There needs to be more single player content

[Cynicalnerd]

I wouldn’t mind solo World content being rewarded gear. But I think it should require a lot of work before it’s rewarding. Make massive meta achievements for the catch up zones, require a grind. Once caught up it wouldn’t be terrible to give our say 262 gear. You can argue that takes too long but honestly what’s the hurry if you don’t do group content?

[saixilein]

Depends when you did it... before caping cloak and talents sure. After you didn't really need any kind of route or guide.

And why i should do visions after i got everything? At this point u did it multiple times and you know what to do because you have to hit up guides... Otherwise you stucked in progress and did way more less damage

[rrayy]

Ah yes sorry. I will keep my opinion to myself in the future. I forgot, that this a is a forum where everyone only talks in absolut facts that cannot be contested.

There is a huge difference between giving an opinion and you telling people to go play another game and leave your game alone as if you own it.

[Celvira]

so the issue is not really lack of SP content, rather lack of SP content YOU LIKED... and wouldnt that be issue with ANY single player content?
or you think if they add another SP content by some miracle it will all be to your liking?

Not at all. Mage Tower is universally praised as a great example of solo-content, and Brawler's Guild is well-liked as well. You saying I don't like SP content (when I was specifically commenting purely about SL anyways) has no relevancy whatsoever. The point of my post was to show Blizzard doesn't even try to create engaging SP content, which could change if they actually showed interest in designing such content. Hell, the fact these threads pop-up once or twice a week is proof the demand clearly exists for more SP content beyond barebones dailies and resource/anima farming.

Edited to state that no a single, goddamned soul in this universe enjoys dailies. They exist purely to shackle player retention so they can continue to stay raid-relevent or allow them to gain enough resources to an upgrade a Garrison, Sanctum, Guild Hall, ect mechanic. They are not enjoyable, and they were never intended to be. Their purpose is to artificially keep players playing, and as the bare minimum effort to "reward" casual players through as little engagement as humanly possible.

Again, if you look through my posts, I clearly state the need and preference for traditional MP-only content as the optimal and encouraged method of progression, but I stand by the statement that better solo-content would be a win for everyone involved, and is something we should encourage Blizzard to look into.

[Raisei]

There is a huge difference between giving an opinion and you telling people to go play another game and leave your game alone as if you own it.

So it is okay for Solo Players to dictate what needs to be happening with WoW, but if the other side argues against it then they are wrong. Glad we do not have aaaany double standards here.

[Itori]

Can you do single player instances in XIV?

With their latest content patch you can, its called trusts and has been changed to allow you to do all previous dungeons with an npc party.

[Alroxas]

Wrong. MMO means "massive multi-player online" which only means many people in one spot online. IN no way does it mean mainly group content. People need to stop misrepresenting what the letters actually mean.

- - - Updated - - -

Who made you sole arbiter? They don't have to cater to your needs either. They should put in more solo content. Also, stop telling people to play other games.

No... The whole point of massively multiplayer online is for players to interact with each other and do group activities such as m+, raiding, PvP. If you want more solo content... Then go play a traditional RPG... Or even action RPG...

They have the right to ask for content to be added to the game.

Here's the problem: What would the entire wow playerbase be willing to sacrifice for more solo content? There is a limit on resources and time. More single player content comes at the expense of multiplayer content (or takes up more time for development). So unless you want expansions to even longer to come out or piss off a different group of WoW players, you can't have everything.

Honestly, end-game content for WoW has always been defined as group activities.

[rrayy]

No... The whole point of massively multiplayer online is for players to interact with each other and do group activities such as m+, raiding, PvP. If you want more solo content... Then go play a traditional RPG... Or even action RPG...

No it isn't and once again a misuse of the term. MMO means a massive mount of players online in one spot. It does NOT mean group. It can be doing group or solo content. IT does not refer to a specific type of content.

Here's the problem: What would the entire wow playerbase be willing to sacrifice for more solo content? There is a limit on resources and time. More single player content comes at the expense of multiplayer content (or takes up more time for development). So unless you want expansions to even longer to come out or piss off a different group of WoW players, you can't have everything.

Honestly, end-game content for WoW has always been defined as group activities.

Blizzard can up it's budget and resources, so saying you have to sacrifice something is nonsense. And no, end game content has not been defined as group activities as there has been both types of content at end game.

- - - Updated - - -

So it is okay for Solo Players to dictate what needs to be happening with WoW, but if the other side argues against it then they are wrong. Glad we do not have aaaany double standards here.

ASking for more solo content is not dictating the game. You are being completely disingenuous and putting words in people's mouths.

- - - Updated - - -

dited to state that no a single, goddamned soul in this universe enjoys dailies. They exist purely to shackle player retention so they can continue to stay raid-relevent or allow them to gain enough resources to an upgrade a Garrison, Sanctum, Guild Hall, ect mechanic. They are not enjoyable, and they were never intended to be. Their purpose is to artificially keep players playing, and as the bare minimum effort to "reward" casual players through as little engagement as humanly possible.

Your opinion, not fact. I enjoy them and many others do. You are massively projecting your opinion here.

[AcidicSyn]

I would Like there to be more single player content.

ftfy and yeah I'd like that too

[Sauredfangs]

People would pick the easiest one to turbofarm, smash out all the cosmetics they want in a weekend and never touch it again.

There will be a limit on how much adventure points you can earn daily just so you don't get too ahead. Or you can earn as much points but it diminishes how much points you can earn as you reach certain points.

Maybe people will come back to it as a source of gold and profession mats. Idk.

[Niwes]

I mean... it's a mmo. Its never gonna be the focus.

oh, don’t get me wrong. i don’t say it has to! i just commented your post and the fact that most of your points are not actual or active. that’s all.

[Alroxas]

Blizzard can up it's budget and resources, so saying you have to sacrifice something is nonsense. And no, end game content has not been defined as group activities as there has been both types of content at end game.

No it makes perfect sense. If you have a time table to deliver a product (say Dragonflight) then you have a fixed deadline and you only have X amount of time/resources to do so. If you want to shift priority development to say more single player end-game content then you need to take away development from somewhere else OR get more time to do so without "sacrificing" other development areas (say PvP).

Could Activision-Blizzard allocate more resources? Probably but what's the ROI for that kind of investment? Is the feature add going to all of a sudden increase WoW subscribership by 20%? 10%? 5%? Or just please a smaller portion of the playerbase?


Take a look at Cataclysm expansion, a lot of resources were dedicated to "effectively" single player content in revamping Azeroth and changing questing throughout many zones. Yet the majority of the playerbase didn't really see it. They already had toons at near cap and push forwarded with the new zones to reach end-game group content.

Maybe that was a failure of not focusing on end-game single player content instead of just single player content in general but I would argue that those in charge are skeptical of single player content since Cata.

But popular opinion could change that... See if you can start up a petition players saying they want end-game single player content and maybe Blizzard might listen once you past X million players.

[Implosivo]

No it isn't and once again a misuse of the term. MMO means a massive mount of players online in one spot. It does NOT mean group. It can be doing group or solo content. IT does not refer to a specific type of content.

.

god DAMN. you're so delusional and stubborn. it's hilarious

[ellieg]

That is outright wrong. Especially consdering which content is special for which group. A group player has all group content AND all solo content available. A solo player only has a limited amount of gameplay options.

Group content is the same dungeons and raids recycled. Solo content has an entire world.

So group players get to include solo content in their gameplay options but solo players don't get to include group? How does that make any sense.

[Triceron]

Group content is the same dungeons and raids recycled. Solo content has an entire world.

So group players get to include solo content in their gameplay options but solo players don't get to include group? How does that make any sense.

Play any other MMO and you will pretty much see that both can exist alongside each other as different options of the same content. There's plenty out there that make it work without this doomsday outcrying for how more solo content would be the death of Group play.

It would exist like PVP does as a separate type of content for a separate type of player. Nobody points at PVP as a reason why group content suffers just because there are PVPers who choose not to do any group content.

[rrayy]

god DAMN. you're so delusional and stubborn. it's hilarious

I gave facts. The fact that you resort to name calling and ad hominem attacks tells me you have nothing to argue. So, ignore list it is.

[Jinpachi]

Nope, you're wrong. FFXIV does it just fine.

True Story

[rrayy]

No it makes perfect sense. If you have a time table to deliver a product (say Dragonflight) then you have a fixed deadline and you only have X amount of time/resources to do so. If you want to shift priority development to say more single player end-game content then you need to take away development from somewhere else OR get more time to do so without "sacrificing" other development areas (say PvP).

That timeline and budget is set by Blizzard. They can increase that anytime I want. Want to add more solo content? ADd more budget and resources for that. You don't have to sacrifice anything. Budgets are not set in stone and unchangeable.

Could Activision-Blizzard allocate more resources? Probably but what's the ROI for that kind of investment? Is the feature add going to all of a sudden increase WoW subscribership by 20%? 10%? 5%? Or just please a smaller portion of the playerbase?

You won't know that answer unless you actually try.

Take a look at Cataclysm expansion, a lot of resources were dedicated to "effectively" single player content in revamping Azeroth and changing questing throughout many zones. Yet the majority of the playerbase didn't really see it. They already had toons at near cap and push forwarded with the new zones to reach end-game group content.

A world revamp is not solo content. That is merely updating art assets and quests. That isn't actually adding anything, just changing and updating what is already there. Not remotely the same thing.

Maybe that was a failure of not focusing on end-game single player content instead of just single player content in general but I would argue that those in charge are skeptical of single player content since Cata.

But popular opinion could change that... See if you can start up a petition players saying they want end-game single player content and maybe Blizzard might listen once you past X million players.

See above. Updating and changing what is already in game is NOT adding solo content. Completely disingenuous on your part.

[Hobbidaggy]

Play any other MMO and you will pretty much see that both can exist alongside each other as different options of the same content. There's plenty out there that make it work without this doomsday outcrying for how more solo content would be the death of Group play.

It would exist like PVP does as a separate type of content for a separate type of player. Nobody points at PVP as a reason why group content suffers just because there are PVPers who choose not to do any group content.

Not even that. Blizzard have shown themselves in the Artifact campaigns or the BFA war fronts that if they deem it requires a Tank and DPS because you’re a Healer you will get that. Or you’re a Tank you can have an NPC as a Healer and DPS etc etc

So the systems could even easier be side by side. The outcry that it would be the death is ridiculous. It would be end of forced group play for those who don’t have the patience or for those who are sick of playing with people who are causing grief etc.

[DookuDookuTree]

"The game needs change" & "it is fine as it is" is both fact & opinion, neither side can say "you are wrong".