a not so grand last hurrah

[Mithas]

The only way I would consider playing WOW again would be if everything was soloable, if I wanted to do it so.  This would come back to Paelos' scalability ideas.  

I was also a big fan of the initial segment of Conan online.  Good story combined with progression of the character.  I'm not seeing much of that in WOW, to this day.

The problem for me, as a grownup, is that "endgame" just sucks.  There's no other way to rationalize it.  I don't have the desire or time to dick around with the gearing and grinding.  They have separate servers for PvP and Role Playing, why not have a ZOMG HARCOREZ RAIDZERS server or 10?  And then have a soloable content server?  The big issue that Paelos has been skirting around (yet not quite hitting it on the head) is that it's impossible to make everything accessible for every person.  WOW has been approaching it the wrong way.  They try to put different things on each server that might be accessible, but I would like access to everything there is to do.  I want to run through Karazhan by myself if I want (still my favorite dungeon) and actually get experience and decent, level appropriate drops.  I want to do Deadmines and Wailing Caverns and the Stockade and Razorfen Downs and every single dungeon solo, if I want.  What better way to do that than to have servers that allow you to do just that?  They would have to rethink some of the cross server stuff if they were to implement something like this (which they won't).  

If all content is accessible on one server but not the other, which server will be empty? I'm not saying I have the answers, but Blizzard still wants their game to be a social experience. I just don't think they can have it both ways without a sizable chunk of the player base getting upset.

[ghost]

The only way I would consider playing WOW again would be if everything was soloable, if I wanted to do it so.  This would come back to Paelos' scalability ideas.  

I was also a big fan of the initial segment of Conan online.  Good story combined with progression of the character.  I'm not seeing much of that in WOW, to this day.

The problem for me, as a grownup, is that "endgame" just sucks.  There's no other way to rationalize it.  I don't have the desire or time to dick around with the gearing and grinding.  They have separate servers for PvP and Role Playing, why not have a ZOMG HARCOREZ RAIDZERS server or 10?  And then have a soloable content server?  The big issue that Paelos has been skirting around (yet not quite hitting it on the head) is that it's impossible to make everything accessible for every person.  WOW has been approaching it the wrong way.  They try to put different things on each server that might be accessible, but I would like access to everything there is to do.  I want to run through Karazhan by myself if I want (still my favorite dungeon) and actually get experience and decent, level appropriate drops.  I want to do Deadmines and Wailing Caverns and the Stockade and Razorfen Downs and every single dungeon solo, if I want.  What better way to do that than to have servers that allow you to do just that?  They would have to rethink some of the cross server stuff if they were to implement something like this (which they won't).  

If all content is accessible on one server but not the other, which server will be empty? I'm not saying I have the answers, but Blizzard still wants their game to be a social experience. I just don't think they can have it both ways without a sizable chunk of the player base getting upset.

You just tailor the number of servers to take care of the players.  There would still be people playing both.  I also take a little bit of an exception to the idea that being able to solo content would make it less of a social experience.  There is not social experience for me now.  There will still be guilds and chat and all that if you want.  Why do you think the player base would get upset about being able to choose how they play the game?  I'm not sure I understand why that would be an issue.

[Mithas]

You just tailor the number of servers to take care of the players.  There would still be people playing both.  I also take a little bit of an exception to the idea that being able to solo content would make it less of a social experience.  There is not social experience for me now.  There will still be guilds and chat and all that if you want.  Why do you think the player base would get upset about being able to choose how they play the game?  I'm not sure I understand why that would be an issue.

When I say social, I mean social group content. Ultimately WoW is a dungeon and raid game. That is the model Blizzard has had since day one. If they change that so you don't need a group for anything, it changes the core of their model. Right or wrong, they still care about the hardcores to some degree. Maybe because they are so vocal? People who raid (even the non-bleeding edge raiders) get really twisted up every time they cater to the "casuals". I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool to do it all solo. I am much more of a solo player now than I ever used to be and it would work out really well for me. I just don't think Blizzard is going to do it.

[Hutch]

The only way I would consider playing WOW again would be if everything was soloable, if I wanted to do it so.  This would come back to Paelos' scalability ideas.  

I was also a big fan of the initial segment of Conan online.  Good story combined with progression of the character.  I'm not seeing much of that in WOW, to this day.

The problem for me, as a grownup, is that "endgame" just sucks.  There's no other way to rationalize it.  I don't have the desire or time to dick around with the gearing and grinding.  They have separate servers for PvP and Role Playing, why not have a ZOMG HARCOREZ RAIDZERS server or 10?  And then have a soloable content server?  The big issue that Paelos has been skirting around (yet not quite hitting it on the head) is that it's impossible to make everything accessible for every person.  WOW has been approaching it the wrong way.  They try to put different things on each server that might be accessible, but I would like access to everything there is to do.  I want to run through Karazhan by myself if I want (still my favorite dungeon) and actually get experience and decent, level appropriate drops.  I want to do Deadmines and Wailing Caverns and the Stockade and Razorfen Downs and every single dungeon solo, if I want.  What better way to do that than to have servers that allow you to do just that?  They would have to rethink some of the cross server stuff if they were to implement something like this (which they won't).  

What do you think goes on in PvP and RP servers? The only rule difference is that you can't turn off your PvP flag on a PvP server. On RP servers, there's not even a rule, per se, that you have to actually roleplay. The PvE content on those servers is exactly the same as on a PvE server.

What you're asking for is a special server where the content is modified (scaled) so that you can solo it all. (Presumably, without having out-leveled it first). I would assume that if scaling were ever to be implemented, that it would be implemented everywhere, not just on the special "I hate other people" server.

That way, Blizzard could accommodate you, and the 25-man raiders, and the hypothetical guild that can only field 7 raiders this week.

That seems to me like the kind of feature that you'd have to bake in from the start. Putting it in there 9 years on seems like more trouble than it'd be worth.

[ghost]

Yeah, I don't know how difficult it would be to make it happen.  It may be impossible.  The tech is beyond my knowledge base. 

As far as the hardcores, if you have a hardcore set of servers to cater to those people that are completely different, meaning complete gear progression, 10 or 25 man raids, cockblocks, etc. why would it matter if they had soloable servers?  Why would people get pissed?  They could still wave their epeen around and call me a wuss.  I wouldn't mind at all, tbh. 

[Rendakor]

But why would you make different servers? Just allow the content to scale to the number of players, so you can take 1, 10, 17, 25, whatever.

[Mithas]

Yeah, I don't know how difficult it would be to make it happen.  It may be impossible.  The tech is beyond my knowledge base. 

As far as the hardcores, if you have a hardcore set of servers to cater to those people that are completely different, meaning complete gear progression, 10 or 25 man raids, cockblocks, etc. why would it matter if they had soloable servers?  Why would people get pissed?  They could still wave their epeen around and call me a wuss.  I wouldn't mind at all, tbh. 

You would need to have the rewards scale in order to prevent the raider uproar. People are already angry that you get purples in LFR and "you didn't really have to work for it." I really think this would be very helpful to the game. I guarantee it would increase subs.

[Paelos]

You would need to have the rewards scale in order to prevent the raider uproar. People are already angry that you get purples in LFR and "you didn't really have to work for it." I really think this would be very helpful to the game. I guarantee it would increase subs.

You don't need to have the items scale exactly. You can scale drop rates and tokens based on the amount involved. A single person running a dungeon might get 10 points and a 2% shot at a fancy purple. Two people might get 30 points and a 5% shot. You can scale that all the way up to 10 maximum, people get 250 points and a purple drops 100% of the time. (I think 25 man raiding is basically just a uber pursuit at this point that should be killed along with 40 man). Have the purples cost 500-1000 points.

That's a simple version of the system, but when you use blue gear and scaled content rewards in addition to offering low percentage access to the high level items, you at least get people involved at all levels.

[SurfD]

I think the problem with scaling rewards like that on a % base comes back to the one arguement they like to make when people bitch about things like alternate methods of getting valor:  The balance between efficiency and reward.

Their arguement against scailing (so you could solo raid content for 1/10th the reward for example) is that in order to make it "balanced" it would almost by definition be punnishingly inefficient. Sure, it is great and all that you can go solo a raid, and get 1/10th X valor + 1/10th Y chance at an item drop, but the instant the average person looks at that and sees that grouping with 10 randoms for the same time investment and only a bit more hassle gets you X valor + Y chance at an item to drop,  they are going to rightfully ask why the hell they would realistically want to solo it. 

And it does make a fair bit of sense when you think about it.  When there are multiple ways to get something, there will almost always be a "best" way to get it, and the design intent for WoW has pretty much always been that soloing for your reward is never going to be the best way.  Soloing for purples will never be as effecient as raiding for them.  Soloing for valor will never be as efficient as raiding / dungeoning for it.  And in the end, people would just bitch that "hey, we can solo this shit, but it is so inefficient you are basicly forcing us to group for it to stay even remotely compedative, so soloing is really just a fake option".    As was mentioned in other threads on this topic:  A choice that does not matter is not really a choice.

[Simond]

(I think 25 man raiding is basically just a uber pursuit at this point that should be killed along with 40 man).

Haha, wow, that's certainly an opinion. 

(LFR is 25-man for a reason)

[ghost]

But why would you make different servers? Just allow the content to scale to the number of players, so you can take 1, 10, 17, 25, whatever.

My thought process was to separate out the hardcore people from the folks like me that just don't even really give a shit about gear and rewards.  I just want to have fun.  I also am not all that interested in running through a dungeon 75 times to get enough tokens to buy a set of legs or on the off chance that I'll get my fancy purple drop.  If you don't scale the rewards on a mixed server you'll have howling, for sure.  The hardcore guys can't handle it when everyone has the same gear and its easy to get.

[Paelos]

(I think 25 man raiding is basically just a uber pursuit at this point that should be killed along with 40 man).

Haha, wow, that's certainly an opinion. 

(LFR is 25-man for a reason)

That reason isn't because people like it. You don't think LFR would have the same numbers if it was 10?

[Ingmar]

I don't. The role ratios in 25 man allow for a lot more dpsers to go on raids in a timely manner, and one shitty player derails a 10 man more often than 2.5 shitty players in a 25.

[Paelos]

Their argument against scaling (so you could solo raid content for 1/10th the reward for example) is that in order to make it "balanced" it would almost by definition be punnishingly inefficient. Sure, it is great and all that you can go solo a raid, and get 1/10th X valor + 1/10th Y chance at an item drop, but the instant the average person looks at that and sees that grouping with 10 randoms for the same time investment and only a bit more hassle gets you X valor + Y chance at an item to drop,  they are going to rightfully ask why the hell they would realistically want to solo it. 

They should ask that. I wouldn't intend solo running dungeons to be the primary version of working up your character. It would be meant as the slot machine. The points would be there so you can get something small for your effort when you don't win the purple, but you're essentially gambling when you run solo for the small purple drop. People really respond to this: see running old dungeons for miniscule mount drops.

If you're serious about getting rich quick, you form a group. If you have two friends, you run with that. If you have 6, you run with that. If you have max 10, go with God and get your guaranteed drops.

[Paelos]

I don't. The role ratios in 25 man allow for a lot more dpsers to go on raids in a timely manner, and one shitty player derails a 10 man more often than 2.5 shitty players in a 25.

The idea in a scaled system is that you wouldn't be signing up to run with random chuckle heads anymore just to see the content.

[Ingmar]

You made a comment about LFR, I responded. No goalpost moving, please.

[Paelos]

You made a comment about LFR, I responded. No goalpost moving, please.

To address your point then, it's a matter of balancing and removing the required tank/support roles. There's no reason why faceroll mode should require 2 tanks.

[Ingmar]

That game exists; it is called Neverwinter. I think you will quickly tire of fights that aren't allowed to use any design space that might require real roles.

[Xanthippe]

But why would you make different servers? Just allow the content to scale to the number of players, so you can take 1, 10, 17, 25, whatever.

My thought process was to separate out the hardcore people from the folks like me that just don't even really give a shit about gear and rewards.  I just want to have fun.  I also am not all that interested in running through a dungeon 75 times to get enough tokens to buy a set of legs or on the off chance that I'll get my fancy purple drop.  If you don't scale the rewards on a mixed server you'll have howling, for sure.  The hardcore guys can't handle it when everyone has the same gear and its easy to get.

People who played WoW for fun quit playing a long time ago.

[Paelos]

That game exists; it is called Neverwinter. I think you will quickly tire of fights that aren't allowed to use any design space that might require real roles.

If LFR were the only option, yes it would get old. It's not supposed to be the pinnacle of raiding. If you're into challenging fights with tightly wound timers and roles, that's why people make groups of friends.

[ghost]

But why would you make different servers? Just allow the content to scale to the number of players, so you can take 1, 10, 17, 25, whatever.

My thought process was to separate out the hardcore people from the folks like me that just don't even really give a shit about gear and rewards.  I just want to have fun.  I also am not all that interested in running through a dungeon 75 times to get enough tokens to buy a set of legs or on the off chance that I'll get my fancy purple drop.  If you don't scale the rewards on a mixed server you'll have howling, for sure.  The hardcore guys can't handle it when everyone has the same gear and its easy to get.

People who played WoW for fun quit playing a long time ago.

Very likely because all the fun stuff is out of reach.  Unless you like killing 10 kobolds and collecting their candles.

[ezrast]

I want to do Deadmines and Wailing Caverns and the Stockade and Razorfen Downs and every single dungeon solo, if I want.

Just for the record, you can already solo the dungeons you named. I took a warrior from 18 to mid-40s in Cata exclusively by soloing dungeons and might have been able to go a bit farther. I had twink enchants for some of it but I'm pretty sure you could do without, at least on a paladin or druid.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Some things just "aren't for you"

Want to play mmo's solo? Maybe you shouldn't play mmo's?

Want to only have 10man raids? Maybe you should just do that.

My point here is that having different content for different types of players IS NOT BAD.  Why do people want to do everything?

[Ratman_tf]

My point here is that having different content for different types of players IS NOT BAD.  Why do people want to do everything?

OCD?

I realized quite a while ago that there is a ton of solo content. It's called offline games.

BTW, I have soloed everything in Scarlet Blade, (except the PvP, obviously) including the dungeons which have both solo and group modes. 

[Paelos]

Why do people want to do everything?

The don't really. They want to beat the thing that's on the front of the box they bought. Admit it, WoW is about killing big monsters at it's very core. Most of what we're talking about revolves on that concept. What we're debating is the how, the how many involved, and what requirements are necessary to have that kind of fun.

[ghost]

Why do people want to do everything?

The don't really. They want to beat the thing that's on the front of the box they bought. Admit it, WoW is about killing big monsters at it's very core. Most of what we're talking about revolves on that concept. What we're debating is the how, the how many involved, and what requirements are necessary to have that kind of fun.

Exactly.  Solo content in WOW is fishing or killing ten kobolds and getting shitty blue rewards at the end of a quest chain.  And the reason to want to solo it over a non-MMO game is twofold:  1.  The world in WOW is *huge*.  It's got a lot of stuff to do and will keep someone occupied for a long time.  Take a game like the Witcher-  there's only so much to do.  And this example brings me to my second point.....2.  It's very non-linear.  Most single player offline games are fairly linear, although you do get the odd gem like Fallout or Skyrim. 

There's a simple fix-  separate the epeens and the non epeens.  On this server you have to work your ass of to get through everything and on this one you can get through it all on your own if you want. 

[Xanthippe]

All that interests me is the pet battles. When is Pokemon the MMO going to come out?

There are apparently several now. That is to say, people dumped the GBA carts onto a server and figured out how to get a bunch of people in the same world and a chat tab working. One of them had taken my coop over for finals. I could ask which one if you are interested. Here is a random video for one of them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IfiaIPPfzCM

Yes, please, I would like to know which one.

I've been playing minecraft Pixelmon, which is well done and interesting but just begs for a multiplayer server to play on.

[Xanthippe]

There's a simple fix-  separate the epeens and the non epeens.  On this server you have to work your ass of to get through everything and on this one you can get through it all on your own if you want. 

But the epeens would hate being separated from the non-epeens, because that's the whole point: being better. You can't be better when there are no worse.

[Lakov_Sanite]

   wow has it's faults but it's an online multiplayer game....I mean, seriously people.

[Rokal]

I'm curious how long you think people would stay subbed if they implemented this. How long would boring solo versions of what might have been compelling dungeons/raids with a group keep your interest?

You can try Rift when it goes F2P if you are curious to see this concept in action btw. Some of the raid zones were remade as solo "Chronicle" instances which anyone can do. Because the Chronicles had to support every class, soul (spec), players without high-end gear, and mediocre players, they're extremely easy. Most of the interesting mechanics had to be removed because they simply don't function with only one player. Pretty much every raid fight in WoW since BWL requires more than one player in order for the main mechanics to work as intended. Chronicles are novel the first time you try them, just to see the raid zone, but it's not the type of thing you want to do more than once or for months at a time. The fact that the content keeps players attention for a fraction of the time that it would have with a group and the balancing/challenge that allows didn't make the content any less expensive for Trion to create.

If Throne of Thunder was a solo instance that you could breeze through in a day (again, it's going to be easy if it supports every class, gear level, and players who aren't good at the game), how many times would you run it? Twice? Three times? You might come back to check out the zone if it was soloable when you otherwise wouldn't have, but you aren't going to stick around long and this would most likely make raiding (the stickiest activity in the game for subs) less appealing. I know chronicles definitely ruined a lot of the magic for the raids in Rift anyway, as someone that didn't raid outside of the occasional PuG.

[Paelos]

I'm curious how long you think people would stay subbed if they implemented this. How long would boring solo versions of what might have been compelling dungeons/raids with a group keep your interest?

Well to use one of your favorite sayings, there would be other options. The ability to solo a dungeon just to see it would not be the same as grabbing loot from it.

LFR already set the bar low for just seeing content. Why stop there? In a scaled system, you and your friends determine exactly the kind of challenge you are willing to take with exactly the numbers you have. No hunting, no finders, just group and go.

I think because people could actually do stuff with people they liked, in any numbers, that people would stay subbed a lot longer. If you only have 2 friends, you aren't just shuffled off to scenario land while the big raids are inaccessible, or crammed in with 22 idiots that determine your fate. Everything is open to you in a scaled system, with long term loot gains that are exactly the same on a sliding scale.

[Rokal]

LFR already set the bar low for just seeing content. Why stop there? In a scaled system, you and your friends determine exactly the kind of challenge you are willing to take with exactly the numbers you have. No hunting, no finders, just group and go.

This doesn't really resolve the problem of there being a way smaller number of working mechanics in a trinity MMO when you're allowing groups to be as small as one or two people. Chronicles also supported two players and it didn't make them any more interesting or long-lasting. What you're asking for, content for 2-3 players, is essentially what we got with Scenarios and you only need to look at this board to confirm that they didn't hold anyone's interest very long. Once you've beaten the content it's not as much fun the next time, especially if the fights are hollow experiences and you're just doing them to see the zone/enemy art. You could attach currency rewards to encourage people to rerun them, but I think you're over-estimating how appealing this is. That's, again, exactly what scenarios are now. Farming an easy/uneventful solo version of Heart of Fear every week for a month or two just to buy a new piece of gear from a vendor isn't going to be sticky.

I also don't know why your friends would want to play with you if they don't currently for LFR/Normal/LFG, which was your complaint a week or two ago when you said LFR had killed the social aspect of the game. If the path of least resistance is what players will usually pick, and content can be easily solo'd without even needing to message anyone else or form a group, why would most players group? They don't for daily quests/quest content which has light group scaling in MoP. They don't for old raids, where Blizzard finally caved and patched in the ability to enter raids without being in a raid group. Most people will play alone when given the opportunity, even if the result is that they are playing an inferior version of content that scales by doing so.

That's fine, but I don't think it's what is going to increase WoW's sub numbers. It's more likely that it would make them worse by giving people even fewer reasons to stay subbed and allowing them to "finish" content to their satisfaction in an even shorter amount of time.

[Typhon]

[snip!]  That's fine, but I don't think it's what is going to increase WoW's sub numbers. It's more likely that it would make them worse by giving people even fewer reasons to stay subbed and allowing them to "finish" content to their satisfaction in an even shorter amount of time.

This sentence struck me as oddly informed, although I think you meant it in a different way.

I'm glad the subscription model is dying.  I'd rather pay a reasonable price for content and finish it on a timetable that I'm happy with rather than have a game designer be doing things to keep me sub'd through their dry spell.

[Ratman_tf]

Exactly.  Solo content in WOW is fishing or killing ten kobolds and getting shitty blue rewards at the end of a quest chain.  And the reason to want to solo it over a non-MMO game is twofold:  1.  The world in WOW is *huge*.  It's got a lot of stuff to do and will keep someone occupied for a long time.  Take a game like the Witcher-  there's only so much to do.  And this example brings me to my second point.....2.  It's very non-linear.  Most single player offline games are fairly linear, although you do get the odd gem like Fallout or Skyrim. 
 

I've often thought that an offline MMO will... not be the next WoW killer, but certainly scratch the soloers itch much better than shoehorning solo content into a multiplayer game.

In most MMOs, I turn off general chat, and ignore everyone. I'm pretty much playing offline already. Well, I use the auction house system if there is one.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Skyrim IS a solo mmo, and it's great.

What I don't think people realize is that content can be de-valued, making things too easy makes the adventure no matter how epic, seem dull. EVEN IF you don't want that challenge, you end up appreciating the accomplishment more in the end.

You can have hard solo content in an mmo and be fine, nothing is de-valued.  What you can't have is solo content that is also raid content because there is NO point in bringing 10,25,40 people when one guy can kill that dragon.  You can say "the loot is different!" but that's a bullshit argument, you can say it's about being elitist and that's only half right.  People like challenges, they like accomplishment in their games, even if it's a goal they set themselves (collect every pet)

People sometimes enjoy de-valued content even in solo games, that's the person who mods skyrim to have epic one-shotting weapons. For the most part however, this is not the case.

Ideally a game would have enough compelling content for solo and group oriented gamers but when you try to be all things to all people, you end up watering everything down.