last forever, either; typically 6 months, which is just about the stretch that I end up playing for.  WoW seems to be "take a month or two to make some friends, enjoy a month or two with them, then everybody disappears and takes a break" replayed over and over.  Expansion packs, class revamp patches, arena seasons, all those are just excuses one can use to break the ice and make "finding friends" easier, IMO.  I imagine that putting 3000 people in a bland chatroom and letting THEM come up with things to talk about and get together for would be a massive failure.

[Nebu]

Some people don't want to play the game by expanding their social group and would rather just stick with 1-2 people they like. That's perfectly fine up to a point. If you want to play that way but still want to get the rewards, I'm here to tell you right now that your goals are totally in conflict with the design and unrealistic in this gaming format. If you want to goof around and don't give a shit about upper tier rewards, you wouldn't be in this thread.

I do not and never will care about having the best gear in the game.  That's my point.  While drops are nice, I don't play the game for the shiny.  I play it for the content.  This may be hard for you to understand, but I don't really go for the diminishing returns that the arms race brings.  I guess this is a good reason why the diablo games never appealed to me.  I'm just not all that interested in loot tables and usually give most of my drops away to friends as I get more satisfaction from making others have more fun.

If we were to consider loot, it seems like it would be stupidly easy to make instances scale (both in mob difficulty and in loot table) for the type of people wishing to adventure through them.  They obviously have done this to accomodate 5 people.  They could easily do it for 1 or 2.  If you've ever played CoH, you'd know what I'm talking about.  Hell, I think EQ 2 and D&D online had these features to a degree as well. 



 

[Paelos]

I play for content as well. Loot is a side issue for me that I just need to get to the next content level. Ask anybody I play with how I roll on items and they'll tell you why I feel that way about it, because I'm usually dead last. 

Still, scaling for 1 or 2? Come on. If you can't even get 5 people together to enjoy something, why the hell are you playing this game? That's the bare base minimum to enjoy most of the content that was released. Sure you can solo around, but designing a bunch of solo or duo content in a game that's Massively Multiplayer doesn't make any sense to me at all. I mean at that point, I go buy the newest Elder Scrolls game and just play it over and over with new character plans.

[Nebu]

Still, scaling for 1 or 2? Come on. If you can't even get 5 people together to enjoy something, why the hell are you playing this game? That's the bare base minimum to enjoy most of the content that was released. Sure you can solo around, but designing a bunch of solo or duo content in a game that's Massively Multiplayer doesn't make any sense to me at all. I mean at that point, I go buy the newest Elder Scrolls game and just play it over and over with new character plans.

It's not "designing solo/duo content", it's allowing instanced encounters to be scalable.  That way the leet kiddies get to beat their chest and proclaim that they play on "hard mode" while the rest of us that play in smaller chunks can still enjoy the content.  What is it about this concept that bothers you so much?  It removes some of the barriers to play for those of use with demanding careers.  I'd say that's a good thing for Blizzard as the part time players offer more net income.   I just don't always have the freedom to accomodate the schedules of 4 other people yet would still like to pick and choose the content to enjoy.

Now the Elder scrolls comment is even more cliche than my complaint.  "Play a single player game" is a pretty pathetic attempt at a discussion on your part.  There are significant differences in the gaming environment between an MMO and a single player RPG and you know it.

[ajax34i]

5-man is minimum just because that's the way they designed the game. 

COH instances are actually questing areas designed for solo play; short scenarios that you can tackle in a building, alone, instead of out and about where other players are.  The fact that the number of monsters scales up if you bring more people was an afterthought, a feature that was patched onto the system.

WoW instances were from the start supposed to be epic places that you conquer, not quest in, and only to be done as a group.  And their group size is 5, and that's that.  They'd have to design dungeons for solo play before they can implement code where if you bring 2 people in, the number of monsters doubles too.

And by the way, it's always easy to double the number of monsters.  But to shrink something designed for 5 down to designed for 2...  some things like cutting the HP of everything in half might work, while other things, like reducing a pack of 6 mobs to just 2, would cut away too much CC or special boss abilities to really maintain the feel of the instance.

Besides, as much as everyone bemoans the presence of trash before the bosses, would MC have been the same if you could enter solo and then inside the instance only see like 4 hounds, 3 elemental giants, 5 fire elementals, and only 3 bosses instead of all of them, and the rest of that huge cave being empty space like most of the COH missions are?

[Rasix]

Still, scaling for 1 or 2? Come on. If you can't even get 5 people together to enjoy something, why the hell are you playing this game?

Ability is not the issue here.

[Paelos]

What is it about this concept that bothers you so much?

I like scaling the content, and I would prefer that all instances work that way. The concept of scaling down to one man though? You just took a community game and made it lazy. I don't think the person that can't get 4 other people to play with in a multiplayer game (be it through timing issues, playstyle issues, or various other points) should be playing this game. I don't want to give people that option because challenges enforce grouping and grouping makes the game fun. If you make it solo a lot of people will get lazy, just use that scaling as an excuse not to group with the community, and dick around by themselves.

Should people be able to see all the content in a solo form? That's my issue. I don't think you should. It trivializes the game and the goals. I don't think the game should be totally assessible at all levels by all people without any kind of grouping or progression because it destroys the foundation the game was built on. On the flip side I don't think you should make content for 1% of your population either. This game was based on leveling RPG with a polished casual beginning and a loot achiever endgame, and it caters to that crowd at the high end while also allowing people to achieve similar epic goals through other pursuits like pvp and heroics. However, at all facets grouping is important. Solo scaling doesn't help that.

[Nebu]

Should people be able to see all the content in a solo form? That's my issue. I don't think you should. It trivializes the game and the goals.

Beyone fun, what are the goals of the game?  Does my wanting to have fun solo/duo trivialize that?  I guess we just look at gaming differently. 

[murdoc]

Should people be able to see all the content in a solo form? That's my issue. I don't think you should. It trivializes the game and the goals.

Beyone fun, what are the goals of the game?  Does my wanting to have fun solo/duo trivialize that?  I guess we just look at gaming differently. 

Definitely, when Paelos says things like:  I don't want to give people that option because challenges enforce grouping and grouping makes the game fun. you have to know you're on completely different pages.

For me, forced group does NOT make the game fun. I enjoy running around WoW with my RL friends that play, and our small guild of people will do everything for 3 person runs for solo quests, to running the smaller instances as a group. When we do that, it's not about being forced to group, it's about deciding we want to run around and bullshit with each other while we collect crap. Being forced to group is a pain in the ass.

My bigger complaint is that I'll never see the higher end instances because I'll never be able to put in the time to see them. ;)

[Righ]

Still, scaling for 1 or 2? Come on. If you can't even get 5 people together to enjoy something, why the hell are you playing this game? That's the bare base minimum to enjoy most of the content that was released. Sure you can solo around, but designing a bunch of solo or duo content in a game that's Massively Multiplayer doesn't make any sense to me at all. I mean at that point, I go buy the newest Elder Scrolls game and just play it over and over with new character plans.

Did you really type that? Five is not "massively multiplayer" any more than two is. Ironforge and Orgrimmar are massively multiplayer content (woot), a five man instance is not. People enjoy instancing in small groups in a game world where there is a shared community, hence the success of these instance based grouping games. Games such as WoW would more reasonably be called shared community games, but we're stuck with the term massively multiplayer, even though they fall far short of expectations on that count. There is no reason why Nebu shouldn't want a shared community game to support regular play between two or three people, and I think you've just been caught trying to justify the status quo using specious logic simply because its currently the game that you want to be playing.

[Baileysmooth]

Two feral druids:

pros:
- Both parties are able to do good dps.
- Both parties can heal
- Both parties can stealth around
- Both parties can tank
- If one of you die somewhere lame the other can rez them.

Cons
- You both want the exact same gear.

[Paelos]

Still, scaling for 1 or 2? Come on. If you can't even get 5 people together to enjoy something, why the hell are you playing this game? That's the bare base minimum to enjoy most of the content that was released. Sure you can solo around, but designing a bunch of solo or duo content in a game that's Massively Multiplayer doesn't make any sense to me at all. I mean at that point, I go buy the newest Elder Scrolls game and just play it over and over with new character plans.

Did you really type that? Five is not "massively multiplayer" any more than two is. Ironforge and Orgrimmar are massively multiplayer content (woot), a five man instance is not. People enjoy instancing in small groups in a game world where there is a shared community, hence the success of these instance based grouping games. Games such as WoW would more reasonably be called shared community games, but we're stuck with the term massively multiplayer, even though they fall far short of expectations on that count. There is no reason why Nebu shouldn't want a shared community game to support regular play between two or three people, and I think you've just been caught trying to justify the status quo using specious logic simply because its currently the game that you want to be playing.

I'm not going to debate symantics of "massively multiplayer" because that's a dead end. Five is the minimum. I consider that a game-breaker check honestly. If you can't pull off four people who want to play with you in a game the size of WoW, you have an issue that will keep you from doing most of the stuff in this game. That was my point about the number. This isn't the game for you in it's design, so move along. They aren't going to suddenly change or patch to something you will enjoy at all. Quit now and save the headache.

You may not like forced grouping. I would say in an achieving-based loot machine like WoW, you're up shit creek on that one. I honestly can't wrap my mind around why people would want to avoid each other all the live long day only to exist in a world where you can occasionally pull your head out a hole to chat with other people or partake in evolving markets. Some of you apparently want this. Ok, push for it in the next game, or find the game you want that has this goal. I'll be sure to avoid this game when I see it up front because it would probably bore me. In the meantime, there are a lot of people out there in the WoW world that like groups, like myself, and I don't want that aspect diminished by making everything solo.

I can remember in the times before I raided in this game I thought the same way and didn't like grouping. However, the forced aspect got me involved and showed me something that I really enjoy. I would have never participated in large group events were it not for the dynamics that required it, and I'm happier in the game for that fact with a much larger social network of friends. Succeeding as a group is so much more enjoyable to me than simply soloing content and beating bosses. It's retained me as a user in this game far longer than I would have if I just plodded along by myself. In this, Blizzard has won me over as a user of their service.

So you are right in one sense that I like the status quo, and you don't. However, what you don't like about the status quo is an absolute fundamental shift in game dynamics. You may argue that it isn't because it's simply offering someone something and I'm cockblocking them, yadda yadda yadda, elitist dick, etc. However, what you're suggesting is to take a game built on the high-end of large group coordination, and scale it so that you can also solo-duo content like Illidan? Seriously?

I'm not really going to worry about arguing it much anymore because frankly it'll never happen until WoW is in it's death-roll and I've stopped caring. If even then.

[Righ]

You're behaving like some twat on the WoW forums. Try reading the posts. I'm not arguing against your rants because I don't like grouping, I'm arguing against them because they're idiotic. You can't use "massively multilayer" to justify a minimum of five people in a group. And the whole solo play thing is a fiction of your own making. Nebu was questioning why it is unreasonable to scale dungeons to two people. Trying to belittle his point by insinuating that he is some of social pariah incapable of grouping is a fucking absurd straw man argument. But hey, maybe I'm reading it wrong and Nebu actually did want an Internet pissing contest instead of an intelligent discussion about the merits or pitfalls of group scaling in a game such as WoW.

[Paelos]

The main point was I think you ruin the social aspect of the game by letting people scale things down too far. People would never get outside of their shells and I'd never get to meet anyone new because who would want to group with some random guy? I like that stuff. So I'm not in favor of design decisions that would decrease that. That's my whole point. You may disagree, and that's fine by me. If you don't have time to make groups I can understand the frustration, but I think changing it would frustrate me, so I disagree with that idea.

I do think scaling is a good idea. It should be implemented in my view in such a manner:

- Instances would have a 5 - 10 - 25 man difficulty.
- 5 man difficulty would drop good quality blue loot, and random low rate chances at an epic item from the 10 man setting off the last boss.
- 10 man difficulty would be epic quality gear from all the bosses except weapons, and they would have a random low rate chance at a Tiered set item off the last boss.
- 25 man difficulty would be Tiered Gear off all bosses, and epic weapons.

I'd cut down on this cross dungeon Tiered sets crap. That's just annoying filler, and it trivializes boss encounter and loot tables.

EDIT: I'd also add that I think solo-duoing dungeon scaling for the 1-60 content in the old world should be put into place. Requiring those to still be five mans after the expansion seems stupid considering that most people just get 70s to stomp them. I think it would be preferable to scale them back to solo instances until 40 and duos after that. That's not hurting the social aspect of the game since there aren't enough people around to actually participate in those levels.

[Fordel]

I don't know how you would scale 5 mans down to solo-able without trivializing it. Certain classes just solo so much better then others it isn't even funny. You would have to custom build each dungeon for each possible class/spec.


I don't see that happening any time soon.

[tkinnun0]

Solo content is already trivial, and if what I'm reading about high-end content is right, raiding is also trivial except for the forced grouping part.

It's all trivial.

So go ahead and trivialize.

[Jayce]

The thing is, by asking to make 5, 10, 25 and 40 man content doable by 1-2 people, it's like asking to play baseball with 2 people per side.  There are just not enough positions to make it proper baseball.  It's just not designed that way.

So two things: first, why are we not allowed to say go play a single player game if that's the situation?  Why is that a copout?  If someone comes looking for bananas and all we have are apples, why can't we say "Yes, we have no bananas"?

Second, there are plenty of bananas.  Fully 90-95% of the game is possible solo or duo.  I can stand here and name off every instance and world encounter ever invented for 5+ people, but in three years I haven't even SEEN all the 1-2 person content.  There's just too much of it to mention.  Asking them to redesign the last 5-10% to suit your tastes is just greedy, really.