Limited programming time is a valid reason not to produce single player versions of queued missions.
I would argue it a different way.
Unless you are specifically designing a mission that requires each person in a 5-man team to perform a specific role in order to complete it, why arbitrarily set a 5-man quota? Why not two or three? Why couldn't you attempt to solo it, if you wanted to try?
Everything else in a normal mission, level and number of enemies, is able to scale according to the level and number of players. Why not the queues? Scaling the rewards is a bit more difficult, but should be doable.
There is no reason to produce single player versions of queue missions. There is EVERY reason to scale them to however many people you can get in a team, and they should be designed to do it from the get-go. They're going to end up remastering most of them anyway, I predict. They might as well fix some of them to scale to be playable with smaller teams.
Your solution 1 is "Raid or Die." It worked ten years ago when MMO's were fairly fresh, not on rails, and offered things to do besides raiding. It doesn't work now when you try to shove everything into a raid.
One of the many Tellarite Goddesses of Beauty!
If there are posts here that do not appeal to you, or opinions you disagree with, the best way to deal with that is to resist the urge to add comments. Instead, engage with the content you like! Don't feed the trolls!
remove mk#'s from loot and just have color rarity....and bring back the hourly events.......thats my solution
I can't believe people miss the hourly event system. That's straight up chinese mmo material and is great if you can play all day, but is rather punishing to people who are unable to ever log on during the events actually relevant to them. Weekly events are much better because they're far more flexible.
Which makes it entirely reasonable to lament those areas where other people are allowed to ruin your experience.
I disagree. Again, if having other people on the game in the same instance as you - regardless if they are even anywhere near you or not - somehow "ruins your experience", then perhaps MMOs are not for you.
Even if you're seeking reputation marks? Right.
If you don't know how to earn rep marks without the queues, then you should do some research into the various adventure/battlezones that do not require a team or to be queued in order to play.
If you mean those aggravating ground maps where you spend most of your time sprinting from A to B, no sale. And there are other people interfering there, too.
Limited programming time is a valid reason not to produce single player versions of queued missions. Arbitrarily forcing people play together to unlock some shiny-for any reason- is not.
val seems to be really focusing on the words solo and single, and not quite grasping the concept of 'other options including solo/single'
@valoreah 90% of this game is solo play, much of the created content is also solo play, only the queues are set up as group play, and as we all agree.. most.. yes most.. of the queues are DEAD. so Star Trek Online may well be an mmo, it may well be the intention for it to be a totally multiplayer experience, but, reality and expectation are 2 different things, and the reality is...??
Which makes it entirely reasonable to lament those areas where other people are allowed to ruin your experience.
I disagree. Again, if having other people on the game in the same instance as you - regardless if they are even anywhere near you or not - somehow "ruins your experience", then perhaps MMOs are not for you.
Even if you're seeking reputation marks? Right.
If you don't know how to earn rep marks without the queues, then you should do some research into the various adventure/battlezones that do not require a team or to be queued in order to play.
If you mean those aggravating ground maps where you spend most of your time sprinting from A to B, no sale. And there are other people interfering there, too.
Limited programming time is a valid reason not to produce single player versions of queued missions. Arbitrarily forcing people play together to unlock some shiny-for any reason- is not.
Arbitrary? STO is a "Massively Multiplayer Role-Playing Game" in case you had missed that.
For that very reason alone forcing people together to unlock shinies is completely warranted.
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid." - Q
Which makes it entirely reasonable to lament those areas where other people are allowed to ruin your experience.
I disagree. Again, if having other people on the game in the same instance as you - regardless if they are even anywhere near you or not - somehow "ruins your experience", then perhaps MMOs are not for you.
Even if you're seeking reputation marks? Right.
If you don't know how to earn rep marks without the queues, then you should do some research into the various adventure/battlezones that do not require a team or to be queued in order to play.
If you mean those aggravating ground maps where you spend most of your time sprinting from A to B, no sale. And there are other people interfering there, too.
Limited programming time is a valid reason not to produce single player versions of queued missions. Arbitrarily forcing people play together to unlock some shiny-for any reason- is not.
Arbitrary? STO is a "Massively Multiplayer Role-Playing Game" in case you had missed that.
For that very reason alone forcing people together to unlock shinies is completely warranted.
Nowhere in MMO are the words "teams only".
This is my Risian Corvette. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Which makes it entirely reasonable to lament those areas where other people are allowed to ruin your experience.
I disagree. Again, if having other people on the game in the same instance as you - regardless if they are even anywhere near you or not - somehow "ruins your experience", then perhaps MMOs are not for you.
Even if you're seeking reputation marks? Right.
If you don't know how to earn rep marks without the queues, then you should do some research into the various adventure/battlezones that do not require a team or to be queued in order to play.
If you mean those aggravating ground maps where you spend most of your time sprinting from A to B, no sale. And there are other people interfering there, too.
Limited programming time is a valid reason not to produce single player versions of queued missions. Arbitrarily forcing people play together to unlock some shiny-for any reason- is not.
Arbitrary? STO is a "Massively Multiplayer Role-Playing Game" in case you had missed that.
For that very reason alone forcing people together to unlock shinies is completely warranted.
Nowhere in MMO are the words "teams only".
Which the vast majority of MMORPG's are not. Your point?
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid." - Q
Issue is that an mmo has an should have both options enforced in the game. You have some of the game is largely story based single player content, then you have the largely group-able an solo-able content of the open world, and finally you have the group only content of the stfs. Trying to say that because the rest of the game is solo-able that the remaining group-only content should be altered to a solo format, would take away from players that like group content an if you do not like interacting with other players than better to move on to a single player offline game.
Issue is that an mmo has an should have both options enforced in the game. You have some of the game is largely story based single player content, then you have the largely group-able an solo-able content of the open world, and finally you have the group only content of the stfs. Trying to say that because the rest of the game is solo-able that the remaining group-only content should be altered to a solo format, would take away from players that like group content an if you do not like interacting with other players than better to move on to a single player offline game.
if players are worried that current group content being opened up to solo play would somehow sound the death knoll for group content, whilst also invalidating, or somehow making it less of an mmo, what exactly does that suggest to you about the current group content, or content period? if no further 'valid' arguments can be raised about the idea, more questions need to be asked as to why it would be a more interesting prospect to be played solo than in group, and why group play needs to be enforced in a game, when people should want to group up and play.
Arbitrary? STO is a "Massively Multiplayer Role-Playing Game" in case you had missed that.
For that very reason alone forcing people together to unlock shinies is completely warranted.
The queues are fine; it's the players who need to be fixed.
Just take a look at the various threads where people are complaining about the Breach and you know what I mean. The only thing people, or at least this minority on the Forum, seem to care about are rewards. Things must be had on all characters, preferably with as little effort as possible. If it cannot be obtained in the equivalent of a 3 or 4 minute ISA or CCA, it's a fail, the revamp 'sucks' and... well you all know what people tend to say here whenever they might not get everything they want, immediately.
Apparantly some people aren't able to play something they like, especially if it means they get less rewards or a less certain outcome by pugging it.
As for the solutions in the OP: restricting access to things, be it materials or elite marks, won't solve anything. It'll only frustrate the newer or below average players more, which will only result in lower participation in the queues.
Quoted for truth.
It would be nice if people could change, but it's not at all a realistic expectation. We pretty much have to work with people as they are. (Or remove the undesirable ones, but that's not how you keep customers)
Issue is that an mmo has an should have both options enforced in the game. You have some of the game is largely story based single player content, then you have the largely group-able an solo-able content of the open world, and finally you have the group only content of the stfs. Trying to say that because the rest of the game is solo-able that the remaining group-only content should be altered to a solo format, would take away from players that like group content an if you do not like interacting with other players than better to move on to a single player offline game.
if players are worried that current group content being opened up to solo play would somehow sound the death knoll for group content, whilst also invalidating, or somehow making it less of an mmo, what exactly does that suggest to you about the current group content, or content period? if no further 'valid' arguments can be raised about the idea, more questions need to be asked as to why it would be a more interesting prospect to be played solo than in group, and why group play needs to be enforced in a game, when people should want to group up and play.
Still why should the group content be opened up to solo play? You have literally either the same or slightly more options to play solo than group in the game. These are largely the only group only content left in the game, so why should they be made solo-enabled when you have so much content that is already solo in the game to do. An it would not be because of how bad or evil group content is, but that players will always largely choose to play things solo to remove waits an variable like other players to speed up their play. Look at the ques the most popular an populated ques are those that have the best payouts for marks, since there is no other reward in place for other group content the quickest an highest payout methods will always be populated.
Also this is not enforced group play as in you have to group to play sto, but that content made for grouping is kept as unique cotnent for the group minded players to enjoy. Solo gamers have all the content they need to enjoy the game as they like an enjoy, but since they are segregated from this one aspect of the game they want it given to them. Almost all of the complaints of why group content should have a solo-able version is so they can play it when they want, and without dealing with other players in a mmo. Sorry this is not a good reason to change group content to being solo-enabled, and is not a way of fixing group content at all it is ruining it for the sake of removing players from your game play experience.
Good ideas of fixing and improving the incentive to group, yes many players always need an incentive both in solo an group content, is things like unique rewards or exclusive things they can get that is not obtainable by others in other content. Placing unique rewards that are tied to the enemies in that stf would be good, new revamped reps that have new projects you need materials an marks that are gained from a specific stf , or even just more interesting encounters that are not just zerg able like many are now are good ideas of improving stfs an group play. One issue with a variable starting group size is not all players are going to be able to do that content in a pug with a reduced group size, but if you set it up that you choose how many players you want in your group from 3-5 when you que than I could see it working as it is not just the system saying "Well not enough players for a five man so here go in with a three man.",
Issue is that an mmo has an should have both options enforced in the game. You have some of the game is largely story based single player content, then you have the largely group-able an solo-able content of the open world, and finally you have the group only content of the stfs. Trying to say that because the rest of the game is solo-able that the remaining group-only content should be altered to a solo format, would take away from players that like group content an if you do not like interacting with other players than better to move on to a single player offline game.
if players are worried that current group content being opened up to solo play would somehow sound the death knoll for group content, whilst also invalidating, or somehow making it less of an mmo, what exactly does that suggest to you about the current group content, or content period? if no further 'valid' arguments can be raised about the idea, more questions need to be asked as to why it would be a more interesting prospect to be played solo than in group, and why group play needs to be enforced in a game, when people should want to group up and play.
Still why should the group content be opened up to solo play? You have literally either the same or slightly more options to play solo than group in the game. These are largely the only group only content left in the game, so why should they be made solo-enabled when you have so much content that is already solo in the game to do. An it would not be because of how bad or evil group content is, but that players will always largely choose to play things solo to remove waits an variable like other players to speed up their play. Look at the ques the most popular an populated ques are those that have the best payouts for marks, since there is no other reward in place for other group content the quickest an highest payout methods will always be populated.
Also this is not enforced group play as in you have to group to play sto, but that content made for grouping is kept as unique cotnent for the group minded players to enjoy. Solo gamers have all the content they need to enjoy the game as they like an enjoy, but since they are segregated from this one aspect of the game they want it given to them. Almost all of the complaints of why group content should have a solo-able version is so they can play it when they want, and without dealing with other players in a mmo. Sorry this is not a good reason to change group content to being solo-enabled, and is not a way of fixing group content at all it is ruining it for the sake of removing players from your game play experience.
Good ideas of fixing and improving the incentive to group, yes many players always need an incentive both in solo an group content, is things like unique rewards or exclusive things they can get that is not obtainable by others in other content. Placing unique rewards that are tied to the enemies in that stf would be good, new revamped reps that have new projects you need materials an marks that are gained from a specific stf , or even just more interesting encounters that are not just zerg able like many are now are good ideas of improving stfs an group play. One issue with a variable starting group size is not all players are going to be able to do that content in a pug with a reduced group size, but if you set it up that you choose how many players you want in your group from 3-5 when you que than I could see it working as it is not just the system saying "Well not enough players for a five man so here go in with a three man.",
it isnt about mmo ideology, it is about customer retention, i just think the entire argument against solo options because 'selfish reasons' is a non starter.. in the same way an argument about forcing group mechanics on storyline would be. why wouldn't both options work?
i want to play this game, and i'm not really bothered how. they can fix the queues for group or they can allow solo as an option. i'm not going to argue 1 against the other, but i will argue the option for both. ultimately this is cryptic though, as bluegeek says, they are good at 'not listening' to the community, so really, all this throwing around of ideas is pretty much philosophical, as i cant see cryptic's approach to players concerns changing now?
*as an aside, i would much rather play group content with players who actually want to group up and play the game, rather than those forced too, as players who feel forced into a group grind are just there for the daily bonus, not really interested in putting in any effort past being there. as for the farmers and bots who dont care about you or i, they would likely farm solo and leave the queues alone.. thats a whole lot of win if you ask me.
The flipside of this "weekend events" is that A: People who can't attend weekends will miss ALL of them, and B: There's absolutely nothing worth doing outside of them, and you know there's not much reason to do anything for awhile.
I won't disagree there. In a Perfect World (har har), the events would be week-long, starting on the Thursday maintenance and ending on the next Thursday maintenance.
Which makes it entirely reasonable to lament those areas where other people are allowed to ruin your experience.
I disagree. Again, if having other people on the game in the same instance as you - regardless if they are even anywhere near you or not - somehow "ruins your experience", then perhaps MMOs are not for you.
Even if you're seeking reputation marks? Right.
If you don't know how to earn rep marks without the queues, then you should do some research into the various adventure/battlezones that do not require a team or to be queued in order to play.
If you mean those aggravating ground maps where you spend most of your time sprinting from A to B, no sale. And there are other people interfering there, too.
Limited programming time is a valid reason not to produce single player versions of queued missions. Arbitrarily forcing people play together to unlock some shiny-for any reason- is not.
val seems to be really focusing on the words solo and single, and not quite grasping the concept of 'other options including solo/single'
@valoreah 90% of this game is solo play, much of the created content is also solo play, only the queues are set up as group play, and as we all agree.. most.. yes most.. of the queues are DEAD. so Star Trek Online may well be an mmo, it may well be the intention for it to be a totally multiplayer experience, but, reality and expectation are 2 different things, and the reality is...??
Well, people play queues for reasons. Those who actually want the marks for rep advancement or gear will stop when they no longer want the marks. Those who are grinding dil will do whatever is quickest and easiest.
Excluding ISA - I am confident that my assumption that there ARE players with multiple-million Omega marks obtained by playing the pointless drivel that is ISA so obsessively.
You bet, at the moment I play ISA multiple times a day in every toon and team constellations imaginable. My friends and I also make different strategic approaches to the map with or without approval of the pugs to keep it entertaining. I, for my part, do it for plain and simple fun and yea the fact that my mountains of Dil grow faster than I can refine them is a nice side effect of it. Part of the reason why ISA (or the borg space STF in general) are favored by me is that my participation in them reflects my general or global toon progression best. I mean everybody can scan rifts and close doors. That’s not something I have invested 4 years of gaming time and toon progression into.
Yeah, ISA and CCA. Two lazy queues that generally last less than two minutes and involve making little effort for a pretty generous reward. And that is exactly why they are the most popular queues.
(That and in the case of ISA the DPS obsessives who still seem to think that competing easy, Advanced, content in less than two minutes and obtaining a big DPS number is somehow impressive)In my experience those maps are only lazy and easy for the not contributing part
In my experience the “easiness” and “laziness” of ISA and CCA directly correlates to the contribution of each individual of a run. In short players who don’t contribute much get the easiest and laziest experience out of it compared to those who do. For example in one of yesterday’s matches my friend and I were logged as scis. We queued up for ISA and encountered three pugs. My friend and I managed to pull 105k DPS together while the 3 pugs barely managed 10% of this and that in SUM(!). While the match was perceived as an easy ride by the pugs (they didn’t have aggro even once) my friend and I found it somewhat sluggish but at least got the challenging experience we sought.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
Been thinking about it, and I will say this, I farm CCA more than any other Queue mission.
Not because it's fast.
Not because of dilithium.
Not because of Fleet or Reputation Marks.
But...
I farm CCA because getting into 1st or 2nd place rewards me with potentially very valuble Mk XII Very Rare equipment.
Just today I got a CrtD x3 Disruptor Dual Beam Bank that I sold for a tasty 8 million Energy Credits!
So what can we learn from that? Simple, they need to add BACK the equipment drops we used to be getting from ALL the STF's.
Maybe even bake gear rarity into the difficulties, like:
Normal: Rare
Advanced: Vrery Rare
Elite: Ultra Rare with a small chance for Epic
That would at least be a start and make the queues worth peoples time again. And obviously the gear would need to be "Bind of Equip" or otherwise the entire excercise would be pointless.
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid." - Q
Well they have taken solo missions and created PVE Queues out of them. To wit, 'Abducted' to 'Defend Rhi'ihho Station' and 'Best Defense' to 'Atmospheric Assault' so I would guess they have some sort of scaling algorithms.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Excluding ISA - I am confident that my assumption that there ARE players with multiple-million Omega marks obtained by playing the pointless drivel that is ISA so obsessively.
You bet, at the moment I play ISA multiple times a day in every toon and team constellations imaginable. My friends and I also make different strategic approaches to the map with or without approval of the pugs to keep it entertaining. I, for my part, do it for plain and simple fun and yea the fact that my mountains of Dil grow faster than I can refine them is a nice side effect of it. Part of the reason why ISA (or the borg space STF in general) are favored by me is that my participation in them reflects my general or global toon progression best. I mean everybody can scan rifts and close doors. That’s not something I have invested 4 years of gaming time and toon progression into.
Yeah, ISA and CCA. Two lazy queues that generally last less than two minutes and involve making little effort for a pretty generous reward. And that is exactly why they are the most popular queues.
(That and in the case of ISA the DPS obsessives who still seem to think that competing easy, Advanced, content in less than two minutes and obtaining a big DPS number is somehow impressive)In my experience those maps are only lazy and easy for the not contributing part
In my experience the “easiness” and “laziness” of ISA and CCA directly correlates to the contribution of each individual of a run. In short players who don’t contribute much get the easiest and laziest experience out of it compared to those who do. For example in one of yesterday’s matches my friend and I were logged as scis. We queued up for ISA and encountered three pugs. My friend and I managed to pull 105k DPS together while the 3 pugs barely managed 10% of this and that in SUM(!). While the match was perceived as an easy ride by the pugs (they didn’t have aggro even once) my friend and I found it somewhat sluggish but at least got the challenging experience we sought.
Well, to be fair I suspect that I appear as not contributing much when I play ISA with my Sci char. But that is not, on my part, through lack of trying. Its more than I all too frequently find myself with BFAW spammers who vape everything before I can do anything of significance. And then the instance finishes, having barely lasted one minute and 30 seconds.
To my knowledge kinetic builds can do massive amounts of damage in CCA at the moment due to the mechanic of that foe so some matches are absurdly quick (30 seconds), yes. As for ISA the fasted run ever (I am familiar with) is just above one minute. Common, weekly new entrances for the top timeframe of that map are 80-120 seconds achieved in high DPS teams. DPS can be delivered there with cannons as well as beams. I do so with both in the 90k+ reach multiple times a week. Since I rather pug and play with my friends I almost always end up in mixed teams in ISA with runs in the 3-5 minute span. I’m just saying this because ISA matches that take less than two minutes are really exceptional in pugs and don’t happen that often.
It was also not my intention to claim that you don’t contribute to ISA runs. If I have done that I apologize. It’s just my experience that the higher my DPS differentiates from the rest of the team the more my perceived difficulty of that stage varies. So ISA can be very easy for me up to very hard depending on the team I end up with.
Post edited by peterconnorfirst on
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
if players are worried that current group content being opened up to solo play would somehow sound the death knoll for group content, whilst also invalidating, or somehow making it less of an mmo, what exactly does that suggest to you about the current group content, or content period? if no further 'valid' arguments can be raised about the idea, more questions need to be asked as to why it would be a more interesting prospect to be played solo than in group, and why group play needs to be enforced in a game, when people should want to group up and play.
I think a good parallel is from Lotro. You can run retaking Pelargir solo or in a group of six. It's about the equivalent of ISA, though it takes about 15 minutes either solo or group. I group every time because it gives 2000+ marks in a group and less than 1000 solo.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
In my opinion i say scrap the hole pve queue
but leave a few elite missions and turn everything
else into Adventure/battle zones. Same thing with Pvp
queue. They should just scrap it and have 1 or 2 pvp
Adventure/battle zones.
Way to much content in this game that not being used.
In my opinion i say scrap the hole pve queue
but leave a few elite missions and turn everything
else into Adventure/battle zones. Same thing with Pvp
queue. They should just scrap it and have 1 or 2 pvp
Adventure/battle zones.
Way to much content in this game that not being used.
Last time they removed content (apart from the Breach) was when they removed the Exploration clusters. People (myself included) weren't too happy about that, and I can see why. Removing something because not everyone might play it, is a bad idea.
More battlezones or more solo-content sounds nice, so does 3-player queues. Especially the normal missions don't require 5 people and those can be quite fun to play as well. Edit: in fact, these missions could become a lot more interesting with less than 5 people, especially the ground missions. It should, however, not replace the current multi-player content we have.
I must say, the queues might need some more activity, but as long as we can still play things beside ISA and CCA, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Just avoid things like Delta Rising (next time you want to make some changes, some of which may have been needed, do it in steps. Don't just shove a large HP wall into the faces of your players, overnight) and I think we'll be fine. The game is still alive, all we need to do is to bring in more people, try to get some of those who left to return and avoid any more disasters. Which should be doable.
Last night I collected the Iconian personal shield on an alt. By PUGing BOTSE, it went better than expected. Sure, I had to wait a while between missions, but at least I could help a fleetmate in the Kobali battlezone while I was waiting. Some of us may have to change our expectations: you may not always be able to play that mission you like the most, but it's by no means the case that it's impossible to play something else than ISA and CCA. Only when that becomes the case, I'd start getting worried.
In my opinion i say scrap the hole pve queue
but leave a few elite missions and turn everything
else into Adventure/battle zones. Same thing with Pvp
queue. They should just scrap it and have 1 or 2 pvp
Adventure/battle zones.
Way to much content in this game that not being used.
Last time they removed content (apart from the Breach) was when they removed the Exploration clusters. People (myself included) weren't too happy about that, and I can see why. Removing something because not everyone might play it, is a bad idea.
Lack of player participation was not the main reason. The main reason was the amount of data the exploration clusters actually took up. It was somewhere around 200k missions. IIRC one of the devs said it was actually over half the size of the total game data.
Comments
I would argue it a different way.
Unless you are specifically designing a mission that requires each person in a 5-man team to perform a specific role in order to complete it, why arbitrarily set a 5-man quota? Why not two or three? Why couldn't you attempt to solo it, if you wanted to try?
Everything else in a normal mission, level and number of enemies, is able to scale according to the level and number of players. Why not the queues? Scaling the rewards is a bit more difficult, but should be doable.
There is no reason to produce single player versions of queue missions. There is EVERY reason to scale them to however many people you can get in a team, and they should be designed to do it from the get-go. They're going to end up remastering most of them anyway, I predict. They might as well fix some of them to scale to be playable with smaller teams.
If there are posts here that do not appeal to you, or opinions you disagree with, the best way to deal with that is to resist the urge to add comments. Instead, engage with the content you like! Don't feed the trolls!
val seems to be really focusing on the words solo and single, and not quite grasping the concept of 'other options including solo/single'
@valoreah 90% of this game is solo play, much of the created content is also solo play, only the queues are set up as group play, and as we all agree.. most.. yes most.. of the queues are DEAD. so Star Trek Online may well be an mmo, it may well be the intention for it to be a totally multiplayer experience, but, reality and expectation are 2 different things, and the reality is...??
Arbitrary? STO is a "Massively Multiplayer Role-Playing Game" in case you had missed that.
For that very reason alone forcing people together to unlock shinies is completely warranted.
Nowhere in MMO are the words "teams only".
Which the vast majority of MMORPG's are not. Your point?
if players are worried that current group content being opened up to solo play would somehow sound the death knoll for group content, whilst also invalidating, or somehow making it less of an mmo, what exactly does that suggest to you about the current group content, or content period? if no further 'valid' arguments can be raised about the idea, more questions need to be asked as to why it would be a more interesting prospect to be played solo than in group, and why group play needs to be enforced in a game, when people should want to group up and play.
Still why should the group content be opened up to solo play? You have literally either the same or slightly more options to play solo than group in the game. These are largely the only group only content left in the game, so why should they be made solo-enabled when you have so much content that is already solo in the game to do. An it would not be because of how bad or evil group content is, but that players will always largely choose to play things solo to remove waits an variable like other players to speed up their play. Look at the ques the most popular an populated ques are those that have the best payouts for marks, since there is no other reward in place for other group content the quickest an highest payout methods will always be populated.
Also this is not enforced group play as in you have to group to play sto, but that content made for grouping is kept as unique cotnent for the group minded players to enjoy. Solo gamers have all the content they need to enjoy the game as they like an enjoy, but since they are segregated from this one aspect of the game they want it given to them. Almost all of the complaints of why group content should have a solo-able version is so they can play it when they want, and without dealing with other players in a mmo. Sorry this is not a good reason to change group content to being solo-enabled, and is not a way of fixing group content at all it is ruining it for the sake of removing players from your game play experience.
Good ideas of fixing and improving the incentive to group, yes many players always need an incentive both in solo an group content, is things like unique rewards or exclusive things they can get that is not obtainable by others in other content. Placing unique rewards that are tied to the enemies in that stf would be good, new revamped reps that have new projects you need materials an marks that are gained from a specific stf , or even just more interesting encounters that are not just zerg able like many are now are good ideas of improving stfs an group play. One issue with a variable starting group size is not all players are going to be able to do that content in a pug with a reduced group size, but if you set it up that you choose how many players you want in your group from 3-5 when you que than I could see it working as it is not just the system saying "Well not enough players for a five man so here go in with a three man.",
it isnt about mmo ideology, it is about customer retention, i just think the entire argument against solo options because 'selfish reasons' is a non starter.. in the same way an argument about forcing group mechanics on storyline would be. why wouldn't both options work?
i want to play this game, and i'm not really bothered how. they can fix the queues for group or they can allow solo as an option. i'm not going to argue 1 against the other, but i will argue the option for both. ultimately this is cryptic though, as bluegeek says, they are good at 'not listening' to the community, so really, all this throwing around of ideas is pretty much philosophical, as i cant see cryptic's approach to players concerns changing now?
*as an aside, i would much rather play group content with players who actually want to group up and play the game, rather than those forced too, as players who feel forced into a group grind are just there for the daily bonus, not really interested in putting in any effort past being there. as for the farmers and bots who dont care about you or i, they would likely farm solo and leave the queues alone.. thats a whole lot of win if you ask me.
^^ LMAO
My character Tsin'xing
Well, the sweet spot is 15 mins. According to the biggest western MMO. Anything longer is choir. (that's by me lol...)
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
Not because it's fast.
Not because of dilithium.
Not because of Fleet or Reputation Marks.
But...
I farm CCA because getting into 1st or 2nd place rewards me with potentially very valuble Mk XII Very Rare equipment.
Just today I got a CrtD x3 Disruptor Dual Beam Bank that I sold for a tasty 8 million Energy Credits!
So what can we learn from that? Simple, they need to add BACK the equipment drops we used to be getting from ALL the STF's.
Maybe even bake gear rarity into the difficulties, like:
Normal: Rare
Advanced: Vrery Rare
Elite: Ultra Rare with a small chance for Epic
That would at least be a start and make the queues worth peoples time again. And obviously the gear would need to be "Bind of Equip" or otherwise the entire excercise would be pointless.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
To my knowledge kinetic builds can do massive amounts of damage in CCA at the moment due to the mechanic of that foe so some matches are absurdly quick (30 seconds), yes. As for ISA the fasted run ever (I am familiar with) is just above one minute. Common, weekly new entrances for the top timeframe of that map are 80-120 seconds achieved in high DPS teams. DPS can be delivered there with cannons as well as beams. I do so with both in the 90k+ reach multiple times a week. Since I rather pug and play with my friends I almost always end up in mixed teams in ISA with runs in the 3-5 minute span. I’m just saying this because ISA matches that take less than two minutes are really exceptional in pugs and don’t happen that often.
It was also not my intention to claim that you don’t contribute to ISA runs. If I have done that I apologize. It’s just my experience that the higher my DPS differentiates from the rest of the team the more my perceived difficulty of that stage varies. So ISA can be very easy for me up to very hard depending on the team I end up with.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
I think a good parallel is from Lotro. You can run retaking Pelargir solo or in a group of six. It's about the equivalent of ISA, though it takes about 15 minutes either solo or group. I group every time because it gives 2000+ marks in a group and less than 1000 solo.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
but leave a few elite missions and turn everything
else into Adventure/battle zones. Same thing with Pvp
queue. They should just scrap it and have 1 or 2 pvp
Adventure/battle zones.
Way to much content in this game that not being used.
Last time they removed content (apart from the Breach) was when they removed the Exploration clusters. People (myself included) weren't too happy about that, and I can see why. Removing something because not everyone might play it, is a bad idea.
More battlezones or more solo-content sounds nice, so does 3-player queues. Especially the normal missions don't require 5 people and those can be quite fun to play as well. Edit: in fact, these missions could become a lot more interesting with less than 5 people, especially the ground missions. It should, however, not replace the current multi-player content we have.
Last night I collected the Iconian personal shield on an alt. By PUGing BOTSE, it went better than expected. Sure, I had to wait a while between missions, but at least I could help a fleetmate in the Kobali battlezone while I was waiting. Some of us may have to change our expectations: you may not always be able to play that mission you like the most, but it's by no means the case that it's impossible to play something else than ISA and CCA. Only when that becomes the case, I'd start getting worried.
My character Tsin'xing